Yes, I want a diverse national democratic party- or a big tent if you will

[cali]

I want people who are "purists" in the party pushing for a more pure party- even if that type of language drives me nuts. I want liberals and progressives along the continuum, and yes, I want real centrists and moderates, who support working people and the social safety net. I'll take Nelson in NE over any puke. I want Mark Warner over Jim Gilmore. I want Tom Udall over Heather Wilson.

I'm not just talking about the elected office holders either. I'm talking about rank and file party members. I want a party that's diverse along lines of ethnicity, religion and non-religion. I want diversity of thought and opinion and ideas- as long as they aren't ideas about "drowning gov't" or excluding people; those are repuke ideas, not democratic ones.

I want a greater majority, because that's the quickest and best way to get progressive legislation. If you want to empower the progressives and liberals in Congress, you need to give them a larger majority.

You know where purity gets you? It gets you where the repuke party is now; crashing and burning. And don't tell me I'm being too confident about next year. I'm basing my conclusion about the state of the repuke party on tangible things: the election of 2006, the fact that 8% of the repukes in the House have decided not to run for re-election, the split between religious social conservatives and the neocons as embodied by Guiliani, and the miniscule number of moderates in the repuke party. Yeah, purity has worked out really well for the repukes. They've gone from Newtie triumphant on the Capitol steps and kkkarl rove bleating about a permanent majority, to an aborted reign of 12 years- and there's no end in sight to their exile from congressional power. The repukes are a wreck because of their ideological purity.

I'm not suggesting I'm happy with the influence that the DLC has wielded, or the corporate influence on democrats, but you change that by getting more people involved, not less.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. B*A*R*F

Another apologist for the DLC. Give me a break.

You don't 'change' that by seeking to emulate your opponent.

Everyone wants Mark Warner over Jim Gilmore and Tom Udall over Heather Wilson, but you don't do that by trying to be like your opponent.

Warner and Udall know that and that is why they will win.

[cali]

3. sorry you read it that way because that wasn't remotely what I was

saying. First of all, I'm not defending or supporting the DLC; I want to minimize their power- but no, I don't want to kick them out. I believe you minimize the power of the DLC and corporatists by electing as many progressive and liberal dems as you can, and enlarging the dem majority in both houses even if it means voting in centrists such as Mark Warner alongside progressives such as Tom Udall. And I hate to fucking break it to you, *genius*, but Mark Warner is not only a centrist but a member of the DLC. duh.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. Like I Said

.....another apologist for the DLC.

LOL.

[cali]

21. you know, repeating a lie

over and over doesn't make it any truer. Anybody with half a brain realizes that. But I know that the stupid will always be with us.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Like I Said......Another Apologist for the DLC

Thanks for pointing out that Warner is a member of the DLC.

[bvar22]

155. When the CEOs & Wall St Bankers let me into their boardrooms,

I'll let them into the Democratic Party "Big Tent"!

Until then:

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Quixote1818]

10. Did you and I read the same post?

That isn't at all what the poster said.

:crazy:

[LanternWaste]

159. I've been getting the impression that you call a lot of people...

I've been getting the impression that you call a lot of people "another apologist foe the DLC" because they disagree with you. Don't you think you're minimizing the real depth of that... sobriquet when using it like so much salad dressing?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. What a Surprise

A DLC supporter characterizing a DLC critic as being nothing more than a salad dressing.

[LanternWaste]

181. It's called a "metaphor"

It's called a "metaphor" and is used to great effect in many instances. But if you look closely, I didn't cast the asparagus on you yourself,,, merely your over-use of a word (miss much of your English Lit classes in the past...?). Yet... if your righteous rage feels better than admission of melodrama on your part, I completely understand-- it takes a pretty big person to admit when we're wrong.

However, that being said, I have neither chosen nor ruled out any candidate in the primaries at this time. You may call that being a DLC supporter if it makes you feel better... I call it being opened minded.

[spoony]

172. "like so much salad dressing"

I like that! Wonderful imagery.

[TankLV]

240. Double BARF!

There are certain things that are NON-NEGOTIABLE.

PERIOD.

[PVnRT]

339. RTFP

[fightthegoodfightnow]

340. RTFP

.........yourself and then make your own substantive post where you agree or disagree with the writer. To make your case stronger, cite portions of the post and give a response. LOL.

[Fovea]

2. I still felt that way four or five years ago

But, having flushed the last actual protections from despotism down the toilet, centrists of any political stripe are dead to me. If it comes to it, they go in the same cage as the NeoCons.

[cali]

4. So you'd prefer that Jim Gilmore won in VA and

John Sununu retain his seat in NH, eh? Because both Shaheen and Warner are more centrist than liberal. And let me leave you with a parting bit of info: Every single dem in the Senate voted for the Habeas Restoration Act- only a handful of repukes did. Ponder that while you luxuriate in your "superior" purity.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. I'm Sure that's what You "THINK" he said, but it's NOT

Get a Clue: Shaheen and Warner are to the ...........and here's a big word just to give you a head's up......................... LEFT....................of their opponents but no doubt that makes them appear "centrist" to you.

[cali]

15. sorry. no sale, darlin'. that poster

made quite clear that he had no use for centrists or moderates, and wanted to cage them with the neocons. Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen are obviously more to the left than their repuke opponents, but both ARE centrists. That poster seems to be under the illusion that they aren't. They are both centrist dems, and the poster clearly stated his opinion of centrist dems. Try reading for comprehension- if that's not too much to ask.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. ANYONE IS MORE CENTRIST

.........AND MORE LIBERAL.

[Fovea]

37. Yes, at this point i would

because I want my neocons all to be wide stance puggies.

[cali]

41. I'm so glad you admitted that you prefer Gilmore to Warner.

I find such a stance despicable.

[Fovea]

44. And I find you a collaborator

so i guess that makes us even.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. You Rock

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[cali]

60. hmmm

Yes indeed, a collaborator who's worked for liberal and progressive causes for over 2 decades on issues small (keeping high tension towers and cell towers out of our village) and big (organizing forums against Gulf War I and the Iraq War, in my community.) I support progressive politicians such as my Senator, Bernie Sanders. If I'm what you consider a "collaborator", you really are so marginal that you're simply a joke, a cariacture of the cookie cutter little radical .

I can't tell you how happy I am that you are that marginal. May you and others stamped from the same mold remain impotent forever.

I, and people like me, have power in the real world. You don't. I couldn't be happier about that.

Enjoy your irrelevance. I will.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Party Loyalty Indeed

And yet you claim to be a Democrat?

I recognize you: You are Joe Lieberman and if that gives you and your Senator Sanders power by being 'independents', then shame on you for choking the throat of the Democratic party.

You write: 'I, and people like me, have power in the real world."

Pathetic.

The solutions is not to have more 'independents' but more Democrats.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. I Didn't Expect cali to Respond to this One

Why should he? His candidate isn't a Democrat....and yet he's lecturing Democrats on being centrist by supporting his Socialist Independent Senator.

Too funny.

[cali]

73. yikes.

are you ok? you're practically incoherent and certainly laboring under a delusion. Seriously, I'm sorry I've been poking fun at someone who seems to have real problems. My apologies.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Make an Argument

.....or try at least.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. What Part Do You Disagree with

The part that says we need more Democrats and fewer Independents in Congress?

Right...got it.

[progressoid]

80. WOW!

I'd hate to see what the Party would be if it only allowed your idea of a real Democrat in.

If we limited ourselves to your definition, we'd be as effective as the Reform Party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Let's Start with My Support of Democratic Candidates

.......rather than independents you seem to come to the defense of.

[progressoid]

280. Huh?

"independents you seem to come to the defense of"

I wasn't defending anyone. I was simply marveling at your sacred view of the Democratic Party.

But it's unfair to presume what your idea of the ideal party would be. So, tell us, who would you kick out? And who would you replace them with? You're gonna need a lot of bodies to fill in the gaps to win elections.

I've met a lot of Democrats; from the ultra-left to the moderate. We need them all. Not just to win elections, but as an intellectual and idealogical check and balance.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

289. You Ask

You ask: 'So, tell us, who would you kick out?"

Who would I ELECT? Someone who at best remotely looks like, sounds like and supports Democratic values.

[progressoid]

337. And that would include DLCers

"remotely looks like, sounds like and supports Democratic values" That's a pretty big net you cast. Or Big Tent if you will.

[Fovea]

81. Watch then

as the the margin of victory falls out of the Democratic party.
Same thing is about to happen to the Republicks. They are fighting to keep their base at the current moment.

The Dems are bidding theirs adieu.

Adieu, alors.

[cali]

84. Oh I don't think so

I'd wager a fair amount that the dems win 4-7 seats in the Senate next year, and 10-18 seats in the House. In fact, your claim that the dems are losing their base is decisively refuted by the new Pew report which shows the dem party growing as the repub party shrinks.

Now if the dems don't adhere to the tenets expressed in the dem platform when they have a strong majority and aren't responsive to the voters on key issues like health care and strenthening the social safety network, as well as restoring a foreign policy that does something other than make us pariahs, you'll be right.

We'll find out in 2009.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. If They Do........It Will Because They Stand for Something

..........other than the status quo and indifference the middle is best characterized as.

[stranger81]

171. why does it bother you if "purists" think they're "superior"

when you so clearly think you're superior yourself?

I'm not sure what these threads are for except to feed your own (already sizeable) ego.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

177. Agree Completely

;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: ;) ;-) :-) :) O8) :toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock:

[stranger81]

194. aawwww, shucks . . . . .

you're a sweetie!

[Joe Fields]

299. We are impotent now, because we haven't stood up and forced

the so-called moderates and centrists to at least meet us halfway. We have been ignored by our party long enough. Until we become an organized force to be reckoned with, in our own party, much like the religious right, then we can piddle all day on progressive causes, and it won't amount to a bucket of warm spit.

[havocmom]

5. Sorta agree. But we need more (lots more) progressives and populists

not only IN the big tent, but erecting the posts holding it up.

The more we can entice to become actively involved, the stronger we are. And if we entice more PROGRESSIVES we pull the party a bit left of the center it has slumped into.

Yep, more diversity. More left leaning people = more left leaning party leaders = half a chance at turning the corporate power out of the halls of government.

Working for the day the DLC types are the Democratic fringe and we have a party that offers an OBVIOUS alternative to the status quo.

[tomp]

6. what's this "purity" thing about?

purity only makes sense to me in relation to "impurity". so who in this big tent is "impure" and why would anyone want them under the tent?

[cali]

7. it's about ideological purity

and I don't want to see that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Get a Back Bone

You'd be surprised how tall you can stand.

[cali]

17. get a brain and

stop talking in one and two syllable words in one sentence slogans. Try and articulate your thoughts. you'd be surprised how much more persuasive you'd be.

[TankLV]

243. It's Cali - what did you expect...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

247. My First Encounter

.........but I got a good idea what s/he stands for.

[Fovea]

71. Your initial proviso of moderates and centrists

who support the social safety net is a non-sequitor. Centrists want the for profit model that worked so well for HMO stockholders to be the model for the safety net. Progressives say look at medicare.

On this subject alone, there is no realistic middle ground. Ask 100 Americans if they want Enron to adminster Social Security. Or if they like the for profit healthcare system as currently administered by and for insurance companies enough to want a universal healthcare plan run by the same companies for the same shareholder profit.

Ask them if they want another 25 years in Iraq. Ask them if they have plans for what to do when America invades Iran, and gas goes up to $6.00/gal. Ask them if they want more job giveaway 'trade agreements.' Ask them how dependent we should be on oil 8 years from now.

In order to actually compete, America needs to reduce the burden of financing health care on employers. It also needs accountability and responsible governance from corporate entities, who no longer should be persons. In order to compete, America needs to rebuilt its industrial capacity around sustainability. Much like the world re tooled around new materials and techniques post ww2.

The world is about to crash our economy in self defense. There will be no return to a triumphant third way. No center to regain. America is turning to the left. Why? Because of the abject failure of the center to curb the excess of the right.

The electorate has been propagandized for a dozen years or so now. But sadly, the force of reality has become too compelling for even masters like Karl Rove. The new center-left asked politely for abandonment of the status quo in 06. It will be far less polite to those who, by fall of 08 prove deaf to previous entreaty.

By the fall of 08, abandonment of the neocon strategy for oil hegemony won't just be a good idea, it will be the only viable alternative to economic strangulation.

We cannot afford Dem leaders who do not work actively and without reservation toward progressive goals.

There is the big tent, and there is the mullah Nasrudin's tent, under which the camel already has its nose. Guess which one more accurately models the current Dem party?

[cali]

82. you're making vast generalizations that don't fit every

elected dem centrist/moderate. Plenty of dems who are centrist support social securtiy, medicare and medicaid and don't support privatizing. Most centrist dems voted repeatedly to start withdrawing troops.

I don't think you understand either the electorate or Congress. It's either that or you don't want to. 2006 was a mixed bag year as far as what the electorate was saying. Moving legislation forward in Congress is a complex process that entails arm twisting and promises much of the time. Unfortunately we've been stuck with really lousy leadership- but that's not because, in the House at least, the Speaker is a centrist. Pelosi actually has a more liberal voting record than any speaker in modern history. She's just a lousy leader. Reid is an enigma to me, but he too is not an effective leader.

Let me point out that Americans are basically not left or right or even centrist- they're persuadable. Ascribing a political philosophy to the majority of voters is a huge mistake.

[bvar22]

188. And yet you argue FOR Ideological Purity.

....YOUR Ideological Purity.....What did you call it?....."Party Pragmatism", or something equally nonsensical.

Do you NOT realize that "Party Pragmatism" IS an ideology?


NOTE: "Party Pragmatism" is not an exact quote, but IS represenative of the ideology that is promoted.
Help me out.
What was the ideological label you annointed yourself with last week?

[cali]

207. no. I don't . I explicitly say that many voices and viewpoints

should be included- and yes that includes mine of idealism wedded to pragmatism.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

212. Your Idealism "Wedded" with Pragmatism?

Haven't you got it back wards?

A hand wrestling of your pragmatism against your idealism has nailed your idealism in less than five seconds all in the name of political expedience.

[bvar22]

224. Oh, Cali.

Can't you see that you ARE promoting an IDEOLOGY, and are demanding purity?

You claim to support diversity of opinion, and yet you vigorously attack anyone whose opinion differs from yours.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[cali]

230. I suggest you reread this thread.

I'm not saying I'll agree with everyone. But show me one damned post of mine that says I want people with differing opinions from mine purged from the democratic party. Of course, I'll argue my pov. That's exactly what I'm advocating for.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

251. Who Here is Advocating Purging Anyone?

HINT: It's about electing people who embrace Democratic values and principles.

[cuke]

314. It's been done

In fact, it's being done in another thread right now. There are people on DU, and its more than a handful, who are eager to define some dems out of the party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

325. Define Them Out of the Party

Where do folks come up with this sh*t?

How is that even possible?

I'm more inclined to VOTE them out OFFICE!!!

That is the ultimate 'definition'.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

231. I'm Adding You to my Buddy List

Rock on.

[tomp]

220. is ideological "impurity" the same as ...

...allowing multiple ideologies under the heading of "democratic party"? i'm basing ths question on your response to my original question? you say you don't want to see ideological purity, and i assume that means you want ideological impurity.

[cali]

252. no, it's not ideological purity v impurity.

I'm not sure how you could even think that. Perhaps you should reread the OP>

[tomp]

317. you seem never to know how anyone could possibly see...

...something that you don't. and then you get dismissive.

you raised the issue of purity several times in the op. i'm asking you to clarify it. how can "purity" exist except in relation to "impurity"? or perhaps "dilution". what exactly do you mean by ideological purity? don't you see that it can be subjective or arbitrary? do you mean, e.g., i will only vote for "x" as "purity". and if so, what about "i'll vote for anyone the dems nominate"? can you describe these sorts of stands, or other of your choosing, in relation to "purity". or do you just mean "purity" any strongly held set of beliefs that doesn't agree with yours?

you think your post is clear. but i'm not the only one who needs you to elaborate and/or defend what you've written.

[Cary]

8. You know where purity gets you? It gets you where the repuke party is now; crashing and burning.

"Ideological purity" is an irrational concept.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. In other words eight years in office.

In other words eight years in office.

[Cary]

16. If you're so tough, righteous, correct, . . . why did they win those 8 years?

Don't blame me. I didn't vote for them.

[cali]

18. are you that clueless?

The dems controlled Congress for forty years. The repukes "permanent" majority lasted 12. The repuke party hasn't been this weak in over 2 decades. This isn't about STEALING the WH.

[Cary]

27. I was going to raise that point.

But then it occurred to me that FGF might have a good answer for those 8 years (or 12 years), and I for one would like to hear it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. You Mean When the Socialist FDR Took Power and Attempted to Redistribute the Wealth?

Let's go back to our 'roots' indeed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. FDR was a member of the DLC?

Not.

[cali]

33. Sorry, consider this little exchange at an end

I'm trying to get better about "suffering fools gladly" and all that jazz, but I have no patience for lying.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Ah.....yes.........a question is a 'lie' to those who demand we think like them.

Ah.....yes.........a question is a 'lie' to those who demand we think like them.

[LanternWaste]

161. Well, calling FDR a socialist is either a lie, or simple ignorance...

Well, calling FDR a socialist is either a lie, or simple ignorance...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

169. He was a Great Man

.........who introduced socialist concepts at a time when capitalism failed our country.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "the split between religious social conservatives and the neocons as embodied by Guiliani,"

Pat Robertson. What split?

[cali]

20. What split?

Have you forgotted the meeting a few weeks ago with Dobson and over 100 other fundy wingnut leader in which they threatened to go third party if Rudy was nominated? Are you aware the largest anti-choice organization is backing Thompson. Yes, there's a split.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. Pat Robertson.

The 'split' is posturing, and that is all. Where exactly is Dobson going to go? He has about as much choice as the progressive left has, which is to say, after the primaries are over, none.

Robertson's annointing of Guiliani clearly demonstrated that the fundaloons cannot even muster solidarity within the fundaloons over the theological purity issue.

Ron Paul is more of a threat to the Republican base's solidarity than the fundaloons are, and he isn't much of a threat.

[cali]

91. Well,

I think the disaffection of the religious wingnut right is potentially a very big factor; depending of course, on who gets the repuke nomination. And the fundie right is a much, much bigger piece of the repuke coalition than the far more amorphous progressive left is to the dems. Furthermore, they are willing to stay home. That used to be their norm. These are folks that are fairly new to the political process. And like disaffected liberals and progressives, they do have other places to go. The disaffected left- at least some of it went with Nader in 2000. The fundy right could turn to something like the Constitution party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. As a de facto independent I can enter or leave the tent at will.

We don't register by party in my state (WA). I've always thought of myself as an Democrat because I registered as one in 1965 in California and re-registered as one in Oregon.

So, I guess one could call me a DINO.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Ravy]

22. I think you are absolutely correct, Cali.

Progressives need to shoot for the majority stake in the majority party. They do not have the numbers to get legislation passed otherwise.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. LEGISLATION PASSED?

Give me a break....we've seen how much legislation the Democrats have enacted with Blue Dogs giving them a majority.

[cali]

31. *sigh*

If there had been 4 more dems in the Senate the Habeas Restoration Act would have passed. Now, that may not be important to you, but it damn well is to me. ALL the dems in the Senate voted for it. Got that? All of them. Yes, it would have been vetoed by bushco, but if we have a dem president and 4 more dems in the Senate, we can actually restore some fundamental rights.

Grab a clue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Reality

Uhmmm..........Habeas Restoration Act is amendment to a defense bill that is still under consideration along with being one of two versions of Bill Number S.185 and neither has been voted on by the full Senate.

Are you for real? If there had been 4 more dems in the Senate the Habeas Restoration Act would have passed?

The Senate already has a Democratic majority. Right, but they all voted for it. Got it.

LOL.

[cali]

49. actually it started out as a bill not an amendment

The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (S.185): "A bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States," was introduced on January 4, 2007 in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-V.T.), with 18 cosponsors. On May 22, 2007, hearings were held on the bill by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on Jun 7, 2007, the committee reported the bill favorably without amendment.

On December 5, 2006, Sen. Specter introduced the same bill in the 109th Congress as S.4081. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Senate vote
On September 19, 2007, the Senate voted on a cloture motion for including the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Department Authorization bill. The final vote was 56-43, just four votes short of overriding the Republican filibuster. Every Democrat voted for the bill as well as six Republicans. Those Republicans were Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John Sununu (R-N.H.), and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), who sponsored the bill. The only non-Republican who voted against the bill was Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) stated that the Senate's passage of the Military Commissions Act, which suspended habeas corpus for detainees, "calls into question the United States' historic role of defender of human rights in the world. It accomplishes what opponents could never accomplish on the battlefield, whittling away our own liberties."<1><[br />
and it was a cloture vote. And yes, every dem voted against the repuke flibuster.

If you really don't realize that the dems majority is razor thin in the Senate, and can't comprehend what that means, you really don't know how the Senate works. 4 more dems would have meant the end to the repuke filibuster and the amendment to restore Habeas Corpus would have passed. period. yeah, bushco would have vetoed it, but that's not the point i'm making.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Thanks

Uhmmm............so it was two bills introduced (neither voted on) and finally ended up being an amendment to a defense bill that was never voted on for it's own merits.

Got it. Thanks for pointing out what I said.

[Ravy]

34. Minimum wage increases, time-table for withdrawal from Iraq.

oversight, veteran's legislation...

Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, that is holding a lot of the legislation back, and of course the presidency.

Without the blue dogs, none of this would have been possible. Plus, even though we are now moving in the right direction on some things, although slowly, it has stopped the tailspin to Hell that the Rs were accomplishing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. In Other Words............

.............we've accomplished little on our own.

[Ravy]

58. Little is better than nothing.

And a WHOLE lot better than the where we would have been with the republicans retaining full control of Congress.

[ulysses]

24. it's a vicious cycle now.

Liberals need conservative Dems to help provide a majority so that progressive legislation can be passed...but those same conservative Dems (being conservatives :think: ) have no interest whatsoever in seeing progressive legislation passed, so they hold their own party hostage and everyone weeps and gnashes their teeth over whether or not Joe Lieberman will quit caucusing with us if we say "boo" to the elephants. And so it goes...

[cali]

38. Expansion of SCHIP is progressive legislation

and it was passed with almost all the centrist dems voting for it. Restoring Habeas Corpus is just basic sense but it's vital, and ALL the dems in the Senate voted for it and only a a few repukes did. Next year, once we add even one more dem to the Senate, joe becomes irrelevant. You're flat out wrong about centrists and conservatives having no interest in voting for progressive legislation- it's irrelevant whether they do or don't. They can obviously be persuaded to vote for it, as SCHIP and raising the minimum wage demonstrate, and the larger the dem majority the easier it is to get them on board.

Care to address those points?

[ulysses]

43. SCHIP is pretty much a no-brainer.

Unless you like voting against sick kids. Habeas is more "fundamental tenet of western law" than "progressive legislation", so no points there. :shrug:

[cuke]

138. If it's a "no-brainer", why did so many vote against it?

Besides, you're avoiding admitting that you were 100% wrong to say that conservative dems have no interest in passing progressive legislation. Now, you're saying it's a "no-brainer".

" Habeas is more "fundamental tenet of western law" than "progressive legislation", so no points there."

Habeus is progressive in every way. The fact that it is widespread does not make it any less progressive

[ulysses]

142. because they have no brains?

Besides, you're avoiding admitting that you were 100% wrong to say that conservative dems have no interest in passing progressive legislation. Now, you're saying it's a "no-brainer".

"Can be convinced" isn't the same as "has an interest". What's the quid pro quo?

Habeus is progressive in every way. The fact that it is widespread does not make it any less progressive

It's progressive in the way that "innocent until proven guilty" is progressive. What's the centrist position?

[cuke]

145. More avoiding the issue

hiding between weaselly words (ie ""Can be convinced" isn't the same as "has an interest". What's the quid pro quo?") and trying to distract with a question about centrists in order to avoiding admitting that you were wrong to say that conservative dems have no interest in passing progressive legislation and then turning around and saying that conservative dems voting for progressive legislation is a " no brainer"

Why won't you discuss the issues?

In another thread you won't even discuss what "big tent" means and in this thread you wont discuss the benefits of the big tent. All you can do is pick at nits, like the difference between "can be convinced" and "has an interest" and distractions (like the "centrist position" on habeus (which is they support habeus))

[ulysses]

147. "can be convinced" were another poster's words in this thread.

I'll refer you to her.

(edited because I forgot what thread I was on.)

[cuke]

148. More avoidance

why can't you discuss the issue?

The OP has pointed out the benefits of including people who disagree with progressives and all you can do is point out who used which phrase. Stop being petty and try and refute the OP with an argument that actually includes facts

[ulysses]

151. I'm quite happily discussing the issue.

I just think you're wrong. :D

[cuke]

173. Then address the issue

You started out saying it was a "vicious circle" which doesn't result in progressive legislation because conservative dems have "no interest" (your words) in passing progressive legislation. Cali responded with:

"You're flat out wrong about centrists and conservatives having no interest in voting for progressive legislation- it's irrelevant whether they do or don't. They can obviously be persuaded to vote for it, as SCHIP and raising the minimum wage demonstrate, and the larger the dem majority the easier it is to get them on board."

You have yet to address this point. Instead, you went on some tangent about how SCHIP was a "no-brainer" without admitting you were wrong or explaining why you were right. Your argument is "irrelevant" and all you can do is say that SCHIP was a "no-brainer", and that habeus is not progressive, none of which addresses the fact that what you said was irrelevant because, as the SCHIP vote (and others) show, their lack of interest is not as important as how they vote and they can be made to vote for progressive legislation.

So keep trying to convince yourself that you are discussing the issue when all you're doing is distracting from your inability to discuss the issue. All you have to do prove yourself willing to discuss the issue is to actully discuss the issue. "I just think you're wrong" is not a discussion

[ulysses]

182. ok, you're wrong *and* you're not reading carefully.

As I pointed out before, having an interest in passing progressive legislation and being persuaded to vote for progressive legislation are not the same things.

Maybe you'd like to stop and rest after that. You still with me?

[cuke]

185. Take your own advice

No one has said they are the same thing. Cali pointed out that "having an interest" (or not) is irrelevant because they "can be persuaded" to vote for progressive legislation

So far, your only response has been the incoherent straw man that "having an interest" is not the same as "can be persuaded", even though no one has said they're the same.

[ulysses]

190. from your post 138:

Besides, you're avoiding admitting that you were 100% wrong to say that conservative dems have no interest in passing progressive legislation.

You're making my point for me in admitting that they're not the same thing, as you do in the present post. Cali was talking about persuasion, I was talking about interest. Hell, I wouldn't have any interest in passing conservative legislation were I in Congress. I don't know what about this is so difficult for you.

[cuke]

195. Once again, the straw man

no one is saying they are the same. Cali pointed out that their lack of interest is irrelevant and you have yet to refute her

I guess your argument is irrelevant. Even you can't deny it

[ulysses]

198. their lack of interest isn't irrelevant.

Convincing a politician to vote for something in which they have no interest (you admit I'm right about that point, correct? you seem to have forgotten that you were trying to make a point about that...) involves a compromise, a quid pro quo. So, I ask again - what do progressives give up to the conservatives in the party?

[cuke]

202. Yes, it is irrelevant

And if there is a "quid pro quo" then there IS an interest (ie what they can get for their vote)

Not that I expect you to acknowledge it

[ulysses]

205. a *self* interest isn't what I meant.

Surely you'll allow me that clarification - you've made enough clarifications concerning whether or not I acknowledge when I'm wrong. :D

So, what *do* Democratic conservatives get for their votes for progressive legislation?

[cuke]

211. I have no problems with clarification

Though you seemed to have a problem when I clarified (about your public behavior), I won't hold that against you.

But it is still irrelevant. Cali's point is that it doesn't matter if they have any interest of any kind so long as they could be gotten to vote for progressive legislation. You still haven't addressed that.

"So, what *do* Democratic conservatives get for their votes for progressive legislation?"

Pork, for one. Votes for their legislation is another. Committee spots is another. A good parking space is another. Getting time to speak on the floor of Congress is another. Money from the DNC for their next campaign is another. Getting a pass for not voting on some other piece of legislation is another. Having their colleagues (popular dem leaders in particular) campaign for them is another.

And if the president is a Dem, there's a whole host of things the president could do to convince a conservative dem to vote for progressive legislation. Sometimes, all it takes is a ride on Air Force One.

Did you just start studying politics? That would explain your question

[ulysses]

218. I believe that it matters.

Cali's point is that it doesn't matter if they have any interest of any kind so long as they could be gotten to vote for progressive legislation.

I understand cali's point, but I disagree. To what degree should I rejoice that Senator X will vote for stem cell research if the price of that vote is the renewal of NCLB with only cosmetic changes? (please note that this is a hypothetical example only)

Pork, for one. Votes for their legislation is another. Committee spots is another.

Perhaps you see my point. otoh, perhaps not. At any rate, thanks for the candor at long last.

[cuke]

228. Once again, you avoid discussing

"I understand cali's point, but I disagree. "

Saying you disagree is NOT participating in a discussion. It's merely stating an opinion; it's not a discussion of the issue or an explanation of WHY you disagree.

"To what degree should I rejoice that Senator X will vote for stem cell research if the price of that vote is the renewal of NCLB with only cosmetic changes? (please note that this is a hypothetical example only)"

Because the example you use is not realistic, or maybe more accurately, it's not representative. Instead, it's a worst case scenario

As I pointed out, there are many means of persuasion. Getting conservative dems' legislation is NOT the only way to persuade a conservative dem to vote for progressive legislation. If the example you gave were to come true, I would join you in objection to such a compromise. However, it is foolish to refuse all compromise on principle merely because of a worst case scenario that is not representative of how things usually work.

IOW, if the question is "How far should we compromise to keep some (ex centrists, conservatives, boogeymen, etc) members inside the Big Tent?" then I suspect we would be agreeing more often than we are now. However, that is not the question you ask in your OP. Of course, you are free to ask it. I'm not suggesting you can't clarify or embellish as the discussion progresses. I'm just pointing out that it is a facet I haven't commented on yet as it hadnt been mentioned until now.

Basically, I don't like it when we compromise away action on important issues, such as NCLB. We should evaluate each and every transaction (as best as we can do) and object to those bargains which are not in our or the people's best interests. But I don't think we should limit our big tent to those who make the best deals and I don't think we should be looking to throw people out based on any one belief of theirs (with the possible exception of people who don't think we should have a big tent)

And yes, I see your point. You don't like what the democrats have been doing. You don't like the direction they're going in. It's understandable.

You're a progressive, and to your credit, you care about the issues. Unfortunately, while they do support some progressive ideas, the democratic party is not a progressive one.

[ulysses]

232. odd idea of a discussion that you have.

Saying you disagree is NOT participating in a discussion.

Sure it is. Cali made a point, I read, understood and disagree with it, and offered what I thought was a fairly clear explanation concerning my own point of view. I'll try again, though: if you have an intersest in voting for, say, stem cell research, then you do so because you believe it is the right thing to do for the people for whom you, ostensibly, work. If you have a *self interest* in voting for same, then you do so because you can get votes for your own legislation with which, if you are a conservative, I am likely to disagree. So yes, it matters.

Is that any better? I'm trying. I really am.

the democratic party is not a progressive one.

No shit. I had no idea.

[cuke]

274. I'll give you credit for trying, but I still don't see

how that makes your point relevant. No matter what kind of interest it is, it is irrelevant. What counts is how they vote, and conservative dems do vote for progressive legislation. Getting rid of them would mean fewer votes for progressive legislation.

And voting for conservative dems legislation is not the only way to get one to vote for progressive legislation. You are holding tight to the most extreme form of compromise. Basically, you are engaging in a form of reductio ad absurdum.

[ulysses]

279. "What counts is how they vote"

In part, sure, but, much as I've been accused of such, I'm not a "single-issue voter". I pointed out to another DUer this morning that I probably have 15-20 "biggest" issues that keep me awake at night. What they get in return matters.

You are holding tight to the most extreme form of compromise.

And I suspect the most common. Hell, put them on Air Force One, but I doubt that's going to move any deep changes to NAFTA or NCLB.

[cuke]

293. I really can't figure out if your argument is one of degree of or kind

Sometimes it sounds as if you are against compromise on principle, while at other times your opposition seems based on degree. For the former, one must compromise in order to achieve anything in the political system devised by our Founders. That is a feature of our form of govt, and not a bug. As to the latter, anything can be done to an extreme, even health care. After all, who is going to pay for my Brazilian wax?

[ulysses]

303. degree.

Or both, really. I don't oppose compromise on principle. I don't have to like it, but I understand the necessity.

However, the party of late has become very good at a version of compromise that gets nothing in return. For compromise to be palatable, I have to believe that the elected folks are pushing for what's right, even if they don't always get it. That belief has been damaged since 1996 for me, so I'm inclined to distrust "compromise" pushed by my party for the nonce. I need to see them just plain fucking stand up and win a few in order to regain my faith.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

307. WELL SAID ... BRAVO

I could not have said it better.

[cuke]

308. Some of us consider the 22million new jobs, decreased poverty rates

increased rates of insured children, record surpluses, etc as something more than getting "nothing in return"

[ulysses]

310. and some of us see a lot of dead-end jobs out of those 22 mil,

a lot of downsizing and the benefits of a roaring economy coupled to the dotcom bubble.

BC wasn't Satan, but he wasn't Christ-Come-Again either.

[cuke]

313. The benefits of the Clinton administration are inarguable

which explains the poor job you did of refuting them. While many of those jobs were indeed low paying service jobs, the bottom line is poverty decreased and as a whole, statistics relating to standard of living shows that ALL boats (as a whole) were raised, including record numbers of poor people. No, BC was the 2nd Coming, but he has a very good record behind him.

This record was made possible by the type of compromise you abhor.

[ulysses]

316. ok, and what happened to that record?

By late 2001, we had a nice little recession (jobs? what jobs?) just in time for the five-year deadline on welfare benefits to kick in. To say nothing of the NAFTA plant closings - but boy, what a relief that all the boats were raised while Bill was in office!

[cuke]

323. weak

1) The recession was indeed a weak one.

2) The 5yr deadline only applied to 80% of all welfare recipients. Coincidentally, 80% of all welfare recipients recieve less than 5yrs of benefits over the course of their lifetime.

3) Plant closings were more the result of many factors. You are exagerrating the effects of NAFTA. Jobs in the midwest did not disappear because of NAFTA alone.

4) Clinton, and most dems, supported extending unemployment benefits during the recession of 2001.

And yes, it was a relief for millions of americans that found jobs, for millions of children who had insurance, and for millions of families that were buying their 1st home, and we can thank Clinton for that.

[ulysses]

324. the recession was weak...

Wow, I'm glad to hear that. :crazy:

The 5yr deadline only applied to 80% of all welfare recipients. Coincidentally, 80% of all welfare recipients recieve less than 5yrs of benefits over the course of their lifetime.

I've asked this repeatedly since I've been on DU and haven't ever gotten much of an answer. Do you have any idea what the poverty statistics look like starting around that time period? Oh, but wait, it was a weak recession so no one got hurt, certainly not anyone having to make the transition from welfare. All good. Whew.

Plant closings were more the result of many factors. You are exagerrating the effects of NAFTA. Jobs in the midwest did not disappear because of NAFTA alone.

What other factors were in play? I do so hate to be misinformed, but it's so easy to blame things on NAFTA when plants that close here reopen in Mexico or the Phillipines. Help a poor soul out here.

Clinton, and most dems, supported extending unemployment benefits during the recession of 2001.

I think there's an old saying that has something to do with closing the gate after the horses have already escaped...

[cuke]

327. Straw man

No one has claimed that everyone benefited. You are tilting at windmills.

As far as other factors, the health care costs of manufacturers (particularly in the auto industry), the development of competitors overseas in industries like steel, as well as many other factors. And if they didn't open in Mexico, they would have opened somewhere else. There is nothing illegal about opening a plant overseas, and the benefits of doing so were there with or without NAFTA. NAFTA'a effect on outsourcing has been marginal at most, which explains why most of the jobs are NOT going to Mexico.

And wrt unemployment benefits, not at all. Pithy sayings are cute, but it has nothing to do with reality. The Clinton's and the dem party as a whole have a long record of strong support for the social safety net. Not a perfect record, but a strong one nonetheless. You can only make a case otherwise by ignoring the long list of things that were done while emphasizing one or two times when they failed to do the right thing.

The bottom line is that even after the recession, the american people were still enjoying the benefits of the strong economy that Clinton built, at least until * destroyed that.

[ulysses]

328. "No one has claimed that everyone benefited."

Did you not claim previously that all boats were raised? Perhaps you'd like to clarify. We'll go slowly.

[ulysses]

329. lest I be accused again of running away,

I'm going to bed shortly. Back with you later.

[cuke]

330. Why yes

I said that "as a group" all boats were raised meaning that people in all income groups, including the poor, saw their standard of living improve. You do know what "as a group" means. If not, I'll explain. Slowly

[ulysses]

341. so...the poor "as a group" saw their boats raised, just not all of them.

Split those hairs! :D

Question: What portion is required to make a "group" in your definition?

edit - assuming you're on tonight, this might be a conversation over several days, as I have more work to do tonight and likely won't be back on until tomorrow, if then.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

312. Are You Talking about this Century?

The Democratic majority in the 21st Century hasn't done any of that.

[cuke]

318. The "What have you done for me lately" arguments is one I find unpersuasive

For one thing, we were discussing Clinton's record, so I don't think it was inappropriate for me to discuss Clinton's record.

For the other, the "Democratic majority in the 21st century" is but a few months old, is not a veto-proof 60 votes, and includes Lieberman.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

320. Exactly

The Democratic majority in the 21st Century hasn't done any of that.

[cuke]

321. Swinging at phantoms?

No one said it did. We both were pretty clear it was Clinton.

[ulysses]

191. dupe

[Solon]

55. The SCHIP legislation was mostly bi-partisan, many in both parties supported it...

Its true that it most likely would never have gotten to the floor without a Democratic majority, but the fact of the matter is that it was a bill about children, which gives those who support it a bargaining chip against those who oppose it, whether they be Blue Dogs or Repukes. Most politicians are interested in ONE thing, and one thing only, keeping their jobs, for many who ended up supporting this bill, it had nothing to do with whether the bill was progressive or not, and everything to do with reelection chances. They did not want to give primary challengers or general election opposition a campaign windfall on a silver platter.

The same could be said for the minimum wage increase, but this is far from universal, its true that conservative dems, particularly of the Blue Dog variety will vote with more liberal dems when persuaded to, but this only applies when the bill itself is popular enough to impunge on their own reelection chances if they vote against it. Not all progressive bills are equally as popular, and its just as likely that Blue Dogs and their allies will vote with Republicans nearly as often as they vote with Democrats.

[cuke]

139. Yes, but

as your own response points out, electing conservative dems that can be pressured to vote for progressive is a lot better than electing conservative repukes who can't

That's why the big tent works.

[Solon]

291. Not all Repukes are conservatives, many are moderates as well...

In fact, in many cases, the biggest difference between a Moderate Dem or a Moderate Repuke is which party they are affiliated with. You comparison would only be valid if you count the Moderate Repukes not the Conservative Repukes. I'm sure there are as many "crossover" votes going the other way as well, though maybe not as often, simply because the Republicans are damned near fanatical over party discipline.

[cuke]

311. True, but it's easier to influence a moderate if they are a member of the Dem party

That's the idea behind the Big Tent. Moderates are moderate, and that being the case, it's better for them to be included in our Big Tent because then we would be more likely to infulence them. Unike the other party, which is more likely to reject them for any deviation.

If party affiliation were meaningless, then there would be no need for this discussion at all. A moderate is a moderate, and changing one's party affiliation doesn't change the person. However, being a member of the Dem party makes it easier for us to have an influence on how that person votes while serving in Congress.

[H2O Man]

208. Well said.

I agree.

[Toots]

30. Thank Gawd for good ol' Zell Miller then.....

I want people that actually believe in Democratic principles and not just in name only Democrats like you seem to prefer..

[cali]

32. anothe sigh. no i'm not suggesting supporting

the zell millers and joe liebermans who not only act against dem interests but speak out against them. I understand that you don't grasp the concept that increased majorites in the Congress empower the progressives and liberals, even though it's a very basic concept.

Let me ask you something: Do you support Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Laughing Very Hard

Of course you are asking us to vote for the Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans who you consider to be 'centrist'.

Here's a question for you: Do they not help Democrats ........what did you call it.......... facilitate the 'concept of increased majorities in the Congress'?

[Ravy]

48. So you are supporting Mitch McConnell for majority leader.

How progressive of you!!!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Mitch McConnell?

Is he related to Joe Lieberman?

Why is it the apologist always think it has to be this or that when the world is full of possibilities?

[Fovea]

53. I was thinking I'd prefer someone the blue dogs

could get behind, like James Inhofe.

[bvar22]

163. Thanks !

Needed the laugh.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[ulysses]

51. Zell was quite happily supported by several conservative DUers

until he came out *electorally* against the party - previous to that, it didn't matter what his actual stances were. That's where this kind of mindset comes from.

[cali]

61. I never saw that

and I can't imagine why. And I bet it was a handful of DUers out of thousands. That hardly proves anything. But you do realize, I trust, that Jim Webb is a centrist and so are others that DUers highly esteem at any given moment. Fuck, Robert Byrd is quite conservative in many ways and Murtha is too, and they're heroes to many DUers who consider themselves lefter than thou. Most amusing really.

[ulysses]

69. you might not have been here then.

I'm saying that it's indicative of a mindset, not that hordes of DUers supported the man. It was enough to notice.

Meantime, you'll notice that I've never called for the ouster of Webb, Murtha or any of the rest of them. The DLC started this little rift, not the left.

[cuke]

187. And you are happy to continue it

[ulysses]

192. in fact, yes.

I haven't heard the warbling strains of Harold Ford singing "Kum Ba Yah" wafting from the offices of the DLC yet, so sure.

[cuke]

197. So it's wrong to do it, but you'll do it anyway

because "They started it"

[ulysses]

199. I won't deny anyone self-defense.

:shrug:

[cuke]

201. I'm surprised to see you siding with the DLC

but politics does make strange bedfellows

[ulysses]

204. see, to my mind, if you start the fight, you don't get to claim

"self-defense" if your target comes back and tries to clean your clock. Maybe that's just me, though. :D

[cuke]

214. And in my mind, if someone starts a fight with you

you take the fight to them, and don't whine about it on the internet.

And the purists called for purges of the party long before the DLC did. I guess you forgot about the riots at the Dem presidential convention

[ulysses]

222. I'll just point out that you don't know what I do online and off.

:)

I guess you forgot about the riots at the Dem presidential convention

I'll see your 1968 and raise you 1948 and Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats.

[cuke]

237. You're right about that

I don't know. The idea just seems odd to me that we can build the party by throwing people out. If we want a more progressive party, the way to do that is to elect more progressive dems.

[ulysses]

277. fair enough, but it seems an equally odd idea to me

that we can build the party by trying to silence parts of it while demanding their continued loyalty.

At the base of it, it seems to me, we need to decide as a party what we're about.

[cuke]

295. Maybe that's where we differ

I don't hear any silence. Maybe it's the neighborhood.

[ulysses]

304. I did say "trying to".

:D

[cuke]

319. True

but I find people who do the same things over and over while hoping for a different result rather amusing. They don't bother me at all

[ulysses]

322. they don't bother me either

unless they're trying to stuff a rag in my mouth. Then they bother me.

[cali]

56. fuck the kind of twisting of words you're engaging in. it's truly

despicable. I consider zell miller to be way on the right and Lieberman to be a war nut who's far right stance on foreign policy completely overshadows his support for traditional liberal positions on such things as choice. I do not consider either of them to be centrists. And I certainly never said or hinted that I did. You pulled that out of your own dark and odiferous cavity. congratulations.

To answer your question: No. First off, Lieberman is not a democrat and Zell Miller isn't in the Senate. Beyond that, I'm talking about how people like Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Udall will help move the Senate closer to achieving progressive legislation. Clue for the clueless: 49 democrats and 2 independants voting to organize with the democrats is what is known as a razor thin majority, and yes as everyone with a brain knows, that has an impact on what they can do.

Full disclosure: I have mixed feelings about Lieberman voting to organize with the dems. Half the time I want the dems to tell him to go fuck himself.. and then I think about Barbara Boxer having to hand the gavel back to Inhofe, or Arlen Specter taking the gavel from Pat Leahy, or Biden losing his chairmanship. So yeah, I'm conflicted on that one. And that's one reason why I do think voting more dem senators in next year is vital.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. And Yet Your Strategy Depends on More Liebermans

Got it.

[Quixote1818]

89. No it doesn't

Lieberman is in the minority. He is with the 30% who love Bush.

[Lurking Dem]

93. Where do you get these strawmen?

[Quixote1818]

87. You are just trying to pick a fight and argue about any tiny little thing

Even when you are in agreement with the other person you try to create division. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

35. And we can call it "The American Party" and then we can make any other parties

illegal and then we can just exclude the "extremists" and then we'll can have one party rule that represents "real Americans" and then we can finally get on with the business of establishing a pax Americana.

One World.
One Government.
Under corporate management.
With work and profits for all.

























We could just call it "the fourth Reich"...
:think:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. I want a big tent too. However...

I am a gay man, a non-believer and a pacifist. Any "big tent" that refuses to let me inside except on election is a lying fraud.

[UTUSN]

45. Cali, whoever you are, your posts speak for me. Can't think of one I disagree with!1

And the posters replying "BARF" to the o.p. are, if not the same individuals, of their persuasion-- the same who said the same thing in 2000, who said there is "no difference," who voted for NADIR, who withhold their votes unless the nominee is "pure," who help Rethugs at every turn---AND, I will say, who soon turn to cusswords in their "arguments."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. Uhmmm........You Must Have Missed the Results that Clearly Show

...........who got more votes.

[cali]

63. Bwahahaha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

64. Your Contempt for the Majority of Voters is Noted.

Your Contempt for the Majority of Voters is Noted.

[cali]

66. you're a bit confused

My contempt was not directed at the voters.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. My Turn

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Quixote1818]

97. Cali is right. You are a bit confused

But the really funny part is that you don't even know why. You may want to go back up a few lines and try to figure out why she was laughing because you clearly missed it.

[cali]

108. thanks.

yep, it's the same mentality as gore=bush. disappointing to think they can't learn from history.

[KingFlorez]

65. I agree

One of the reasons Republicans lost control is because they essentially pushed moderates out of the party in favor of the far right and became devoid of any objectivity. This country is centrist, the only way that we can have a viable party is if we have a combination both progressives and moderates.

[cali]

68. Yeah, but look what happens when

you suggest that the best way to get to progressive legislation is to maintain a big tent that includes moderates. I've been called an enabler, an apologist, and a collaborator. And that's just for starters. I don't consider any of the people who posted that shit in this thread anything but folks who are the mirror image of the extremism on the other side. They're positions are purportedly different, but the mindset is exactly the same. It's perfect george bush "you're either with us or against us" crap. Amazing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Funny to Hear Someone Who Supports a "Democratic Socialist" Lecturing DUers

......on the need for centrists.

[cali]

74. Bernie would tell you the same thing

I've heard him say something very close to what I'm saying in many a town meeting. And just so you know, Bernie was supported by both the Vermont Democratic party and the National Dem party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. Because He was a "Centrist"?

Laughing so hard it hurts.

[cali]

85. no. because bernie

understands that you have to work with all kinds in order to advance your agenda. he's well known for doing that in the House. And lousy as he thinks things are in Congress, he's been clear that he think a democratic majority is vital.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Right...........because he's a Democratic Centrist

LOL...............NOT. He's neither.

[cali]

92. Are you

ok? because you're not making any sense, and you seem a bit manic. Just asking.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. See Post 79

Sanders is neither a "centrist" nor a Democrat so having you lecture DUer's on the need for Democratic centrists is amusing.

But alas, I have no doubt your inability to counter with a thoughtful, deliberative argument in response is a reflection on your intellect and not mine.

[cali]

99. If you're capable of it, I suggest you read the

OP again. It's not an impassioned plea for anything but a diverse party and a stronger majority in Congress. I'm saying that self-identified centrists who support such things as expanding health care to all Americans, retaining social security as it now is, strengthening the social service network and restoring a sane foreign policy, should not be tossed aside because they're not pure enough. Jeanne Shaheen fits that bill. So does Howard Dean and afaik, Mark Warner.

Why this is so difficult for you to understand? Quite honestly, I really do feel you have something going on that has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Pandering to the Center

Notice how your response has nothing to do with my point: Sanders is neither a "centrist" nor a Democrat so having you lecture DUer's on the need for Democratic centrists is amusing.

Anyone who thinks we are going to be a 'diverse and stronger' majority by pandering to the middle is as vanilla as they come. Such a strategy will result in us neither being diverse nor strong.

But heh.........you keep coming to terms with your 'feelings'. I give you points for trying to stay on topic.

[cali]

110. are you ok?

because your posts are getting more and more bizarre. Maybe you should consider taking a little break. Have a cup of herb tea or something.

To your point: I never said Sanders was a centrist. That's all in your head. I said Sanders understands the need to work with centrists and even conservatives. I said Sanders much prefers a dem majority to a repuke majority. I never suggested pandering to the middle. That too seems to come from little voices in your head. I suggested that purity of any kind, is a bad approach.

Again, take a little break, have a cup of tea and try and shed yourself of your delusions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. There You Go Again

You keep asking if I'm well because I'm sure that makes you 'think' you are. Feel better? Indeed.

Sanders is not a Democrat. Neither is Lieberman. Characterizing these 'pure', principled 'ideologues' as being part of the Democratic majority despite their denouncement of our party suggests you support a 'bad approach' .......not me.

You keep working with the middle while characterizing these outsiders as Democrats when they are not.

I'll leave you to your personal sneers since you seem to be so much better at it than me.

[mitchtv]

193. congratulations Cali

you have the patience of a saint

[Tom Joad]

76. people who support war and occupation in the Middle East are not "centrists" either

people who support corporate trade policies are not centrists.
they are extremists. The consequences of their actions are extreme. and quite deadly for many people.
so i share your disgust.

[Solon]

79. A party has to have a consistant platform, if it becomes too large a big tent...

that platform, those values, become so watered down as to become useless. How do you prevent that?

[cali]

86. That's an important question

I think you elect as many people that support the platform as possible- in other words, elect as many progressives as you can, but don't do what the poster upthread said: he/she said they'd rather see Gilmore as Senator than Mark Warner, because Warner is a centrist. I believe that increased majorities empower the liberals and progressives. And we'll find out soon enough if I'm right. The dems will have those increased majorities in little over a year.

[Solon]

98. I think you are asking for the impossible...

The problem is that you are assuming all Democrats elected next year will be liberal in some fashion or another. That may be true in some cases, but its just as likely that almost all the ones deposing Republicans next year will be conservative Dems of one sort or another. In a case like that, with exceptions like SCHIP expansion, most progressive or liberal bills will fall flat on their face, or become so watered down by comprimises within the party as to become unenforcable or impractical. In our political system, we don't have political parties, we have coalitions attached to two names. The fact is that this means that things such as party discipline, or having consistant party platforms, is almost impossible to maintain, even with a electoral majority, even a supermajority.

I expect nothing earth shattering after 2008, even if we have a Democratic supermajority in Congress and a Democratic president, reforms will come at a rate of 2 steps backward for every step forward, and that's being generous. I don't expect us to have another FDR and a New Deal hammered through in the next coming decade. Hell, I would be surprised if any significant progress is made to health care reform, GBLT rights, etc.

[cali]

103. no. I'm assuming that if they aren't liberal, they'll be persuadable

either by arm twisting or promises of a fund raising help or a better office or a committee assignment. I agree with you that we won't see groundbreaking progressive legislature, but we could see important legislation that rights some of the wrongs done over the last decade or so; restoration of habeas, expanded health care coverage and access, ditching don't ask, don't tell. taxes raised on the wealthy, revamping or ditching of NCLB, movement on climate change and energy, a renewed dedication to the environment and public lands.

More people will have a seat at the table if the dems have increased majorities: GBLT folks, environmentalist, those advocting economic justice, etc. That's something that counts to me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. Yessum Master

Got it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. That About Says It All

You write: ' I agree with you that we won't see groundbreaking progressive legislature.......

[Solon]

114. Seems like you ignored my point about party discipline...

in that it is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. If we wanted to, for example, get rid of the atrocious bankruptcy reform that was passed relatively recently, most Blue Dogs and DLC dems couldn't be persuaded through fund raising if they get most of their money from banking and credit card interests. The Dems also can't threaten too hard on these guys, they could always switch parties, and keep their committee assignments, after all.

As far as whether GBLT folks and other will have a seat at the table, that's simply laughable, they are needed for elections, not legislation, didn't we learn anything from years past?

[cali]

128. i think you're way off base

in case you didn't notice the dems fought to pass ENDA. I'm sure you'll scoff at that, but others think it is important, and if we have more dems, then more is possible.

You're fight about other things though: Bankruptcy legislation passed in 2006 is hideous and a lot of dems- way too many voted for it- but, no rep or senator receives most of his or her money from the financial services industry. In fact, that money is no more than a small percentage of any individual rep's war chest. Dems can't threaten too hard with a slim majority. that changes with a solid majority- and perhaps new leadership.

[Solon]

134. It completely depends on what the solid majority is composed of...

If most are Blue Dog Dems, we are in practically the same boat we are in now, with, how shall we say, a hostile majority. As far a GBL people, well the T's have been kicked off the bill, so I guess some people matter more than others. I just don't have the fucking tolerance for assholes more interested in keeping their jobs than doing the right thing.

As far as whether many of those Dems get money from financial services, not directly, but a LOT of money does go to these reps to ensure that those industries are secure. Most of it funneled indirectly, obviously.

[cali]

143. I believe politics is never pretty. I believe the perfect is the enemy

of the good. I belive in the art of the possible, of getting what you can now, and going back to get the rest later. I understand , I think, where you're coming from, but on ENDA, I hear what Barney Frank is saying, same thing on SCHIP. 100 percenters or nothing, invariably end up with nothing. And ENDA even without T, is better than no ENDA as all. So, call me a sellout or appeaser or whatever, but I want to see progress.

And sure a lot of money is spent by different industries, and it surely is a corrupting factor. No disagreement there.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Why Does This Not Surprise Me

Why Does This Not Surprise Me

Keep demanding mediocrity while the rest of us are driving the train.

[Solon]

150. I won't call you an appeaser, just someone who lacks convictions...

What the fuck type of person are you to write off an entire segment of the population such as transexuals so easily? This is why I get so pissed off at people like you, you don't fucking CARE about anyone but your chosen candidates or pet issues. To you, the people whose lives are affected, negatively, by policies such as this are nothing.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

158. you know it's funny you mention this: I had dinner with

a transgender friend of mine last week, and I asked Mary about it. She's very into politics (though largely on a local level) and very bright, and she said that personally she felt hurt and angry but practically she felt it was the right thing to do.

You know, I'm not going to sink to your level here. It's tempting, but I do it too often, and yeah, I could slam you: I'm damn good at hitting back.

Of course I care about people. It's why I spent part of Thanksgiving helping put on a community dinner for those in need. What did you do recently. And the week before that I helped with our annual Nicaraguan sister town benefit. So you're accusing me of crap that's so far from the truth, why bother hitting back.

I've worked for years on issues relating to the GBLT community. It's something that's very dear to me, and close to my heart.

I'll tell you one thing: I'm glad as all get out that I'm not like you. It's a huge relief not to be someone who tells other people that they don't give a fuck about others.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

162. Ah........yes.......why debate the issue when you can debase someone?

Your post sounds a little too much like 'some of my best friends are black' and ending slavery is 'something very dear to me' but I can't support emancipation at this time because gosh.... to do so isn't quite 'right' ...at this time. But heh....I'm with you brother.

And then just for good measure, s/he adds 'I'll tell you one thing: I'm glad as all get out that I'm not like you.'

What a surprise.

[cali]

165. again,

are you OK? Because your posts and behavior are so off kilter, I can't imagine that you are. you seem completely obsessed with me, and that's not too healthy. Usually I'm cautious about throwing around words like stalkier, but you're earning that label.

I'm sorry you're so troubled.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

167. Off Topic Again

Can't you stick to the issue, the post or the topic without resorting to such ridiculous arrogant presumptions that I'm 'obsessed' with you or that I'm not 'well'? Good grief.


I guess my post touched a sensitive nerve with you that left you numb to intellectual discourse.










.

[Solon]

168. Sometimes my temper gets the better of me...

especially when the issue in question isn't political, but personal. Of course, this became clear during the past 1 and a half months in GD/P. I just have a visceral hatred against the casual dismissal of people and their concerns, especially in regards to discrimination and bigotry. On a more serious level, you must understand that you live in the closest thing to a liberal utopia in the entire country, the rest of us live in a more...intolerant, culture. As such you simply don't know how damaging it can be to not only the psyche but the livelihood of transexuals and others who live in most other areas of the country.

[cali]

174. yeah, I know. me too. message boards are kind of a spur for

losing your temper.

I do try and remember that I live in a place that's not the norm and that, for example, no one thought twice about there being a transgender person at Thanksgiving dinner or several gay and lesbian folks. And I guess this sums it up: An old French Canadian farmer chatting happily with a transgender librarian, and no one thinking about anything but having an interesting conversation about keeping chickens. I feel lucky. I wish everyone could have this kind of affirmation of liberalism. Of course it's not perfect here, and we certainly have a ways to go, but you're right, if you live here, it's all too easy to forget other people live in a radically different environment.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

179. Easy to Forget Indeed

Keep telling yourself that your transgendered librarian has ......... forgotten.

[Solon]

196. Shit, if there was a transgender librarian in my county library, it would hit the front page news...

for the Suburban Journals at least. They would most likely lose their job and get death threats, and vandalization of their houses, etc. The fact is that you guys have an entire state, we of liberal inclinations elsewhere don't, we have islands of tolerance in seas of intolerance. That's not going to change anytime soon. It wears on the soul, living in a culture that doesn't value your friends, family, or your own values. To be honest, I HATE American culture, our backwardness, our provincial way of looking at things, extreme religiousity, and the fact these are considered virtues.

[cali]

216. I don't like the meta Amercian culture either

And I do know that living in it is a nightmare and does grate on your psyche. I live in this tiny village, but it's filled with quirky people who get along, including gay and lesbian folks and artists and writers, (and a bizarre number of expat brits). I think people gravitate here because of it.

I'll try and remember that most people don't live where I do.

[Solon]

261. You probably even like some of your candidates...

that you voted for, for county seats, city/village government, all the way up to Federal level. I don't, I tolerate some(those I vote for, Democrats), and despise other(the Repukes). Hell, at this point in time, the only reason I vote at all is to prevent Republicans from getting elected into office, at least Democrats do less damage, overall.

[bvar22]

170. LOL!

*Some of my best friends are transgendered

*I could hurt you, but I won't...because I'm better than that!

:rofl:

[cali]

178. you know what's sad?

Solon and I are actually trying to communicate here and work through shit. And people like you can't even recognize that, let alone respect it. You just want to drop turds. And why is it surprising that I should know transgender folks? I actually know quite a few, though none of my best friends are transgender: My best and closest friend in the entire world is gay however. Want to make something of it?

[U4ikLefty]

206. I think you are reflecting.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. CITATION

You write: 'he/she said they'd rather see Gilmore as Senator than Mark Warner, because Warner is a centrist.'

Nonsense. Find the quote that exists anywhere other than in your mind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. See post One

Everyone wants Mark Warner over Jim Gilmore and Tom Udall over Heather Wilson, but you don't do that by trying to be like your opponent.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. Increased Majority

You write: 'I believe that increased majorities empower the liberals and progressives. And we'll find out soon enough if I'm right."

Why wait. The last election gave Democrats a majority (presumably increased from a minority position) and as you have pointed out, it hasn't given us one piece of progressive legislation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Poor Thing

Waiting for a response to my response.

Still waiting for you to find any quote on this board where anyone said 'he/she said they'd rather see Gilmore as Senator than Mark Warner, because Warner is a centrist'.

[cali]

94. I just reread my OP

It's rather a benign piece, and clearly states that progressive legislation is the goal. Interesting the rage and derision it elicited. Says something, though I'd rather not go there.

[Quixote1818]

101. The rage is only coming from a couple of ideologies who missed the whole point of what you said

Out of 110,000 DUers they are a blip on the radar screen but they sure can make a lot of noise.

[Cary]

166. I'll go there.

A pox on ideological radicals of any and all stripes.

Ideological radicals somehow get wrapped up in themselves and their ideology and they forget that it's about people--not ideology. It's not about imposing your own version of ideological purity. It's about creating an environment where as many people as possible can are enabled to reach their own potential.

[tomp]

334. well, there you have it, cali is right yet again...

...it's been decided...by cali.

[Odin2005]

100. I get ticked off when the purists think all, or even most, moderates are Zell Miller clones

My mother is a "Centrist" that adores Bill and Hillary. She's been a loyal Democrat all her life and she'll knock you silly if you dare to call her a DINO.

As far as I'm concerned the ideological purists, like most people with utopian tendencies, are closet totalitarians who would like to purge, "liquidate," or "re-educate" anyone who disagrees with them. As an ex-Marxist I can definitely tell by some of the Marxist-sounding language of some of the purist posters where those totalitarian tendencies come from.

[ulysses]

104. mind venturing a definition of "ideological purist"?

[cali]

111. how about an illustration?

post 37 in this thread, and the posts by that same author leading up to it. The poster states that he'd rather see Jim Glimore elected as Senator from VA than Mark Warner, due to Warner being a moderate.

[ulysses]

113. there are plenty here who would rather see HRC win

than DK, because DK is a progressive. Are they ideological purists?

[cali]

119. both DK and HC are democrats

that's a really different scenario. I don't think the question applies at all.

[ulysses]

121. but if it's solely about party affiliation, why don't they happily support Dennis?

:shrug:

[cali]

126. huh? first of all, it's not just about party affilliation

it's about the enormous mind boggling damage that 12 years of repuke control of Congress have created. So if you're suggesting that party affiliation is nothing but a label, we don't agree at all.

People are different. They have different gut reactions to people, they're attracted to different people. People choose to support candidates for all kinds of reasons, both good and bad. Perhaps they see Clinton as the most capable and the most able to deal with the intricacies of governing effectively, perhaps they don't believe Dennis could get his agenda passed and that he'd be smashed into pieces by the powers that be in D.C. I don't know. As I said, people are attracted to different people for varying reasons.

[ulysses]

127. I say party affiliation because you mentioned that both

DK and HRC are Dems. Maybe it's more than a label, but when you consider that it spans the chasm from Zell Miller to Bernie Sanders, I don't know how.

[cali]

130. what?? bernie's not a dem.

and Zell Miller is now irrelevant. he's not in Congress. It's fair to say that it spans the differences between Feingold and Ben Nelson, but even Ben Nelson votes with the dems far more often than with the repukes, and voted for example, for Habeas Restoration. I'm not sure what you're driving at. I think we're talking at cross purposes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Wow........he votes with the Dems more than the Repukes.

Such high standards.

[ulysses]

136. *thunks own head*

I knew that about Bernie - substitute Feingold, then. And Zell's still a Dem, in the Senate or not.

[Solon]

122. There are a few that said they wouldn't vote for DK if he became nominee...

yet, when moderate or conservative Dems demonstrate party disloyalty, as you would put it, they are given a pass. Why is that?

[cali]

132. I haven't seen anyone say that. Whereas on at least two polls

done, paul routinely outpolls Clinton. Having said that, no one who says they wouldn't vote for Dennis if he was the nominee, should get a pass.

[Solon]

137. There are a few, I can't name names on this board, obviously...

against the rules you know, but then again, some have been TS'ed over past 6 months or so as well.

Also, as far as the poll about Ron Paul, how many do you think would seriously vote for him, or were simply being contrarian for its own sake? Hell, I voted for Ron Paul on that poll, and I hate the fucker, I just wanted to piss some people off.

[cali]

140. yeah, polls on DU are about as unscientific as you can get

so it's hard to know, but there are undoubtedly quite a few people who actually feel that way. And there are scores of people that say they won't vote if Clinton is the nominee.

[Solon]

146. I will vote for her, if she is the nominee, I won't like it...

and I'll bitch loudly and voraciously when she fucks up on shit, which will probably happen on her first day in office. I find her foreign policy to be contradictory, her health care reform is completely impractical, what with being built on some type of invisible bureaucracy, I find her stance on GBLT rights to be watered down to damned near nonexistent, etc. etc.

I could probably write a book on how much I think she is wrong on the issues, but she's still a sight better than any Republican, of course, that's damning with faint praise.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

154. Clinton was created by the Right

Who needs to pull the party to the left when we can settle for the center.

The right has defined the argument by painting Clinton as some radical. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The right created the concept of Clinton.

When does the left get to create a political candidate that reflects our beliefs?

[Solon]

120. Don't expect an answer to that, only leftists are to have party loyalty, moderates who don't...

are considered principled and enlightened.

[Odin2005]

156. Hillary is actually a lot closer to Dennis then she is to the Pukes.

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm


Hillary Clinton




Kucinich








Giuliani




Romney

[ulysses]

238. then why the animosity toward DK from HRC supporters?

They're both Democrats, right?

[cali]

253. you know that's two way street and the street containing animosity

toward Clinton from DK supporters is far more well traveled than the opposite direction.

[ulysses]

272. well yeah, and it's about ideology.

It's about ideas and intent. I'm not going to deny that it goes both ways, even more so in Clinton's direction. I think what comes back is equally about ideas and intent, though.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. More Rubbish That Exists Only In Your Mind

Notice how you are unable to find a single quote where ANYONE said any such thing.

You write: 'The poster states that he'd rather see Jim Glimore elected as Senator from VA than Mark Warner, due to Warner being a moderate."

Nonsense. The poster made no such statement. Quotation please.

[Odin2005]

112. People who think any compromise with people they disagree with is evil.

It's "my way or the highway" and similar thinking. Such thinking leads to totalitarianism in the political sphere because, to quote philosopher Karl Popper, "You can't have a reasonable discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you". The purists would rather metaphorically "shoot" somebody they disagreed with then having a reasonable discussion with them, look at the behavior of Fightthegoodfightnow in this thread, he prefers "shooting" vitriol at Cali instead of having a reasonable discussion with him.

[ulysses]

115. Bill Clinton compromised on NAFTA and welfare reform (or so I'm told).

I consider the effects of those laws to be evil, or as close to "evil" as I believe in anyway. Am I on the verge of totalitarianism?

[cali]

123. Just my opinion, but I don;t think so

you're willing to engage in discussion. I'm not big on the word evil- I rarely use it, but the effects of NAFTA are clearly detrimental to millions. I honestly don't know enough about the impact of Clinton's signing the Welfare reform bill to know. I was against it, but that was my gut reaction to what seemed like penalizing those who are poor. In any case, let me ask you the same question I asked the other poster- or something related: If you lived in VA would you vote for Mark Warner? If you lived in NH would you vote for Jeanne Shaheen?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. See Post One

See post 1.

[ulysses]

133. I don't know.

Probably - living in Georgia, I'm used to it. Hell, I even voted for Zell in 2000 on the same ballot as Nader. :D

[Odin2005]

149. Criticizing what turned out to be bad public public policy isn't ideological puritanism.

Policy wonks got suckered onto the neo-liberal bandwagon and told people things that ended up, in hindsight, to be BS. People though neo-liberalism would be a good means to the good end of prosperity, they turned out to be wrong.

[ulysses]

153. well, that's a relief.

I'm not sure I buy the "suckered" angle, though - I remember plenty of howling on the left about NAFTA before it became law.

[cuke]

200. Clinton's policies created 22million new jobs - a record

Poverty rates decreased. Home ownership increased. All indicators of social disorder (teen pregnancy, abortion rates, divorce rates, drug abuse rates, etc) improved during Clintons administration.

Claims that NAFTA cost us "millions" of jobs have never been backed up with objective evidence and doesn't account for the jobs trade create. Nor do they ever explain how those jobs wouldn't have been lost anyway to even lower cost nations like China, India, etc

[ulysses]

210. so NAFTA and welfare reform were positive laws?

I'd like to get you on record.

[cuke]

215. For the record

Mixed - they both have their good points and their bad points. And if you want me to start listing them, you'll have to put something up yourself. A good start would be some evidence concerning how many jobs were lost (and created) by NAFTA.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

217. In or Outside this Country?

In or Outside this Country?

[ulysses]

223. nah, I'm happy to stand by my assertions.

The evidence is pretty clear. You're welcome to refute it if you'd like.

[ulysses]

225. your unwillingness to address the issue is noted, btw.

:D

[cuke]

300. nah, I'm happy to stand by my assertions too

:-)

[ulysses]

305. fair enough.

[cali]

106. I think you just said it all.

It's a mentality that's so intolerant and so judgemental, I find it hard to relate.

[AtomicKitten]

129. I have always been enamored of the big tent notion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. You know where purity gets you?

Lieberman and Sanders?

[L. Coyote]

157. Talk of "purity" makes me think of the Holocoust. Hiltler sought purity of race.

Not everyone uses the word the same way, but generally it is in opposition to diversity.

Diversity is a huge asset, in my view. And the "big tent" empowers the progressives. If you are a faction in the majority, you have leverage, power, and a real voice in outcomes. Consider how coalitions function is other governments. Sometimes, a small party holds control of who forms the government! Progressives in the Big Tent can do the same, by deciding if they want to be in the minority -- read purist ethic -- or the majority -- read diversity ethic.

[cali]

160. me too.

but i'm mind boggled by the hostility that saying so brought bubbling out. Could be that people were reacting more to me than to the OP. I realize that I'm, well, controversial here. Still, I think a lot of the rage is real, and so is the narrow and judgemental viewpoint that leads to such ideology.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

175. Reacting to You?

LOL...........good grief. Talk about arrogance.

*YOU* aren't anything to anyone on this board other than a poster on a message board. Controversial? Paleezee.

Want to debate the issues? Give it a try.

[cali]

180. yes. reacting to me rather than the OP.

it has nothing to do with arrogance. I know it's true. I'm a favorite topic of conversation at another board where DUers post. I've substantively debated the issues. You aren't capable of doing so. You've done nothing but toss out disjointed posts of a sentence or two. I'm hardly going to bother with someone who can't articulate anything beyond that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

183. Exhibit A

Notice a complete inability to address any issue related your 'big tent'.

You write: ''I'm hardly going to bother with someone who can't articulate anything beyond that."

Right. Got it. LOL.

Me think the man doth protest too much.

[spoony]

184. Considering your 50+ posts in this thread

I don't think now is the best time to whip out the "doth protest too much" line. And, I may be wrong, but I think you even erred in rephrasing it for a male.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

186. Stick to the Thread

Notice a complete inability to address any issue related the 'big tent'.

[L. Coyote]

203. Did I mention, "Don't feed the Trolls" The disruptors here are paid by the hour

:rofl: and you can't bankrupt the RNC single-handedly :rofl:

[cali]

219. no. doh. I forget that sometimes.

:rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

221. Post 189 Not Withstanding

Give it a rest.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll is just childish.

Want to talk about the "Big Tent"?

[L. Coyote]

236. The humor is in response to post 189. D'oh.

:rofl: I'm sure the childish remark is humor too :rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

241. Want to Talk About the Big Tent?

Don't choke on the spike holding it up.

[MasonJar]

176. I totally agree with the original post. Even though I am personally

very liberal, I believe that the democratic party should be welcoming to diverse views, including moderate dems. We need to be the party of all the people, not just the progressives...well, at least all the people who are reasonable in their views and are not GOPers. I see no redeeming qualities in the Pugs.

[pinto]

189. Re: Civility and Respect (from our membership guidelines). Thanks all.

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

[cali]

209. thanks pinto.

I think we all need that reminder.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

213. LOL........Indeed

LOL........Indeed

[Quixote1818]

227. Looks like this thread has been hijacked by several ideologue's

From the Flame Warriors:

Ideologue
The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior..

Link: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm


Good luck! :hi:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

229. *Sigh*

Got it: Anyone who disagrees with you or the original poster is a 'ideologue'. If having principles, standing up for something and renouncing pragmatism as nothing more than political expedience makes someone a 'ideologue' so be it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who is throwing lighter fluid on the board. Flaming indeed.

[Quixote1818]

234. No, your unwillingness to be tolerant of Democrats who may not be in line

with your strict, purist ideology is why you get that label. The funny thing is that Cali and I probably agree with you on policy and mutual detest for the DLC but you refuse to want to allow more moderates in so we can have a broad appeal.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

239. Purist?

Give me a break.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that anyone who agrees with the GOP platform more than the Democratic platform is really nothing more than an elephant in drag.

I'll leave you to argue that Nelson (or any other GOP 'Democratic" apologists) are 'moderate' merely because they are pro-life, anti-gay rights, an NRA or pro-war supporter.

[Quixote1818]

248. I agree 100% that Ben Nelson is a moderate conservative on many issues

but why do you want him out of our party? Wouldn't you rather him canvas with the Democrats and voter for more liberal Democrats in the general election? Nebraska is a very, very conservative state and we should thank our lucky stars that someone that conservative usually votes with the Dems.

So what would you do with Nelson? Would you kick him out of our party? What is your point?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

249. Kick Him Out?

No. I would support a Democrat who embraces Democratic values. Ben Nelson is no such person.

Lucky to have a con in our party? No thanks. I'll leave you to argue we are 'lucky.'

[Quixote1818]

266. Maybe lucky is not the right answer but he is better than most Republicans

and he does vote Democratic on probably more than 50% of the issues.

What is your solution for someone like Nelson? I don't know what you want to happen or why you are so upset with the OP? The debate should not be about who is let into the party but who has the power in the party. We both probably agree that the base should be calling the shots more often but we also need the more moderates around to be devils advocates and give us strong debate so we don't get tunnel vision or fail to think things through. I get the feeling you just want them to go and that would be suicide for the Dem's. We still have to show respect to the more moderate and even conservative dems or we will lose. All we can do is show them respect and hope they stay but if they leave when the base becomes more powerful, then so be it.

The fact is most Americans are not as liberal as we are and we need a big tent to win but I think we can both agree that the base needs to be calling the shots more often.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

270. Suicide Indeed

You ask: 'What is your solution for someone like Nelson?"

Not to elect him. Support more progressive candidates at every step of the way.

We don't 'win' by electing conservative Democratic candidates who support the GOP agenda. Talk about .............'suicide'.

[Quixote1818]

282. I agree with what you just said

however I don't know who ran in Nebraska. If a more progressive doesn't run then what can you do? Ousting a moderate incumbent in a conservative state will be close to impossible. But I do agree 100% about running more progressive Dems. All we can do is try.

However, since we are probably stuck with him then we should continue to welcome him to our party unless you want to risk him becoming a turncoat.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

285. Let Him "Turn"

It won't require any movement.

[Quixote1818]

290. That would be a disaster across the board and you know it

but you clearly just like to argue. I made an attempt to find common ground by your as much of an ideologue as Pat Robertson or Dick Cheney. Good night, I have work to get to.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

294. I Know it?

Thanks for thinking you know what I think.

You don't.

"Common ground"?

Tell me again what makes you think we have anything in common other than our membership in DU?

[cboy4]

226. I loathe Senator Nelson of Nebraska.

That's worse than hate

I think he is a disgusting human being and can think of countless Republics who are more compassionate than that piece of garbage.

FYI.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

235. Thanks for Drawing Attention to Who Nelson Really Is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson

This is who our 'progressive' originator of this board supports.

It's hard to distinguish Nelson from almost anyone else in the GOP.

No thanks.

[Quixote1818]

242. Would you rather people like Nelson vote Republican?

Because if you kick them out then you are kicking out a huge voting block. That is the only point Cali was making yet you keep trying to twist things as though wanting a big tent means we love the DLC. You are simply missing the whole point of the OP. The disagreement shouldn't be about who is let into our party but who has the power in the party. Clearly the base needs to flex it's muscle more but that doesn't mean we keep things so pure that we lose millions of voters in the process. It's good to have diversity in the party because it creates lively debate rather than group think. You have to be open to the possibility that you could be wrong or else we will have a party full of left wing Pat Robertsons. No thanks!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

245. Uhmmm...they did vote GOP

You have to be open to the possibility that just because someone isn't a Republican doesn't mean they are a Democrat.

[cali]

258. Senator Nelson casts one very important vote

He votes to organize with the dems. What does that mean? It means that Boxer chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works instead of Inhofe. It means that Pat Leahy chairs Judiciary intead of Arlen Specter, etc, etc. Would I like to see a liberal Senator from Nebraska? You bet. Would I rather have a repuke than Nelson? No.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

260. Of Course It Does............To You........

........and it also means, by your own acknowledgment, that not one piece of progressive legislation has been passed since Democrats took 'control' of this Senate.

[cali]

265. again. 49 democrats, 49 repukes. 2 independents.

the dems have the slimmest of majorities. they have nominal control, and yes, virginia, they have passed progressive legislation. It's been vetoed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

267. Uhmm........In Another Post You Said They Haven't Enacted "Progressive Legislation"

Now.....you say they have.

Which is it?

[cali]

283. I said they passed SCHIP

and that it was vetoed.

Now I really am done with you. Have that tea. Or something stronger.

[democrank]

233. I`m not sure what I think about all this.

Big tent vs. purists, conservatives vs. liberals, pro-DLC vs. anti-DLC. I`ve supported the idea of a big Democratic Party tent for more than four decades, but lately I`ve begun to wonder if the tent has gotten....well....too big. There are a lot of questions churning around in my head. Is winning everything? Is a compromise with "our friends across the aisle" more important than....say....American jobs, the writ of Habeas corpus, an end to the occupation of Iraq? Why the need for so many back room deals? Is it because the darned "purists" would have thrown a fit over the giveaways in the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretaps? Would the "purists" have insisted on an investigation of the White Phosphorus dropped on Fallujah or called out the signers of the restructured bankruptcy bill? Would the party "purists" go along with what has happened in New Orleans?

Are we going to be about money now? Millions and millions to get "our" candidate elected? Tell the little guy he can`t play because he can`t pay? We used to be the little guy. The grave digger, the laundramat cleaner, the gas pumper, the cab driver. That was before focus groups became more important than principle. It`s all so confusing to me. There`s a little tiny voice inside my head telling me that the Democratic Party would be better off in the long run if it stood for something. Something big. No matter what. Win or lose.

[L. Coyote]

244. Rec # 10, for the great OP.

[cali]

250. thanks coyote

nothing great about the OP, it's actually on the banal side, but some of the comment are pretty interesting.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

254. I just noted your signature

You sign off: "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity"

WOW. The best lack ALL conviction?

I could not disagree more. I'm sure such dispassionate moral relativism has a home someplace.

[H2O Man]

255. The Second Coming

Yeats, WWII.

Context is everything.

[cali]

256. lol.

you're not a fan of poetry, are you. You're not even minimally literate if you can't recognize one of the most famous lines in poetry.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

259. You Support EVERY Famous Line of Poetry?

.........merely because it's 'famous' ?

I'm laughing, but I'll leave you to say I'm not 'literate'.

LOL.

[cali]

269. become literate and then we'll talk

scrap that. I'll be in my grave before you become literate.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

271. More Personal Attacks

Yawn.

[cali]

275. you've personally attacked me repeatedly on this thread

yep, I'm throwing it back at you- and i've ignored many of your nasty little posts.

[H2O Man]

278. I wish that

you would start a Part 2 of this thread. It has a lot of important discussion on it.

Though I would not want to cast anyone out of the discussion, for sake of purity, it would be fascinating if everyone could focus on the important issues, and edit the attempts to insult. Of course, I often fail when it comes to that type of purity myself. But it takes away from the value of this discussion.

[cali]

286. i'm failing horribly at not getting sucked into the tit for tat

and I don't think I'm the person to start part 2 of this discussion. Will Pitt did post a thread that's definitely connected and could serve as part 2.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

284. Move On

Choose the ignore button or stay on topic.

[countingbluecars]

264. This after thanking the moderator

for the reminder about civility and respect?

[cali]

273. I suggest you take a look at the posts written by

my stalker. When you rebuke him, you might have some credibility on this.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

276. Yea........Kind of Funny Isn't It.

Anyone who disagrees with him is a 'stalker'.

Good grief.

Ask him if he wants to talk about his 'big tent'.

Based on his posts, it's a 'pup tent'.

[Warren Stupidity]

246. Four More Wars! Corrupt HealthCo 'Mandates'! Tweedledumism!

Eager to compromise on: are them gays people?
Stumbling over each other to have a more macho posture on the fake GWOT.
Unclear on the concept of separation of church and state.
Clueless, or so it seems, about what might be wrong with blanket warrants, with creating a surveillence state.
A bit of treason, a fraudulent war, complete disregard for existing laws, no reason to impeach the bastards.
Still in thrall to the failed neoliberal ideology of the Reagan Era.
Eager to compete with China for most executions per capita.
Bought and paid for by the Global Corporate Cabal.

Yes I love me that Big Ass Tent.

[cali]

257. yes, I can see you do.

what's the point in talking to someone determined to misrepresent?

[Warren Stupidity]

262. I do not see the misrepresentation of the new/blue/dlc there.

In fact I believe I summed up their political position on the itemized issues correctly. I am not misrepresenting, you are wearing blinders.

[cali]

268. you're throwing out a generalization

Howard Dean is a centrist. He does not believe in throwing GBLT people under the bus. Or war. Or jettisoning democratic values. And he's not the only one. And please don't even try to tell me he's not a centrist.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

281. Since Becoming Head of the Democratic Party

.........he's become as 'vanilla' as you. He once had principles I supported. No more.

How 'funny' you note (unprovoked) that Dean hasn't thrown "GBLT people under the bus" when that is EXACTLY what he has done. Notice how no one said he did, but thanks for pointing out the obvious that he has.

[cali]

288. look, Dean was my guv for 11 years.

It's clear that you know zilch about him. If you supported him, you supported a figment of your imagination. He's no different now than he ever was. and instead of making a classic j'accuse statement, why don't you explain how he's thrown GBLT folks under the bus since becoming DNC chair. Also elaborate on what principle you believe he once had, and has lost. No, quoting his comment about being from the democratic wing of the democratic party doesn't cut it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

292. Uhmmm.........You Were the One who Brought Up Dean Throwing GLBT Under the Bus

Uhmmm.........You Were the One who Brought Up Dean Throwing GLBT Under the Bus. I didn't.

I'm REALLY having fun laughing at your posts.

Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” to proclaim (inaccurately) that the Democratic Party platform calls for “marriage between a man and a woman."

Howard Dean also abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach.

Shortly before leaving office (as Governor), he had some of his Vermont papers sealed for at least the next decade, a timeframe far longer than most outgoing governors use. He claimed he was protecting the privacy of many gay supporters who sent him personal letters about the issue. On the campaign trail, he angrily demanded that Vice President Dick Cheney release his energy committee papers. Many people, including then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, accused Dean of hypocrisy.

But heh............thanks for bringing up Dean's GLBT issues.

[cali]

296. you really don't know what you're talking about

Dean consolidated the GBLT office at the DNC. His papers being sealed for 10 years is SOP in Vermont. And he's always said that he's for civil unions and not gay marriage. nothing new about that. I don't agree with him, but he's been consistent. Should we kick dean out of the party?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

297. Notice How There is NO Disclaimer to Anything I Wrote

................ other than to say I don't know what i'm talking about.

What part SPECIFICALLY about my post is not true?

LOL.

You write: 'Dean consolidated the GBLT office at the DNC'

Is that like the Borg saying ASSIMILIATE OR DIE?

Should we kick Dean out of the party? The only person asking that question is you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

298. True or False? Part I

I wrote: 'Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” to proclaim (inaccurately) that the Democratic Party platform calls for “marriage between a man and a woman."

True or False?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

301. True or False? Part II

I wrote: 'Howard Dean also abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach."

True or False?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

302. True or False? Part III

I wrote" Shortly before leaving office (as Governor), he had some of his Vermont papers sealed for at least the next decade, a timeframe far longer than most outgoing governors use. He claimed he was protecting the privacy of many gay supporters who sent him personal letters about the issue. On the campaign trail, he angrily demanded that Vice President Dick Cheney release his energy committee papers. Many people, including then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, accused Dean of hypocrisy."

True or False?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

306. Just as I Thought

CUT AND RUN

[fightthegoodfightnow]

309. You Ask: 'why don't you explain how he's thrown GBLT folks under the bus"

Uhmm.....I think you were the one who first brought up the image of Dean 'throwing GBLT folks under the bus."

Didn't you?

[Warren Stupidity]

332. In a classic strawman attack of course.

Perhaps Cali can just debate herself. Who would win?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

333. Laughing Very Hard

I suspect s/he would end up hurting him/herself.

Strawman indeed. S/he was the one who brought up Dean's GLBT record to begin with !!!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

331. New Dems. Bluedog Dems. DLC Dems.

Which one of those is Howard Dean? Oh what? None of the above? Non Sequitor Much?

You are the one calling for a big tent. Do the folks holding the positions I enumerated belong in your tent or not? Do the New Dems/Bluedog Dems/DLC Dems, in general, roughly adhere to the positions I enumerated?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

263. At the Risk of Being "Provocative" what Part of that Post do you think is not true?

At the Risk of Being "Provocative" what Part of that Post do you think is not true?

[Beelzebud]

287. Diversity is great. Dilution is political suicide.

[noiretextatique]

315. the republicans you mentioned aren't "purists"...they are corrupt

and they have supported a corrupt regime, so corrupt that a majority of americans (regardless of party affliation), have no confidence in the bush government, or the republicans who supported them. that's why they aren't running again. as long as the democratic party seizes this opportunity as acts on it responsibly, i don't think these purists you speak will bother you as much as they do now.
we are in hell, so staying the course is not an option, nor is moving further into hell, nor is negotiating with the devil.
responsible government is what we desperately need, and i agree that democrats are more likely to deliver that than republicans.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

326. Agreement

Completely.

[Lil Missy]

335. "Purity" and single issue issue people are just..... oh, nevermind

Recommended

[MadHound]

336. So you are happy with corporately compromised candidates?

You're happy that big business sets the agenda, not we the people? You're happy that our next candidate isn't being determined by the vote of the people, but by their warchest and media exposure? Sorry Cali, but I can't hang with you on that one.

It is absolutely essential that we remove corporate influence not only from our party, but from our government. A very large part of the reason that we're in the position we're in right now is due to the corporate takeover of both parties and our government.

If you want real change in this government and this country, then we need to free our party and our government from the corporate ties that bind it, including those in the DLC. The first step would be to pass a law, or an amendment even, mandating publicly financed elections for each and every office, from dog catcher to president.

Until we take care of this overarching problem we will not make real progress on any other problem.

[cali]

338. I said nothing of the kind, but oh well.

thanks for the dishonest twisting of what I wrote. How predictable.

and though I agree with you on this:

If you want real change in this government and this country, then we need to free our party and our government from the corporate ties that bind it, including those in the DLC. The first step would be to pass a law, or an amendment even, mandating publicly financed elections for each and every office, from dog catcher to president.

It's not going to happen between now and 2008. It's important to advocate for publically financed elections, but it's not going to happen until we do get more dems in office in D.C., and empower the liberals there, and the ones that we elect. The repukes sure as shit won't do it.

I'm all for advocating for change right now, but also dealing with reality as well.

[Odin2005]

342. Jesus Christ, WTF is with the demented black and white thinking in this thread?

Just because someone criticizes the purist fools doesn't mean that person is a shill for the corporatists

I'm farther left economically them most Democrats, but that doesn't mean I like the ideological purists that would seem to rather have a "pure" party that only gets 30% of votes and thus have no power over a big tent that can win over the majority of voters.