Don't forget the REAL DINOS

[wyldwolf]

With all this talk about DINOS here lately, I thought I'd share my list:

1. Jonathan Tasini
2. Steve Greenfield

These two DINOS are mounting primary challenges to Hillary Clinton in New York for the Democratic nomination for Senate. This proves once again that "proooogreeessssiiiives" know better than the rest of us. In New York, the latest poll has Hillary winning easily.

3. John Ormond

Ormond mounted a primary challenge to Joe Lieberman but dropped out, not for the sake of the party, but because he could only raise about $1000.

4. MoveOn.org

A Rolling Stone article asked:

"So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party."

Moveon isn't even sure of their place. They claimed to have taken the party "back" in 2004 when they said, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.” But they later recanted that claim a few months after they made it by saying, "We’re not the party... we are going to take positions on issues... before we acknowledge any sort of notion of Democratic fealty."

Now there's a rumor that MoveOn.org may back a primary challenger to Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. No, they're not keying in on a Republican held seat and backing a challenger. They're considering challenging a Democrat who is a reliable vote on most issues of importance to Democrats. In Hartford, Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, said, "the No. 1 question people asked me was, `What are we going to do about Joe Lieberman?'"

Apparently reelect him. The latest polls find Lieberman with a 68% approval rating in his state.

5. The Colorado Democratic Party Executive Committee

If there was a truly bright spot for Democrats in November of 2004 anywhere in red-state America, it was surely in Colorado (with Montana running a close second). Of all the Democratic candidates in close U.S. Senate races, Ken Salazar was the only winner. His brother, John, pulled off one of the few gains Democrats were able to make in U.S. House seats. And Democrats won control of both branches of the state legislature. Now they look poised to take back the governorship next year, and run the whole shooting match.

With Democrats around the country looking to Colorado Democrats as role models, you'd think Chris Gates, the state party chair who oversaw this remarkable election day would be on an extended victory lap. But no: yesterday the state party's executive committee ousted him as chair in favor of environmental activist Pat Waak (Gates is contesting the outcome based on a claim that certain proxy votes didn't get counted).

According to press reports, the coup against Gates was basically an act of revenge by "activists" unhappy with his less-than-secret support of Salazar in his Senate primary against fellow-activist Mike Miles. Presumably, Gates' perfidious maneuvering, in tandem with virtually everybody in the national party who wanted to win a Senate seat, was responsible for Salazar's photo-finish 73-27 win over Miles in the primary. http://www.newdonkey.com/2005/03/punishing-success.html">New Donkey

6 - 2,883,105

2,883,105 - the number of people who voted for Ralph Nader, many believing his lie that there is no difference between the two parties.

The real DINOS are the ones who threaten to vote third party if their vanity candidate doesn't get the prize.

The real DINOS are the ones who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 because, after all, Democrats and Republicans are the same and we need to lose some elections to teach us a lesson.

The real DINOS are the ones who would actively campaign against a Democrat without thinking what the consequence could be.

The real DINOS are the ones who refuse to understand that the Democratic party has always been a big tent with a myriad of ideas and places on the political spectrum.

The real DINOS are the "my way or the highway" crowd.

And these DINOs can be the most liberal or the most conservative among us.

You don't have to like a particular Democrat, but if the magnifying glass you're using was suddenly placed over your Democrat of choice, you just might find something you'd consider disturbing there. If you're honest.

So the next time you consider using the word "DINO," just remember that history is cruel mistress and you might want to check the "DINO" bones in your guy or gal's closet first.

Remember this as we head into the '06 elections and then the '08 election.

[SaveElmer]

1. Thing of beauty Wyldwolf...

Couldn't have been said better...not a point I disagree with.!!!

[spaniard]

2. recommend it, then.

:)

I surely did!

[SaveElmer]

4. Done Deal!!!...nt

[wyldwolf]

6. thank you! I aim to please (everyone except the 2% that is)

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. Wow... A DLC intern, agreeing with another DLC'er thread??

Color me shocked :boring:

[SaveElmer]

50. Intern?

Man I am way to old to be an intern...

Sorry if logic and reasoning offends you. I think it ought to be praised once in a while!

[Selatius]

3. I find contention with this particular point:

Now there's a rumor that MoveOn.org may back a primary challenger to Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. No, they're not keying in on a Republican held seat and backing a challenger. They're considering challenging a Democrat who is a reliable vote on most issues of importance to Democrats. In Hartford, Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, said, "the No. 1 question people asked me was, `What are we going to do about Joe Lieberman?'"

Would you rather Moveon.org shut up? Or would you rather Moveon.org run a third party candidate against Lieberman and potentially split the vote? Given those two options, I would say let Moveon.org run a candidate in a Democratic primary against Lieberman. There is nothing wrong with challenging a Democrat for his seat through the Democratic primary.

[SaveElmer]

5. Moveon ought to concentrate on a vulnerable Republican...

Instead of an invulnerable Democrat!!!

[wyldwolf]

8. with Lieberman having a 68% approval rating, it does seem like...

... a waste of time and money for MoveOn.

[BamaLefty]

13. I Agree

Like it or not, Lieberman is a 3,000 pound gorilla that we're stuck with.

Lets defeat Repubs, not mod Dems.

[salin]

14. question for clarification

is the problem... posing a challenger in a dem primary?

Or posing a challenger in a safe dem primary - where there are other areas a progressive candidate could be put up?

The reason I ask - local elections a few years ago... locally several progressive dems ran (locally called "green dems") - going through the political primary process. The two seats in question - one a dem was retiring (so it was an open seat); the other was a sitting dem getting challenged by the "green dem". The two "green dems" won the primaries and became the dem candidates.

The retiring mod dem and the defeated mod dem... then became active in campaigning for the republican candidates, including participating in fundraisers.

Since that time it has irked me on the surface when centrists suggest that progressives should run through the party and through the regular primary process - rather than running as outsiders as third party candidates... made sense to me... but watching the mod dems then work against the progressive dems - and thus against the party (and as a result dems LOST the majority on the county council - which was regained two years later, btw), has made me a tad bit skeptical.

That said... I would agree with what you write that it seems to be a futile place to put money - when there are other, more winnable races.

[wyldwolf]

16. safe Dem primary...

..it sends a message that we aren't unified.

I would feel the same way if it were an ultra liberal incumbent with a moderate challenger. Spend the money and time against the GOP.

[salin]

18. thanks for the clarifiaction

and on this, we agree.

For those of us wishing more progressive candidates... I suggest we work hard (and give money) to the growing number of progressive policy and progressive media sites - as we can help shift public sentiment as did those ala the Heritage/Cato/AEI folks who were bolstered in the late eighties on by the growing talk radio industry that served as an echo chamber.

Case in point - the idea that privatization was ALWAYS more efficient than govt services was not fully bought or accepted as public wisdom back in the reagan years... but years of hearing it over and over and over again - and it seeped into the public psyche as an "economic truth".

Frankly I am hopeful at the rapidity and magnitude of the growth of progressive organizations - given the state of mass media (can access more info, and spread it more rapidly through more avenues than in the past) - that I believe a "take back" of public sentiment is possible to move the center back ot the center and the center-left back to the center left. Remember in the eighties Gary Hart was left-center - and, I believe, one of the early self-proclaimed "New Democrats" (which at the time was defined as finding revenue sources/funding cuts to offset costs of any new programs)... in todays shifted right spectrum his eighties views would be more solid left. Spending money recalibrating/defining the political center... would bring more viable progressive to the public, and would have a public more likely to accept progressive candidates from places beyond the ne and california, and otherwise only urban districts (okay there are SOME exceptions - but these seem to be the primary places where progressives come to power.)

[Don1]

74. So what?

If they want to spend their money, they can. This is democracy. Why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate primaries?

[Selatius]

9. Why should you care? You're not spending money on Moveon.

People should be given a choice to do what they want to do as far as politics go. That's the basis of freedom of expression. If they want to dump money into trying to oust Lieberman, I wouldn't judge because it's not my money.

[wyldwolf]

12. but it is your party, right? You are a Democrat I'm assuming

Situations like this send one clear message to the voting public - the Democrats are not united. A message like that translates into fewer votes for the party, IMO.

[Selatius]

15. It doesn't feel like my party on most days, but yes...

Above all, I owe allegiance to my principles first before my party. I am an American first. I can honestly say I detest the two-party system and political parties in general because there are people I disagree with wholly who also have a "D" behind their name.

Lieberman was one of ten lawmakers who signed a letter urging Bush to target Iraq next after the campaign in Afghanistan kicked off, and he would dare to use the national security issue to try and stifle debate on the issue of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

I'm sorry, but that kind of tactic is something I would think Republicans use.

[SaveElmer]

48. Actually...

I have been contributing to MoveOn since it started

[wyldwolf]

7. I prefer the third option -- support a challenger against a Republican

[Selatius]

10. People should be allowed to challenge whoever they wish to challenge

Regardless if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their names.

[wyldwolf]

17. has anyone suggested that they not be "allowed?"

[Selatius]

21. No, and I wouldn't defend such a strawman position.

The thrust of my argument is people should be free to do what they want with their votes or their own personal money without having people try and pigeonhole them as "DINOs." The term is used most often in a derogatory manner, and it won't help gain voters.

People here like to use "DINO" many times, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party is just a party in name only. Because of the two-party electoral system, I don't see that changing anytime soon neither with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Political ideology holds no political party because it is different from person to person, and my principles come first before any political party ever will.

Because of the restrictive nature of the two-party system, I am often disenfranchised and am often forced to concede most if not all of my own positions in the name of party unity rather than allowing my ideas to stand on their own without being dragged to the middle. If this republic was built upon proportional representation, I would find a home in the Green Party, the Social Democrats, or the democratic socialist parties like those found in Europe. There's more choice. We are allowed to build coalitions on our own terms with other parties, but that's not the case in the US. We're forced into one box and are made to fight it out.

This is the only reason why I am a Democrat.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Thank you; I've recommended this. n/t

[AuntiBush]

19. Agree about Nader; Those that Vote 3rd Party.

We can't afford anyone to vote 3rd party, not this time around. When Nader & Perio were tossed in there, it was to draw votes from 1 of the opposing sides (choice, whatever...)

When I heard Tweety/Hardball mention Perio and asked his guest w/the dribble and gleam in his Repub eyes who might the next Perio be in 2008 I then realized that's what they want.

I don't agree about Lieberman, respectfully. In my viewpoint, he's a sellout, a neocon wet dreamer. And he's bad imagery for Democrats. I don't care how big the tent is, we don't need Lieberman.

Biden: I'll never forgive him for backing & signing that Bankruptcy bill. If corporations can do it so easily and I know they do factually, then set-up their investors in other big ventures, namely the war (based on lies) yet take from the American people that was it for this voter.

[wndycty]

20. From one Wes Winger to another. . .WELL SAID!!!

:kick:

[ruggerson]

22. Right On!

Thank you. Recommended.

[ulysses]

24. ?

These two DINOS are mounting primary challenges to Hillary Clinton in New York for the Democratic nomination for Senate.

I thought progressives were *supposed* to mount primary challenges instead of voting third party.

:shrug:

[paulk]

25. thanks for posting the Colorado situation

it shows how out of touch with mainstream Dems the CO Executive Committee is. I'm very worried our gains in CO will be lost. Fortunately there are people like Tim Gill, Jared Polis, and Pat Stryker working outside of the Party system to organize .

There have been some high profile (D) names dropping out of the Governor's race - one has to wonder why.

[ProudDad]

26. I'm not a "Democrat"

What's a Democrat? It's a place on the voter registration form for a checkmark, right?

I vote a straight progressive, humanist, secular ticket. Whether it's a dem, green, or Wacko-Loonie party candidate doesn't mean sh*t to me...

Lately, I've taken to voting my concience in my old age. Silly me...

[lostnfound]

33. Yep. What's in a name? A rose by any other name..

would smell as sweet.

Sounds like you prefer substance over labels.

[wiley]

27. Disposable income to leverage when they're agitated

Sounds like Rolling Stone gets the idea of those raging self-possessed radical leftists who strive to be the uber-nihilist at DU


"They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party."

[MrBenchley]

28. Yesssss!!!

By the way, a lot of my enthusiasm for MoveOn waned when they cynically announced "we bought it" but then kept on kvetching about money influencing politics...especially because it seemed like their main complaint was that they hadn't put in the winning bid after all.

[Aaaargh]

29. So, when INCUMBENT Cynthia McKinney was challenged in '02

by Denise Mejette for her US Congressional seat representing GA, and many Democrats of the DLC ilk supported Mejette's challenge, Majette and her supporters were all being a bunch of goddamn DINOs, spending money trying to bring down an incumbent Democrat which should have been spent on efforts to defeat Republicans!

Right? Be consistent, now!

(I know, you'll make a bogus claim that McKinney was going to get beat anyway in the general election -- a contention which is shown to be utter nonsense by her success in gaining her seat back in '04 when Mejette bailed out for an unsuccessful Senate run).

[wyldwolf]

30. I would have to agree

The seat should not have been challenged.

[Aaaargh]

36. Funny -- the DLC honchos celebrated McKinney's defeat

Does this make them DINOs?

From the DLC website:

"The August 20 Georgia primaries provided a good object-lesson in the limits of how far elected officials can stray from the mainstream on important national issues, when Republican Congressman Bob Barr and Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney both went down to defeat by large margins."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?
'Lessons of the Primary Season'
contentid=250896&kaid=131&subid=192

"(...) For the Democrats, the greatest impact of the McKinney defeat may be a lessening of racially divisive conflict within their ranks. In beating McKinney, former judge Denise Majette got strong support from the 4th District's growing black middle class as well as from white voters, while McKinney brought in polarizing figures such as Louis Farrakhan to boost her campaign.

This suggests that in 2004, neither Majette nor other black officeholders in similar districts will be as likely to push for campaign tactics that appeal almost solely to African Americans."
'Turn South, Find the Center,'by Hastings Wyman
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250837&kaid=85&subid=65

"It's little wonder that more and more voters find themselves put off by the polarizing political rhetoric that characterizes the debate in Washington. The voters' desire for a more moderate tone to their politics was not lost on Bill Clinton, who in 1996 called for "progress over partisanship," or on George W. Bush in 2000, who called himself "a unifier, not a divider." Neither was it surprising that in the Georgia primary election in August, voters decisively defeated two of the most partisan, polarizing members of Congress, Republican Bob Barr and Democrat Cynthia McKinney. Georgia's open primary law allows any voter, including independents, to vote in either party's primary."
'Let Independents In,' by Al From
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250861&kaid=86&subid=84

Setting this particular bone of contention aside, to speak about the larger issues: I'm a traditional Democrat whose allegience to the Democratic Party is based upon the principles and positions key to the traditional Democratic agenda as it's existed in my day, my parents' and my grandparents' day -- that is, since the era of FDR's presidency. Therefore, I'm more interested in preserving that agenda than in simply supporting anyone who happens to have a 'D' after their name. If a Democratic candidate, incumbent or not, betrays that agenda according to my judgment, then I may decide not to support them, depending upon all the pertinent circumstances.

This doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to go off and vote for a third party candidate if that candidate happens to represent my views better than the Democrat in the race does. Most of the time, I'm NOT going to do that, because usually the third party candidate doesn't have a chance of winning, and supporting him will only help the Republican win -- the Republican almost always representing views which are even further from my own than most Democrats.

This part is not hard to figure out, but unfortunately, some leftwing Democrats have seen fit to bail out and join the Green Party or support some other alternative in various election scenarios in which they're only helping a Republican get elected. I'm a leftwing (or at least left-liberal) Democrat too, but I don't take this route, and for some years now I've tried hard to argue like-minded people whom I know out of taking it either. To my mind, this is not about 'loyalty' to the Democratic Party per se. It's about RESULTS. You have to look at a particular electoral situation and think 'what's likely to happen here?'

For instance: the upcoming governor's race in my state, Ohio, is shaping up so that two Republican candidates who are both far-right, brazen panderers to the religious right, and proponents of deep tax cut programs which will primarily benefit corporations and the wealthy, are competing for that nomination. The Democratic frontrunner, Ted Strickland, is a US congressman from rural and working-class southern Ohio, who's usually described as a moderate. A local leftwing journalist, Bob Fitrakis, who's noted for writing he's done about the shenanigans over the '04 election in Ohio, has announced that he intends to run as a Green Party candidate, partly for the sake of being in a position to make a legal challenge to measures taken by the state election board which might be similar to what happened in '04.

Setting aside the issues of '04 and the conflict in regard to that between the Democratic Party and the Green Party, I think it's very foolish for leftists or left-liberals, whatever their feelings about the Democratic Party and Mr. Strickland, to vote for Bob Fitrakis. We need to defeat whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. It can be done, I believe, but it will not be a 'cakewalk.' The closer the election result is, the more likely it is that there WILL be election fraud which throws the 'victory' to the Republicans.

But if I lived in CT or NY, my attitude about the upcoming races for reelection on the part of Senators Clinton and Lieberman would be a different matter, partly because both are very far ahead in the polls right now, and that seems unlikely to change over the next year.

The Iraq mission, to my view, is a very important issue. I'm opposed to continuing it as it stands today, and I'm unhappy with the positions taken on it by such prominent Democrats as Clinton and Lieberman. Since both of them as quite unlikely to be defeated by Republican opponents in the general election, and because the issue of the war is so important, it makes sense to me to support antiwar challengers to each in the Democratic primary. This is a way to draw attention to the war, among an electorate who likely are not all that well-informed of what their representatives' positions are on the issue.

Those antiwar candidates are not likely to win, and their campaigns are not likely to result in Republican victories. If they were, we'd have to look at these races differently, and decide what to do. But to say that it isn't worth spending money to support candidacies like this, to my mind, is to say that preserving the lives of American troops who might die needlessly in the Iraq conflict is not important.

In the case of Lowell Weicker's possible challenge to Lieberman: I think this is a whole different deal and needs to be considered very carefully. My understanding of the situation may be flawed, but if I'm right, Mr. Weicker is a former moderate East-Coast Republican who left that party and was elected governor of CT as in independent. I recall that he became rather unpopular at some point in his tenure as governor over tax increases. If a candidate like Weicker ran as an independent, and pledged to vote for the Democratic leadership if he were elected, and I believed that he would stick to that pledged, AND his positions on other key issues were acceptable to me, AND I thought that he actually had a chance to beat Lieberman, given Lieberman's and Weicker's positions on the war, I would jump party lines and vote for Weicker, and I would feel that I was being loyal to my Democratic principles in doing so.

Let me point out that those are a lot of qualifiers, and that I expect that my decision in the end would be to vote for Lieberman anyway, on the strength of his moderate and/or progressive positions on other issues. His current positions on foreign policy would make it very tempting to jump, though, under those circumstances.

I think this is the right attitude for a Democrat to have, because being a Democrat should be about principles, not about blind loyalty to a 'D.' Most of the time, this is going to mean that you vote for Democrats, and probably most of the time, favor Democrat incumbents over Democrat challengers -- but maybe once in great while, you have to take stand on your core Democratic principles and against a Democratic nominee.

[MrBenchley]

37. Ahem

"former judge Denise Majette got strong support from the 4th District's growing black middle class as well as from white voters, while McKinney brought in polarizing figures such as Louis Farrakhan to boost her campaign. "
Oh, that evil DLC, tying poor McKinney to Louis Farrakhan...oh, wait.

McKinney ran around her district with Louis Farrakhan in 2002, and you want to blame OTHER PEOPLE for her defeat?

I'd love to see how commenting on McKinney's loss AFTER SHE LOST translates to support for her opponent before the election. Which is what you originally claimed.

As for your "DLC ilk" remark, do you REALLY think the core of the Democratic party in the state of Georgia is on the far left and not the center?

By the way, did she bring Farrakhan back in 2004?

[Aaaargh]

43. Probably so, since her positions haven't changed

Why don't you look at her website if you want some info about her: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250861&kaid=86&subid=84

BTW, did you know that Georgia is known as the 'Peach State'?

[wyldwolf]

46. why does her website look like the DLC website?

... ?

[MrBenchley]

55. By the way....

Interesting to see the DLC demanding primaries be closed to all but elite party insiders there, isn't it...oh wait, they're recommending we do just the opposite and allow independents in everywhere. My bad.

[MrBenchley]

51. Really? You think she propbably ran around with Louis Farrakhan?

By the way, did you know Georgia is pretty conservative? Did you know that McKinney's father has a habit of spouting anti-Semitic nonsense in public?

By the way, I guess that means that your claim that the DLC supported Majette before the election wan't true.

[eridani]

72. What does Farrakhan have to do with anything?

Majette turfed McKinney out because of a really large Republican crossover vote in the primary. The Rethugs won twice--they got McKinney out, and also dumped Bob Barr (who, though as nasty a culture warrior as they could hope for, was getting really snitty about the PATRIOT Act). The number of votes McKinney got in that primary was LARGER than the number of votes she got when she won her general election two years previously. And she got in again without any trouble in the absence of a crossover vote in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

44. ..still trying to find the parts in your links where the DLC celebrated...

...point them out to me?

[Aaaargh]

47. Oh, come off it!

You've GOTTA be able to do better than that! I thought you were one of the more serious 'New Democrats' around here.

[wyldwolf]

49. I see campaign analysis. No celebrating. So show me.

[MrBenchley]

58. Remember, the initial claim

which has yet to be proven, wasn't just that the DLC had discussed the ramifactions of the election results after the election, but had meddled in the race while it was hot.

[Aaaargh]

63. It's no use trying to have a straightforward discussion with you guys,

is it?

That's too bad. It's the downfall of this fucked forum, in fact. This is supposed to be a forum for Democrats, but what it really amounts to is a 'MIXED BOARD.' You DLCers constantly complain about being harshly criticized, yet the nastiest and most dishonest and irrelevant preening-and-sneering routines come from you guys.

What the hell do you think you're accomplishing here? Yes, there's a lot of traffic on this forum, relative to other, comparable forums -- but you're not converting a large number of people through this wank-off approach of yours. You'd be more likely to do that if you tried to make persuasive arguments, without jiving around so much.

What gives with this forum? Look how much TIME you guys spend on here. It might be worthwhile if you would actually discuss issues in an honest way.

[MrBenchley]

65. Not because of any problem at our end, friend

You dragged Cynthia McKinney in as an example of the DLC meddling in elections...although it turned out you couldn't prove any meddling. Then you claimed they celebrated her defeat, although you couldn't produce anything but straightforward analysis. You professed to being unaware that she and her dad have spouted anti-Semitic gibberish in public, and demanded proof, and now that you've gotten it you're flying into a pissy little snit.

[Aaaargh]

70. Hahahahahahah hahuh huh uhhhh....jeeez louise!

"You dragged Cynthia McKinney in as an example of the DLC meddling in elections...although it turned out you couldn't prove any meddling."

- I said that McKinney's opponent had been supported by "Democrats of the DLC ilk." You should consult a dictionary if you don't know what words mean.

"Then you claimed they celebrated her defeat, although you couldn't produce anything but straightforward analysis."

- This is just pitiful. They said that McKinney's defeat was a good thing. Again: dictionary.

"You professed to being unaware that she and her dad have spouted anti-Semitic gibberish in public, and demanded proof..."

- No, I said "Please source your quotation."

"...and now that you've gotten it you're flying into a pissy little snit."

- Well, it's entirely obvious that you would know. 1000+ posts. There but for the grace of God go I!

[wndycty]

31. LOL what makes you think the OP didn't agree with you. . .

. . .LOL Jeeze

[ruggerson]

38. "That ain't nothing....Jews have bought everybody. Jews... J-E-W-S"

You sure it didn't have anything to do with Cynthia and her father expressing repugnant bigoted views?

So repugnant that she was rebuked by the Anti Defamation League?

[Aaaargh]

45. Please source your quotation

[ruggerson]

53. Here ya go

and this is just one source. There are hundreds more in this instance.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.08.30/news3.html

Georgia State Rep. Billy McKinney, 75, drew fire last week when he said in an election-day television interview, "Jews have bought everybody." When asked to explain his daughter's political difficulties, he responded: "J-E-W-S."

[SaveElmer]

54. Here...

<snip>

"It looks like the Republicans wanted to beat me more than the Democrats wanted to keep me," McKinney said in a concession speech around 12:45 a.m. Wednesday. Majette defeated McKinney 58% to 42%, with all but one precinct accounted for.

But her father, civil-rights stalwart and DeKalb County community leader Billy McKinney, pointed a finger at her pro-Israel critics. When asked by a local television reporter what the election had hinged on, he responded: "J-E-W-S."

In a press release, Anti-Defamation League southeast director Deborah Lauter condemned Billy McKinney's remark, calling it "classic antisemitism." He caused a similar stir in 1996 after calling his daughter's opponent a "racist Jew," a comment Cynthia McKinney repudiated.



<snip>

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.08.23/news2.html

[Aaaargh]

59. The alleged quote is from her father, then

I never heard of this Forward site. What's that?

[Usrename]

71. Anti-Semitism?!

:wtf:

Her opponent got the Jewish vote and that makes her and her father anti-Semitic?????

I guess since Lieberman got the Jewish vote in 2000 that makes Bush an anti-Semite....

or it could be because they said the word Jew, that's like saying the n-word, isn't it?

Who ARE these freeking people?????

[Uncle Joe]

32. I agree with much of your post, however

it seems to me the environment, Iraq War, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform should be Middle American Values as Middle American jobs and health are adversely affected by the current state of all of the above. How many people in Middle America lost their jobs, education, health or life because of Katrina (the environment), the Iraq War or the coup of 2000 (voting reform), or the shortsightedness of our automobile industry, the self serving greed of the oil industry, Enron and the like (corporate reform)? Personally, I believe terrorism would still not be a top issue with Middle America if Bush had not been so incompetent/corrupt prior to 9/11.

I believe a large part of the reason that these values may not register as Middle American Values as the Rolling Stone article stated, is precisely because of the Matrix created by the corpwhorate owned MSM for Middle America (media reform) to live in. The corpwhorate owned MSM has shielded Middle America from the truth regarding all of the above and much more. However, I believe there will be a major reckoning one day when Middle America wakes up to the fact that, Corporate America does not share their values.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Since the MSM are not covering these issues--which are VITAL issues

even if the media-numbed Middle American doesn't realize it--the only way to bring them before the public is to have candidates talk about them.

[Uncle Joe]

35. I agree Lydia Leftcoast. n/t

[MrBenchley]

57. Just one little question....

Do you really think that the average American doesn't know about jobs being in short supply, and that its because the media hasn't told him?

And even given that very dubious premise, what happens if the "media-numbed Middle American" looks to YOU to solve the problem and then decides your proposed solution bites the big one?

I have to say your proposed solution, because neither you and your chum have mentioned anything approaching one while you were wailing about how awful it was nobody could hear yours. How do you even know you two have the same solution?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. You're advocating cowardice for the sake of "winning"

You want candidates to gain power without stating what they will use that power for.

Why should voters trust that?

Having observed how ordinary people react to candidates over the years, I've noticed one thing that is consistent across party lines. Voters like candidates who have core convictions and are willing to stick up for them. The second worst thing a voter can call a candidate (short of outright "crook") is "just another politician," someone who will say one thing on the campaign trail and do another once he's in office just because some lobbyist got to him. The third worst thing a voter can call a candidate is "blaaah," meaning that the candidate just stands there and talks in vague generalities without animation.

It almost doesn't matter what a candidate's core convictions are. That's why Republicans who truly believe that abortion is murder and who fight for anti-choice legislation win elections even when the American people favor choice by a wide margin: these legislators' words and actions coincide. That's why Paul Wellstone's approval ratings went UP after he voted against the IWR, consistent with his life-long beliefs. That's why Peter DeFazio keeps getting re-elected in an Oregon district that usually votes Republican for president: he positions himself as a champion of the ordinary person, and he does not betray that trust.

The duty of a candidate is to understand his potential constituents (including what problems they talk about in bars, coffee shops, locker rooms, church basements, and workplaces) and come up with a few workable proposals that he both believes strongly in and can explain in simple, memorable terms.

The possible solutions to any single problem are limited. If Candidate A says "We have to do x to make housing more affordable" and Candidate B says, "We have to do y to make housing more affordable," that's fine. It's likely that we need to do both x and y, anyway, and what the voters will hear is, "Finally! Someone is talking about affordable housing and offering a suggestion that sounds like it might work."

Faint heart never won fair voter.

[MrBenchley]

61. Uh...you're the one who isn't showing a solution

"The duty of a candidate is to understand his potential constituents (including what problems they talk about in bars, coffee shops, locker rooms, church basements, and workplaces) and come up with a few workable proposals that he both believes strongly in and can explain in simple, memorable terms."
Like "the matrix of corprowhore whosis" (snicker)....

"It almost doesn't matter what a candidate's core convictions are. "
Hahahahahaha....I guess that's only true as long as they aren't convictions endorsed by the DLC....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Solution to which problem?

And it's news to me that the DLC has any convictions other than "give the corporations everything they want" and "rattle those sabres as loudly as the Republicanites."

Before you ask, yes, I have read the NDOL website. I read it and was appalled, which is why I'm in the anti-DLC camp.

[MrBenchley]

64. Do you actually read the posts? Or do you just click and spout.

In post 34 you said the media was not covering these issues, (agreeing with the other guy that said lack of coverage was all that was holding your mighty solutions to those issues back, whatever the fuck they are)....

In post 57, I singled out as a "for instance" jobs, and asked what your solution to the shortage of them was--and what was to happen if the voter heard your solution and rejected it....

You responded in post 60 by accusing me of cowardice, announced it didn't matter what a candidate thought , and complainned that I didn't give a solution...

And now in post 62, you profess not to know what question I asked and spouted a bunch of anti-DLC gibberish.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. And you seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote

or perhaps you are choosing not to.

Excuse me, it's Saturday night and I need to be elsewhere in a short while.

[MrBenchley]

67. And so your answer was....

not there and you have to go.

[MrBenchley]

56. Ah, had they but known.....

"the Matrix created by the corpwhorate owned MSM for Middle America (media reform) to live in"
Hard to see why ordinary Americans can't connect with you when you speak the truth like that (snicker)...

"I believe there will be a major reckoning one day when Middle America wakes up to the fact that, Corporate America does not share their values. "
And until that glorious day when patriots hang Stone Philips and his mistress upside down from the lamppost, what are we supposed to do, exactly?

[Uncle Joe]

78. You are wiser than most MrBenchley,

you know Saddam was not behind 9/11, however at one point in time 70% of the American People thought he was, why? Do you think the corpwhorate owned MSM tried to tell the American People otherwise?

There are currently five corporations that own 80%-90% of all the MSM. Speaking of Stone Phillips who works for NBC, can you ever remember them ever giving a negative report about G.E., it's parent company? I don't remember the exact quote, but I believe it was the former head of G.E. that flat came out and said it, that NBC will reflect what G.E.'s desires are and play them up, he is also the same man that pressed NBC to call Florida early for Bush when it was still in dispute.

How many stories of possible embarrassment to the Neocon loving Bush administration have you discovered or learned about though the internet that went for days, weeks or even months before the corpwhorate owned MSM informed the American People? Can you think of any major stories that we know about through the internet that to this day are still not covered by the corpwhorate owned MSM? We have journalists in bed with the Bush administration spouting their talking points verbatim, assisting in outing our own CIA agents. We have Gannon/Guckert and canned rehearsed town hall meetings by Bush, how could anyone think they could get away with that? I believe it is because Bush thought with good reason that his buddies that own the vast majority of the MSM would cover for him just as they have done ever since at least 1999 and not investigate or report it. I believe the only reason they did, is because of the internet and it's gaining strength and the fact that his lack of response and incompetence to Katrina was too big to hide.

A Matrix is nothing more than a false reality, the American People have been living in this false reality ever since the Corpwhorate owned MSM decided that O.J. all day every day was the most important story to tell the American People from breakfast till their midnight snack. If it was not the O.J. trial, it was another National Enquirer Story to replace it. At the same time this was going on, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaueda had declared war against us, when 9/11 hit, there were many people that still had no idea who he was in spite of previous attacks.

I believe in Synergy, this were a group of people debating or putting their heads together to solve a complex problem create a group mind. This group mind has a higher I.Q. than any individual in the group. Generally speaking 10 people are smarter than 1, 100 people are smarter than 10 and so on, because they have different experiences and skills to bring to the table. However when corporations merge and claim this creates synergy, they are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst. The reason they are wrong is because they focus the vast majority of the time only on the short term, their quarterly profit, for their shareholders. They inevitably lay off what they say are duplicate people. The result of MSM consolidation also makes them more vulnerable to political cronyism or pressure. The only thing the neocons or anyone else in power has to do, to squash honest journalism is to reach 5 CEOs or maybe just 4 of 5. The greatest group mind on the planet is the internet, because we don't lay people off and we have freedom of speech, something the corpwhorate owned MSM gave up years ago.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Well articulated- I disagree about MoveOn though.

Wolf, you know that Lieberman is riding the far right range with 'ol Zell, and in fact is being suggested as a cabinet officer in the most foul, craven, corrupt incompetent and inept administration in recorded history.

I can't support someone so cozy with that group, and MoveOn agrees; This is like the Republican takeover; it's page from the same book. The PARTY is prohibited from agitating against its own; it's up to the people. And THAT is where MoveOn comes in. If you stray from the fold, you will find yourself facing a primary challenge. Period. Polling or no. I don't know why this obvious bit of politics makes you annoyed, unless it's because they represent a threat to the status quo.

[wyldwolf]

41. well, like you said - it's up to the people

...and with Lieberman being a Senator, I have no say in his election. He represents his state and the latest poll I found gives him a 68% approval there.

As for him being discussed as Sec. of Defense, what has Lieberman said? Has he said he would?

McCain was DISCUSSED as Kerry VP.

Biden has been DISCUSSED as McCain's VP in '08.

Right now, it's just talk. BUT...

Would "progressives" have a problem with it?

Seems to me that would get him out of the way so a more "progressive" candidate could take over. Wouldn't that make some people happy?

[Hippo_Tron]

40. All the more reason to nominate Wes Clark

I completely disagree with almost all of your points, but I would work my ass off for Clark. Clearly he is the one who can put this DLC vs Non DLC fighting behind us.

[wyldwolf]

42. to a point, yes...

...but you'll always have the fringe left pouting and crying over his military credentials and history as they did during the primaries.

[Writer]

52. Bravo, Wyldwolf!

Being a Coloradoan and having witnessed that ridiculous, petty exercise by those claiming to be for the party made my jaw drop.

I'd prefer not to be the "one size fits all" party.

[KoKo]

68. OMG! The DU "Tag Team" is after the dreaded "Move On.org.....

:rofl: Hey guys ....you are really into "outting" aren't 'cha! :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

69. that reminds me, KoKo01

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2301098&mesg_id=2301141

...shall you finally PROVE anything you say?

[bread_and_roses]

73. What a paean to the status quo

So voting Third Party is out AND challenging Dems in Primaries is out...I guess we should just elect people for life as long as they have a D after their names? Is this supposed to be a Democracy or not?

I don't feel like looking it up now, but I think the % of incumbents returned to office is already over 90%. Not much about that is going to change until and unless we have genuine Campaign Finance Reform. So you don't have too much to worry about. But just what is it about people actually exercising their right to try to get someone who actually represents them elected that is so threatening that even supporting a Primary challenger must be attacked? Just what do you suggest that Progressives in "safe" Dem districts do? They are not in a position to vote or do much of anything (other than contribute some $) to defeating Rs in other States. They are to sit on their hands and acquiesce to the status quo?

And for some of us, supporting the willful and deliberate slaughter of children is a deal-breaker. Regardless of Party. Most of us - including me - put that aside to work ourselves half to death for Kerry, with the hope that once in office he would be willing and able to bring this slaughter to an end. Well, he's not in office. Now, it is our job to work to elect people who represent our views. Isn't that how Democracy is supposed to work?

[Blue_Tires]

75. FWIW, i voted nader in 00

and bush won the state i was living in by 30 points (KS) so it's moot

But I wanted to talk about this:
"You don't have to like a particular Democrat, but if the magnifying glass you're using was suddenly placed over your Democrat of choice, you just might find something you'd consider disturbing there. If you're honest."

And for the most part, i agree, but how far do you think party loyalty should go toward the sake of just getting someone with a (D) after their name in office? Because there ARE some out there that will actively try to destroy the party from within and openly help the opposition (it seems that many here have forgotten the illustrious works of Zell Miller and others)

[wyldwolf]

76. good question

how far do you think party loyalty should go toward the sake of just getting someone with a (D) after their name in office? Because there ARE some out there that will actively try to destroy the party from within and openly help the opposition

...like Dennis Kucinich voting to impeach President Clinton?


Let's hold everyone to the same standard, not just those with "DLC" in their bio.

And IMHO, a Democrat who voted for Ralph Nader, regardless of the circumstances, betrayed the party just as Zell did.

[Blue_Tires]

77. " "Let's hold everyone to the same standard..."

"not just those with "DLC" in their bio."


that i can agree with