There's no radical left in America.

You are pretty funny okie. Your arguments contradict themselves. First you claim I would consider Humphrey a RWer then change it to a moderate but still haven't proposed anything to back up either claim.

Humphrey was a liberal that understood the art of compromise.

Nonsense. In certain eras in certain countries, (far) left or (far) right ideologies are significantly more pronounced than in others. So you can easily, at a particular point in time or in a particular country, have a pronounced far right and a near-absent far left or vice versa.

Only if you're talking about, say, world history of the past century, does your point start to make sense.

The rest of the world is your bell curve than with Hitler on the extreme far right and Vladimir Lenin on the extreme left. That makes American politics pretty mild in comparison. But still leaning mostly to the right and a lot in the center.

There's an awful lack of detail in substantiation here for the specificity of the claim you make ...

You bring Humphrey's views on abortion, and grandstand how that's just "one of many" unspecified examples concerning his "social views" without bringing a single one; you bring an unchecked suspicion or two on what he might have opposed re: immigration and prisoner voting; and claim Humphrey would have opposed "various and sundry government programs" today's liberals defend without specifying a single one -- and claim to be making a case on the "many aspects of his views" that would make him a rightwinger today?


That's exactly the case you have failed to make...

Bernie Saunders (Ind-Vermont) is the only Congressman I know of who stood for election as a Socialist ...

Apart from him, at most, you could count the two Democratic Congressmen who, at least nominally, are members of the "Democratic Socialists of America", a group that intended to work within the Democratic Party to make it a social-democratic party (a doomed cause, obviously): Major Owens (from Brooklyn) and Danny Davis (from Chicago). No, I hadnt ever heard of them either. Both tout their membership of the Progressive Caucus on their website, but neither mentions their socialist 'credentials' anywhere, as far as I can find.

Actually, this epitomises the complete absence of a prolific Left in the US. The "Democratic Socialists of America", however radical the name may sound to your ears, is in fact the main US member of the Socialist International (SI): and the SI is the organisation that Tony Blair's Labour Party belongs to, that Schroeder's SPD belongs to, that the Spanish government party PSOE belongs to, that Lula's PDT which governs Brazil belongs to.

SI parties govern not just the UK, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, but also Argentine, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa. In Europe, Australia, Latin-America, Israel, this is not the far left, this is the mainstream, in turn criticized sharply by parties to its left.

But in the US, out of 435 Congressmen, just three dare to proclaim themselves part of the same political family.

Nuff said.

Not quite.

The Progressive Cauacus, which as of 2001 claimed 58 members of the House of Reps, is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. While these Representatives may not openly call themselves "Socialists", the are certainly in cahoots with such.

The Democratic Socialists of America website no longer lists the politicians they are connected to, but I was able to find an archived list from 2001.

Instigate, I'm sorry but nimh has a much better argument. While I would admit there are a hand full of Socialists in Congress, 58 members is an outrageously high number to be believable don't you think?

Even if it were remotely possible that there were 58 members, you are providing a list that is 5 years old. We have a much different political climate in the U.S. now than we did before 9/11.

Your evidence that the progressive caucus is associated with the Democratic Socialists of America is what? An archived attack site? Because someone shares similar goals with another movement doesn't make them part of that movement. Interesting how your site doesn't provide entire quotes about supposedly how the DSA is working on a campaign with the progressive caucus. I wonder what is in the rest of the quote that is missing.

The only connection I can see is that Bernie Sanders gave a speech in 1999 to their convention. (Frome the DSA website.) That doesn't make Sanders a Democratic Socialist any more than Zell Miller's speech to the GOP convention makes him a Republican. (In spite of the attacks on Miller by some, he still claims to be a democrat.)

We have no way of knowing what the rest of the unfinished sentence is.
Possible completions of the sentence that provide completely the opposite meaning.

... to try to get the progressive caucus to give up their seats for real Socialists.

... to get the caucus to work for justice instead of what they are now doing.

Until you can provide the ENTIRE sentence in context I don't trust this site or Newsmax or any other site that presently has the quote in its abbreviated form. The only thing this proves is that people are willing to attack progressives as being communist without any evidence.

Okay, lets talk about one issue for now to take one step at a time if you can't grasp it all. Humphrey was pro-life. Does that make him a right winger or a left winger in today's world? Please answer one or the other.

Tne United States has a two party system, and does not provide for proportional representation as do several of the Parliamentary systems in Europe. This inhibits the role and potential of extreme parties of any stripe, and forces the major parties here to try at lleast to appeal to the central tendencies of the electorate as a whole. The result is indeed a diminished role for radicals of the left or right, compared to that enjoyed by continental European loonies. I suppose we have as many radical views among our population as do any other modern country, but here their political voice is not artificially amplified by the legislative structure as it is in some European countries.

There are many ways to skin this cat, and I have no quarrel with the way others choose to govern themselves. However I am content with our system, which has stood up fairly well for over two centuries.

By the way, Zell Miller is an example of somebody that the Democratic Party has left. Go back a few years, Ronald Reagan was of course a Democrat originally. He said the Party left him, he did not leave the party. The Democrat Party has been turning increasingly left since the 50's. It is now being run by former Vietnam protestors and pot smokers and peaceniks from the 60's. Those people were pretty far left from the Democrat establishment at that time. The 60's protestors have put on coats and ties, but they are the same people and retain much of their old philosophy. All of this should be patently obvious if you've lived through the 50's, 60's, continuing up to now. I did.

I do believe okie, you are what you say you are. Medication might help.

And the only thing we have is your statement. I can find nothing on his views in this area. Provide a source preferably with Humphrey's own words to support you claim.

Oh, that bugs me when people call it that. It's called "The Democratic Party", so please call it that. Now I know you get your information from Rush Limbaugh.

You don't see us calling your party "The Repub Party" do you? Have a little respect...

When I made my assertion he was pro-life, I had based it on a search that turned it up. I will have to admit with another search, I could not find that page and I could not find proof. There is no indication either way, but this statement that has been attributed to him:
Hubert H. Humphrey: "It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; and those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life ?- the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." ?- When Life and Choice Collide by David Mall. Kairos Books, Inc. Libertyville, Il, 1994.

Now, what did he mean by the dawn of life? I'm not sure. I know what it means to me, it would include before birth.

I will confess that I have based my opinion of Humphrey being a throwback of more conservative views was based on my own personal experience and recollection. I remember those days. And my search turned up more ammunition to validate my perception:
http://www.wf-f.org/JFH-PoliticalOrphans.html
In this link, it has lots of information, but this statement stands out:

"The nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey seemed to mark victory for the party's more conservative elements. But Humphrey was stretched to the breaking point between the old and new Democrats, and by 1972 the party had subjected itself to a public breast-beating and had adopted new rules largely favorable to those who had been defeated at the 1968 convention."

I very much agree with the above perception of what happened. Humphrey was part of an older generation that believed in more order in society, openly disliked communists, and did not take to the hippy movement at all. And the the young 60's protestor types, of which Clinton and Kerry were a part of, I think disliked and made fun of the old guard type Democrats like Humphrey. He was considered out of step with their new visions of free love and breaking free of the shackles of traditional morality. And as I've said before, the new liberal Democrats are running the party now. They think they are the "progressive" and enlightened ones." They will of course claim to like the Humphreys, the Trumans, and so on, for their own political advantage and expedience because there are still a large number of old Democrats around that think like that generation. But if one of them were alive today to try to have a voice along the lines of what they stood for in their day and time in the party of today, ha, not a chance.

Another interesting tidbit was about McCarthy, the anti-war guy that the young Democrats rode his horse for a while, but when he kept speaking loudly about being pro-life and ending up voting for Reagan, his horse was dead as far as the young Democrat power structure was concerned.

Finally, this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey

It is fascinating to read these things that are supposed to be balanced, but it becomes obvious they go soft on some things and avoid addressing some things. Reading all the stuff on the internet reminded me of a couple of other things about the drift to the left. Has the government gotten bigger or smaller. Both Republicans and Democrats are becoming more socially liberal. They have to be to get elected because the people demand more give-away programs, more federal involvement in things like education, more this, more that. Not a good sign, folks.

Oh, another thing my research turned up, about one half of congressional Democrats were pro-life in Humphrey's day, whereas now the percentage is extremely small. I am not a one issue person here with that, but that issue I think demonstrates the definite drift to the left without question.

P. S. Sorry roveroad about calling your party Democrat Party. I'll try to do better. I got to thinking, you know, the Republican Party has a more appropriate name, this is supposed to be a republic by the way, not a pure democracy.

Okie- I think you may note that although you brought links to bear to buttress your assertions about Humphrey( which are on the mark) the scoffers do not provide evidence to rebut you. They only present their own unsourced opinions. Although you may encounter this phenomenon frequently, rest assured that positions held accompanied by evidence and documenation trump unsourced opinions unless those opinions come from a verified expert.

Re the term "Democrat Party": As riverroad has noted, it's really the "Democratic Party" (of course). Somehow, using the wrong name is supposed to make it sound insulting.

It's idiotic, but notice how consistent right wingers are in using the wrong word. I'd love to hear their explanation for not calling the party by its real name. That would be amusing...

As a point of fact here --- you are wrong. "Democratic" is an ajective. The proper name of the party is Democrat.

As a point of fact, "party" is a noun. An adjective modifies a noun. "Democrat" is another noun. Nouns don't modify nouns.

But thanks for clarifying the "thinking" that's behind the "Democrat Party" stupidity...

Proper names are NOUNS.