There will be no war with the DLC.

[Teaser]

If I'm reading the DLC's positions paper correctly, it doesn't want to fight us anymore. This is a comfort.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253002

The slow but significant erosion of Democratic support in recent years is a collective responsibility for all Democrats, us included. It will not be reversed by any simple, mechanical move to the "left" or the "right;" by any new infusion of cash or grassroots organizing; by any reshuffling of party institutions or their leadership; or by any magically charismatic candidates. That's why engaging in any "struggle for the soul of the party," or any assignment of blame, is such a waste of time. But that's also why Democrats must take the defeat seriously, and pursue a strategy for revival and reform.

There will be no calls to "move to the right" from them this time. They know that ain't the problem.

They also know that the problem isn't that we've already moved too far to the right (although I believe we have).


This loss, putting aside issues of fraud (and I am going to put it aside...you want to talk about it, start your own thread) is one of communication. The Democrats have not communicated their message to the populace. They don't know if we're too far to the right, too far to the left, or too far up our own asses. Because we have no package. We have no catchphrase. We have no capsule summary.

We have a list of programs we like. Great. But that list of programs doesn't fit into a simple one liner like "less government, more God" or something like that. We need bullet points.

The DLC has finally learned that we aren't the enemy. Good. They've hurt us a lot, but I don't think a war right now is what we need. This is the most united Democrats have *ever* been. Yes we've lost, but I don't really want us to jettison that unity for revenge's sake.

Let's do the smart thing...accept this (admittedly halfhearted) mea culpa from the DLC and get to work formulating a moderate/progressive politics that people understand and can therefore vote for.

Destroying the DLC would be satisfying. Let's just work around them. We need to forge a consensus where progressives support moderate goals because they are steps on the way to progressive goals. But this consensus must also be one where moderates support progressives because moderation is itself a progressive value.

It is a strategic error on our part to view the wings of our party as "wings" We do not exist on a number line. We are rather a region on a map, each of us points that adjoin each other, but all of us closer together than that cluster of points we call the Republican party.

[BurtWorm]

1. I trust them like I trust Bush.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Heheheh

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[davepc]

3. Translation:

Shit, Howard Dean sure learned to raise money and galvanize grass roots support. We're going to have pitchforks and torches at the base of our ivory tower sooner or later, so we're going to make the appearance of going along to get along but what we're really trying to do is duck blame for our failed strategy. Please don't cast us onto the shit pile of history.

As a look at the electoral map and the Congressional results shows, there is a geographical challenge closely associated with the "trust gap" challenge: We need a heartland strategy to go with a positive message that reaches the heart as well as the wallet. In presidential contests, we begin each campaign at a disadvantage because our strength is limited to the Northeast, the West Coast, and the upper Midwest, where our candidates must win nearly every winnable state. And more obviously, Democrats will be consigned to a permanent minority in the Senate, in the states, and -- because states control redistricting -- in the House as well, if we cannot find a way to become competitive in some parts of the South and the West.

A) NO SHIT
B) IT WAS YOUR IDEA TO ABANDON THEM TO BEGIN WITH

[Orlandodem]

19. I'd rather get 50% or 75% of my agenda than none.

Dean is a great guy. I'd have voted for him if he were the nominee. But he wasn't. He didn't even win one primary. Not one red state would have gone blue if we would have had a more liberal candidate.

That said, the moderate Dems and liberal Dems MUST unite for any of us to get any of our agenda. Whether it's healthcare, environmental, education, civil rights. I'd rather get something that I want than nothing. We'll only get part of our agenda if we ALL work together against the red scare.

[killbotfactory]

4. These dickheads and their spineless bullshit posturing lost us the race

They need to get in the back seat and let us drive.

[DaveinMD]

6. how?

Kerry was a liberal. He was the most liberal nominee since Mondale.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. Sure he was

Why several prominent posters here insist he was so , he must be, huh?

I was always amused by that "most liberal" study that put Kerry ahead of folks like Barbara Boxer. It's used as a club by some in DU land , who favor vowels in their screen names. But it's a total load of Crap because the criteria was flawed, using ONE year, 2003, as a measure, when Kerry missed over 50% of the votes.

Using the same criteria of issues voting and applying it to the ENTIRE SENATE CAREER produces a more telling picture of Kerry. Is Kerry a liberal? Sure. Is he Number one ? Hardly. He doesn't even rank top ten. Just another straw man argument to stay in denial about the quality of the campaign the DNC just ran. Hint: it was poorly framed, badly executed, and off balance. IOW IT SUCKED JUST LIKE THE EVERY DLC CAMPAIGN RUN SINCE 1996.
"Most Liberal " Senators by career voting record:

1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn. (90.3)


2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md. (89.4)


3. Jack Reed, D-R.I. (89.3)


4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J. (88.8)


5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. (88.6)


6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (88.5)


7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (87.6)


8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (87.3)


9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. (86.2)


10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. (86.0)


11. John Kerry, D-Mass. (85.7)


12. Carl Levin, D-Mich. (85.5)


13. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (83.9)
14. Patty Murray, D-Wash. (83.8)


15. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. (83.8)


As for Edwards, he was the fourth most liberal in 2003. But he was 40th in 2002, 35th in 2001, 19th in 2000, and 31st in 1999, his first year in the Senate.


Rah rah liberals.

[DaveinMD]

13. still

the most liberal nominee since Mondale. I'm a liberal, but let's not blame people who are part of our party. We need all the voters we can get.

[sangh0]

29. They can't address that simple fact

They keep complaining "not liberal enough! not liberal enough" as if Kucinich didn't get his chance.

[killbotfactory]

15. Liberal or moderate has nothing to do with it

Every democrat would be painted as a liberal by Rove.

It's whether or not our candidate is unafraid of taking a stand and explaining their positions with little to no bullshit pandering involved.

They call us liberal? We should say fine. If being a liberal means balancing the budget, then I'm a liberal. If being liberal means wanting healthcare for all children, I'm a liberal. If being liberal means standing up for equal rights, then I'm a liberal. If being a liberal means planning wars competently and not waging them unless necessary, then I'm a liberal. Etc...

The Majority of Americans agree with the majority of the democratic party platform. It's the messenger, not the message.

As long as we have a candidate that can people a reason to respect them, and understand the choices they make, they will contemplate the and decide on the issues which we win on, instead of focusing on bullshit smears from the right.

People don't like McCain because he was in Nam. They like him because they see him as someone who cuts through the bullshit and isn't afraid of telling people what he thinks.

People prefer strong and wrong, not weak and right.

[sangh0]

30. Bull

bush* has flip-flopped over and over, yet he is still perceived as someone who "takes a stand"

They call us liberal? We should say fine. If being a liberal means balancing the budget, then I'm a liberal. If being liberal means wanting healthcare for all children, I'm a liberal. If being liberal means standing up for equal rights, then I'm a liberal. If being a liberal means planning wars competently and not waging them unless necessary, then I'm a liberal. Etc...

That's been tried for years now. No one has been convinced who didn't already believe it.

The Majority of Americans agree with the majority of the democratic party platform. It's the messenger, not the message.

You can't completely seperate the two. Just as you wouldn't trust something bush* says, people won't trust something if it comes from a messenger they don't trust.

People prefer strong and wrong, not weak and right.

Then why did they prefer bush*, who was wrong and flip-flopped on a dozen of his core issues?

[killbotfactory]

31. People didn't think Bush flipflopped

Obviously.

He stuck to his stupid war, and people mistook that for being principled.

[sangh0]

32. But he DID flip-flop

which shows that you don't have to actually "stand on principle" to have people percieve you as someone who "stands on principle"

[killbotfactory]

33. Yeah, all politicians do

But our messangers sucked at getting that message out.

[sangh0]

34. Right, it's NOT about "standing on principle"

It's about APPEARING to stand on principle

[Tomee450]

5. I'll adopt a wait and see attitude.

IMO, the DLC has been a disaster.

[Teaser]

7. Agreed, wait and see...

if they fuck with us, then we fuck them up, metaphorically.
But if they are going to finally stop trying to browbeat us to their positions, I can forgive a little bit.

Forget, no. but they are not the enemy I'm worried about now.

[DaveinMD]

8. I just don't get the desire to kick people out of the party

we need to grow the party. We need the votes of liberals, moderates, independents and even some Republicans. Fighting with each other will only lead to permanent minority status.

[Teaser]

10. I ain't disagreeing with you.

I'm trying to argue against war with the DLC. So, it seems, are you.

It doesn't mean I have to like them, but they are useful.

[CWebster]

9. That didn't say anything other than

nothing will work but we must revive and reform. It was still a cloaked putdown to other's efforts as futile or unproductive.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. I'd rather work with moderate Republicans than with the DLC

At least they're honest about who they are.

[DaveinMD]

14. forcing people

out of the party is a recipe for disaster.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. its a two-part problem

No clear message.
No clear message machine.

You can't have one without the other and without both, there's no chance of victory.

[demwing]

17. Fuck the DLC

thats right, fuck.them.

We do not need them, they need us. Did Howard Dean teach us nothing? The power is in our hands to change our party, take back America, and restore some sanity to our lives.

But we have to disconnect from the machine.

Otherwise, the machine feeds us bits and pieces to pacify us, stop our questioning, soothe our doubts.

I am not a human resource. I am a human. I will not be treated like a piece of machinery.

We don't need small changes, we need consumate change. We need a new order, and new way of perceiving our society. We need a wave of social reform. A freaking Sunami.

We don't need the DLC's permission to reform the party, we don't need their participation either. We just need them to ignore us, let us do what we have to do.

[DaveinMD]

18. we all need each other to win

kicking moderates out of the party will mean we will never win. The same holds true for kicking all liberals out of the party. And Howard Dean is not a liberal either. I used to live in Vermont. He was not liked by the liberals within the party. Kerry was more liberal than Dean.

[demwing]

20. Who's kicking out whom?

I just want the puch the fact that the DLC isn't the Democratic Party God. they started as a small group, and eventually took control. Since then we haven't done so well.

The DLC was an attempt to reform the party in a positive way. I commend that. But they were wrong. Their methods didn't work. Their candidates failed.

Whay are they running things?

[DaveinMD]

23. they aren't running things

neither wing of the party is in control.

[HereSince1628]

24. We need the millions who didn't vote.

The big questions should revolve around how to motivate those with democratic leanings who have no sense of the importance of voting.

I think I know part of the answer...Just let them not vote and then live 8 years under an increasingly reckless leadership whose own members (think Dick, I am on the take but I have no intere$t in Halliburton Cheney) prefer profiteering to patriotism.


"Excuse me grandpa what were you doing during the Iraq war?"

"Uh, making money sweetie, so I could insure you a live in the priviledged class of world governance. It is wonderful how the repeal of the death tax purged the United States of uppity poor folk who thought we should listen to them."

[NorthernSpy]

27. absolutely! go after the people who AREN'T voting repug...

... and give them something worth voting for on election day.

Why is it considered somehow worse to lose after campaigning on your true principles than it is to lose after pandering to repug voters and ignoring your own base?

[HereSince1628]

35. I am in total agreement, but then I don't do triangulation, either.

I once worked as a technician for a wisened old electrical engineer who said, "it is never worth bending over backwards to pick up pennies when you can just stoop down and shovel dollars"

In the same way for as long as I can remember the party abandons its base and trys to win over swing voters. I'd rather link up with folks who just need a little more prodding to get them out of the house and into a voting booth.

[sweetheart]

37. Yes we should circumvent them

I think the democratic party should hold an open discussion in a
giant indoor sports arena somewhere in the midwest where motels
are cheap, and to get entry, log in to DU at the registration desk.

If someone has pass the last 4 years claiming to be a democratic
thinker, and not posted on DU, clearly they'er not giving a toss
about contributing. A week long powwow, with lots of healing vibes
a sorta democratic thinktank convention, where the microphone is
available to anyone and all people... a "people's parliament" to
discuss the leadership of the democratic party going forward and
to re-assert our will not to be driven out of all 3 branches of
government.

[HFishbine]

21. Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me

Time for "a strategy for revival and reform" but without "any new infusion of cash or grassroots organizing; by any reshuffling of party institutions or their leadership; or by any magically charismatic candidates."

Gee, what's left? Sounds like lip service to me.

[BurtWorm]

22. Sounds like they read the writing on the wall.

They want to protect their asses for Leadership-Counseling us into permanent minority status.

[CWebster]

25. The rest of the article suggests

that we promote militarism as security, reform goverment, and pander to the Religious Right--and no opposing the Republicans:

"There will be a powerful temptation for Democrats to simply go to the mattresses, fight Republicans tooth and nail, and hope for a big midterm sweep in 2006. That would be a mistake..."

Wonder where they get their ideas?

[NorthernSpy]

26. what a hoot!

It's not the time for blame, oh my no. Mighty big of them to hold of on all that bad finger-pointin' stuff, seeing as how they're the ones who've presided over an endless parade of losses.


I read their statement. What a bunch of crap! What a whole lot of stale nothing. It's just more of the same that they've been dishing out for years. Sell out New England and pander to a flock of irrational, meanspirited, willfully ignorant "heartlanders" who weren't going to vote Dem in any case.


The DLC is over. Just bury them already, and let's get on with our own better plans.

[ibegurpard]

28. Bullet-points and slogans aren't going to do jack shit

We need local social networks to reinforce OUR values and counteract the GOP propaganda and compete with the fundie churches.
And verifiable voting systems.

[MadHound]

36. A problem with "communication", well then folks,

Perhaps we need to stop pussy footing around the issue, and come out in big, bold headlines stating WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR ANY MORE OF THE ONGOING EROSION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS PROMOTING"

For that is exactly what is happening in these "culture wars" that we're having. With issues such as abortion and gay marriage, the fundy RW is slowly but surely eroding away the last barrier between church and state, and the Democratic party isn't stopping them. Example one, the "under God" flap from a couple of years ago. Instead of standing up and saying that it did indeed violate the seperation of church and state, and here's how, our Democratic leaders streamed out of Congress in order to join the 'Pugs on the front steps so they could Pavlovianly recited the Pledge, complete with "under God".

Our leadership in this party is too damn intent on keeping their cushy little jobs at all costs, and are willing to throw anything else overboard, including the Constitution, and us, in order to keep their precious position of power and prestige. What is needed is for we the people to clean out our own Democratic house of the weenies and wusses, those who will not stand up and fight, replacing them with genuine patriots ready to defend both the people and the Constitution, even if it means taking on that MINORITY group, the Christian fundies. Otherwise, we are all doomed to a theocratic, fascist nation. That is the juncture we find ourselves at now, and the choices are plain before us.