New Dems and Republicans: joining forces to wage war against the Left

[Q]

Right & Wrong is left out of the Moderate New Democratic Lexicon

The Democratic party has been usurped by those who call themselves New Democratic 'moderates' and 'pragmatists'. They have not only taken control of the Democratic agenda...but are waging a cultural war within the party where those seeking to right the many wrongs of the Bush junta and their enablers are branded as 'radical', 'far-left', 'purist' and 'idealist'.

The New Democrats would have you believe that you're being a purist for wanting a government that serves the people instead of itself, isn't corrupt, in bed with corporations and the church and use our citizens as canon fodder for unnecessary wars.

The New Democratic moderates don't want you to look behind the curtain of their rhetoric of compromise, concession, capitulation and moral relativism. They want you to accept their 'strategy' of cooperating with the Bush government for the 'good of the party and our nation'.

They want you to believe that you're being a purist if you criticize Democrats who vote with the Bush government against the interests of America and its citizens. They'll call you a radical for complaining that too many Democrats have colluded with the Bush government to pass some of the most extreme, anti-democratic legislation in the history of our nation. They want you to scream at Bush and ignore the fact that many in YOUR own party are helping him work outside the Constitution and international law.

But we are AMERICANS first and Democrats second. We have a duty and obligation to weed out the corruption in our own party as well as that of the opposition. A Democrat who votes with the Bush government becomes an enabler or collaborator and is as much to blame as the Bushies.

Please don't be fooled into believing that you are out of the 'mainstream' for opposing bad legislation and policy...whether it's supported by Republicans or Democrats. Don't fall for their doublespeak that the Iraq invasion and occupation is both good and bad at the same time. Or that citizens must give up the Bill of Rights in order to fight a war on terror against faceless enemies.

Some Democratic politicians have become part of the problem and not the solution. Don't ever give up on the fight to make them responsible for each and every vote they use to enable Bush's crusade to tear our country apart and rebuild it in the Neocon image. And don't allow the Enablers to make you feel guilty for understanding the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral.

[marcologico]

1. Pretty vague. Could you be more specific? Who are you talking about? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

2. 'chyea you think?

There might be a hundred or a thousand vague left vs. right posts to every one that says "I think we should support _____ position rather than _____ because of _____ reasons."

[marcologico]

5. How about one arf means yes, two means no. n/t

[Redleg]

9. Internet forums tend to promote these "one-minute manifestos."

Many of us don't take the time we should to craft our posts or our responses to others. Instead we bang out some vague, superficial one-minute manifesto and post it to the internets so we can stir up some shit and entertain ourselves. I am as guilty as the next person. Time's up... post message.

[Q]

12. And then again some are intentionally obtuse...

...and pretend that they don't understand in order to avoid trying to defend the indefensible.

[Redleg]

17. Yes, I've done that before.

By the way, my previous post was in no way meant as a criticism of you in particular. I was making a general comment about this forum.

[Q]

22. Well...you're right about the...

...'one minute manifestos'. I didn't mean to offend and it's for certain that I could have been more clear in some cases.

But it's clear enough for those who are going through this mess right now. My point is that it's time for Liberals and Progressives to stop coddling the Neodems with talk of working together. This seems impossible considering that their agendas are diametrically opposed.

[wyldwolf]

16. what a perfect description of most of Q's posts!

[Q]

37. Well...at least I make an effort...

...and try not to make HIT AND RUN posts like yours.

[MoonRiver]

18. Q's post made perfect sense to me. And I appreciate it.

Thanks Q! :yourock:

[wyldwolf]

3. interesting. The "response" thread gives specific examples.

Where are YOURS?

[Q]

10. This isn't a response thread...except in the sense that...

...I'm responding to all the garbage the centrists have been throwing at the left since before 2000.

And for all your efforts...one of two things will happen. Either the 'left'...

will tell the New Democrats to go to hell and take their party back from the appeasers

or simply fade away and the party will be left to enjoy minority status for a very long time.

The so-called moderates just don't seem to get it. The scam is over. Do you think the New Party will enjoy the same support they saw in 2004 in a race against the worst 'president' this country has ever seen? They can expect at least a few million less votes in 2008 when they try to pull another scam and run another DLC/Corporate approved candidate.

What the 'middle' doesn't seem to understand is that 'liberals' don't necessarily want to see the party move to the left. They simply want a party that will stop lying to them, defends the Constitution and gets out of the corporate bed.

[wyldwolf]

11. I didn't say or imply it was

See, you wrote all that based on a false assumption.

Wait! You have that stuff already written out and just cut and paste it in. Guess you didn't spend to much time on it.

[Q]

14. Once again...

...it seems that those on the left who are the targets of attacks by both the New Dems and Republicans seem to understand the premise of this thread.

Why pretend it's some sort of 'secret' that the New Democratic party is trying to drive liberals and progressives from the party? Knock off the charade.

[wyldwolf]

15. once again, you suddenly change the subject

...but since you did...

Why pretend it's some sort of 'secret' that the New Democratic party is trying to drive liberals and progressives from the party? Knock off the charade.

Proof? Oh yeah, you don't provide proof.

[Q]

21. i have to admit...

...that I have a difficult time determining whether you're sincere or writing satire. I'll have to assume you're being sarcastic and only trying to play for time.

The proof is in the pudding...so to speak. And that pudding is the current state of the Democratic party and their collaboration with a government that in any other time and place would be called fascist.

Your pitiful rationalizations sound like that of the GOPers when they're asked why there aren't more black leaders in their party. For proof...they point at the few token blacks in congress to distract from the fact that there are no blacks in the senate.

There are few liberals or progressives left in the Democratic party. The few that do exist are mere tokens...used once in a while by the Neodems to 'prove' that the party is still progressive. But like the Blacks in the GOP...the Liberals and Progressives in the Dem party have no voice in the direction or agenda.

It IS no secret that Liberals and Progressives have become the 'Blacks' of the party. They are to be seen and not heard. Their votes and checks are welcomed...but otherwise they're advised to shut up and fade into the background.

I will commend you on your ability to defend the indefensible and 'stay the course' despite having to work against reality.

[ClassWarrior]

25. If "it's no secret" WHERE'S THE PROOF???

That should be a no-brainer.

NGU.

[In Truth We Trust]

4. Kick

[asjr]

6. Excellent post.

[welshTerrier2]

7. one of those radical, leftist, extremists agrees with you

In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties. - Ted Kennedy

[Q]

27. "radical, leftist, extremist"

Isn't it strange that Democrats that simply want their party to represent the people instead of corporations are called 'extremist'?

But as you know...becoming 'Republican clones' is already past tense. While we were busy dreaming of democracy...the neocons and neodems had already taken a different road where democracy IS only a dream...a scam to keep the citizens believing in fantasy.

I see you've quoted Ted Kennedy. This is like quoting the liberal devil to the Neodems. They generally have no more respect for him than the Neocons. He is one of the 'liberals' that they have marginalized to the point where he has no power within the party and his speeches go unheard and unheeded in the New Democratic faction.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The "New Democrats" are old pablum.

They are intent on making the Democratic Party a pale imitation of the other corporate party.

They scorn ideals, principles, and ethics because they lack them. They are eager to "compromise" with the Republicans and corporate America in the name of being "electable". Never mind that their "compromises" cost people's lives.

They are eager to forgive the transgressors as being "practical", "electable", "realists", when they vote with the Republicans. Then they castigate the "leftists", "radicals", and "idealists", as being "traitors" to the party. They are oblivious to the irony of what they are saying.

They like to think of themselves as part of the "majority" without acknowledging that the "majority" usually has resisted change and progress. The "majority" of the nation was against the revolution that made it. The "majority" was against the civil rights movement as being too "extreme". The "majority" was for the Vietnam war. The "majority" was against women's suffrage. The "majority" was for the invasion of Iraq.

They are the opportunists and time-servers whose only interest is in "winning".

[robbedvoter]

13. The war ain't against the left. Against democracy, peace, anything

that's good and decent.
Fascists are helped by the Vichy democrats - and some here acclaim it - seing some phantom advantages out of this.

[John_H]

19. Once again, the "left" sieze a moral high ground they don't merit.

Who enables or fights the GOP depends on moral courage and individual issues far more than it depends on general ideology. There are plenty of left wing liberals in congress and statehoouses accross america who cave to repugs 24-7. There are plenty of "mainstream" dems who fight.

Some people live for ideological warfare. They only understand the world in big ideological brushstrokes so instead of working to convince dems of all ideologies of the merits of fighting the GOP, they'll turn on their potential allies, trying to make the idiotic argument that in order to fight the chimp, you've got to hold politcal views that a tiny sliver of americans believe in.

Example time: Take a look at Russ Fiegold, the new whipping boy of DU's one-percenters and Barbara Boxer, their new heroine. Fiengold is now an enabler by the OP's definition. But then again, so is Boxer since she voted for the Patriot Act, right? No one would ever accuse Pelosi of being a New Democrat, yet she thinks planning to oppose something chimp does is such a big deal she puts out a press release about it. Ted Kennedy helped chimp pass NCLB. DINOboy. Byrd fought single handedly to stop the war. Check out his career voting record on social issues.

I feel pretty lucky to even be having this discussion. Most people don't have time to indulge themselves in that luxury. Since they're too busy working to "get involved" they trust those of us who have that luxury to work for change if not in their lifetimes then their children's. It may not be a popular notion down at the Dept. of Anthropology Holiday Party,but that change is only going to hapen within the framework that surrounds us. Always been that way, even in times of violent revolution. Always will. Trying to start a false idological intra-party war when we should be finding common areas to hold the line may make folks feel good. But it's a false academic ideological exercise for people lost in a fantasy world of Zinn. It's selling the people we're supposed to be fighting for short, and it makes dick cheney grin big and wide.

[Redleg]

20. Ahhh, man, you're pissing on their parade.

Where are they gonna play "I'm more liberal than thou" if not at DU?

[Q]

31. That's very insulting...

...and you're certainly intelligent enough to understand that this debate has nothing to do with who can be the most 'liberal'.

It's about something much more basic than that. It's about right and wrong. Moral and immoral. Honesty and dishonesty.

This isn't a fucking game. The reality is hard to accept...but the fact is that a faction of our party is collaborating with Bush and his cronies to the detriment of our party and country.

Please join the dialogue instead of helping the enablers cover up their treachery.

[Redleg]

33. I've done "dialog" already- now I'm just making fun.

I infer from your statement that people here who disagree with you are enablers of the right. THAT is an insulting statement.

[ClassWarrior]

23. They've declared war on opportunity and responsibility!!

Bring 'em on.

NGU.

[Walt Starr]

24. BRAVO!

New Dems are Old Republicans.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. I second that. n/t

[MadHound]

28. Excellent post Q, as always

And don't let defenders of the indefensible around here tell you otherwise. In the rush to kiss corporate ass, the Democratic is purging itself of those who remind it that it is supposed to be the party of the people, rather than a lapdog of the corporatists. Thus, it is becoming a pale shadow of it's former self, servile and willing to do the bidding of it's corporate masters.

[Q]

29. It seems as though...

...that it's only the 'extreme left' that even USES the term 'party of the people'. It's very sad that those who have taken control of the party don't even want to be associated with that term or what it implies.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. You said it, Q

I've been fuming for 25 years as the Dems--even when they've had a majority in Congress--have enabled the Republicans' worst policies.

I hope you're still able to breathe under the crush of the DLC apologists' dogpile. :-)

[DrGonzoLives]

32. What is your solution?

Run ultra-left candidates that will get their asses handed to them every single election? Demand complete ideological purity from the representative from some rural district in Kansas? What? I hear much moaning and whining in this forum, and no solutions.

I'm on the left too. I'm getting a little damn tired, however, of hearing only complaints. People don't want to hear complaints - they want to hear what you're going to do about it. And, no, vague crap about "root out corruption" and so forth doesn't cut it. Give us specifics for once instead of unfocused rambling.

[Q]

35. That you even have to ask...

...about 'ultra-left' candidates tells me that you're not paying attention. There is no one that could even be called 'ultra-left' in the party.

I'm also gettting 'damn tired' of those who claim to be on the 'left' using the scare tactic of bringing up labels like 'ultra-left', leftist radicals and extremists to steer the discussion away from the real problems.

The only 'specific' I can give you is to not cooperate or collaborate with corrupt governments or vote for those who do. Until more rank and file Democrats realize that this is exactly what their party is doing...the calls for specific remedies are useless.

And once again you've brought up the familiar and overused strawman of the moderates: purity. This is a word they used to describe those who refuse to compromise with the fascists in control of our government and their enablers.

You should be asking the Democratic leadership what THEIR solution is besides enabling Bush to further destroy our country.

[Tinoire]

34. Excellent post Q. Thelatest example of treachery- the Christian Right/DLC

The real division in our party is between empire-building neo-Liberals (the exact same problem the Republicans are having with their version of the empire-builders, the neo-cons).

It is NOT by accident that the DLC and PPI are very close in philosophy to... elements on the other side. The DLC's latest acquisition from the neo-cons is a PNAC signatory named Marshall Wittman who was one of Ralph Reed's right hand men in the Christian Coalition. They think so highly of him that they made this "prodigal son" an official DLC spokesman and a Sr Advisor of the PPI (the DLC's version of the AEI). The gall.

The Christian Coalition is now in the Democratic Party courtesy of the DLC. It is little coincidence that we are suddenly hearing all this talk of "fath-based initiatives" in the party & politicians are mentioning "God" in every other sentence and letting us know how they just pray, and pray and pray several times a day.

We are in a fight for the soul of our party and they will stop at nothing. Big, big money at stake here. What we are fighting are the corporations, the Military Industrial complex, the National Endowment for Democracy, the neo think tanks, etc... Right now they're trying very hard to fracture the anti-war movement knowing full well that it's the glue holding many of us together because of our rage over Iraq and the political cohabitation that led to it. They will stop at nothing to divide us nor will they stop at anything to keep power.

We can't let them win. The stakes are too important.
==

Straight from the page of the DLC's neoliberal Progressive Policy Institute, they seem SO proud of their latest addition as they trumpet his "accomplishments":

PPI | Bio | September 22, 2004
Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919


*Here's the main Staff list of the DLC: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112

In order to find the right spokesperson, please contact our press office at [phone].

DLC Spokespersons:


Al From, founder and chief executive officer of the DLC.

Bruce Reed, president of the DLC.

Holly Page, vice president for strategic development for the DLC.

Ed Kilgore, policy director for the DLC.

Debbie Cox, chief of staff for the DLC.

Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow.


& from the PPI:

PPI Spokespersons:


Will Marshall, president and co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Rob Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and director of PPI's Technology & New Economy Project.

Paul Weinstein Jr., chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute and PPI senior fellow, covering issues of pension and tax reform, transportation policy, and corporate responsibility.

John Cohen, director of PPI's Community Crime Fighting Project.

Edward Gresser, director of PPI's Trade and Global Markets Project.

David Kendall, director of PPI's Health Priorities Project.

Jan Mazurek, director of PPI's Energy and The Environment Project.

Steven Nider, director of foreign and security studies.

Andrew Rotherham, director of PPI's 21st Century Schools Project.

Fred Siegel, PPI senior fellow, covering urban issues, smart growth, and transportation.

Marshall Wittmann, PPI senior fellow.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=1238




Marshall Wittman

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of the nation's most quoted analysts on political and congressional issues. He specializes in the growing role of the independent voter.

Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Wittmann also was the legislative representative with the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and a public affairs specialist with the National Treasury Employees Union. He holds both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan.

Wittmann is widely quoted on issues concerning politics, elections and Congress. He has been published in The New York Times and The Washington Post.

http://pewforum.org/events/0410/wittmanbio.htm

You really have to get a load of this site!:

Bioethics
Death Penalty
Faith-Based Initiatives
Just War Tradition
Religion and Gay Marriage
Religion and Human Rights
Religion and Public Schools
Religion in American Public Life
Religion in Politics
School Vouchers
September 11 and Beyond

http://pewforum.org/issues /

====

At the Hudson Institute, he was the

Director, Project for Conservative Reform
Senior Fellow

http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_...

(the page was recently blanked out now that he's allegedly had a miraculous transformation from neo-con to Dem but the links of his name still point there).

And when you research Marshall Wittman + Conservative Reform, you discover that he left that to go manage John McCain's campaign (oh yeah, Wittman even managed Alan Keyes campaign at one time)


((Forgive me Q for having re-cycled this from another thread but I think this is important to know and am really rushed right))

[Q]

36. Thanks for the information...

...if only more 'centrists' would read it and understand what it means.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. No, they'll just bring up McGovern and Dukakis again, or

possibly Kucinich. :eyes: