Reply #64: You'd have a good point if Democrats had not worked so hard [View All]

[Zorra]

at giving away their huge congressional majorities during the 2 years prior to the 2010 election.

Why were so many of us here screaming at Democrats and Democratic legislators that the country would go to hell and that they would lose their majority if they did not aggressively promote genuine progressive policy in the 2 years prior to the 2010 election?

1) Because it was the obvious best thing for the country, and there were no alternatives to progressive policy that could have been significantly beneficial to the country.

2) Because they would lose their majority if they did not aggressively promote genuine progressive policy.

Dems should have, and could have, ended the filibuster on Jan 22 2009 or relatively soon thereafter. I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking here, because I and many others believed this back then too. They could not possibly have been stupid enough to not know that the radical right was going to use the filibuster to block all beneficial progressive legislation.

Every Democrat needs to get it through their heads that the primary goal of the RW is to end democracy completely, privatize everything or almost everything, and have wealthy private RW interests enslave the majority of the American people.

Otherwise known as fascism.

Democrats need to take a stand against fascism.

But they won't, it's too late. They've already sold the farm.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt