what do you suppose swayed more voters this election: F/911...or the DLC?

[UpsideDownFlag]

F/911: Here's the truth. it's ugly.

DLC: Vote or us. we're like republicans, but more polite.


and these people have the unmitigated GALL to try and tell michael moore that he doesn't represent dems? fuck that.

[otohara]

1. No Sir - The Throngs of Young High School & College Voters

are DLC devotee's

[UpsideDownFlag]

2. lol, seriously though.

michael moore and his fellow anti-DLCers did more to invigorate this party since i can remember.

[Minstrel Boy]

3. I dunno, I thought "Bush, without the smirk" would be a real winner.

I guess to win in 2008, the DLC will need to try harder to be more like Bush. If that means smirking too, well, so be it. Do you want to win or what?

:crazy:

[Geek_Girl]

4. I didn't see the Jay Leno show with Michael Moore

But my Mother In Law who voted for Bush, said that she saw it and was so proud of Michael Moore, he really looked cleaned up and he was so well spoken.

I'm not real sure if he is trying to clean up his image to get his point across, or if the DLC's comments have prompted him to change his image. I'm not sure why the DLC would join ranks with the republican pundits to work to demonize one of our most powerful activists it just doesn't make sense to me.

My only guess is there is a certain faction of the party (DLC) that are pro-Iraq and pro-war.

And I'm beginning to get more scared, I see the war in Iraq and 9/11 designed to keep certain officials in power and not just republicans. I'm not sure where we go from here. But I would think that our first step would be to get rid of the DLC and any democratic politicians afilated with PNAC.

[agarrett1]

7. Freudian Slip?

I noted something interesting, and potentially revealing, in your response. "My only guess is there is a certain faction of the party (DLC) that are pro-Iraq and pro-war." You are (I think accurately) calling the DLC "pro-Iraq."

We are trying, and even starting to succeed, at doing something good for Iraq. Here's an Andrew Sullivan column in TNR arguing the same in a bit more detail, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=ZCk3tSUC4Epl1RBMSKbESR%3D%3D . I think this is something many of us in this country knew beforehand - we're trying to do what is best, not just for ourselves, but for Iraq as well.

That is why Michael Moore is not a good spokesman for Democrats. He may excite some people, but he'll turn off even more. In the end, he's also wrong...

Drew Garrett

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. in the end, he's also wrong?

about what, exactly? dont leave us in suspense.

[madfloridian]

12. You believe the tripe in this paragraph?

SNIP.."The party is now one of 156 registered for the elections. Yes, we can worry about the dangers of Sunni estrangement, the small signs of civil war, the unsecular aspirations of the Shia party slate, and so on. But then you read a story like Ali's, and you tell yourself to buck up. We saw in Afghanistan and Ukraine what an actual election process can do to awaken a democratic spirit, to convince people they truly can control their own destiny. Why should we discount the same from occurring in Iraq? ..."

[agarrett1]

16. Well, yes

I assume, from the tone of the question, that you don't agree with at least that portion of the article. Mind if I ask why?

The story he's referencing seemed rather positive - some people got together, registered a political party, and the registration was accepted. That's new in Iraq, and it's a good thing. Afghanistan's elections went well, and appear to have made a positive difference there.

There's certainly no guarantee things will work out as well in Iraq. But there is also some reason to think they might. Why is that a problem?

Drew Garrett

[MadHound]

18. Nothing that the US does in Iraq can ever come to any good

If you don't understand that, then you haven't learned the lesons of our history friend. Iraq is going to go the way of many other imperial US conquests. While we will be able to maintain order and some sense of stability while our military is there, as soon as we leave, the Iraqis will rise in civil war and revolt, throwing any vestiges of US sponsored government out the door. Any government that we have set up is going to be considered illegit and illegal by the Iraqi people, and they will dismantle it at the first opportunity. It doesn't matter about voting it in, it doesn't matter if we establish it by force or peaceful means. Just having the stench of US hands on it will cause the people of Iraq to disown it in favor of one genuinely of their choosing.

All that we can do is postpone the inevitable by our continued military occupation of Iraq. We aren't going to make things better, or any more stable by our presence, the best that we can do is keep the area from blowing up into complete chaos, and so far, we're not even doing that.

This is what happens to any imperial conquest, both US and otherwise. It is simply only a matter of time. So, all we are doing is pouring money and lives down a well, with no prospect of return, victory, or even successful "nation building". Thus, the only logical conclusion is to get out now, rather than after we rack up the death count like we did in Vietnam. Sad to say though, it is apparently only with such an unholy death count will the majority of people be convinced that we should leave.

Andrew Sullivan is simply a shill for Bushco, trying to persuade us into disbelieving the truth that is plain before us. This is simply another rah-rah attempt to show that progress is being made, an attempt that is belied by what is being overwhelming reported elewhere, that Iraq is a place of death, destruction and chaos, where no good can come out of our presence, only the worst of human nature.

[Geek_Girl]

19. Good for Who exactly

The Defense industry yes, government official grasping to hold on to power yes, the war hawks yes, but for you and me no and not for the Iraq people either. True Democracy will not come by force the long term implications on this war for America will be economically devastating. You and Andrew Sullivan are living in some wacko idealogical fantasy were might makes right. Well folks it doesn't and what comes around goes around and we are headed for economic disaster. Americans like yourself need to wake up now!

[Nordic]

20. let me get this straight. You're celebrating Andrew Sullivan and

telling us Michael Moore is bad for dems?

Enjoy your stay at DU. :eyes:

Andrew Sullivan is a psycho.

[rniel]

10. Anyone that calls theirself a democrat

and supports the war in Iraq is not a democrat. They should just join the republican party. That's just how I think it ought to be.

[UpsideDownFlag]

11. it would be nice if the dividing line was that easy. nt

[ixat]

5. Just wish Moore would get his facts straight. I for one could do with less

theatrics but more solid research. I could really do without seeing "The 856 falsehoods of Michael Moore" lists all over the goddamn Internet.

[UpsideDownFlag]

6. which facts did he get wrong?

besides that, the point i am making is that it is ludicrous that toadies like Al From feel that they can get righteously indignant about MM, who has done more to help energize and get out the base than hardly anyone else, ever.

[ixat]

13. Oh, he has energized the base, no doubt about that,

but when he says that he's hired fact-checking teams and won't let a single bit of misinformation through, I would like to be able to believe him.


Here's the Dave Kopel list of the disputed facts from F/911. It's rather opinionated, and many of the charges are rather disputable, but there are certain things like taking quotes out of context that I don't take from conservatives, and don't like it when a liberal is doing them, either.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[UpsideDownFlag]

14. that link advertises the ultra RW piece 'fareinHYPE 9/11.' I must call BS.

buh bye.

[ixat]

15. Wish I could dismiss this so easily. I have seen the list on other sites

that didn't advertise FahrenHYPE 9/11, and reading it, I find it well-researched, and some of the points (like taking quotes out of context) is something I would take issue with if they were committed by conservatives, hence it would seem the honest thing to do to apply my standards to Moore as well.

And no, I'm not a freeper in disguise, thank you very much.

[Kingshakabobo]

17. Have you seen F9/11 ?? n/t

[ixat]

21. Yep. Very convincing, I must say, but in my long headbutting matches with

conservatives I have learned to look at any argument from the other side, both in terms of persuasiveness and intellectual honesty. I mean, since the goal of works such as F/911 is to persuade, one has to double-check if some point that seems like a total zinger to you doesn't in fact irritate and alienate people who don't currently agree with you. And also, whether or not your own arguments pass the standards that you would demand of the opposite side (i.e. no cheap shots, etc.).

[ixat]

22. Yey, 100 posts!

[Cat Atomic]

8. For every person Moore lost with F-911,

...there are 10,000 people lost by the DLC, and their refusal to accomodate truly populist candidates. They do far worse than simply "not swaying voters": they inspire cynicism. They're not just bad for the Democratic Party, they're bad for democracy.

You can't overestimate the damage caused by the DLC, and politicians of that type.