Don't be fooled, liberal Democrats dictated the agenda!

[ProSense]

The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called third way of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism.

Yet since Mr. Clinton left office, Democrats have seemed to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/us/politics/30dems.html

What the NYT doesn't say is Gore won the popular election and the Repubs pulled every dirty trick in the book in 2004 to pull the election for Bush.

This election cycle, liberal Democrats dictated the agenda. Iraq is the number one issue, just ask the centrist and the Republicans, including Kay Bailey Hutchinson who ditched "stay the course" in a debate two weeks before the election.

This is the time to continue pushing a progressive agenda!

[Parisle]

1. Oh, for Christ's sake,........

---- How is it that we are always hearing about the so-called "liberal" wing of the democratic party,.... but seldom do we hear mention made of the fact that the neocons dominating the Bush administration represent the goddamned NAZI wing of the GOP? That's about as rightwing as you can get, eh? And they are so far removed from traditional republican values,.. AND from majority mainstream thinking, that they should all be arrested and tossed in prison for anti-constitutional conspiracy,.... because that IS what they represent.

[Cha]

68. Nazi wing too lazy

to march!

[ProSense]

2. "Because there isn't a bull market in Bush..."

The triumvirate of failures - war, stagnation and housing bust - hammer each component of the memology of the right wing.

Iraq disproves the theory that ultra violence solves all problems. We have torture, prison camps and war crimes in Iraq. We have the most fearsome invasion military in the history of the world. We have precision munitions, the greatest battlefield superiority tank ever. The Bush executive was given unlimited power, no oversight, exemption from accountability, sole discretion and complete authority.

Whether the conservative Democrats can learn to negotiate left, rather than run right, is an open question. They have their entire political lives to overcome. However, if they don't they will rapidly find themselves replaced by moderates who understand moderation. Because there isn't a bull market in Bush, and Bush-lite is last election's hip beverage for the kool-aid drinking crowd.

A few things to note. One is that while this trend certainly is present -- ironically, much more pronouncedly so in Senate races than in the House ones that are the focus of the article -- a countertrend is also under way. Lots and lots of the endangered Republican seats involve center-left districts in the Northeast where voters are getting sick of the fraud caucus sham. Ask Chris Shays, or any umber of other endangered Republicans in Connecticut, New York, or Pennsylvania how they're feeling. The other point is that agenda control matters, especially in the House. A Hastert-run House gets to try and gin up votes on issues that are going to be awkward for marginal Democrats. A Pelosi-run House won't do that -- issues that are going to create problems for the Democrats just won't go to the floor. Instead, issues where Democrats are united but that put Republicans in awkward spots are going to be highlighted. That's a big part of the reason why control of the House matters.

[wyldwolf]

3. how can you draw that conclusion from even that one little snippet?

Gore was DLC. He was the pointman on NAFTA and Welfare reform. He ran from Clinton's record (mistake) because of Clinton's "scandals."

But if you want to give "liberals" credit for electoral performances since 2000, be my guest.

[martymar64]

4. Why do you hate liberals so much?

Did some hippie chick turn you down for a date in college? Your "I hate liberals" spiel is really tiresome. The Democratic Party as we know was built on liberalism. If you think the Democrats can win without us, keep talking shit.

[wyldwolf]

6. why do "progressives" hate so much to disputed?

The Democratic Party as we know was built on liberalism.

Yes, but not the fringe leftism spewed out by folks like you.

If you think the Democrats can win without us, keep talking shit.

So, what are you going to do? Vote 3rd party?

[Dr Fate]

9. Support 3rd parties? You mean like the elected DEMS who back Lieberman?

Does capital D loyalty apply equally to elected DEMS, or just individual voters on an obscure message board?

[wyldwolf]

16. no, like the Dems who supported Henry Wallace and Ralph Nader

[Dr Fate]

19. Or, people who support the "CT Lieberman Independent Party."

Come on now- lets be balanced.

If we demand that all DEM leaning voters vote for & support capital D DEMS (I agree that we should), then surely we should expect that example to be set by the elected DEM leadership as well.

[wyldwolf]

23. or people, like MoveOn and some DUers, who advise not to vote Dem

... of course, no one on my side says such things as "If you think the Democrats can win without us, keep talking shit."

[Dr Fate]

26. I agree- I oppose all who support 3rd ptys- not just the "left" ones.

Do you agree that the DEM leadership should set an example when it comes to 100% support of capital D DEMS or not?

[wyldwolf]

28. of course

I believe that Dems should support Dems. Which I do.

[Dr Fate]

31. In post #16 you said "no" when I brought up Lieberman supporters

n/t

[wyldwolf]

33. sure did, responding directly to martymar64 who made a threat...

... to do something (?) If I keep talkin' shit.

Do Lieberman supporters support him because martymar64 is talkin' shit?

[Dr Fate]

36. So long as we agree then.

My position is that elected DEM leaders should support capital D DEMS if they expect liberal & moderate voters to vote straight DEM.

If we agree, good. If not, then there is some bias to the right on your part.

[wyldwolf]

37. ..and my position is...

... anyone who calls themselves a Democrat and advocates NOT voting for a Dem for whatever reason is not deserving of the designation.

[Dr Fate]

39. Including all the elected DEMS who support Lieberman too?

Good- I'm glad we tend to agree to an extent.

[wyldwolf]

42. including many DUers, MoveOn, David Sirota, and KOS?

Good- I'm glad we tend to agree to an extent.

[Dr Fate]

44. DEM Lieberman supporters are "not deserving of the designation" of DEM?

That is what we are agreeing on?

[wyldwolf]

45. many DUers, MoveOn, David Sirota, and KOS not deserving of it?

That is what we are agreeing on?

[Dr Fate]

48. No. Do all those people even call themselves Democrats anyway?

If someone supports a 3rd party, then no, they cant be a loyal Democrat.

But I doubt you will make that affirmitive claim when it comes to DLC types who support Lieberman (I).

Or will you?

[wyldwolf]

50. yes they do.

If someone advocates NOT voting for Democrats, can they be a loyal Democrat?

[Dr Fate]

52. I dont see anyone supporting 3rd parties as being too loyal to DEMS.

And I'm not so sure Moveon and all those orgs are 100%, capital D DEM orgs like the many of the anti-Lamont(D) folks in the DLC claims to be.

Anyone who supports 3rd party over the D is no frined of mine- be it Moveon, DLC members, whoever.

You cant seem to bring yourself to say the same about certain elected DEMS for some reason who advocate NOT voting for Lamont (D)

[wyldwolf]

55. or advocating not supporting Dems?

You can't seem to bring yourself to say that anyone who advocates not supporting a Democrat is not a Democrat. That would include Sirota, MoveOn, KOS, may DUers, and a big part of the netroots.

[Dr Fate]

57. Really? I thought I said they were "no friends of mine" and "Not loyal"

Anyone who advocates voting I over D is not in my camp- I dont know what else to tell you.

I think most of the people & orgs you mention claim to be "progressive" or "Liberal" more so than partisan DEMS in any event.

I may have my disagreements here & there with the DLC, the DNC and the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections, but I never, ever, even once advocated that we vote for aonther party over a Democrat.


Anyone who advocates voting I over D is not in my camp- I dont know what else to tell you.

Now it is your turn to say the same about elected DEMS who refuse to support our Democratic nominee- Ned Lamont- unless you disagree with that.

[wyldwolf]

58. not the same. Are they Democrats?

Forget third party.

They advocate NOT SUPPORTING the Democrat in elections.

[Dr Fate]

63. I agree with you on that-not supporting Democrats, like Lamont, is repulsive.

Anyone who advocates "NOT SUPPORTING the Democrat in elections" is wrong and is not a loyal party DEM by definition.

I agree.

Now it is your turn to agree with me that this applies to Lieberman supporters who are "NOT SUPPORTING the Democrat" in the CT Senate elections. Unless you disagree with me , that is.

[wyldwolf]

65. ..and not supporting Clinton? Biden? Ford? Is that repulsive?

[Dr Fate]

67. I would vote for them and I send the DNC money all the time.

I also sent dough to Kerry's PAC that funds Ford.

Now it's your turn to say that Lieberman supporters are not true DEMS too- unless you disagree with that.

[wyldwolf]

70. that isn't what I've been asking.

Is anyone who advocates not supporting any Dem - are they a Democrat. Is David Sirota a Democrat? The DUers who said they would not support Harold Ford or Bob Casey - are they Democrats?

[Dr Fate]

77. Are you suggesting we have a purge?

I think anyone who is saying "Dont vote for the Democrat" whether it is Ford or Lamont is not being a good party Democrat.

Can you agree with that or not?


Whether their DEM registration should be torn up and whether they should leave or not, well, that is up to them- but I dont care for them.

All I can do is offer you my opinion on anti-Lamont DEMS while you refuse to give me yours. ;)

When do we get to hear your opinion on the loyalty of those anti-Lamont(D) Lieberman (I) supporters?

I get the feeling that you dont hold the same standard for them as I have for other people who oppose electing Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

80. Are you?

You keep avoiding the core question.

Look back over our exchange.

[Dr Fate]

79. When do you tell us about those Anti-Lamont (D) elected DEMS- are they loyal DEMS?

You seem to be running away from that question.

Are they good, loyal DEMS for not supporting the DEM nominee- or are they like Moveon and David Sirota who also tells people not to support particular DEMS?

I think they are all peas in a pod myself. The only difference is the anti-Lamont DEMS oppose a moderate anti-war DEM candidate while the people you mention oppose a conservative DEM candidate.

[wyldwolf]

83. I've said they were not loyal...

They're certainly not being (to use your phrase) "too" loyal at this moment in time. You seem to be ignoring that fact.

But in my book - The only difference in the anti-Lamont DEMS and the KOS/MoveOn/Sirota crowd is the latter make their careers on opposing and smearing Dems they don't find ideologically pure enough and the former, in their support for Lieberman, are opposing the movement the set out to take him down.

Honestly, what is worse? People who have made careers out of advising "Democrats" not to vote for certain types of Dems, have issued warnings to certain types of Dems to play their way or face retribution, have told they're flock their going to make certain Democrats "radioactive," have attacked Dems in conservative districts for being "sell-outs," etc.

... or Democrats who won't support one candidate, Ned Lamont, not because of who he is or what his positions are, but rather because of what he represents - the very movement of the anti-Democrat Sirota/MoveOn/Kos crowd.

To me, it is as simple as this - to be a loyal Dem, you support the party. If I was in CT, I'd support Lamont simply because of that. But I do understand the reasoning of those who do not and because I am not in CT, I can only work against the "more liberal than thou" movement (MoveOn, Sirota, etc.) who, in my opinion, have been trying to hijack the Democratic party much the same way the religious right did to the GOP. THAT is the core issue at play in the national Democrats who are supporting Lieberman. They're not rejecting Ned Lamont. They're rejecting the movement he represents.

[Dr Fate]

86. So for the Anti-Lamont (D) DEMS- it's "my way or the highway"

I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.

If only they had the loyalty and integrity to respect the Democratic primary voters in CT.

It is awful that they decided to go against the the idea of voting "D" and reject the movement that those CT voters represent.

[wyldwolf]

88. of course not.

However did you gather that from what I wrote?

Those supporting Lieberman are are opposing the "my way or the highway" approach of the netroots.

[Dr Fate]

89. It's either the Lamont Anti-war/anti-Bush Highway or the Lieberman/DLC highway

Seems to me both factions are trying to take the party down different roads.

The biggest difference is one side is voting for the legitimate, elected DEM primary winner while the other side is disloyal to DEM primary voters.

[wyldwolf]

90. no, it's either the netroots "my way or the highway" or debate and discourse...

We've seen six years of governance of the base, for the base, and by the base.

I don't believe the American people want to see the liberal version of it and I've never seen centrists, DLC or otherwise, threaten to take down other Democrats who don't adhere to some strict party orthodoxy.

[Dr Fate]

91. The DLCers debated Bush leading up to the Iraq War? Really?

On what- when to bomb them?

We will have to agree to disagree- I dont see much of the DLC debating the Republicans much on the major, encompassing issues that matter most- I see them agreeing with Bush a whole lot though. "Discourse" and agreement, sure- but not much debate.

We agree that rabid far left greenies should not control the party- good thing they dont-as you said-they are only 2% anyway. Lamont is a moderate/anti-war in any event.

But Common sense Liberals & moderates who base FP on facts as opposed to the Bush/Rove type lies that many of the DLCers swallowed whole- I think the American people whould be open to that kind of change- actual debate & discourse against the far right would be a good thing.

I dont think we need people who trust Bush/Rove on FP controlling the party either.

[wyldwolf]

92. there was plenty of debate leading up to the Iraq war...

...John Kerry (DLC, MASS) in particular, gave a very good speech.

I dont see the much of the DLC debating the Republicans much on the major, encompassing issues that matter most to me

Probably because you're not paying attention.

The DLC has debated the GOP and Bush, and disagreed with them on these issues, among others:

Alternative energy

stem cell research

tax cuts for the wealthy

Environmental issues (DLC first raised the red flag on global warming in 1992)

healthcare coverage

Intervention in Darfur (DLC called for such in 2004)

Supreme court nominations (" With the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, this embattled president has once again decided to ignore an opportunity to unite rather than divide, and to distract from America's real problems rather than take them head on.")

budget policies

condemnation of Bush's inaction on Katrina

[Dr Fate]

94. But little or no opposition. Debate w/o actual opposition did not aid us.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

96. how much opposition could the minority party actually give?

Many people, including Howard Dean I'll mention, were taken in by the fake evidence. In light of the evidence that many thought was accurate, the Democrats' cautious approval of military intervention as a last resort (as evidenced by Kerry, Biden, and others), provided Bush exhaust all diplomatic options, and return to the UN one more time, was certainly the proper approach at the time.

[Dr Fate]

99. They are allowed to vote "no", are they not?

Instead they ignored the facts in favor of Bush's lies and set themselves up as "flip-floppers."

Oh sure- they did all they could to fight & correct Bush's lies.

They were all on TV every day talking about the forged Nigerian documents, the fake info in Powell's speech, the lies aobut "drone" and "45 minutes" and everything else. Suuuure.

Yeah- they "debated" all right. Pu-leeze.

But you are right- it was not just only DLC- other DEMS were too frightened to go against Bush/media too.

The difference is some learned their lesson.

[wyldwolf]

100. of course, if their conscience dictates

but like I said, lots of people bought into the lies. And if the lies had been true (as they believed) it would have been the correct vote.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Dr Fate]

103. Yes-the Liberals & informed moderates were right, the DLC & Bush was DEAD wrong.

Who should I trust- the people who had command of the facts or the people who got us into a war becuase they trusted Bush's fake facts?

All the facts about Bush's lies available before the war-I read those correct, undisputed facts before the invasion myself- the pro-war DEMS choose to ignore them in favor of Bush's lies.

[wyldwolf]

104. well, the people who would have voted against it regardless were right

I'll give you that. Hopefully they'll never be in charge when a real threat happens.

Amazing how this subject has raised you hackles. LOL!

[Dr Fate]

106. We knew it was not a real threat- we had the facts.

When a real threat comes along, that is different. We were right, the DLC was wrong- it was not "guessing"- we looked at the facts, the DLC ignored them in favor of Bush in a most irresponsible manner.

If you prefer people who swallow Rove lies when there is no evidence for a threat over people who SEE that there is no evidence for a threat, fine.

Raised my hackles? Why you seem just as eager to argue as me!!!

Dont give yourself too much credit- I just like memorizing thiose DLC talking points and semantics tricks that you provide.

[wyldwolf]

108. of course you did.

:)

[Dr Fate]

110. We did- and we begged the DLC and others to listen to us.

Instead they choose to trust Bush and his media.

Pre-war knowledge of Powell's UN lies and literally hundreds of other pre-war Bush/media distortions is a matter of record. Are you refuting this?

[wyldwolf]

111. of course you did

:)

[Dr Fate]

112. Can you refute there was pre-war knowledge of Bush's lies & distortions?

Of course you cant.

;)

[wyldwolf]

114. I can certainly agree that there were conflicting viewpoints

The facts of which were not proven until the war was underway. :)

[Dr Fate]

116. Wrong- the fact that Powell was lying with forged docs was known pre-war.

And the Bush/DLC viewpoint was (Suprise!!!) DEAD WRONG.

There was no conflicts- the lies were lies. The choice was either to recognize them as lies or choose to go along with them.

While the facts & reasoning that Liberals and informed moderates based their opposition on stayed constant.

[wyldwolf]

118. I can certainly agree that there were conflicting viewpoints

The facts of which were not proven until the war was underway.

[Dr Fate]

120. Wrong- the lies were known to be lies before the war.

The only conflicting viewpoints was whether to oppose the lies and forged documents or support the lies & forged documents in hope that the lies were somehow facts.

[wyldwolf]

123. I can certainly agree that there were conflicting viewpoints

The facts of which were not proven until the war was underway.

[Dr Fate]

125. The fact that Powell was lying with forged Docs was proven beforehand.

There was no "conflict" as to whether they were forged or not.

The only conflict was whether to base your vote on lies forged documents or not.

[wyldwolf]

127. I can certainly agree that there were conflicting viewpoints

The facts of which were not proven until the war was underway.

[Dr Fate]

129. Yup- and the conflict was whether to swallow known lies whole or fight the lies.

We all know which choice the DLC went with.

[wyldwolf]

131. I can certainly agree that there were conflicting viewpoints

The facts of which were not proven until the war was underway.

[Dr Fate]

134. But you cant adress why the DLC trusted Powell's forged Docs. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

135. hmm.. don't recall the DLC specifically addressing those

Got a link?

[Dr Fate]

137. You need a link to how Powell's lying speech convinced DEMS to support the war?

Talk about needing a history lesson.

I dont recall the DLC ever adressing the fact that those Docs were forged either- which is part of the problem.

[wyldwolf]

139. no, that the DLC specifically trusted his forged docs. That is what you alleged.

So give me a history lesson. Link?

[Dr Fate]

141. His entire speech was based on forged Niger docs, forged British intel, and other proven lies.

If the DLC parsed out and disregarded the part about the forged docs, I never heard them say so.

[wyldwolf]

145. you're the one who specifically parsed out the doc.

So do you have anything that says Powell's speech convinced the DLC to support the war?

[Dr Fate]

147. I guess they voted "yes" b/c they thought he was lying then?

That would have been rather odd.

Are you really sayiing that DEMS did not support Bush based in large part on Powell's speech? Then we honestly remember it differently them. I least I honestly do.

I suppose that is arguable, somehow, someway. But I'm not going to argue with straight bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

149. So you have no link stating the DLC trusted Powell's forged Docs?

[Dr Fate]

151. If your position is that Powell's speech was not used to justify "yes" votes, fine.

You can make shit up all you want- it's allowed here to an extent.

[wyldwolf]

153. so you stated something as fact that you cannot back up?

Seems you're making shit up.

[Dr Fate]

154. yes- I made up the fact that many DEMS trusted Powell's UN Speech.

In fact, it had no impact what-so-ever. No one even watched it.

[wyldwolf]

157. no, you apparently made up "DLC trusted Powell's forged Docs." post 134 n/t

[Dr Fate]

158. Yes- I concede-in reality- they stated that his speech was based on lies.

And they completely disreagrded his speech as "based on forged documents" when they gave their "yes" vote speeches.

yes- I remember now...

[wyldwolf]

160. You remeber now? So what did they specifically say about the forged docs?

[Dr Fate]

163. I dont recall them ever admitting the docs were known to be forged- do you?

I concede- the DLC nor any elected DEM never believed a word of Powell's speech-especially all the parts (the bulk of the speech) known before the invasion to be based on lies & forgeries.

But they voted "yes" anyway.

It all makes perfect sense in hindsight.

Anyway- if anyone is stupid enough to still be reading this, they know you are full of it by now.

[wyldwolf]

165. but do you have any evidence they trusted them as you claimed in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

167. Perhaps they just pretended to trust Powell's "evidence"?

Is that what you are getting at?

[wyldwolf]

169. can you provide evidence they pretended to trust the docs?

[Dr Fate]

177. They either trusted Powell's speech that was based on the docs, or they did not.

I'll let anyone stupid enough to still be reading this decide for themselves.

Happy Halloween!!!

[wyldwolf]

178. can you provide evidence they pretended to trust the docs?

[Dr Fate]

182. They either trusted Powell's speech that was based on the docs, or they did not.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

189. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[Zhade]

175. Yes, like Tonkin it was a bullshit "threat" based on lies.

Yet, somehow, a lot of us non-elected citizens saw through the lies as they were being told.

Shame WE weren't the ones voting, since we were right.

[wyldwolf]

181. speaking of bullshit. About those two claims you push...

[Zhade]

174. Indeed - thank you for pointing out those facts.

I don't trust those people who swallowed the lies and, once those lies were exposed for all to see far and wide, STILL support the war.

Like, oh, lieberman.

[Zhade]

173. Do you support lieberman?

It sure looks that way.

Do you?

[wyldwolf]

180. hey, Zhade, did you ever find proof of those two bullshit claims of yours?

[Zhade]

171. You are doing a fantastic job showing his true colors. Bravo!

NT!

[wyldwolf]

186. hey, Zhade, did you ever find proof of those two bullshit claims of yours?

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

13. That poster accuses me, a moderate of being "far left" all the time.

Whenever I ask him to give me an example of one of my "far left" positions, he can never answer.

Dont sweat it- using "left" in the context of a vaugue insult or discriptive put-down on a Democratic board is an act that speaks for itself.

In the case of this thread though, I actually AGREE with our friend this time. He is right- lefties & fighting moderates were not responsible for the agenda or strategic/attack approach in the last 3 elections we lost.

[wyldwolf]

18. pony up

Show me an instance of that.

My contention is, and always has been, that fringe partisans like yourself are more concerned with non-compromising "my way or the highway" stances than ideology.

[Dr Fate]

20. LOL! Okay- I concede you never called me or anyone "far left"

Or "looney left" or "keyboard warriors"- nope- i guess you will have me believe that must have been some other poster who uses your password then- LOL!!!!

LOL! Pony up he says!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!

[wyldwolf]

21. LOL! You're conceding the wrong point

Whenever I ask him to give me an example of one of my "far left" positions, he can never answer.

Show me an instance. LOL! Concede the point he says!!! LOL! LOL! LOL!

[Dr Fate]

24. Oh -okay-fair enough- then show me one of my far-left issues then.

My position is that you have called me "far left" and that you cant back that up.

If you want to be completely outrageous and untruthful and say you never called me "far left"- that is fine with me too.

[wyldwolf]

25. like I just said

My contention is, and always has been, that fringe partisans are more concerned with non-compromising "my way or the highway" stances than ideology.

Are you going to claim that your problem with the DLC isn't that they compromise or take positions to the right of yours?

[Dr Fate]

27. So now I am I "fringe partisan"- On what issues? Back up your smears.

Can you back up your smear or are you lying on purpose?

[wyldwolf]

30. are you purposely missing the point?

It isn't about one issue or many, it's about being willing to compromise with the opposition. Are you saying you no longer have a problem with the DLC's centrist positions?

[Dr Fate]

34. No- I have a problem with far-right positions, and refusing to fight.

I dont have a problem with compromising on legitimate, moderate or centrist positions.

What compromises that I opposed are you talking about?

I also do have a problem with not fighting the GOP back when they attack us and I do have a problem with supporting far-right FP policies- such as supporting multi-billion dollar wars that based on lies.

I dont know if our "keep your powder dry" and "let them fall on their sword" attitude of the past 6 years was supported fully by the DLC or not- all I know is that it has been the approach and it has yet to win us a battle.

If you actually had a particular issue or point of strategy as an example of my "fringe" behavior- I would be glad to adress it.

[wyldwolf]

35. well, there you go.

What you term "far-right" positions may not be so to some Democrats.

[Dr Fate]

38. So you dont have any examples of my "fringe" positions then, do you?

Correctly framing a multi-billion $$, endless war based on blatant lies & media propaganda as "far right" is not fringe.

In turn- if you frame a moderate, popular, safe position like opposing this war as "far left"-that does not make it so for most Democrats either.

I dont think you have any examples of my "fringe" or "far left" issues at all.

I think you made the whole thing up.

[wyldwolf]

40. I never claimed to

I've always contended that the "my way or the highway" mentality is what makes one the fringe.

[Dr Fate]

41. I see- so your definition of "fringe" morps depending on who calls your bullshit.

What "fringe" "far left" "my way or the highway" issues of mine warrants all these labels?

My way or the highway? Are we saying that many conservative DEMS dont take this attitude either? Please. If it is fringe for the left then it is fringe for the right of the party too.

[wyldwolf]

43. it has always been the same. Can you point to where it has been different?

[Dr Fate]

46. How can I point out what you have constantly refused to clarify?

You have yet to even tell me what issues, positions, strategies or any thing that I have taken a "my way or the highway" "far left" or "fringe" stance on.

Point out how your name calling or failure to back up your smears has ever been used any differently? You do indeed use it the same way- as a smear without facts to back it up.

[wyldwolf]

47. I've clarified my position at least twice in this thread

Your anti-DLC mantra has always been based on your disdain for how they vote on issues.

[Dr Fate]

51. And what is so wrong with opposing the DLC on certain issues?

That is what makes me "fringe"- opposing the DLC on certain issues?

If you say so.

[wyldwolf]

56. didn't say it was bad

I said opposing them for the simple fact that they do merge liberal and conservative policies into outcomes some "progressives" disagree with make them uncompromising, fitting my definition of fringe.

[Dr Fate]

60. Oh- I dont mind when they do that all. So I guess I'm not fringe.

When did I oppose them for merging liberal and conservative policies into outcomes?

I dont have a huge problem with many conservative positions- I even hold some myself- it's far-right positions that I oppose- like supporting fake, multi-billion , endless wars based on RW lies media propaganda.

I DO have a problem when the DLC takes a far-right position or when anyone, DLC or not, refuses to fight back the GOP when they attack us.

Which merged policies & outcomes are you speaking of? If they were truly a combo of conservative (not far right) and Liberal, then I am probably open to it.

[wyldwolf]

61. well,if your position now is that the DLC is ok, then I guess you're not fringe

So they're fine and dandy in your book now?

[Dr Fate]

66. No- I disagree with them on many issues.

I have supported a few of their stances too.

You said something about "merging liberal and conservative policies into outcomes" - what examples of that are you talking about?

What are some of the particular polices & particular outcomes?

[wyldwolf]

71. do you consider them "republican-lite" or DINOS?

[Dr Fate]

78. Stances on ISSUES can certainly be repub-lite, far right, Liberal, moderate etc.

And if an individual is "far right" or "repub-lite" on a majority of the issues, then -as the saying goes, "if the shoe fits, wear it."

I wont paint the whole DLC with a broad brush- I'll look at individuals and their stances on issues.

You claimed that the DLC is combining conservative & liberal policies and outcomes- tell me some specifics & I'll tell you if I would describe those "policies" and "outcomes" as "republican-lite" or DINO" or whether I agree with them.

[wyldwolf]

81. only in somone's opinion

I've heard many here say the DLC's trade policies are "far right" but they come right out of the Wilson/FDR/Truman/Kennedy playbook.

[Dr Fate]

87. I doubt Truman/Kennedy/FDR would suck up to Bush/Rove on a fake war.

And I am not so sure the New Deal economic policies resembles anything close to what the DLC proposes either.

In fact, I think if we proposed many of those old FDR/Truman New Deal type programs, the media, the GOP and many in the DLC would call it "fringe" and "far left" amd even "socialist"

As a DLCer who I'm sure we both admire on many fronts once put it: "The era of big government is over!!!"

[wyldwolf]

95. why not? Did they not engage in fake wars themselves?

Korea? Vietnam?

nd I am not so sure the New Deal economic policies resembles anything close to what the DLC proposes either.

Then perhaps your understanding of that era is incomplete. Certainly the New Deal was based on socialist policies but desperate times call for desperate measures. Much of New Deal was never meant to stay intact after the depression. The party - from Truman to even Bobby Kennedy - understood this. In fact, Truman's elevation to VP, then to the presidency, and beyond, was opposed by the "progressives" of the time because he intended to dismantle parts of the New Deal per FDR's original intent.

As for FP, the DLC's policies mirror those of that era.

[Dr Fate]

97. WWII was a fake war?????? You are officially out of your mind.

Either way- you are saying the DLC emulates DEMS who agree with starting fake wars. Not exactly a good endorsement of their character.

Besides-FDR, Truman or Kennedy never lied about WMDs, never presented fake documents and told us we would be attacked in 45 minutes and all that other crap that the DLCers swallowed whole.

You are wrong- FDR, Truman and Kennedy would have never fallen for Rove's lies like the gullible DLCers and others did.

[wyldwolf]

98. Point out to the good people reading this where I said or implied that????

You've just lapsed into some irrational frame of mind.

The fact is, we'll never know what Truman and Kennedy would have done in that situation. But we know what they did in regards to Korea and Vietnam.

And the FP similarities is called "liberal internationalism."

Read a book or two on this era. You'll be enlightened.

[Dr Fate]

101. In post #95- you said "why not" to the idea that FDR,etc would not start a fake war.

You suggested that the FDR, Truman and Kennedy were for fake wars just like the DLC is. I dont even think that is a factual statement- and certainly not comparable to what we did in Iraq.

This is an outrageous excuse for the DLC supporting fake wars.

I think you have really stretched it on this one.

[wyldwolf]

102. that is right. But look at the first several words IN the post (Korea & Vietnam)

Which shows you didn't even read the post. So are you going to claim Korea and Viet Nam were honorable wars with our best interests in mind? No false pretenses or trumped up charges? LOL!

You serious lack of historical knowledge is showing.

[Dr Fate]

105. So Truman faked the Korean war and Kennedy faked Vietnam?

Suuure they did- in a manner similar to how Bush lied us into Iraq too, I'm so sure. Even if that was true, I dont see how that justifies what is happening now.

And this is why the DLC was right for letting Bush fake Iraq? Becuse other DEMS supposedly did it to?

Uh-huh.

You said the DLC emulates FDR/Truman/Kennedy- now all of a sudden you want to take FDR's FP out of the mix and replace Kennedy with LBJ.

[wyldwolf]

107. like I said, your lack of historical knowledge is showing

And of course you were wrong on that WWII charge.

But here is what you need to do.

Research Woodrow Wilson's Liberal Internationalism.

Compare that with the FP policies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc.

Next, contrast it with "Progressive Internationalism." Identical policies. And the basis for every war we've been in since Wilson's day.

Next, put aside your truthiness and read:

http://www.amazon.com/Party-People-Democrats-Jules-Witcover/dp/0375507426/sr=1-1/qid=1162320813/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8241637-6087257?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-Philadelphia-Political-Convention/dp/1586484508/sr=1-12/qid=1162320852/ref=sr_1_12/002-8241637-6087257?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Harry-S-Truman/dp/0826214452/sr=1-3/qid=1162320931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/002-8241637-6087257?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Dr Fate]

109. So you cant explain how FDR, Truman & Kennedy's FP is like Bush's?

I thought you were going to explain to me how Kennedy & Truman did what Bush did (and what the DLC agreed with) in Iraq.

Cant do it, can you?

Does your laundry list of links talk about how Truman & Kennedy lied about WMDs, presented faked & forged documents to the UN, lied to us through a corporate media and connected countries who never attacked us to people who did?

Didnt think so.

[wyldwolf]

113. Do you not agree that Korea and Viet Nam were engaged under false pretenses?

It is a historical certainty.

And do you not agree that (one) of the reasons given for Iraq was based on the policy of liberal internationalism - just as was in Korea and Vietnam?

The words used were different, the supposed threats from different agents, but still wars fought for political reasons when no threat was present to our national security.

I know it is difficult for black/white thinkers to understand these nuances.

If I stole a baby ruth bar and you an almond joy, I'm sure you're argument would be that the circumstances were different because a different company produced the chocolate.

[Dr Fate]

115. Even if FDR, JFK & Truman were just like Bush in Iraq- that would not make it right.

And it would not make it something we would want to continue.

I dont see how what they did even comes close to what Bush did-but
I think it's funny that you have to bring in past DEM failed wars like Vietnam to justify DLC support for a current failed policy.

[wyldwolf]

117. I never said it was the right thing

And I am not justifying anything. I'm merely giving you a history lesson.

My original point was that the FP of the DLC mirrored that of FDR/Truman/Kennedy. FP encompasses more than wars. But the crux of traditional 20th century liberal FP is spreading liberalism to other countries, thus, liberal internationalism. This is accomplish both culturally and militarily.

yes, I realize when "progressives" finally realize this is true, it shatters their notion of "traditional Democratic values." Reality is cruel mistress.

[Dr Fate]

119. The current pro-Bush FP sucks, whether you say FDR would like it or not.

Thanks for the history lesson- now I know that according to DLC revisionism, DEM icons like FDR, Truman & Kennedy are lying sacks of shit just like Bush when the DLC needs to justify their support for lying sacks of shit.

[wyldwolf]

121. ok. We can agree there. But remember, truth has three stages

ridicule, opposition, and finally, acceptance.

You're currently on #2. If you ever read any books on Democratic party history, I'm confident you'll find your way to acceptance.

But you don't have to like it.

[Dr Fate]

122. Yes- someday I'll learn that FDR, JFK & Truman are as bad as Bush.

I just need to sit at your feet a little longer before it all sinks in.

[wyldwolf]

124. Like I said before, you have to read history to understand it

... and it does take patience to understand nuanced discussions.

[Dr Fate]

126. Pretend I am a swing-voter who has no time or patience.

Then tell that swing voter that the DLC support for Bush is okay, based on volumes of books from your private library.

Good luck!!!!

[wyldwolf]

128. Swingvoters are a touch more patient than partisans...

...which is why they are swing voters. But as I've already shown, the DLC does not support Bush on most issues...and that would include, now, the Iraq war.

So I would win with the swing voters on that issue.

But how about in 2002? Well, in 2002, the swing voters agreed with Bush.

[Dr Fate]

130. Er- we LOST to swing-voters in 2002.

Going along with Bush's lies did not help us win a thing- and it set us up as "flip-floppers" in '04.

Sorry, I dont see how accepting lies as fact ever helped us.

[wyldwolf]

132. yes we did because, like I said, they agreed with Bush... Er...

[Dr Fate]

133. The result was that we lost '02 and then set ourselves up as Flip-floppers for '04

What a BRILLIANT strategy it was for the DLC to to support Bush in Iraq.

We lost in '02 becuase everyone supported Bush more than DEMs who were imitations of him- and the "flip-floppers" lost '04 once many of those same voters realized Iraq was a sham.

BRILLIANT I SAY!!! What shall we agree with Bush on next????

[wyldwolf]

136. the DLC makes up a minority portion of the House and Senate Dems

I guess they work wonders.

[Dr Fate]

138. Oh it was not just the DLC who went along- we both know that.

It was just the DLC who seemed unanimous in supporting Bush's-war lies.

Perhaps there were a few DLCers who voted "no" along with the DEMS who went with the facts- I'm not sure. Were there?

[wyldwolf]

140. yet you lay it at the DLC's feet. C'mon! Either they're powerful or they're not

[Dr Fate]

143. No- they cant take all the blame- just for their own failed strategies.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

142. so the DLC, that small little band of brothers, influenced the rest?

Those other Dems of principle were corrupted! LOL!

[Dr Fate]

144. Could be- they certainly can be blamed for their own failed strategies though.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

146. ah, the nefarious tentacles of the DLC in the minds of the paranoid

[Dr Fate]

148. If you say so- I only discussed what they themselves did and what others did.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

150. but the only source is your imagination

[Dr Fate]

152. Sure- the DLC never supported Bush- I imagined the whole thing.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

155. If you have a link specifically stating what you are alledging, let's see it

I believe the charge is Powell's forged Docs convinced the DLC to support Bush?

[Dr Fate]

156. No that was in the other sub thread.

This one is about some other argument that you are trying to bury.

[wyldwolf]

159. so it doesn't apply here? LOL! Alternate reality for you I guess

[Dr Fate]

161. And in that alternate reality-the DLC never trusted Powell's speech.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

162. Oh, I never made that claim. But you sure are avoiding the "Docs" claim

[Dr Fate]

164. I'm not avoiding the docs claim- it is a fact the Powell's speech was widely trusted

And it is a fact that forged docs were a huge part of it.

If you dont recall that huge event, then I cant help you.

[wyldwolf]

166. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

168. Either they trusted his speech or they did not. The speech was based on known forgeries.

They either trusted the speech or they didnt.

The "yes" votes and no speaking out against the knopwn forgeries contained w/i indicates they either trusted the speech or pretended to.

Maybe they did not believe his speech at all and still voted yes anyway- is that what you are saying?

[wyldwolf]

170. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[KoKo]

172. A partisan wouldn't accept ANY EVIDENCE....not matter how complete

or compelling it was. No matter how intelligent in it's argument.

Does that ring a "bell?" :shrug:

[Dr Fate]

179. Did you know that DLCers did not even consider Powell's speech in their war vote?

And did you also know that Truman & JFK lied us into wars just like Bush does?

You learn all kindza neat stuff when you debate DLC people!!!!

[wyldwolf]

183. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

187. Powell's speech was based on docs known to be forged. They either trusted him or they didnt.

Either way, they voted "yes"

[wyldwolf]

188. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

193. Their "yes" votes is "evidence" that they either trusted Powell or pretended to.

Evidence by definition, in fact.

[wyldwolf]

185. so Doc Fate has no evidence that the DLC specifically did as he claims in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

176. They either trusted Powell's false speech or they did not. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

184. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[Dr Fate]

192. Their "yes" votes is "evidence" that they either trusted Powell or pretended to.

That is indeed "evidence" by definition.

Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

196. so you have no evidence that the DLC specifically did as you claim in post 134?

[wyldwolf]

17. you made no point to prove. Now c'mon...

What are you going to do it I "keep talkin' shit."

Been hearing threats like that for years.

[martymar64]

49. My point is . . .

that you just want the status quo, the old game of kickbacks and graft that brought this party down in the first place and paved the way for the Rethug victories in 94, 2000, 2002, 2004 . . .

You have a choice to either fight for change in politics or be pushed aside as a reactionary should. Anyone who wishes to reach across the aisle should beware, we have your number. This is not business as usual. If you get in bed with the right wing, that makes you a right winger. And a right winger is just a Nazi and deserves to be treated as such. We beat your kind in WW2 and we'll beat your kind again.

We all know how you worship the Rethug policy of war and screwing the working man. You can rail against us "lefties" all you want but it only marginalizes you even more than you already are. I am Left and proud of it. At least we haven't sold our soul for expediency like you and your DLC Right Wing Pinochetist ilk have.

[wyldwolf]

53. revisionism

you just want the status quo, the old game of kickbacks and graft that brought this party down in the first place and paved the way for the Rethug victories in 94, 2000, 2002, 2004 . . .

The old status quo that brought the party down was the further-left liberal controlled congress pre-1994. When that fact is presented, you entire "viva le revolution!" spill falls to the side.

Hey! Next week, 25 new DLC House members and two new DLC-backed Senators.

[Mass]

59. Only 2 DLC-backed senators. Who does the DLC not back

among the likely or potential winners in the Senate?

Casey
Whitehouse
Tester
Ford
Webb
McCaskill
Klobuchar
Brown
Cardin
Lamont

I would have expected all Democrats to support all Democratic candidates.

[wyldwolf]

72. three

Ford. Casey. Webb.

[Mass]

73. So the DLC does not back the other ones?

Good to know.

[wyldwolf]

75. the DLC supports their campaigns

...but has embraced Webb, Casey, and DLC member Ford as New Democrats. (Just like PDA or DFA supports Harold Ford but certainly wouldn't invite him into their organizations)

[martymar64]

62. Just because you say they're DLC doesn't make it so.

As long as people like you refuse to fight for what is right and good in this country, nothing will change. Admit it, you don't want things to change, you just want your guys to be getting the pork and kickbacks.
Maybe this country does need a revolution. The Clinton admin did little for working people (NAFTA, Welfare "reform"). And when Clinton ran into trouble, who was the first person to jump on him, your boy Holy Joe and the DLC. It makes one wonder who his (and your) loyalties really lie.
As far as the label "liberal" applies to any Congress or Admin in this nation's history, it's pure bullshit. There has never been a liberal anything in the politics of this country. This country has always been rule by the aristocracy of wealth. If any truly liberal movement came out in this country, a movement that is truly for the people, they would be mowed down with machine guns, and you be on the sidelines cheering the murderers on.

Admit it, you're nothing but a fascist in "centrist" clothing.

[wyldwolf]

74. that is so funny

That is absolutely hysterical.

Are you actually going to say with a straight face that Harold Ford is not a member of the DLC and the Casey and Webb don't have the backing of the DLC?

The rest of your anti-Clinton rant is irrelevant (and inaccurate)

[martymar64]

76. You named 3 DLCer's

What about Tester? Lamont? And the scores of others that the DLC downright hates because they won't tow the line of "business as usual"?
Clinton may have charisma, but tell me exactly what did he do to make the life of working people better? Did he bring us universal health care? No. Did he eliminate corruption in Washington? No. Did he secure jobs in this country? No.
And tell me, what will Ford or Webb or Casey do for working people? My guess is that they will do nothing. They will suck at the corporate teat and will only grant favors to the biggest contributors. For the DLC, the only thing that counts is who can we sell our access and votes to? They will do nothing about the healthcare crisis in this country, they're in the pocket of Big Pharma. They will not call the Bush junta to account for the multitude of crimes committed against the people of the US and the world. With the guys you mentioned, the status quo will reign. It'll be like it is now, only with the DLCer's kowtowing to K Street. I'm willing to lay money down on that.
You can pooh pooh the concerns and beefs that the American people have, but you can't hold back the tide. People in this country are angry and business as usual just won't cut it anymore.

[wyldwolf]

82. yeah... so? Wasn't that my initial claim?

And do you have any evidence the DLC "downright hates them?"

<ignore>irrelevant Clinton material and revolutionary rhetoric</ignore>

[martymar64]

84. If you don't like revolutionary rhetoric

you must hate the Founding Fathers, as well as the Declaration of Independence. It's chock full of it. Read BullMoose, he'll tell you who to hate. He's your hero along with Holy Joe, isn't he?

[wyldwolf]

85. Why introduce irrelevant subjects?

Are we discussing Bill Clinton or the founding fathers?

Hey? Why not mention your favorite brand of beef jerky?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Dr Fate]

7. I agree 100%- Liberals have had little or no control over the past 3 elections.

At least I cant remember us doing anything particularly Liberal, or anything particualrly aggressive or creative as many of the Liberals and fighting moderates begged them to.

If anything, we took a "measured" or conservative-lite approach to everything in the past 3 elections we lost-Including the recount & media fight in 2000.

[wyldwolf]

8. but, yet "liberal Democrats dictated the agenda!"

The OP says so.

Of course, we could have gone the McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis route...

[Dr Fate]

10. Yes- Liberals & fighting moderates did not direct the agenda. The OP is wrong.

The people who wanted DEMS to fight back against GOP/media lies & smears and be aggressive, pointed and hard-hitting against the GOP were ignored too- whether they were Liberal or not.

That has always been my thing- I dont have a huge problem with right-leaning moderates or lefty Liberals- I just want whoever it is to fight the GOP as hard as they fight us.

Whoever it was that set the pace in the past 3 elections we lost seemed to take the "let them fall on their swords" "keep your powder dry" "let's not talk about that GOP scandal" type approach.

[ProSense]

15. The OP is not wrong!

If liberals didn't take up the cause for http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2914996&mesg_id=2914996">Iraq and push for accountability on everything from Katrina (not a moderate critic in sight) to spying, this election would would be about who is more right the Republicans or the Democrats. As it stands, all the Repubs can do is make lame excuses:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2913000&mesg_id=2913000

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2914085&mesg_id=2914085

[Dr Fate]

22. I disagree. I just dont see Liberals being allowed to dicate anything.

Or the tough, fighting moderates for that matter.

If opposing the Iraq war was not seen as "moderate" or "safe" then DEMS would not embrace that tactic- believe me.

[ProSense]

29. That may be true for some, but

criticizing the war at the height of public euphoria isn't "safe!" It's the right thing to do when an administration makes a deadly wrong move!

Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S.

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A10

Republicans jumped on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday in the wake of reports that the Democratic presidential candidate had told a New Hampshire audience that "we need a regime change in the United States."

Snip...

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) led the chorus of GOP critics who attacked Kerry for challenging Bush during wartime. "Senator Kerry's remark, equating regime change in Iraq with regime change in the United States, is not what we need at this time," Hastert said. "What we need is for this nation to pull together, to support our troops and to support our commander in chief."

Snip...

Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to GOP criticism by saying: "Clearly, Senator Kerry intended no disrespect or lack of support for our commander in chief during wartime, but the point of this campaign is, obviously, to change the administration of this government. And unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he'd just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23490-2003Apr3

[Dr Fate]

5. Opposing multi-billion $, endless wars based on lies is pretty moderate...

...if not just plain old common sense.

Nothing particularly "liberal" about that position- but we will agree that it does show that the Liberals and pricipled anti-war moderates were right all along.

[ProSense]

12. Are you saying these moderates lack common sense?

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4320 )
Vote Number: 182 Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:44 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 39
NAYs 60
Not Voting 1


Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 1

Agree!

[Dr Fate]

14. I am saying what I said- opposing a multi-billion$ war based on lies is not "liberal" per se

It is arguably a moderate, common sense- hell- even old-timey conservative- position.

The fact that Liberals & fighting moderates were right all along about this war (and a lot of other things) does not necessarily make opposition to it now a "Liberal" position.

Perhaps it does show that these Liberals & fighting moderates should be listened to more rather than writting them off as "fringe" and "conspiracy nuts."

[Mass]

54. "Liberal Democrats dictated the agenda"?

Not sure I follow what you mean.

I understand where the NYTimes is going: be very afraid, liberals are back, which obviously is barely true if you see the profile of some of the potential new senators like Casey or Webb.

If Iraq became the center of the discussion and if some of those Democrats who were pushing it early were at least partly heard, it is because the issue became way too big to be swept under the rug.

So, I guess that the people dictated the agenda (which is an healthy sign).

However, if you want to say that the DC strategists and consultants did not dictate the agenda, I will totally agree, but some of them are fairly liberal and some of the people who pushed Iraq front and center are not that liberal.

[sandnsea]

64. We haven't won yet... and

even if we do, it'll be important to notice who and where. We do have some great liberals winning, but we also have Ford, Webb and possibly Lieberman. For all the talk of the rocky mountain Dems, we haven't done too well in Arizona or Nevada, and Arnold is probably going to keep California. So while we're doing better, we still don't have a country leaping towards a pure liberal agenda. That's just not true and would be a mistake to delude ourselves into thinking that. We've got a long ways to go.

[ProSense]

69. You're right in a sense!

It's not about winning the day, it's about creating steady awareness and fighting for what one believes. This is certainly not about leaps, it's about standing up. It's about balance and not discounting the liberal point of view. It's about acknowledging that when the going got tough, liberals stood up and spoke out when the middle went silent. It's not about pure, it's about realizing when to compromise and when to stand on principle in order to prevent the RW extremists from worming their way to power as we now see.

So, I agree. This election was orchestrated on returning Democrats to power. It was not a referendum on liberal views, but it was referendum on phony bipartisanship.

[Uncle Joe]

93. I believe the mass corporate media's view of anything

liberal is communist, anything moderate is liberal, anything conservative is moderate, anything fascist is conservative. Today I don't have any idea what has to be done to be considered fascist by them, maybe World War 3?

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Uncle Joe]

194. I did not know that,

mr. benchley got a pizza?

[Zhade]

195. Yes - it was delightful.

One conservative asshole down, a few more to go!

[wyldwolf]

197. Hey Zhade? Did you find proof of those two bullshit claims of yours?

Let's see. As I recall, you were going to provide a quote where Bill Clinton said he was a Republican, and that the DLC and PNAC shared an office and phone number.

Waiting...

[MadHound]

198. Really, was I asleep or something? When did the liberal wing of the party

Regain control? Is McGovern running for president again?

Sorry, but any honest political observer will tell you that the Democratic party has moved to the right at a pretty consistent rate for over thirty years. And despite the fact that Kerry was mildly liberal in the Senate, his positions on the campaign trail were indeed moderate. And then there is the major contributing factor to this rightward movement, the increasing control that corporate America has imposed on the party.

Believe me, I would love to see a real leftist head up the ticket in '08. But sadly,that's not going to happen, and we're going to be stuck with Hillary or some other corporate centerist. And the party will move right again.