But when that party no longer holds firm on any of the things that used to make up its core beliefs, when it betrays the people who have made up it's base and shits on things that should be sacred, it's time to give up the allegiance to the label, or change what your definition of Democrat is and embrace the neoliberal.
The right of a citizen not to be executed without a fair trial: unless you're a muslim.
The fundamental right of women to control their own bodies: While some may say "this doesn't fundamentally change anything" they are generally people without a uterus. And for me, being a woman, who has worked for the party SPECIFICALLY because it is the party of choice, this shows a move away from the moral highground. This is not "Safe, legal and rare". This is "your body is a political football and those of us in power have decided to punt you".
Being anti-torture: Here's the thing, if you refuse to prosecute government agents who commit torture, it ain't much different from just being pro-torture. If there is no enforcement of a law, then it isn't really illegal.
The environment, including no offshore drilling and "clean" coal: it doesn't matter that these projects won't be finished and doing actual harm to the environment until after Obama leaves office. It matters that dems started the projects and that dems sold out the environment. We expect that from rethuglikans, that is what they are. But dems are supposed to be the crunchy granola, protect the spotted owl, Al Gore in fleece and flannel explaining global warming, good guys. But offshore drilling and clean coal are bad bad bad, no matter how many ways you try to frame it.
Social Security is the untouchable third rail, or not: Every time some new right wing bloviator would whinge on about how out of control Social Security spending is for the last 15 years or so, I'd remember that every time I saw a left leaning economist talk about it, they'd laugh at the stupidity. Social Security all ready pays for itself. There mechanisms to keep it paying for itself. Anyone who talks about "runaway entitlement spending" is 1) usually a rethuglikan and 2) usually dead wrong. So what does it say that the person who is going to bring about the death of Social Security is not someone with a George W. privatization scheme, but a Democrat.
Spying on citizens is for rethuglikans, except when it's not:Do I even need to break this down for you all, or is it a matter of IOKIYAR has now become "It's not really a fundamental breach of your rights if it's done by a Democrat". The same can be applied to that fucking Stupak executive order.
How about the Dems are the party of regulating bad boy industries: You know, under Clinton tobacco companies were sued and states got fat wads of money to cover the health problems created by smoking plus insuring children. Under Obama and his merry band of banksters, we get .........
it would create a system highly dependent on the wisdom and good intentions of government officials. And as the history of the last decade demonstrates, trusting in the quality of officials can be dangerous to the economy’s health.
Just to give you an idea of the quality of officials currently running the show, here's a little story about Timmy Geithner and AIG.
i haven't even gotten into things like health care (the bill passed was fine with rethuglikans like Mitt Romney and Bob Dole) and unemployment and foreclosures and tent cities and and and.
And I haven't gotten into things like a Democratic commander in chief should not be the head of an army that kills pregnant women and teenagers and then covers it up.
If you want to keep calling yourself a Democrat, that's fine. But please understand that I am now going to believe that your fundamental belief system is one that is anti-woman, anti-environment, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping, kill social security, love s big corrupt industries and approves of murder.
You can either be loyal to a party or you can have your ideals. But you can't have both, not anymore.