Is the DLC killing the Democratic Party?

[Hawkeye-X]

Poll question: Is the DLC killing the Democratic Party?

[Disandra]

1. Yes. n/t

[HumanPatriot]

78. We all agree! 55% Howard Dean, 45% Edwards/Kerry

Fortunately Clark's excluded, as the DLC isn't relevant to his RNC membership.

[Indiana Democrat]

2. Ummm...

...The DLC was the CLEAR victor last night. And thank GOD! Now without Dean leading us to a electoral disaster, we've got a chance to win in November.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Has the DLC endorsed Mitch Daniels for Governor?

There is no difference between the DLC and Mitch in terms of what they believe in.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

26. Evan Bayh is a puke!

Bayh called the SWAT team on a group of peaceful demonstrators that came and sat in the conference room waiting to see the Senator, or one of his staffers, to express their concerns about Bush's rush to war.

On that same day, a similar group of demonstrators (from the same peace group that was being beaten and arrested by the SWAT team in Bayh's office) met in Republican Dick Lugar's office with a member of his staff. They had a civil exchange of views in which the group's concerns about Bush's rush to war were fully aired. The meeting ended on a polite note and without incident.

Lugar did not call the SWAT team on his constituents that were petitioning for peace. Bayh called the SWAT team! Who is the real Fascist of this story?

[PVnRT]

84. Now, now, IG

Haven't you yet learned the futility of instructing others about the elected representatives from our state? We are supposed to just shut up and keep supporting them, after all, we're just a bunch of midwestern rubes who don't know better!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. Can someone please explain to be how Dean is "left" again?

Or even a "liberal" on anything except for LGBT issues and abortion? Wasn't Dean a long time member of the DLC? Isn't the only reason the DLC doesn't like Dean is because they think he is unelectable?

How did the most right-wing governor in NE in a generation become the candidate of the left? Is it like opposite year or something?

[Rich Hunt]

21. because it's the nature of his campaign

It's the nature of his campaign that attracts people who are to the left of him.

...and many other things.

[_Jumper_]

57. Good point

Apparently opposition to the principles of the DLC are not exactly based on principle.

Note: Dean was not a member of the DLC but he was politically to the right of the DLC.

[Tinoire]

142. Jiacinto once proudly posted some links proving he was

You remember him right? Very much a DLC fan and one of the first to embrace Dean. That was my first clue that Dean might not be quite the liberal everyone was saying at the time.

[_Jumper_]

221. I didn't see that post

n't

[Tinoire]

152. What Dymaxia said

I have more admiration for the movement than for the man because it IS a people's movement. And if my candidate drops out, I may very well go join the movement because I am of the people. I'm not a Dean fan but I am of the people and BOY DO I EVER want to STICK it to the DLC.

It's the movement, not the man, and Dean just reflects it.


These are the times that try men's souls.

[el_gato]

8. when bush wins again I will send this link to you ID

[Indiana Democrat]

11. Bush isn't going to win.

Not as long as the far left doesn't throw another fit.

[youngred]

14. far left throwing a fit?

maybe if the DNC wasn't running hard away from them and toadying to the republicans the left wouldn't have to "throw a fit"

The republicans learned after 1992, forgetting your base means electoral defeat

[_Jumper_]

59. 1992 proved the DLC right

We can't win if we have an extremist platform. When is the last time a member of the far left was elected president?

[IndianaGreen]

75. Which part of the "extremist" platform are you willing to ditch?

Abortion rights and gay rights? How about human rights and self-determination for Palestinians? How about ending the war by withdrawing the troops from Iraq NOW, rather than at some fuzzy future date? How about PATRIOT Act, or is the Bill of Rights considered "extremist" by the DLC nowadays? How about repealing Taft-Hartley?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

87. everything you said - except abortion and gay rights

I wish we could all just admit it - those are the only two issues that the Democratic party WON'T sell out.

"How about human rights and self-determination for Palestinians? How about ending the war by withdrawing the troops from Iraq NOW, rather than at some fuzzy future date? How about PATRIOT Act, or is the Bill of Rights considered "extremist" by the DLC nowadays? How about repealing Taft-Hartley?"

Yes, all extremist positions, if you believe the corporate media anyway.

[PVnRT]

86. Extremist? You've just bought into the semantics of the right

So, then, protecting the environment, rolling back tax cuts for the rich, seeking a more multinational role in world affairs, getting more health care coverage for the working poor, and so on are extremist positions?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

172. The answer appears to be "Yes."

[youngred]

89. and 1994 proved them wrong

BTW, Clinton ran as a liberal in 92, it was only in 93-94 that he shared their platform.

Since when is food for the poor, peace, economic prosperity, social security, medicare, good international relations and protection of civil liberties an extremist platform?

[wryter2000]

16. Welcome, IndianaDemocrat

:hi:

[Indiana Democrat]

37. Thank you.

:)

But I've been around for a while...Just don't get a chance to post a bunch.

[el_gato]

22. bush will "win" again I promise you

the whole thing is rigged

that's why I don't waste my time in GD2004

[Indiana Democrat]

32. Why even try then?

Why does this place exist?

You know what I don't like the most about conspiracy theories??

They are ready-made excuses for failure.

[el_gato]

45. LOL! understading how things work is the first step

to changing them

[Rich Hunt]

23. how many times do I have to say it?

The 'far left' in this country is just plain 'liberal' in some other countries.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

72. far left, my ass!

wanting someone who had the human decency to oppose the chimp's illegal invasion isn't too much to ask

if the DLC wants my vote, don't take us for granted. With Kerry or Edwards, we can look forward to more media-mergers, globalization, etc. And if you oppose it, you get asked "Oh, what are you going to do, vote republican?"

we've been through this before. if clinton hadn't sold out to the right, the situation we face with dumbya wouldn't be anywhere near as dire. for one thing, we wouldn't have an overwhelming republican activist media. they were always slanted, but nowhere near as bad as this. remember that Bill was the one who appointed that extremist nut michael powell to the fcc

[wryter2000]

12. Waitaminute

I thought Lieberman was the DLC's candidate. When did they switch to Kerry?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Not true at all.

Dean wasn't a good candidate for the general election and people realized it. He is also not a good non-DLC candidate. Just like how Clinton's success shouldn't be taken as an absolute formula for success, Dean's failure shouldn't be taken as a DLC victory.

[ClintonTyree]

34. Just like............

the DLC lead us to such triumphant victories in 2002? Gee, I can't wait until November. :eyes:

[vi5]

3. No more or no less than moral absolutists and purists

or one issue voters. Everyone is playing their part to divide this party. The fact is that the democratic party may not be perfect but it is the only viable left leaning party we've got. There's problems with going too far right but there's just as many problems with going too far left and expecting a candidate to pass a litmus test on every single issue.

If people want to disregard someone's long liberal voting record based on one vote, and sit out the race or vote third party they are entitled to do so. But I'm also entitled to blame them just as much as I do the DLC for the destruction of my party and the continuation of the current admin.

[IndianaGreen]

6. If you stand still, you will find that you have moved right

The center in this country has been moving right, so much so that what passes for "liberal" today is what being a Rockefeller Republican used to be.

[vi5]

18. Be that as it may, the fact is that...

Politicians are elected to serve their constituents. If their constituents are moving left then they can hire or fire their political "employees" based on that.

That doesn't seem to be whats happening and we can keep our head in the sand all we want and blame the media and bushco all we want.

But to deny that the climate of this country has changed to some degree in a rightward direction is naive. So we can sit and gripe about it and pout and cross our arms and take our ball and go home and let everyone else duke it out.

Or we can accept the fact that things move in small steps and take the progress where we can get it.

[IndianaGreen]

30. The media has played a major role in moving the country rightward

If people were exposed to the same level of information many DUers had, they would have known that Bush was lying about WMDs in Iraq right after his SOTUS last year.

[youngred]

5. The third way is a sellout and a loss

The party needs to reject it and match ideological blows with the hardcore neo-cons and their takeover of the Republicans

[IndianaGreen]

40. The DLC is as much a disaster a Tony Blair's New Labour

Many of us are as angry at the DLC politicians as Labour backbenchers are at Blair.

[youngred]

44. exactly

it was the darling of the mid-90s, and has since proved to be a dismal failure.

[_Jumper_]

61. New Labour

Blair resurrected the Labor Party. How were the faring at the ballot box prior to Blair and co. taking over?

[youngred]

90. and look how they're doing now

Labour has strong support, Blair and his third way associates do not

[T_i_B]

204. Actually

They were way ahead of the Tories in the polls before the death of John Smith (the UK Conservative party have never recovered from Black Wednesday in 1992, not to mention civil war over Europe, "back to basics" etc)

Blair has given the Labour party power at any cost, and as a result "new" labour has become everything that it was created to oppose. Why should progressives vote for policies they abhore?

[greendog]

7. No, it's not killing the Democratic Party.....

....it's killing Democracy.

[ShimokitaJer]

19. "It's killing Democracy"

You're right on the money, greendog. The only question for us is whether or not we continue to let them use the Democratic Party to do it.

[Guaranteed]

213. With some help from the media nt

[Walt Starr]

10. Not killing

but it was mortally wounded and is in serious condition after last night.

[cindyw]

13. I said No. Not because I agree with the agenda of the DLC, but

because I think people attribute more power to them then they have. I think the DLC is less powerful, especially right now, then we think they are.

[sangha]

17. Well put

The DLC bogeyman has been exgerrated almost to the point of hysteria

[drfemoe]

20. Or Saving It From Howard Dean?

DLC | New Dem Daily | January 20, 2004
A Vote for Hope Over Anger

Two months ago, when former Gov. Howard Dean's campaign appeared to be running away with the Iowa caucuses, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards spoke to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, and made the same prophetic point: Democrats need to offer answers, not just anger.
...
The word "stunning" hardly does service to the performance of Kerry and Edwards in Iowa. Up against all of Howard Dean's endorsements and organization, Kerry and Edwards each won more delegate shares (the arcane measurement used to judge success in Iowa) than Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt combined.
...
Iowa was also a triumph for a Democrat who wasn't on the ballot: the original Comeback Kid, Bill Clinton. The Dean campaign has done everything it can to run away from Clintonism, even calling the historic progress under Clinton nothing more than "damage control." By contrast, Kerry and Edwards followed the Clinton playbook: First, show the country that Democrats will be as tough on terror as Bush. Second, tell Americans something they don't know about the Bush administration and won't like when they find out. Third and most important, put forth a positive vision of what a Democratic presidency will do for America that George W. Bush won't.
...
Now the race moves onto New Hampshire, where two other impressive New Democrats -- Sen. Joe Lieberman and Gen. Wesley Clark -- will have their chance as well. Money and region still make Dean the favorite. But Iowa wasn't just a poor finish for Dean; the results undermine the central premises that have fueled his campaign up until now. Democrats desperately want to beat George Bush, and want a nominee who will expand the party's appeal, not limit its reach. Voters want a positive vision, not just a negative one. Candidates with an optimistic vision do more to bring new voters to the polls than candidates without one.
...

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252334

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Is it just me or....

...does that read just like a Josef Goebbels propaganda initiative? :scared:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

175. It completely lost me at :

"...where two other impressive New Democrats -- Sen. Joe Lieberman and Gen. Wesley Clark ..."

[ClintonTyree]

48. If it wasn't for Dean's 'anger'..............

the Democrats would still be in their pink tu-tus genuflecting at the mere presence of Bush. Dean used his anger to give these Democrats a spinal transplant, since they obviously had lost theirs. Their actions post 9/11 including the 2002 elections are proof of that.

Dean tapped into an anger in the American public, and although it's not enough to win an election, we all owe Howard Dean a debt of gratitude for reviving a Party that had lost all hope of mounting a realisitc challenge to Bush in 2004.

[jmaier]

25. This bit of tin-foilery needs to get put to rest

The DLC is just one interest group within the party with a valid aim of trying to broaden the parties message to win over a percentage of those voters who just ARE NOT partisan but care about centrist issues and values.

It's good for the party, though not necessarily effective and no more destructive than those on the litmus-test left wing who play the 'my way or the highway' card every election.

[MadHound]

101. Yeah, but it just so happens that the DLC for the most part

Controls the purse strings of the Democratic Party. They bring the vast majority of soft money in, along with other harder money. So, yes, they might be just another interest group, except for the Golden Rule variant they observe, ie, he who brings in the gold makes the rules.

[goodhue]

27. no

The party has the DLC on its heals.

[jonnyblitz]

28. holy crap there never used to be this much support in here

for the DLC..hmmm..i wonder when that changed...

[wyldwolf]

33. Yes there was...

We just let you guys pump your fists and kept quite - preferring to let our numbers speak at the ballot box.

[youngred]

35. sure you were

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

41. over 30,000 registered DU'ers... do you really think

..the far left outnumbers the more moderate "DLC" types here?

Keep dreaming.

[youngred]

46. here, yes

unless you count the numerous republican disruptors as DLCers. In the real world there are more moderates, but the Third way as a political movement is a failure

[wyldwolf]

50. absolutely not. You've just always been more vocal

... not point arguing about it, though.

We'll just agree to disagree.

[jonnyblitz]

47. i remember how the DLC supported the war and dissed the

ant-war protesters because we didn't rally behind our president and the outrage amongst the DUers at the time. I tend to believe you about your numbers and being silent because I always sensed an undercurrent of right wing sentiment here at DU.

[wyldwolf]

52. hmmm... playing the "rightwing" card

[jonnyblitz]

65. well I am far left ( i admit it)

so to me it seems right wing.

[Indiana Democrat]

39. It gets old being called a "Repuke".

[PVnRT]

88. It gets old being called an "extremist"

As well as being marginalized by the DLC at every turn.

[On the Road]

29. The DLC Was Needed in the 80's

Mondale's loss was the wake-up call. The DLC broke the party away from the traditional Democratic image, which was losing support and costing elections. Among other things, it restored fiscal responsibility as a party value.

Now, the DLC is fragmeneted. The Al From wing of the DLC is pulling the party the wrong way and costing Democrats elections.

[ShimokitaJer]

36. You're absolutely right

It's not the DLC as an institution that is the problem, but the leadership and the direction those leaders are taking it. Al From has got to go.

[flaminbats]

217. The DLC wasn't even noticed in the 80's.

Most felt Mondale lost because he was running against a popular incumbent. In 1988, the DLC was just a minor influence in the party, most felt that Dukakis would win in 1988. It wasn't until after Dukakis was slaughtered that the DLC began to gain the attention of Democrats outside the beltway. When Bill Clinton won the nomination, the DLC was seen as the driving force behind his campaign. The media and most Democrats began to recognize that the DLC was more than just a rogue group of Democrats, they were the source of Clinton's agenda.

But it wasn't until 1994 that the DLC became the dominate wing of the party. In 1994 Mitchell was replaced by Daschle as leader, and Dick Gephardt..first a Reagan Democrat and later a founder of the DLC, became the minority leader due to the defeat of Tom Foley.

Many of those who had supported the DLC were now the new leaders of a minority party, and those who considered themselves traditional Democrats became the outsiders. The election of Bill Clinton was a first major victory for the DLC, and as was the nomination of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

I honestly don't believe that the DLC had much to do with Clinton's victories, but in politics perception is everything! In 2000 and 2002, many who had been loyal to the old Democratic traditions felt betrayed and unmotivated to vote. And as a result, many decided to stay at home during those elections..while others simply chose Nader over Gore. Whatever caused this, the point is that the DLC currently sets our party's agenda. And it shall continue to do so until either the party dies..or a new organized group challenges the party's leadership.

One last point, before the DLC...Democrats relied on the party organization and the efforts of issue activists to increase voter turnout. This is why the last three Democrats to win popular majorities were Carter, LBJ, and Kennedy. Clinton won in the nineties by out pissing the repukes, not by growing the party or motivating young voters to turn out. But the repukes have worked on both of these objectives, which is why they won control of Congress 1994 and whipped "electable" and "unelectable" moderates in 2002.

[Cocoa]

31. the dems are like cockroaches

they keep multiplying.

Record turnout in Iowa yesterday.

Even Noam Chomsky has become a dem, thanks to Kucinich. :-)

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

76. chomsky has supported progressive democrats in the past

but do you really think he'd openly back a clark, kerry, or edwards?

[BootinUp]

42. Of course not

The notion of pulling the centrist voters to the left is absurd. Political campaigns are won based on the feelings of the voters. The demise of the Democratic party is greatly exagerated, with some luck we would have the Presidency now. The reason for the loss of congress is the country wanted centrists/conservatives after 911, or at least they wanted someone with a strong plan and we weren't ready with one.

[CWebster]

43. Yes

and should anyone deny the shift on this board, look at the poll. Who would've ever guessed we were all out on the streets protesting the war just a few short months ago.

Goodby old DU, it was good while it lasted.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

177. 80,000 in my city.

Maybe I dreamt it?

[corporatewhore]

49. The DLC is turning the democratic party into the republican party

[Guaranteed]

67. Yup....I thought people had learned something from 2002.

But, I guess not.

That's alright, though. It's like natural selection. If the Democrats try to assimilate with the Republicans, then the Democratic constituency will just get absorbed into the Republican constituency.

So, I guess we'll be seeing about half of DU over at Freeperville in a few years, eh?

[corporatewhore]

151. i think they might allready be there some of the anti real dem cannidate

attacks are the same as the freepers (hes kooky or he will insure a bush victory and so on )

[NashVegas]

51. Don't Be Silly!

Of course they aren't. Can't you tell the DLC is doing us a world of good with every election in which the Democratic party continues to pick up House & Senate seats?

[wyldwolf]

53. How many seats have the far left picked up?

[ShimokitaJer]

54. There's no way to find out

Since the DLC keeps sabotaging their attempts at running

[wyldwolf]

60. Sure there is

We KNOW those who are further left. Great democrats like Wellstone and Kucinich for example.

But how many are there?

And please, I'd like to see some evidence of the DLC sabotaging their attempts at running.

[ShimokitaJer]

69. There's more than one way to sabotage a campaign

We're only seeing the most blatant form of the DLC sabotage in this campaign with From's attacks on Dean. Dean certainly isn't the most liberal candidate out there, but he may be the most populist -- a word which the DLC leadership seems to equate with power being taken from their hands.

The more subtle form of sabotage came in Gore's 2000 campaign, in which Gore was encouraged to run to the center (among other things, taking Lieberman as his VP candidate) and then publicly rejected by both Lieberman the DLC leadership as soon as he lost... or rather, even before he lost, since they had the losing strategy for the Florida recount.

It also came in the wake of all the corporate scandals, which should have been a rallying cry for corporate reform and a winning issue for Democratic candidates in 2002. Instead, the DLC warned against "class warfare" and "stirring up class resentment" and took away one of the best weapons they should have had against the Republicans.

They did it with the IWR resolution, in which Democrats had a golden opportunity to shed light on the false evidence that was the basis for Bush's pet war, but instead they tried to appear "strong on security" and therefore more electable. It didn't seem to work too well in 2002 and now we're seeing why the Dems didn't turn out to vote for those who were pro-IWR: it turns out that some Dems had doubts about the war after all and might have appreciated a choice in the elections.

But since you seem to enjoy demanding proof as a replacement for debate, perhaps you can offer me some evidence that the DLC strategy of deregulation and small government is working politically for the Democratic party, regardless of whether or not they are actions are acceptable to the "liberal wing."

[IndianaGreen]

71. Excellent post, ShimokitaJer!

The only reason the DLC won at all was because of Clinton's charisma, and because the DLC could always count on progressives voting for the candidate with the "D."

The big difference now is that there is war abroad, and there is a threat to civil liberties at home. The Left will not compromise on the war issue, and the Bill of Rights is not for sale.

[Iverson]

77. impermissible speech

I'm sorry, ShimokitaJer, but you have trangressed the boundaries of acceptable liberalism. Only pro-choice pro-war corporatism is permitted against pro-life pro-war corporatism.

Anything further left constitutes an unreasonable demand to have your way 100% of the time. Look at the capital D and be satisfied. Let go. Preventive invasion is the new pragmatism, so get with the program.

[wyldwolf]

79. Debate requires proof...

You can't make a blanket statement like "DLC keeps sabatoging campaigns" without backing up the charge. It really is that simple.

Accepting "facts" based on the word of someone isn't how I form my beliefs.

Seriously, that is how people I know solidly on the right accept their "facts" - based on someone's word and then change the subject like...

the "DLC strategy of deregulation and small government." We're discussing the charge that the DLC "keeps sabatoging" campaigns.

[Iverson]

80. Debate requires evidence, not proof.

Triangulation is the DLC strategy. If we can't even agree that this is the case, then we're seeing two different things. Some see triangulation as a form of sabotage because it inevitably betrays basic principles in the name of winning elections.

Belief in the unceasing shift rightward is just as much an article of faith as any other unsupported assertion.

[ShimokitaJer]

81. ...evidence which wyldwolf still has yet to produce in the DLC's defense

nt

[wyldwolf]

85. Why change the subject?

I didn't make a charge - someone else did.

Reminder: "Since the DLC keeps sabotaging their attempts at running"


Burden of proof is on that poster.

[ShimokitaJer]

94. The subject is whether the DLC is killing the party

and you have yet to offer anything to refute the fact that they are.

Since you're ignoring my post on the way the DLC's policy positions have damaged the Democratic campaigns in 2000 and 2002, and offering nothing of your own to counter that charge, I'm guessing that your demand for proof will be satisfied by nothing short of a specific quote by Al From in which he says "I would like Democratic candidates who espouse liberal ideals to lose. Therefore I will sabotage their campaigns."

It is entirely possible that From actually believed that his strategy would help win Gore the election in 2000 and would help the Democrats win seats in 2002. Clearly, he was wrong, and for that if for no other reason, he should be made to step down. His actions against Dean, however, are of a different order entirely. Here, his attacking of the campaign is overt and deliberate. He is not encouraging Dean to be more centrist or suggesting Dean support Bush's Medicare bill -- he is attacking the very validity of Dean's campaign to be the Democratic nominee and he is doing this because Dean's positions differ from the direction he believes the party should go. Please tell me how this can be characterized as anything other than sabotage of a more liberal campaign.

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that the DLC is helping the party... perhaps if you tried replying with more than a single sentence and a gigantic sig line, you might get further with this.

[wyldwolf]

95. This dialogue started in post #54

Your attempt at changing the subject and focus hasn't gone unnoticed but, since I don't jump around from point to point until the first is addressed, your post is simply irrelevant right now.

[wyldwolf]

83. simply provide hard evidence that the DLC has sabotaged campaigns

...it really isn't that hard to understand.

[bushclipper]

92. This is funny and familiar

So far in this portion of the thread, it reads like a democrat debating a bunch of rightwingers! Sorry mods, not calling them rightwingers (no more than they're calling the DLC and, by association, DU'ers who are DLC rightwingers) but the rhetoric here is mindless.

But since you seem to enjoy demanding proof as a replacement for debate,

Huh? In debate, the burden of proof is on the one that makes the affirmative or, that the DLC is "sabotaging" campaigns.

Debate is scored and judge on skill in analysis and use of evidence, of which the poster who made the initial charge and the subsequent defenders of him have yet to do.

But instead of trying, they've tried to change the issue and demanded proof of something that wasn't even the subject of the debate.

So either drop the discussion or PROOVE YOUR ASSERTION!

[wyldwolf]

96. I have found "debating" the far left and the far right to be ...

...identical experiences, just different subjects.

Both attempt to change to subject when they're pressed to prove their points.

[corporatewhore]

55. it dont matter because they still carry out the repub agenda

[_Jumper_]

56. We don't know

It can't even gain enough support among Democrats to become a force.

[jonnyblitz]

58. ummm...you don't have to be" far left" to be left of the DLC

Al From was on CSPAN praising Newt Gingrich for the good work he did and proceeded to join Newt in dissing Dean and his supporters.

[wyldwolf]

62. That is true, but this portion of the thread is dealing with ...

...further left folks vs. moderates.

[jonnyblitz]

64. i guess it depends on where one is on the political spectrum

to begin with, wyldwolf. I admit I AM far left so a DLC person would seem more to the right to me than he/she would to a moderate. I started participating on DU during the iraq invasion so I believe I might have gotten the wrong idea on the degree of leftism here. All I know is in the end I will vote for the DEM candidate this election. I get tired of fighting with people. :hi:

[Walt Starr]

63. Hell, I know a lot of Republicans to the left of the DLC

It doesn't stop them. The prime moving factor of the corporatist is to give the impression to the masses that there are, in fact, two parties.

[youngred]

91. the far left hasn't been in control of this party since the 70s

so stop saying that

[wyldwolf]

117. The far left has NEVER been in control of the party.

Sorry.

so stop saying that

snicker

[el_gato]

66. the left v. right debate is a phoney destraction at this point

the real debate is are you in favor of liberty and self determination
or are you in favor of a corporate oligarchy

[Disandra]

68. Geez....

....I wonder what would happen if FDR, JFK, et.al. ran today. The DLC (IMO) would have a heart attack and sabotage their campaigns and call them "Far Left."

I'm tired of people automatically assuming that I am "Far Left" or a "one issue voter" because I disagree with the DLC. I want my party back and work hard towards my goal. I didn't vote Green in the last election because I agree with everything Nader said, I voted Green to send a wake-up call to the DLC, to bad they never got it.

[jhfenton]

215. Yes and no

FDR, yes. JFK, no.

JFK was a moderate, pragmatist. JFK supported broad, top to bottom tax cuts using language that sounded not too different from what Reagan would use 20 years later.

FDR is a different story. FDR's new deal was opposed by the "Jeffersonian Democrats" within the Democratic Party as too socialistic and anti-American. They wanted to return the Democratic party to the people. The DLC would probably agree. I would certainly oppose FDR if he tried to implement the "New Deal" now. We're still struggling with its legacy 70 years later.

I want my party back too. I was raised in a Democratic party that valued individual liberty and opposed excessive governmental interference in people's lives, whether that interference took the form of excessive taxes, excessive regulations, or government violation of civil liberties.

Many here seem only to be concerned with the last one, and only when those liberties don't involve the 2nd Amendment.

Fortunately, my local Democratic party shares the traditional Democratic values.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

70. without question

Resident Bush, Majority leader Frist, and Speaker Hastert would all agree

After November 2002, this should have been irrefutable. After the governor's races of 2003, anyone who says to the contrary is mildly retarded at the least

GOP vs GOP-lite
vboters will go for the real thing every time

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Are these relentless propaganda wars against the DLC...

killing you?

I know they are me.

[Perky]

74. No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No more so than Moderate Republicans are killing the GOP!

[youngred]

93. there aren't very many of those left

and they aren't banded together in groups that are one of the prime movers within the party

bad example

[Disandra]

103. The moderate Repugs are leaving the GOP and joining the DNC.

That is why the Democratic party is turning into "Republican Lite."

[wyldwolf]

112. Violation of rule #8 - and a very questionable statement.

If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim.

So, link?

No?

Didn't think so.

[Disandra]

118. Oh, I think so...

You wanted them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/opinion/13BROO.html?8bl

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1108-08.htm

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/pressreleases/2002-October/002785.html

http://www.rogersimon.com/archive/000297.html

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/19/smn.01.html

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1203/15zell.html

http://www.thenorthstarnetwork.com/news/topstories/181879-1.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02101021.htm

Would you like some more?

[wyldwolf]

122. Nah

Your first link is an editorial by a conservative and lends no credibility to your assertion at all.

#2 - again, an editorial. Someone's opinion.

#3 - ditto (and not a credible sourse AND propoganda from another political party.)

In fact, none of your links contain hard facts to prove your charge.

Here was your charge:

"The moderate Repugs are leaving the GOP and joining the DNC."

So, again, PROVE IT!

next...

[Disandra]

129. Did you read them?!?

The facts were contained in the opinions, for example, the Common Dreams article:

His campaign for what became a $1.35 trillion tax cut was so successful that 12 Democratic senators defected to help create a 58-33 victory for Bush.

.... 29 Democratic senators went along with 48 Republicans to give Bush the authority to unilaterally attack Iraq without provocation.

You can find facts like these in all of the articles, you just have to read them.

Oh, and here you can find the voting records of any representative in Congress:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

and this one is easier to use:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/votes/

As to whether or not you accept these facts is not the issue. But, of course, I'm just a stupid "far to the left" jack ass, so why even bother reading the articles I posted?

[wyldwolf]

130. Yes, ma'am, but they in no way prove what you claim:

The moderate Repugs are leaving the GOP and joining the DNC.

So nothing of the sort in them.

Looks like the case you are building by those opinion pieces is that dems are joining the RNC.

But, still, no proof other than ranting opinion.

[Disandra]

133. No proof....

...that Democrats are acting like Repubs? So, the Dems that have voted for Bush, and (if you would have read the articles--they are not all opinion pieces, and those that are have facts to back me up, but whatever) are endorsing Bush (see Zell Miller) does not equal proof.

Gotcha.

Thank you so much for educating my little Lefty brain. I'll be a good little girl now and go sit in the corner.

/really getting sick of this thread and people who don't f'ing read the articles

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[Disandra]

140. Whatever.

You are right.

I am wrong.

Whatever you say.

Vote anyone who claims to be a Democrat.

Got the message.

Forget about standing up for your principles.

Congrats, you have won.

Don't read the facts. Can't have that. Might interfere with central message.

[wyldwolf]

143. If that is how you feel

For the record,

ANY dem over Bush
Principles LESS important in 2004
Not my job to fish out what you think are facts. In a debate, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

[Disandra]

146. Rolls eyes.

I provided several links, none of which you even read, and you still say I'm making you prove my argument?

Whatever.

I will obey my masters in the DLC, so you don't have to worry about me anymore, okay?

[wyldwolf]

147. Rolls eyes

As I've said before, I read them (in fact, some I've read before - they get trotted out here a lot.)

And, no, you didn't prove that moderate republicans are joining the democratic party. No way. No how.

[Tinoire]

191. That was hilarious!

Here is what I saw

• there aren't very many of those left youngred Jan-20-04 01:26 PM #93
  -
  
• The moderate Repugs are leaving the GOP and joining the DNC. Disandra Jan-20-04 03:43 PM #103
  -
  
• Ignored Ignored Jan-20-04 05:34 PM #112
  -
  
• Oh, I think so... Disandra Jan-20-04 06:49 PM #118
  -
  
• Ignored Ignored Jan-20-04 07:00 PM #122
  -
  
• Did you read them?!? Disandra Jan-20-04 07:17 PM #129
  -
  
• Ignored Ignored Jan-20-04 07:20 PM #130
  -
  
• No proof.... Disandra Jan-20-04 07:26 PM #133
  -
  
• Deleted message Name removed Jan-20-04 07:32 PM #136
  -
  
• Whatever. Disandra Jan-20-04 07:36 PM #140
  -
  
• Ignored Ignored Jan-20-04 07:40 PM #143
  -
  
• Rolls eyes. Disandra Jan-20-04 07:42 PM #146
  -
  
• Ignored Ignored Jan-20-04 07:45 PM #147

LMAO!

[wyldwolf]

195. yeah, it was!

ha ha!

[sandnsea]

82. If they're behind Kerry/Edwards NO!!!

If these two guys are the DLC's idea of great Democrats, then I'll have to rethink my opinion of the DLC.

[The Magistrate]

97. Certainly Not

The leading source of harm to the Party, and to the lefy and proggressive cause in general, is the insistance on ideological purity by certain devotees of nihilistic outlook....

[wyldwolf]

99. Well said...

..though it will probably go right past them.

[Disandra]

102. Yeah...

because, according to you, we are just dumb shits who can't do as we are told.

Screw the DNC and any party that demands we have to support them when they sell us out at every turn-us being the "anti-war" crowd, those of us who are against the Patriot Acts, those of us who are sickened by the "First Amendment Zones," etc. Where are they on these issues?

I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me in order to bow down to the corporations, the media whores, etc. etc. etc.

/sick of being insulted in a so-called place that welcomes Progressives, and I am standing up to it.

[wyldwolf]

107. I hate to break it to you...

...but the democratic party you describe has always been that way. I feel you've come to it with some romantic progressive greater good unrealistic notion.

If you don't want to support the DNC, you're welcome not to.

[Disandra]

125. Uh, no, it has not...

perhaps you have heard of FDR, JFK?

[wyldwolf]

127. FDR and JFK were both moderates

Roosevelt, a practical political leader and a moderate in economics, helped preserve capitalism ...

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/32proos.html

...in 1930 he acquired a reputation as a moderate progressive and an effective administrator and political leader... By 1935 Roosevelt could claim some success, but he was also under political attack from both Left and Right. (sounds like a centrist to me!)

http://www.phoenixpress.co.uk/articles/people/politicians-courtiers/roosevelt-franklin-pp.asp

Sorry.

I can go on with you all night.

[Disandra]

144. Sighs.

And the purpose of my mentioning FDR and JFK went right over your head.

NEWS FLASH: I'm not a Radical Leftist. I'm a Liberal, in the tradition of FDR and JFK. FDR initiated social and economic reform that improved people's lives. JFK is...well JFK. I do not see this in the modern day Democratic Party, and that breaks my heart.

Before assuming a person's political beliefs, perhaps you should ASK THEM first.

[wyldwolf]

145. So did Bill Clinton

[Disandra]

148. I disagree.

But, no matter how much proof I give you to support my opinion (couldn't resist: "welfare reform"), you won't take a look at it, so I won't bother.

I notice you completely disregarded my point about considering me to be a Far Left Radical, but that is okay.

[wyldwolf]

153. That is your prerogative... But Clinton's record stands

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The law, which covers over 42 million Americans, offers workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave for child birth, adoption, or personal or family illness.

President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to cut the taxes of 15 million working families with incomes of $27,000 or less.

Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, February 5, 1993.
Signed a comprehensive Child Immunization Plan.
Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.
Increased Ryan White CARE Act funding for outpatient AIDS care over 100% in first 3 budgets.
Put the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) on a full-funding path.
Increased funding 65% for breast cancer research.
As part of the balanced budget plan, introduced health care reform initiative which strengthens Medicare and expands coverage.
Proposed a $1.3 billion increase in veterans' benefits -- of which $1 billion will be directed to the VA health system to provide treatment for 43,000 more veterans.

MORE?

next...

[IndianaGreen]

168. More? Plan Colombia for starters

Publicly a program for drug interdiction, in reality a counter-insurgency program that supported death squads in Colombia, the murder and torture of peasants, and the use of chemical weapons (aka as defoliants, a new version of Agent Orange) which resulted in birth defects in humans and cattle.

Plan Colombia alone is enough to indict Bill Clinton as a war criminal.

[wyldwolf]

174. ahh... now Clinton is a war criminal

:eyes:

Doesn't take long for folks like you to come out of the woodwork.

But since this was a comparison on good things FDR, JFK, and Clinton did to help people, can I now suggest atrocities committed by the US forces in WWII and Viet Nam?

FDR and JFK war criminals? If I use your logic.

[IndianaGreen]

183. Here is a 1999 article about Clinton's war crimes

Clinton Is The World's Leading Active War Criminal
Clinton's crimes, after just seven years in office, are competitive with Suharto's
by Edward S. Herman
Z magazine , December 1999

I use war crimes to encompass the commission of all acts declared illegal under international rules of war as enumerated in the various Hague and Geneva agreements and conventions and pronounced in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. Among these acts are the carrying out of wars of aggression, the use of poison gases and other inhumane weapons, deliberately killing and starving civilian populations, and the use of force beyond military necessity. War crimes can be carried out directly or through proxy forces that are funded, encouraged, and protected in their own war criminality. This means that inaction-failure to discourage or prevent the carrying out of war crimes known to be going on, planned for enlargement, and preventable-is itself a form of war criminality. Thus, if the Clinton administration knew that Indonesia was killing large numbers of East Timorese and planned to ravage East Timor on a larger scale if it lost an independence referendum, and did nothing to prevent the crimes, Clinton and associates were guilty of war crimes by inaction.

Clinton and Suharto

I put the adjective "active" in the title to this article because Indonesia's now retired president Suharto probably holds the overall top place today, as the person responsible for three genocides (Indonesia, East Timor, and West Papua). But Suharto had 33 years to carry out his crimes whereas Clinton has become competitive within 7 years. Who can doubt that if Clinton had more time to add to his mark in history he would easily top Suharto?

There are links between Suharto and Clinton. When Suharto visited Washington in 1995 a Clinton administration official was quoted in the New York Times as saying that Suharto was "our kind of guy." But it would be wrong to infer from this that the Clinton official was expressing approval of Suharto's mass murders; rather, he was saying that Suharto was easy to do business with in arranging trade deals and joint public relations statements. Still, it was quite clear that Suharto's murders and dictatorial rule were of little consequence to the Clinton leadership, not detracting significantly enough to make Suharto a "bad guy."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/ClintonWarCriminal_Herman.html

[wyldwolf]

197. The third worlder by Edward S. Herman! Now THERE is a credible source!

Remember, war crimes can only be defined by a qualified tribunal...

At best, Clinton stands only accused of war crimes - an accusation that is dubious at best.

But I want to take this up for a moment. Here is a quote from your exceprts:

Clinton and associates were guilty of war crimes by inaction.

Is that it? Is that the best you can come up with? Gee! We have people here accusing Clinton of war crimes with Wesley Clark for ACTING in Kosovo, now we have someone accusing Clinton of war crimes for NOT ACTING in Indonesia! :eyes:


But let's continue down your road, ok?

War Crimes of Franklin Roosevelt

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1419

It was Eisenhower's advise to F.D.R. and Churchill, which caused the war to drag on for two extra years, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides, and hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for Eisenhower's racial brethren, the International bankers, who financed both sides.

When Churchill and F.D.R. listened to the advice of Stalin, instead of their two best military leaders, it gave Stalin two years to establish control over all of Eastern Europe, which is now known as the Warsaw Pact Nations.

Did you know there were over 2 million non combat (civilian) deaths caused by the US and allies in WWII? WAR CRIMES! FDR, Truman, Churchill!

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml

Similar charges have been made from conspicuous sources about every US President at war time.

[IndianaGreen]

200. John Pilger's documentary "Killing the Children of Iraq"

How would you describe Madeline Albright's cruel comments about the 500,000 Iraqi children that had died as the result of the US-enforced sanctions on Iraq?

Her callous comments put her on the same moral plane as Adolf Eichman!

Madeline Albright was implementing Clinton's policies. That makes Clinton a cold blooded murderer!

The Children of Iraq
by Mark A. Goldman

As far as I can tell, the American strategy as it applies to Iraq has been... "If we destroy life, as these people know it, perhaps they will blame Saddam Hussein and run him out of office." But that is only part of the strategy. It appears to me that the other part is... "If we destroy life as these people know it, we can then come in, control the oil, and no one will be able to do anything about it." I think this is all about oil, not about terrorism. There is no greater terrorism than when it rains US bombs. And after each rain storm, we call the dead—collateral damage. They call the dead— family and friends. This is not about Saddam's evil intentions. When Saddam poisoned the Kurds, the US Government said nothing. Saddam Hussein is a product of the CIA and American policy, but that is another story.

In 1996, when then Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked during a 60 Minutes interview about the hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq who have died because of the sanctions, and whether she thought the price was worth it... she said, yes, she thought it was worth it. SHE thought it was worth it. Who has a right to think such a thing or to make such decisions about other people's children... in my name, in your name?

So you could argue, "Don't blame us for the death of these children, Saddam Hussein could have stopped the sanctions at any time. Blame him." Well I do blame him. But that doesn't absolve us from the part we played. We knew or should have known that Saddam Hussein would rather let his people suffer than give in to outside pressure. So we knowingly chose to pursue a strategy that guaranteed his people WOULD suffer. And we didn't stop when we saw the results. We used the pain and deaths of these children to try to pressure Saddam Hussein to do what... leave town — an ignorant, unworthy, cruel policy.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/markagoldman1.html

TV documentary exposes devastating toll of sanctions against Iraq
Killing the Children of Iraq—a price worth paying? written and presented by John Pilger
Review by Julie Hyland
11 March 2000

The terrible cost of United Nations sanctions against Iraq was vividly brought home in Killing the Children of Iraq—a price worth paying? aired on Britain's ITV channel Monday, March 6. Several recent reports have recorded the growth of infant mortality, cancers and malnutrition following 10 years of sanctions. John Pilger's 90-minute film revealed the tragic human story behind the statistics.

For the first time since the West began its sanctions against Iraq in 1991, ordinary people were interviewed about the problems and difficulties they and their families confront. Pilger visited hospitals, cancer clinics, schools and downtown markets in Baghdad. He interviewed doctors, artists, teachers, parents and aid workers about the enormous increase in poverty and lack of the most basic amenities, resulting from the Gulf War and UN-imposed economic sanctions—the most comprehensive blockade of any economy in modern history.

The United Nations, US President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all claimed that their actions against Iraq are guided by "humanitarianism"—aimed at saving the world from Saddam Hussein by preventing him from rearming his regime with "weapons of mass destruction". The documentary exposed the grotesque lies upon which this claim is based. Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998, told Pilger that all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons infrastructures and programmes had been completely dismantled or destroyed, either by his teams of Inspectors or by Iraq itself in compliance with UN demands. The real threat now posed by Iraq was "zero, none", he said.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/iraq-m11.shtml

[wyldwolf]

202. World Socialist Website?

Honestly, bring some credible sources to this discussion.

The site just mentioned is unbelievably biased to begin with.

ALL military/economic sanctions is bad to them. If you want to make them an expert source, you might not like what else they push.

What's more, you can't have it both ways. We were against the Iraq war because, as we all said, the sanctions were working. But the sanctions were bad?

Cruel comments do not equate to war crimes.

"War crime" is a legal term. Has he been accused by any party qualified to make the charge? Nope!

And FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, and Carter - all war criminals under the definition being applied here.

[IndianaGreen]

208. Strawman - I quoted Media Monitors in first story - Shame on you!

John Pilger's documentary was merely mentioned by WSWS.

Which reminds me, why should a Cold Warrior puke like Kerry be rewarded with the Presidency?

[wyldwolf]

211. Learn the definition of "strawman" then deal with this...

..that you ignored above:

What's more, you can't have it both ways. We were against the Iraq war because, as we all said, the sanctions were working. But the sanctions were bad?

Cruel comments do not equate to war crimes.

"War crime" is a legal term. Has he been accused by any party qualified to make the charge? Nope!

Now the classic "change the topic" strategy... you said: why should a Cold Warrior puke like Kerry be rewarded with the Presidency?

Only one presidency has ever been "rewarded." Should Kerry win, it will be because he got the most votes. sorry.

Next?

[IndianaGreen]

216. Kerry will never be elected President

The American people will never vote for a multi-millionaire Skull & Bones elitist from Massachusetts for President.

Give credit to the wicked genious of Karl Rove. Rove took a multi-millionaire Skull & Bones elitist from Connecticut and made him look like a folksy Texan. Bush even talks like some people we know. Kerry talks as someone giving a Senate speech.

Kerry will lead the Democrats and the general voting public into boredom.

:boring:

[wyldwolf]

220. So now we're talking about Kerry?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

169. Clinton also signed DOMA

the man who could not keep his own marriage vows, had no qualms about denying the GLBT community the right to marry.

[wyldwolf]

171. The first point is a moral matter between him and his wife

...and not relevant to this discussion.

As for the second, we'll never have a president we agree with 100%.

To think otherwise is delusional.

[IndianaGreen]

182. It is so easy for some people to dismiss gay rights...

May they come back as gays or lesbians in their next life.

[wyldwolf]

196. No, but it is easy to admit I will never agree with any politician 100%

I can find some infraction of a democratic ideal in any candidate.

So, name your candidate and I will demonstrate.

[Leilani]

187. JFK was a Cold Warrior

During the race between Nixon & Kennedy, Kennedy's stand was that the Eisenhower administration was weak & had made us less secure. Do you remember the "Missile Gap" argument?
Kennedy was also a big tax cutter. He put in a cut that was not topped until Reagan came along.

I'm always amazed at the belief that JFK was a liberal. Now Bobby Kennedy was a liberal, but he evolved. In 1960 he was more hawkish than JFK.

JFK was also not the big social progressive that people imagined. He was reluctant on Civil Rights, & moved into the arena somewhat reluctantly, because of the terrible things going on in the south during the demonstrations. It was LBJ who passed all of the Civil Rights legislation.

[wyldwolf]

198. Thanks for pointing out what has become a "liberal myth" of JFK..

Even RFK worked for Joe McCarthy!

[The Magistrate]

109. The Problem, Ma'am, Is This

There are consequences to actions, and persons ought to consider what these will likely be before embarking on a course of action. The course of action you are promoting here will have certain consequences. If you with-hold your vote because the Party's nominee is insufficiently attuned to your personal ideology, you will reduce the weight of force aimed directly at the current administration to prevent its re-election, and thus materially increase the chance the enemy will triumph. If the Party submits to your blackmail, and chooses a nominee who you will shriek with glee at every speech by, the party will lose literally millions of votes in the general election, from people who will respond not with shrieks of glee, but with groans of dismay and derision, to those same speeches, and the triumph of the enemy will be certain. Thus, the way in which you demand the Party act, and the way you claim you will act if it does not, both will tend to increase the chances of the enemy. And yet, you claim that you propose this policy, and propose your response if denied, in order to vindicate leftist principles. How advancing the interests of the most virulent reactionaries in our polity advances the cause of the left is unclear to me, and, in all likelihood, is not really too clear to you either. It is emotionally gratifying to bluster, and thrilling to revel in aggrievement and court a Gotterdammerung in your mind, after which everyone will be sorry and wish they had done just what you wanted instead, but none of these things amount to effective opposition to ascendant reactionary elements, nor advance the cause of the left one millimeter.

[Sly Kal]

98. Yes

[flaminbats]

100. Maybe...

Or they may be keeping the party alive by remaking us as the Grander Wing of the Grand Ole Party. :smoke:

[Tinoire]

104. Killing? Thanks to the DLC the party is half dead!

It takes 9-11, grand oil theft and wars to wake it just enough to pitter patter a little and grandly proclaim:

"We must be like Republicans to get the Republicans out of office"

Whoooaa! DLC, please go back to sleep.

[John_H]

105. The DLC is a boogey man ruse

They have far less power than many other groups (labor, minority groups, pro choice groups, etc) in the DNC. They are convenient boogey men for people who want to portray their candidates as outsiders even if they are consumate political insiders like Dean.

[Rowdyboy]

106. Ladies and Gentlemen, We have a WINNER!

You nailed it... :toast:

[drfemoe]

111. Please see the Article at

Reply #20 .. Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are the only outies. They obviously don't fit "in" with the DLC's description of the "stunning" "New Democrats". Someone cannot be an insider of a group who places you outside their boundaries.

[Tinoire]

139. The split within the Party may very well occur over this

I have a hard time believing, after reading the type of right-wing tripe I've read here in the last few months, that there is any common ground.

ABB... <snort>, the DLC's rallying cry to get us to accept whomever their next annointed one is.

[drfemoe]

160. That's because

see #143
ANY dem over Bush
Principles LESS important in 2004

:think: Principles don't matter to B*** .. ergo Principles don't matter to ABBs .. got it ;)

OTOH Principles happen to be the very reason I am supporting a Democratic candidate to replace the man with no Principles. If Principles are LESS important, why do we need to replace the man who has none?

[Tinoire]

192. My thoughts exactly. If I can't vote my conscience

how the hell can I to expect my representatives to?

[IndianaGreen]

186. There is a de facto split in the party as there with the Social Democrats

The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party split on a dispute between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. The split was pretty much along the same lines we see here. They are those that prefer accommodation and collaboration with Bush, and there are those that want uncompromising confrontation.

Bolshevism and Menshevism

(T)he Menshevik position clearly represented the abandonment of the revolutionary struggle in favour of reformist parliamentarism and class collaborationist politics, as shown by their position on the agrarian question and attitude to the Cadets. Trotsky later described the change in the attitude of the Mensheviks: “The Mensheviks, who a mere few weeks back had stood for a semi-boycott of the Duma, now transferred their hopes from the revolutionary struggle to constitutional conquests."

<snip>

But in politics it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. At bottom, the Menshevik position amounted to a permanent striving for a deal with the Cadets. By contrast, the Bolsheviks proposed to take advantage of conflict between the Duma and the regime to deepen revolutionary crisis, while at the same time striving to expose the Cadets by implacable criticism and winning over the peasant representatives—the Trudoviks—to “firm them up” and drive a wedge between them and the Cadets. While Lenin, in every article and every speech at this time, waged a relentless war against parliamentary cretinism, the Mensheviks placed all their hopes on the Duma.

http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/part3-2.html

[Tinoire]

193. I'll take the controntation. We saw how far collaboration & appeasement

went in the 30's.

[newsguyatl]

108. my friends

if EVER you had a doubt democraticunderground has been infiltrated, wonder no more.



this poll is telling in more ways than one. whatcha say, time for another clark vs dean poll? nah, nevermind.

[wyldwolf]

110. "infiltrated" - bwahahahahha

Yeah, by your type.

Remember how and why it was founded - in response to the election that was stolen from DLC member Al Gore.

DEMOCRATIC Underground - other progressives were invited as long as they worked for the common goal. Lately, some of these "other progressives" have expressed a desire NOT to work for the party.

[drfemoe]

113. Can you please point to the rule

that requires a DU member to "work" for the "common goal", especially as it relates to the DLC?

My copy says:
"Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here." ...
and
... "Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party." ...

Please point out the requirement to take proactive action on behalf of any specific organization?

DEMOCRATIC Underground - other progressives were invited as long as they worked for the common goal. Lately, some of these "other progressives" have expressed a desire NOT to work for the party.

[wyldwolf]

115. How about straight from the board owner?

As for other progressives, yes we welcome other progressives who will work with us. If someone is working to undermine the Democratic nominee against George W. Bush, then you are not "working with us" in my opinion.

Skinner

Some "other progressives" have openly declared they will not support the nominee if it isn't, A. Their guy, or B. DLC

THAT isn't working with us.

Next?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=11344

[drfemoe]

119. Nominee

No Nominee yet. Pre-emptive rule enforcement? When the Democratic Party announces the nominee, I expect the board will be totally supportive.

Supporters of the DLC are welcome here, just like other Democrats. But I cannot promise you that everyone here is going to like the DLC, or say flattering things about the DLC. If someone attacks you personally, and calls you a turncoat, then that is against the rules.

As for other progressives, yes we welcome other progressives who will work with us. If someone is working to undermine the Democratic nominee against George W. Bush, then you are not "working with us" in my opinion.

Until then:
Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here.
and the "common goal" you cite has not been defined. So we are ALL still "invited" to have our own opinions.

[wyldwolf]

123. by withholding your vote from the nominee if it isn't "your guy"

...or is DLC, you're working against us.

Next?

[fla nocount]

161. What does DLC and "us" have to do with members of this..

discussion board? This isn't a flame, I'm truly curious, take a look at the poll on this forum re: the DLC and it's effect on the party.

[wyldwolf]

165. "us" being the democratic party...

... as mentioned by board owner Skinner:

As for other progressives, yes we welcome other progressives who will work with us. If someone is working to undermine the Democratic nominee against George W. Bush, then you are not "working with us" in my opinion.

By withholding votes if the nominee isn't idealogically pure enough, certain segments of the DU community will be working against us.

[drfemoe]

170. I haven't voted yet ..

my vote has been withheld until election day.

Principles are important to me. That's why I support a Democratic candidate. If you are saying that the DLC asks me to give up my Principles in order to vote Democrat, I will have to make that decision when the time arrives. If DU asks me to leave if I do not vote Democrat/DLC, I will have to make that decision when the time arrives. There is nothing that I know of at this point which requires my allegiance to one of the DLC candidates, until one is officially announced as the Democratic Party candidate.

In this poll, I voted "I don't know" .. however, I will say that if the DLC's expectation is that I exchange my Principles for their opinion (as stated by you as their representative) that my Principles are LESS important than the DLC, then I am close to concluding that that strategy may hurt the Democratic Party. I will take responsibility for my part of the situation, and the DLC can take responsibility for their part.

EOM

[IndianaGreen]

120. How about stop acting like the Thought Police?

I don't know why so many people appoint themselves as Keepers of the Faith?

[wyldwolf]

124. Faux charge

I have no power to enforce the rules. I merely pointed it out.

Would your problem be that you want people to make unsubstantiated claims as fact void of proof?

[Disandra]

121. Fine then, ban us, call us names...

...and everything else you all have been doing.

Just don't be surprised when, once again, you lose the next election because you have ridiculed us.

There should also be a clear statement on the rules page that anyone who doesn't march to the DLC beat, whether Progressive, Green, Liberal, or whatever, is not welcomed here.

[wyldwolf]

126. Where has anyone called you names?

And wasn't the point of this thread to demonize the DLC? Yes...

Anyone is welcome here. But if you don't have a thick skin, I wouldn't recommend staying. But that is just my opinion.

[Disandra]

131. I don't know what the point of this thread was...

and as far as the name-calling, I had in mind threads like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=141600

I have a very thick skin, I was just pointing out that these tactics wouldn't work with people like me. You can't get rid of people like me who think that the DLC have betrayed us that easily.

[wyldwolf]

134. No one wants to get rid of you... but at the same time...

...one can't come into a message forum that was set up for people with varying ideologies and start calling them bush-lite because they won't conform to a purist progressive point of view without expecting to be reacted to.

[Disandra]

138. I didn't start off that way...

...it was only after I had been accused repeatedly of being to far left, without even asking me about my political beliefs that I even dared to share some of my political beliefs, only to be called a "turncoat" and a "traitor." I haven't insulted anyone here directly, I've given facts to back up my position (even though it was rejected because some of those facts were contained in an opinion piece), and am rejected.

I joined figuring I could have a good debate with like-minded people. The first time I really participated (even though I have been here since August) was over the MLJ protests thing. Encouraged, I wrote more, only to discover that people like me really aren't welcomed here by the majority.

[wyldwolf]

141. I doubt very seriously anyone has ever called you a turncoat or traitor

...over your politics. Care to show us where?

If you are one of the "I won't vote Dem if the nom isn't my guy or is DLC" types, THEN I would call you such things.

Odd that you feel the DLC is the majority here. Most further left would disagree. I, however, DO agree. The further left just makes more noise.

[Disandra]

149. I already did...

...the link I provided above to another discussion thread. It might have been deleted by now (I know one was), but scroll down some more, I believe the insult at the end of the page was "pissant."

[wyldwolf]

155. Sorry, nowhere in that thread were you called a "traitor" or "turncoat"

..unless both insults were contained in the ONE post that was deleted from the thread.

[Disandra]

156. They were.

And the person who called me a "pissant" just showed up on this thread and proudly did it again.

Sorry you don't want to hear the truth.

[wyldwolf]

159. So he called you a pissant, a traitor, and a turncoat all in one post?

[Disandra]

163. No. They were two separate posts by two separate people.

You know what? I completely give up. You don't want to believe a damned word I write, nor even consider my point of view.

So with that, I bow out. I'll express my opinion at the voter booth. Congratulations, instead of turning on someone who had leanings toward the ABB line, this forum has completely turned me against it. Way to win someone over to your side DU, good job!

[wyldwolf]

167. But only one post directed to you was deleted from that thread!

Your reaction to someone who disagrees with you is nothing short of astounding.

[drfemoe]

178. It bears repeating

Your reaction to someone who disagrees with you is nothing short of astounding.

[wyldwolf]

180. Yeah, I'll repeat it again

Your reaction to someone who disagrees with you is nothing short of astounding.

[Disandra]

184. Frustrated.

I guess I wasn't making my point clear. I have no problems with people who disagree with me. I'm responding to the people who insult me and those who feel as I do.

There is a difference. A huge one. If you can't see that, well there is no point in continuing our discussion, is there?

Please, please, stop assuming things and talking (well, writing) at me.

[drfemoe]

173. Don't Leave

There are like-minded people here.

[Disandra]

176. Oh, I'm not.

I'm just sick of arguing right now. :-)

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

132. It is amazing isn't it?

& to think that 7 months ago we were united on our goals, on our issues, on our fights.

School of the Americas. CSIS. National Endowment for Democracy. Jackson Stephens. Acxiom. Markle.

And the DLC.

AND IT'S ALL GOOD! We were wrong all these years! If you don't know which pill to take, just take BOTH! There's no rabbit hole here! Nothing to see here. Just move along folks. A smart military salute and move on!

[Disandra]

135. SALUTES!

I'm just giving up completely on this. Will only think good things of the DLC from now on, just like a good little soldier.

This thread has made my brain implode.

It just makes my heart hurt to see the party of FDR and JFK being reduced to this.

[Tinoire]

189. Don't let it get to you. This is all smoke and mirrors

DLC's afraid of losing their grip. There's nothing they fear more than this internet movement & the 2 grass-root campaigns. They're sending people out in droves on the internet to clamp down all this dissent.

It should make your heart pride that they have to resort to this knowing that everyday, the movement against them grows :) THIS is what democracy is about and it terrifies them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. The left is trying to resuscitate the corpse.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of "moderates" trying to drive a stake through it's heart.

[wyldwolf]

116. The left is trying to hijack the party so it will appeal to a small part..

...of the electorate. Purists. Leftist idealogues.

The moderates will retain the party as it has always been - for the common middle class.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

185. And, the moderates will be welcome to the remains of the rotting corpse.

The corpse of a party that actually stood for something other than self interest and sleeping with their capitalist masters.

[Tinoire]

190. That's it in a nut-shell. Very good! n/t

[IranianDemocrat]

128. The DLC is the savior of the Democratic Party!

If it wasn't for the DLC the current democratic party would be run by a bunch of marxists and hippies so far off from the political spectrum, that the average joe would laugh his ass off at the idea of voting democratic. Sure the DLC has too much power, but the DLC gave us Clinton, and without Clinton's win our party would be down and out. Let's face it, as much as some DUers would like to believe, America isn't ready for a Dennis Kucinich. We need to work our way SLOWLY to major social reforms, because Americans just aren't ready for a complete change. Without the DLC, none of that would be possible.

[newsguyatl]

154. i'm glad to see your honesty

on this subject...

and i'm not surprised at all to see that avatar beside your name.

[wyldwolf]

158. Nor are we at the avatar next to yours

[newsguyatl]

162. really superman?

that's funny, i have a tv avatar. you read from that i'm anti-dlc?


that's wise.


nice sig pics by the way! go DLC! holla

[wyldwolf]

166. Really...

...simple mistake... your sig line... which speaks louder than an avatar.

Nice sig pick, by the way. go DLC!

[drfemoe]

179. To make it complete ..

Now the race moves onto New Hampshire, where two other impressive New Democrats -- Sen. Joe Lieberman and Gen. Wesley Clark -- will have their chance as well.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252334

[wyldwolf]

181. Nice pic of Lieberman - Al Gore's running mate - Gore endorsed Dean...

...who is another fine new democrat.

[Tinoire]

194. In other words the change will come when I'm dead & can't verify it?

This is always the promise of the rich man to the starving man. "Have no fear! One day, you'll have enough to eat."

But. I. Am. Hungry. Now.

Jeez ID. I will never understand why I have a soft spot for you. Must be Fesenjan and good memories of Iranians :shrug:

[Iverson]

199. "later" is somehow never "now"

I have made the point over and over again that abandoning the discourse of the left has only the effect of moving the collective discourse to the right. The centrist promise of "later" is empty.

A generation ago the USAPATRIOT Act would have been unthinkable, yet today people who call themselves liberal and progressive are willing to accept it for some perceived electoral gain.

[corporatewhore]

157. Oh i dont care Who Wanted An Opposition Party any way

[fla nocount]

164. Certainly not the Ford Foundation aka _ _ _ n't

[mb7588a]

188. They won the last 3 elections, what's the problem?

[youngred]

201. Nope

Clinton ran as a LIBERAL not a DLC moderate in 92.

In 94 he ran as a DLC moderate but was also extremely popular

Al Gore won De Jure, but lost De Facto, and it should NEVER EVER have been ANYWHERE near as close at it was.

1.5 victories in 3 tries isn't that good, and its worse when you consider that they lost the congress for the first time in decades, and let the number of dem governors slip too

[wyldwolf]

203. yep!

Prime example here of historical revisionism.

[youngred]

207. do you have any proof to back that up?

you're the one re-writing history

[wyldwolf]

210. Let's see... you said...

"Clinton ran as a LIBERAL not a DLC moderate in 92."

Historical revisionism.

For starters, here is an article from February 1992

It is Clinton's appeal as a "moderate" Democrat that gives him the greatest chance of defeating President George Bush in 1992, and he has worked hard to distance himself form the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He is reaching out to the traditional democratic block of white, middle-class voters who feel their concerns have been squeezed out by special interest groups in the eighties.

http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1992/february/Sa20124.htm

How about one from writer Ted Rall (very famous liberal columnist). In an article that might have elicited wonderous praise before Dean's dive in Iowa, Rall said:

Clinton ran as a moderate--even his health-care plan, his platform's sole concession to liberalism, fell far short of socialized medicine--and won over an electorate eager for a change, but not a drastic one.

http://thomasmc.com/0807b.htm

[JVS]

205. The problem is that Bush is in the Whitehouse despite him "Losing to DLC"

Which means that either the DLC doesn't win, or they are very poor at collecting their prize.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

206. Both groups (the left) and the DLC neeed to learn to compromise

for the good of the Democratic Party. Both groups want EVERYTHING and are acting like spiled brats. This we do not need in the build-up for an election. Both sides have gone over the top...

[IndianaGreen]

209. Screw the DLC!

The only compromise possible is in the type of funeral the DLC should get: viewing or cremation?

[wyldwolf]

212. there's always third parties for those who feel that way

Here are a few suggestions:

Airenson Socialist Party
Communist Party USA
Greens / Green Party

Happy hunting!

[Iverson]

218. read: no lefties wanted

That kind of takes the shine off of the claim that centrists have a proprietary claim to the votes of actual liberals. However, your and the DLC's sentiments have been duly noted for quite some time.

Have a bipartisan day.

[wyldwolf]

219. Did you NOT read the post directly above mine?

Screw the DLC?

[Iverson]

222. missing piece provided free of charge

Indeed I did. This is a far cry from wishing centrists to be purged from the Democratic party. Centrists have a valuable contribution to make to the discourse that does not necessitate what I see as the corporate whoring of the DLC.

However, the kind of monolithic perspective that sees the DLC as an unmitigated good and the only permissible centrism will ensure that the Green Party continues to grow. Have it your way.

[wyldwolf]

223. Here are your missing pieces:

The poster above, who refuses to compromise, endorsed WORSE for the DLC than a purge from the party, didn't he Iverson. I believe he used words equating death?

A third party is the only viable alternative for him if he refuses to compromise since he will never see his wish of death to the centrist/moderate majority of the DNC.

Next?

[Iverson]

224. wow! a free tapdancing lesson!

You mischievously conflate the DLC and DNC and expect me to miss that? Get serious.

[wyldwolf]

225. Eye Exam?

post 209 Screw the DLC! The only compromise possible is in the type of funeral the DLC should get: viewing or cremation?

The poster above, who refuses to compromise, endorsed WORSE for the DLC than a purge from the party, didn't he Iverson? I believe he used words equating death?

A third party is the only viable alternative for him if he refuses to compromise since he will never see his wish of death to the centrist/moderate majority of the DNC.

Where did I mischievously conflate the DLC and DNC? Was he not calling for the funeral of the DLC?

[Iverson]

227. an important word before work and school

Repetition is merely that.

Now, if you think that the words equating death were literal instead of metaphorical, you have a moral duty to contact the authorities.

If your argument is "he did it, so it's okay for me," then I have to tell you that that's weak.

Most of us understand that the DLC structure is not the sole expression of Democratic centrism, and I bet that if you really wished, you could understand that too. Thus, a dead DLC still admits of centrism in the party, a point that I thought I made clear in an earlier post.

I can't make it any clearer. Help yourself to a last bon mot.

[wyldwolf]

233. Once again, Iverson

Repetition is necessary when one keeps (intentionally) missing the point.

All of your attempts to mis-characterize the tone of the debate have not gone unnoticed.

[Iverson]

234. incorrect

I can see where being called on your statements may be uncomfortable, but that hardly counts as mischaracterization.

You were quite clear in post #212 that those who passionately dislike the DLC aren't welcome in the Democratic Party.

You have tried unsuccessfully in posts 223 and 225, and to a lesser extent 219, to equate the dislike of the DLC with your de facto call for a purge. At least by now you've given up on the silly implication that the death imagery was literal instead of figurative. I have also had to advise you twice that Democratic centrism is possible outside of the DLC.

This is all fact, not mischaracterization.

You are left with empty stylistic criticisms when the alternative is to face the truth of my observation in post 218. Now eat your spinach.

[wyldwolf]

235. Very correct

I was very clear that those who will not vote for the eventual nominee if it is DLC have a choice of voting third party if they wish to remain in the political process.

If not, they can stay home.

[Forkboy]

231. You're right

I think I'm voting Green.

[bushclipper]

226. calls for death to the DLC? Just what I would expect from ....

..the radical fringe of the left AND the right.

[jonnyblitz]

228. they ARE the right. n/t

[youngred]

229. why from the right?

with the choice between pub and pub lite, more people opt for the real thing

[Iverson]

230. kick

... the DLC in a not-right direction.

[NewJerseyDem]

214. I agree

Sometimes both sides can be too stubborn and too critical of one another that they end up hurting the party. I think that reasonable debate within the party is reasonable but both sides should realize that there aren't enough people with DLC views to win elections against republicans without liberals and there aren't enough liberals to win elections without DLCers. Both have to be willing to accept one another and work for the greater cause of defeating republicans.

[Printer70]

232. The DLC has savaged Dean

They have the funding and the motive to do so. They have the press contacts and the ability to do opposition research. They mischaracterized Dean as "angry" and "unstable", rather than "passionate" and willing to stand up to Bush. If progressives are marginalized again in this primary, we will have the DLC to thank.