DLC sounds just like Karl Rove

[StefanX]

Check out this quote, by Will Marshall of the DLC. He sounds just like Karl Rove talking about "liberals" who "didn't get 9/11":

The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force.

When Americans ponder such questions today, their frame of reference is not the Vietnam War, but Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks evoked the most powerful upsurge in patriotic feeling since Pearl Harbor, and thrust national security back into the center of American politics. Democrats have yet to come to grips with this new reality. More than anything else, they need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization.

via http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_digbysblog_archive.html#112234091166247628">Digby at Hullabaloo, 25 July 2005

I think they should rename the DLC the RLC.

[goforit]

1. Yep!!!.......Thats why Clinton hangs out with Bush.

[Deja Q]

2. I see the guy's point but he seems to forget the piles of evidence proving

9/11 was LIHOP; we were warned a mere month before it happened.

If * was truly on the ball re: terrorism he'd have done something long before 9/11, instead of pointing fingers everywhere else afterward.

* is a hoax. And a hex.

[Jim Sagle]

8. And a pox.

[MisterP]

3. it's like Mona Charen with a "Dem" label--of course, all the nits

will say that they're only saying this because "they care for the party," or some other crap.

[Writer]

4. I am tired of having my beliefs bashed on DU.

Yes there are Democrats who do believe the DLC isn't part of this grand conspiracy to undermine the Democratic cause.

Screw this thread.

[Lecky]

5. I'm in the same boat as you

[StefanX]

9. So you agree with the DLC quote?

DLC: "The terrorist attacks evoked the most powerful upsurge in patriotic feeling since Pearl Harbor, and thrust national security back into the center of American politics. Democrats have yet to come to grips with this new reality."

So you agree that Democrats have yet to "come to grips with this new reality" about national security after the terrorist attacks?

Let's remember: On 9/11, while the towers were crashing and burning, Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, and scrambled around the country to "get out of harm's way". The next day, while our airspace was closed, he let Bin Laden's family fly out of the US. And then he proceeded to shred the Constitution and invade Iraq based on phoney intel - outing one of our top covert WMD analysts in the process.

We had the whole world on our side after 9/11. Now, after the world has seen America violating the Geneva conventions, torturing and killing innocent people, terrorism and hatred for America is growing all over the world. Because of Bush's misguided policies - which DU has opposed. (But by the sound of it, the DLC supports Bush's policies.)

Most DUers "get" 9/11 - they know it happened because Bush was asleep at the wheel, and they know that the solution to it would be to go after the perpetrators.

BUSH on the other hand didn't "get" how to deal with terrorism and national security after 9/11. As a direct result of Bush's childish, misguided policies, we are all much less safe today - and our military is in very sorry shape.

And by the way, Bush still hasn't gotten around to protecting our ports.

So when a guy from the DLC gets up and says the same thing Karl Rove says - that liberals don't "get" 9/11 - you can be damn sure I'm going to "bash" the DLC. The DLC is obviously full of idiots if this is the kind of garbage they're publishing. I would like to have a Dem organization that doesn't repeat the slanders and smears perpetrated by the likes of Rove. The DLC does not speak for me.

I understand there may have been a time when the DLC's "third way" triangulation tactics were useful. Those days are gone, Writer. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Writer]

11. Absolutely I do.

That is PRECISELY what 9/11 did. As far as ALL Democrats coming to grips with that reality, I dunno. But yes, we as a whole need to understand that issues that are not natural to us have come to the forefront.

[StefanX]

18. The DLC can only lose elections. People like Digby and Atrios can win

I'm part of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party - not part of the DLC wing.

DLC Loser Will Marshall

What Digby Says.

Though I'll add one thing... born in 1952, Marshall was of prime fighting age in 1970, though that little stint in Vietnam appears to be missing from his CV.

Never fear, though. Another round of enlistment eligibility age raising and he'll get another chance.

Will Marshall of the DLC is just another chickenhawk! Just like the Republicans!

The DLC can go fuck themselves. They can't win elections, and they sound just like retarded Republicans. They don't speak for me.

[JHB]

67. Hooray Digby!

More to the point than Marshall's chickenhawk status, however, is how he mischaracterizes the liberal base of the party almost as badly as the Republicans do. If the DLC has that level of blinders on about their own party, they're worse than useless.

Who was it who noted the difficulty of convincing someone of something when his salary depended on believing the opposite?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Al-CIAda]

24. Damned straight.

[fujiyama]

22. 9/11 certainly did bring about a "new reality"

to some extent.

The DLC however offers no solutions whatsoever to confront this new reality.

Instead they have allowed the right to define the debate and how we should feel and whom we should hate.

If the DLC understood anything about living in a post 9/11 world they would have realized that going to war in Iraq was the most idiotic and unjustified thing the nation could have done and they would be whacking Bush constantly over his failure in Afghanistan as well.

But no, instead they have actually said "we've had successess in the WoT and Iraq" (check the DLC website).

The DLC is leading us down a path of failure. It's not only inept at winning elections, but the policies they advocate are simply bad. I'm not voting for Dems to enact or support repuke policies.

[Writer]

23. So what are the non-DLC solutions?

If there must be?

[fujiyama]

27. Non DLC solutions?

Maybe get the fuck out of Iraq and focus on states that are purpotrating terrorism - namely Saudi Arabia an Pakistan. Why is it that members of neither party can confront these nations?

Instead the only focus is on Syria and Iran, two nations which pose a threat only to Israel.

Until US politicians are able to form a less Israel-centric foreign policy, we'll be caught up in idiotic wars like this. This was Clinton's problem also. This nation has had a completely irrational obsession with Iraq, causing us to largely ignore the problem that wa brewing in Afghanistan and Pakistan for well over a decade.

[Writer]

33. Do you think that just getting "the fuck" out of Iraq is wise?

Pulling out of this ridiculous conflict we're in will mean disaster... unless we do it wisely. And that doesn't mean just getting "the fuck" out willy-nilly.

I do agree we must focus on real targets of terrorism. Absotutely.

[fujiyama]

38. By getting the fuck out,

I don't mean an absolute immediate withdrawal, but a set time table of several months to pull out all troops.

We've been shown, quite clearly, that our continued occupation is disasterous for both our own military and the Iraqi people. We're accomplishing nothing at the moment over there inspite of what this president spouts. I believe Dems should be willing to call out and say Iraq is a failure.

And the longer we are there, we are giving Islamist terrorist groups a great recruiting tool.

[Robbien]

39. Getting the fuck out removes the reason for insurgent attacks

They say they are attacking because we are there. We leave, they have no more reason to attack.

We supply Iraq with the funds, and remove our exile puppets and Iraqis can set up Iraq just fine without us.

[Writer]

40. Oh no... see here's the Pandora's Box the Ass ministration has created...

We get out... oh yes, they're coming after us all right. Ten fold.

The bees don't stay behind if you've disturbed the nest.

[Robbien]

44. So you are suggesting the Iraqi people should keep getting bombed for

our mistake? The Iraqi people should continue to live in a security nightmare of our making? Iraqi towns keep being destroyed by the bombs we drop on them "flushing out so called insurgents"?

For our mistake, Iraqi women, men and children must continue to die?

I do not support that.

[Writer]

47. At this point there is little we can do about the poor Iraqi people.

If we leave, it will very likely lead to civil war or worse.

If we stay, it will mean more insurgent attacks.

It's a catch-22. A mess these assholes have created. We need smart military leadership to at the very best curb the incredible damage we have caused.

[Robbien]

49. The instigation of civil war is our program

The Iraqis themselves say there is no civil war. Before we got there Sunnis and Shia got along just fine. We are the ones instigating the divide and conquer tactic of civil war through our covert security contractors.

We leave, remove the exile puppets and the religious leaders will quickly join together to rule their country.

Its not a catch-22. We are the only ones who benefit by the ruse of saying there will be a civil war if we leave.

[julianer]

66. Bin Laden has offered a ceasefire if

troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

Part of the propaganda attack we face is that 'Al Qaida' are totally mad and unreasonable. In fact there demands are public and explicit, including to get the troops out of the muslim holy lands.

So the idea that 'we' must stay in Iraq because they are going to attack us anyway is unfounded speculation that has the benefit of allowing the warmongers to argue that staying in Iraq (and stealing the oil, and earning billions from the 'reconstruction' contracts, and the plain opportunities for robbery) is somehow the responsible thing to do.

Of course it may be that bin laden is lying and that attacks would continue, but they are continuing now so there is not much for us (ordinary non-robbing people) to lose.

[ladjf]

59. It's already a disaster. It's costing lives and money, serving no

positive purpose.

[OzarkDem]

64. Setting a realistic timetable

is the best idea. Building 14 military bases for permanent occupation is not.

Bringing in NATO and UN troops (and working with them) to be part of the pullout process is also a good idea.

Keep in mind a significant number of our own military over there agree with this position.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[fujiyama]

25. "Issues that are not natural to us"

I don't know who the fuck you're talking about, but don't include me in it!

I've been paying close attention to world events, especially involving terrorism for over 5 years now. I'll take my knowledge of world affairs over some dipshit repuke (including most ass hole politicians) any day of the week.

So take your stereotypes about the party and its members and shove it. Repukes talk a good talk about fighting terra but in the end they have delivered shit, along with their DLC appeasers.

[Writer]

26. Being aggressive militarily is not natural to Democrats.

We tend to sway toward peace if at all possible.

You know, like Clinton. That "war mongerer." :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

65. Would that also apply

to the thousands of Dems currently serving in Iraq who would also like to see an end to this war? I think they would disagree with you.

[OzarkDem]

63. That's very surprising

I continue to be amazed at how little DLC supporters know about members of their own party. Its almost as if they believe the media spin and urban myth as much as conservatives do.

[Robbien]

15. Then stop bashing Progressives

Stop dividing the party.

[Writer]

17. I have done none of that. n/t

[fujiyama]

28. Bullshit!

You basically insulted Dems or atleast those in the base of not understanding the threat of terrorism.

You're basically repeating Rove's (though I see the DLC has as well) talking points and I will call that out anytime I see it.

[Writer]

30. No I have not done that. n/t

[fujiyama]

32. Then please explain

what you meant by saying that national defense is not "natural" for the party.

Don't spout out Rovian talking points and not expect to get flamed.

[Writer]

34. Defense and military has not traditionally been a part of our platform. n/

[StefanX]

37. Yes, Bush and Rove are so much better at defense and military

You've bought the lies, Writer. Wake up!

Bush and Rove and their ilk are traitors and chickenhawks. Their tough-guy act is just that - an act. It's only geared to win elections here at home - it DOESN'T help keep America safe.

[fujiyama]

43. By being a part of the platform...

what exactly do you mean?

Which party is it that cuts veteran benefits, especially regarding healthcare?

Which party sent the troops to Iraq with inadequete body armor, no set objectives, no time table, and no plan whatsoever?

Which plan neglected the threat of terrorism immediately after taking office?

Which party cooked up intelligence to start a war based on bullshit?

I could go on, but you should hopefully get the point by now.

[Writer]

45. Uh... the GOP?

And, of course, you think the DLC supports cutting veterans benefits, etc., right?

[fujiyama]

51. The DLC

has thankfully not been stupid enough to back pukes on those.

My point is that national defense is certainly not a republican value. They have shown they can't lead, either internationally or domestically.

[Writer]

52. They sure as hell have not...

let the Dems have a freakin' chance.

But then again, Americans vote on emotions not facts. That's a tough wall for us to overcome.

[StefanX]

79. You forgot one, fujiyama!

Which party thinks it's ok to out a covert analyst specializing in nuclear non-proliferation... at a time when nuclear proliferation is the biggest danger facing our national security?

[Jax]

41. You just show up on DU

in March of this year and you are telling DU you are tired of having your beliefs trashed?

Screw your responses.

[Writer]

48. Oh I'm sorry. I didn't read the DU policy that said that

there is a time limit to meriting the same respect that everyone else deserves.

[Jax]

54. Respect???

Thanks for the laugh Writer.

[Writer]

55. And?

Are you saying that I don't deserve the same respect as others on DU?

[Jax]

57. I am saying thanks for the laugh

[Writer]

58. And what is so funny? n/t

[StefanX]

78. 'Writer', you have to EARN respect on DU

It's not a matter of how long you've been here. It's a matter of how intelligently you post.

If you say something people disagree with, they're gonna disagree with you - whether you've been here a year or a month. 'Writer' shouldn't be demanding respect based on length of time at DU (whether it's been short or long) - 'Writer' should be trying to earn respect based on the arguments he or she uses. If the arguments aren't not working - well, them's the breaks.

'Writer' is "tired" of seeing the DLC "bashed" on DU and wants more "respect"... and yet (adopting this extremist term "bash" which 'Writer' introduced) 'Writer' has no problem "bashing" things many DUers support.

Many Dems do favor peace over war. 'Writer' criticizes or "bashes" Dems for that (see upthread).

Many Dems think we shouldn't support Bush's decision to invade Iraq (and we shouldn't support DLCers who support Bush's decision to invade Iraq). Again employing the extremist terminology which 'Writer' has introduced in this thread, one could say that 'Writer' "bashes" people for opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I personally think the word "bash" is a bit strong in this case. The word "criticize" would do just as well. ('Writer' was, tellingly, the first one to use the word "bash" in this thread - the first to play the "victim" card in other words. Perhaps 'Writer' heard somewhere that playing the victim card is a tactic which earns sympathy among Dems. 'Writer' appears to subscribe to other myths about Dems - such as the myth that national security is somehow an issue which is "not natural" to us. Yeah, only AWOL cokeheads like Bush and traitors like Rove are "strong on national security" - not Dems. Tell me some more RNC talking points.)

We're all grownups here, and this is a political forum. I would submit that one of the purposes of a political forum is championing and criticizing political ideas. Perhaps 'Writer', believing we should be "moderate", feels that we should all just be quiet and agree on everything. Indeed, 'Writer' proposes just this on another thread innocuously entitled "DU Moderates Check In Here". (I wonder what issues "DU moderates" are supposed to support. Somehow I have a hunch they're supposed to support illegally invading a country that didn't attack us when we've just been hit by terrorists who are trying to escalate the violence and thereby provoke us into recruiting extremists for their cause. Yeah, that would be real "moderate".)

Note the fatal mistake "moderates" such as 'Writer' (and the idiot Will Marshall from the DLC) make: They think that "abandoning your beliefs and copying extremists (such as Bush and Al Qaida)" equates with being "moderate".

I would be suspicious of a person such as 'Writer' who comes to a mature, lively, and smoothly-functioning and amicable political bulletin board and starts calling for people to be "moderate" by agreeing with the other party's failed or failing policies.

I would be suspicious of a person such as 'Writer' who starts claiming they're being "bashed" simply because people are pointing out the weaknesses and failures of a group which happens to have a "D" at the front of its name.

I don't feel that 'Writer' is justified in claiming that "respect" has been lacking. The DLC has made a policy statement which essentially agrees with the Republicans, the DLC has lost the last two elections against a very weak, possibly criminal and psychotic Republican candidate... and now people are trying to analyze this and see if the DLC has been doing something wrong here. (I see there is also a thread on DU wondering whether the DLC might be part of the VRWC. No they wouldn't do that! The Rovians would never try to fake us out like that!)

Writer is wrong to claim "bashing" and wrong to claim a lack of "respect". This thread has been quite civil... except for the few emotional outbursts of "Fuck the DLC" - but, in view of the fact that the DLC has lost the last two elections and has recently taken to parroting Karl Rove's talking points, such emotion is understandable and therefore could be considered within the bounds of civility.

Certainly there have been no ad hominem arguments against 'Writer'. People merely have stated their disagreement with what 'Writer' is saying about the topic at hand (the DLC) as well as their disagreement with the meta-topic at hand (whether we should be allowed to criticize or "bash" the rhetoric and strategies of an organization which persists in losing elections and parroting in watered-down form the Rovian RNC talking points).

Writer, the DLC, and Rove all say that Dems "don't get" the post-9/11 era.

Using Writer's extremist terminology, one could say that Writer, the DLC, Bush and Rove all "bash" Dems (or don't "respect" the Dems) because Dems prefer peace and law-enforcement operations over illegal wars.

Many Dems say that it's actually Bush, Rove and the DLC who don't "get" the post-9/11 era. These Dems understand that it's possible, indeed preferable, to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and leave the innocent alone. These Dems believe that by going after people who had nothing to do with 9/11 (using torture, violating the Geneva Convention, raping young boys on camera, etc.), we're playing into the extremists' hands: escalating the situation, eliminating moderates, creating extremists.

In the end, it is quite ironic that 'Writer' created a thread on General Discussion recently called "DU Moderates: Check In". Why? Because many people are now figuring out (except Bush and the DLC) that the biggest obstacle terrorists and extremists face is the non-extremists (moderates) who are too busy going about their lives to support the extremists' tactics.

I don't think 'Writer' is really a moderate, despite the other tread called "DU Moderates: Check In" which 'Writer' created. (I hope I'm not being too ad hominem or "bashing" or "disrespectful" by saying that.) 'Writer' has already "bashed" Dems for favoring peace, 'Writer' agrees with Bush (and the DLC) that invading Iraq was a better idea than any of the Dems' ideas. (I'm not sure how 'Writer' expects the Dems to articulate our ideas: if we do as Bush, the DLC and 'Writer' tell us to, we simply shut up and do whatever they propose.)

'Writer' seems to favor escalation - just like Bush, Al Qaida, and the DLC do. I believe the correct label for such people is "extremists" - not "moderates".

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think warmongers and chickenhawks are "moderates" - I think people who support peace and law-enforcement and de-escalation are more appropriately called moderates. If Bush and Al Qaida favor an escalationist, extremist war approach, and self-identified Democrats such the DLC and 'Writer' favor Bush and Al Qaida's approach, then that doesn't make the DLC and 'Writer' "moderates" - that makes them escalationists and extremists, just like Bush and Al Qaida.

Moderates favor law-enforcement and de-escalation, extremists favor illegal war and escalation. Perhaps in these difficult times where angry murderous loser terrorists and angry murderous loser Presidents see their popularity shoot up every time the other side blows something up (escalating the violence while the rest of us get caught in the crossfire), a more useful motto (than "You're either with us, or against us") might be: You're either for escalation, or against escalation.

[SaveElmer]

61. You are exactly right...and that quote was dead on...

Sometimes the truth hurts...

I don't agree with the DLC on everything...but they are not the enemy!!!

George Bush is the enemy!!!

[StefanX]

80. The DLC has lost the last two elections by being me-too Republicans...

...and yet they're "not the enemy".

I appreciate the desire to avoid factionalism within the Democratic party. But I would not support so-called "Democrats" who mouth Republican talking points.

I would judge the DLC by their words (Rovian) and their deeds (two lost elections) - not by the "D" in front of their name.

The DLC gets paid big bucks to keep being Beltway insiders and to keep losing elections for us. Of course they want to hang onto that.

I think better ideas, and better consensus-building will come from mechnisms other than the DLC. I think blogs, MoveOn, DU, and other grassroots / netroots organizing and fundraising mechanisms will come up with better ideas, better candidates and better strategies than the losing DLC can come up with now.

[Walt Starr]

70. Too bad, so sad

The DLC sucks and many on DU refuse to vote for DLC scum.

[Larkspur]

6. DLC's "cannon fodder" military policy..

(Democrats) need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization.

Maybe someone should send them Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's quote that a nation which spends more on military expenses than on policies for social uplift is a nation approaching spiritual death. The DLC is definitely lead by the spiritually dead.

[Gloria]

13. If this is "patriotism", you can keep it....

Frankly, I'm sick to death of this whole country. It's beginning to suck. And that includes about 2/3 of Democrats (just pulled that number out of my rear...but that's what it seems like).

[sojourner]

16. Oh shit...

"...summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice"

So the DLC will support a national draft, eh? Great, Hill! You send Chelsea, and get your honey's bud Geo. HW Bush to send his grands...then lets talk about that "shared sacrifice".

[TahitiNut]

7. Can the DLC attack the Fascist Right as much as they attack liberals???

I'm damned sick and tired of the DLC "centrists" making a greater effort to appease, mollify, and kowtow to the Fascist Republicans than they do the conscientious liberals in their own (supposedly) party.

[Stirk]

12. What? That'd just make for bad feelings on the golf course.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Can WE attack the Fascist Right as much as WE attack Democrats?

Or doesn't it the same way for progressives?

[TahitiNut]

35. When the artillery hits an enemy position, two kinds of troops die ...

... the troops wearing the enemy uniform and the other troops fighting alongside them who're wearing a 'friendly' uniform.

The DLC 'artillery fire' seems to be coming from exactly the same direction as the Fascists'.

Funny about that. :puke:

[LittleClarkie]

76. I don't know which is worse

that, or watching us shoot ourselves in the foot.

[StefanX]

42. Are DLCers Democrats?

I wouldn't consider Will Marshall a Democrat, if he's running around spreading the same lies as Karl Rove about us.

We need to get over this myth that "Dems are soft on national security". It's precisely this myth which makes us go along with Republicans whenever they feel like fighting some counterproductive war.

[Writer]

50. You're on to something!

We need to get over this myth that "Dems are soft on national security".


Right! Exactly! We must make sure that Americans understand that we, too, are a party interested in the security of the nation!

Yar har!

[StefanX]

81. Yes, and I know how to SHOW Americans that Dems "get" nat security

There's two things we should do:

(1) Stop saying that Dems don't get national security. (I'm looking at Rove, the DLC, and 'Writer' here.)

(2) Start saying that Republicans don't get national security. (Mention their 2 major screwups: the Iraq war, and outing a non-proliferation specialist).

Wow. What a concept. We could make sure Americans understand our message, by... telling Americans our message!

[LittleClarkie]

72. I don't think you get to decide for someone else what they are

The "D" stands for Democratic. Therefore yes.

But we don't just go after DLC here. Other Dems are fair game as well. Like one of those who voted for the Bankruptsy Bill that moveon.org wanted to campaign against, even though one of their favorites, Byrd, had also voted for it.

Circular firing squad. We're good at that, not just on the DLC side, but on the progressive side as well.

[Jax]

56. Yes and we do

what a bullshit post....

[MisterP]

74. Laocoön "attacked the Trojans" too...

[Dhalgren]

10. If the Party backs the DLC, then the Party is dead, politically.

All the DLC is saying is "we will do exactly what the Republicans are doing, we'll just do it better." So, if the Party follows the DLC, anyone who disagrees with the policies and actions of the Bush government will have to find a different party to support. That seems very clear; and with the polls showing how disaffected a growing number of citizens are with the Bush policies and actions, I can see a big surge in Green or socialist or other parties' polling numbers in '08 (if not '06)...

[TahitiNut]

21. As an independent, I can say you're 100% correct as far as I'm concerned.

My uncle, a member of Soapy Willams' (Governor of Michigan, '49-'60) cabinet and New Deal Democrat, feels exactly the same way.

[derby378]

14. "Fuck the DLC"

Fuck the DLC
They wrecked our party system
They don't give a damn 'cause they're
Career politicians
They trashed Howard Dean
They cost Kerry the election
It's time we kick them out and
Take the Dems in new directions

BAYH and TAUSCHER - time to clean your fuckin' desks
LIEBERMAN and LANDRIEU - selling out has made you lame
HILLARY and BYRON - last chance to jump the ship
So CONYERS and BOXER can live in peace without these dicks

(Sung to the tune of Fuck the Middle East by S.O.D. Sing it in the car, in the shower, at your next Democratic Party meeting, or anywhere you feel like singing!)

[ladjf]

62. Please include me in as one of the "Fuck the DLC" group.

[sojourner]

19. They are partners to the RNC, in my considered opinion.

Ran lack-luster campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Without vote theft we'd have won in both cases, but NOT because of the "great job" they did, because they didn't do shit.

And I can't stand Lieberman, or Biden, or Feinstein. All republicans in democrat's clothing. Fuck 'em.

[Raksha]

46. Gawd, what a crock!

I could hardly bring myself to read past the first sentence. The left never "rejected patriotism," not even during the Sixties. What we rejected and still reject is faux patriotism, the kind that is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It was true then and it's even MORE true now. I know, dammit--I was there!

[fujiyama]

53. Well said!

I will not have my patriotism questioned by anyone.

[OrlandoGator]

60. Ah, the common transposition of "nationalism" with "patriotism".

Few people seem to know the difference anymore.

[CWebster]

68. ain't it the truth?

Same sponsers.

[jonnyblitz]

69. except karl rove manages to win elections somehow....

:hi:

[annabanana]

73. he manages to steal elections. . . . . n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. What bullshit! nt

[Ravy]

75. I think it is bullshit (the DLC quote), and here is why.

snip-
The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism."
-end snip

It was not "rejecting patriotism". It was rejecting American arrogance and abuse of power.

If you define patriotism as supporting American arrogance and abuse of power, then fuck you, Todd Gitlin. Real patriots know better.

[dogday]

77. I don't know what the Democrats are doing

but I tell you they need to be aware and understand the depths and lengths the Republican party will go to win. This is a no holds barr, winner take all, nice guys finish last contest, and if we continue to be the nice guys then we will continue to finish last.