Progressives, a simple reason to vote for even DLC dems for congress

[Hippo_Tron]

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers...

I rest my case

[mike_c]

1. uh-huh-- there's always a reason that progressives...

...should vote for the repub-lites. Having followed that strategy for DECADES, now I'll wait until I hear dems offer to vote for progressives, first.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. You are missing the point, if we get the majority back...

Conyers will be in charge of the judiciary committee. Think about all of the evidence that Conyers has already brought against the Bush administration with his hearings so far. Now imagine what he could do to the administration with all of the resources of the House Judiciary Committee, currently controlled by reactionary nutball Jim Sensenberenner. I think all of that might be worth electing a few DINOs to be backbenchers, but that's just me.

[mike_c]

6. well, when the dems decide collectively that achieving...

...that end is worth working for the votes of progressives, rather than simply telling us why we should vote for DINOs, I'll agree with you. It's a two-way street.

[Robbien]

7. What's this we business. The DLC is not we.

The DLC will vote for corporatism and warfare every single time cutting the legs out from under Progressives every single time.

[ClassWarrior]

8. So true. I say use the DLC for whatever we can squeeze out of them...

...then we can dustbin them.

NGU.

[enough already]

58. No, you're missing the point

I'm not voting GOP-lite EVER again.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Okay, so no real investigation into the DSM...

no hearings on rovegate, no investigation onto pre-war intelligence, and the dozens of other things that the administration has been covering up.
Conyers can continue to sit in the basement and be ignored and nobody will ever know all of the shit that this administration has really pulled over the years.

[enough already]

98. What in the world makes you think

That a House and Senate full of DLCers would EVER let those kinds of hearings happen? Forget it, I'd done with DLC scum.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. They dont' control that, the chairman of the judiciary committee does

The House and Senate don't take a vote everytime they do something. People are put in positions of power to decide those things for them. Right now Conyers is ranking member of the judiciary committee which means that he will become chairman if we get the majority. The DLC members could bitch and moan all they want, but they couldn't do anything about it. BTW the DLC would still be a vast minority in the House dem caucus even if every single seat that we picked up to get 218 was a DLCer.

[neverforget]

5. It's this all or nothing attitude that has us where we are now. I'd

rather have a DLC Dem that holds some of my views than a Repub that holds none of them. Take the good with the bad because we will NEVER get the perfect canidate.

[Robbien]

10. It is following the DLC line of wannabe GOP-lite which sinks Democrats

As long as Democrats follow the GOP/DLC line, voters feel there is no choice between the GOP or Dems so of course they vote for the party which has a clearer message. The DLC line is just a fuzzy GOP-lite program which turns off Progressives and the rest of the voters cannot tell the DLC from the GOP.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I agree, BUT... in a general election you have two candidates

Okay, well you have third party candidates who more likely than not, don't have a chance of winning.

I didn't suggest that we should support DLC candidates in primary races. I think that this is the place where we SHOULD fight the DLC and get more progressives to win nominations.

However, once the general election comes around, you have two candidates. You have the DLCer and you have the Republican. The DLCer will put people like John Conyers, Charley Rangel, and Dennis Kucinich in power. The Republican will put people like Duncan Hunter, Jim Sensenberenner, and Tom DeLay in power. To me, that's a no brainer.

[Robbien]

16. The DLCer will work against

putting forth any Progressive reforms. What's the use of putting a Conyers at the head of a committee when the DLCer will join with the GOP and sink any Conyers Progressive bill which gets out of committee.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. It's not all about legislation

The judiciary committe has a huge oversight function and that is the key thing here. Conyers has been very active in mounting evidence against this administration and he has been doing so without any real resources or support. If he had the full force of the judiciary committee he could be MUCH more effective in his quest and perhaps he would be able to take down the administration. If Conyers was able to take down Bush, it would be a HUGE victory for the progressive cause.

[Robbien]

31. The power to be defeated is not Bush, it is unregulated corporatism

and putting another DLC/Corporate in position will add to the problem. Being the head of a committee will give Conyers a little more power yes. But not enough to overcome the fact that the corporatism in the Democratic party just got stronger by that DLCer you are saying we should spend our time and effort into putting into office.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I didn't say time and effort, I just said vote

[Robbien]

37. Voting for a corporate friendly candidate hurts the middle class

and hurts the Democratic party because DLCers tarnish the image of the party by making it seem no different than the GOP.

Plus, having the other guy take away our rights is bad enough, but it is worse when the guy who is supposed to be on our side joins with the GOP to take away our rights.

[ClassWarrior]

57. Withholding your vote, thereby electing corporate friendly candidates...

...over whom we have absolutely NO control - i.e. GOP - is even worse for the middle class.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Wow, that sounds like...

...you're awfully willing to surrender your power to your opponents. Hell, it'd be a better shot at a Progressive agenda than we have now. And believe me, THIS Progressive is itching for that shot.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

14. sorry. No

It is following the DLC line of wannabe GOP-lite which sinks Democrats

No evidence of that.

[idlisambar]

143. One thing is undeniable

Since the New Democrat movement has taken over the party, Democrats have steadily lost power. Correlation is not causation, but I'd be interested to know your alternative hypothesis.

[wyldwolf]

149. actually, that isn't true either

The Democrats began steadily losing power in the late 60s.

[Zorra]

155. OK.....Would you consider this evidence?

Washington, D.C.--With consumer debt reaching record highs of more than $2 trillion, members of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) sent a letter today to Speaker Dennis Hastert, urging him to schedule House action on the bankruptcy reform legislation as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The letter, signed by twenty NDC members, including the four NDC leaders, reiterates New Democrats' long-standing support for common-sense bankruptcy legislation and states an intention to work across the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

"I'm pleased to see so many New Democrats band together in calling for a mainstream solution to bankruptcy reform. I hope Speaker Hastert will heed our calls and move promptly to bring this legislation to the floor soon," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher.

"This bankruptcy bill strikes an equitable balance between essential protections and responsible reform necessary to curb abuses of the current code by people with the financial means to pay their debt," stated Rep. Kind. "As champions of both personal and fiscal responsibility, New Democrats supported bankruptcy reform in the past, and we stand ready to adopt this common-sense measure when it comes to the floor of the House."
snip----
Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher
Rep. Adam Smith
Rep. Ron Kind
Rep. Artur Davis
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Rep. Dennis Moore
Rep. Mike McIntyre
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Jay Israel
Rep. David Wu
Rep. Diane Hooley
Rep. Melissa Bean
Rep. Jim Davis
Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Rep. Ed Case
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Shelley Berkeley
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks
snip---
This magazine and multiple other opinion outlets on the center-left have written at length about how the bill in question is a truly contemptible piece of legislation. Worse, there is no plausible political rationale for supporting it other than to appease credit card companies. As Paul Krugman pointed out today, the bill makes no exceptions for families wiped out by medical expenses (which make up more than half of all bankruptcies) or for bankruptcy cases involving active-duty soldiers, yet it leaves any number of loopholes in place for large corporations. The political imagery here so obviously benefits anyone who'd oppose the bill you're left to conclude that the only way a congressman could possibly support it is through a craven and reflexive willingness to do the bidding of big business.

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2584
http://www.democrats.com/tauscher

The prosecution rests:puke:and requests a recess.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Who said anything about following?? Lead the suckers around by the nose.

Get what WE need out of them. Then when we have it we can cut 'em loose.

NGU.

[Robbien]

23. The DLC never follows. Note they are demanding

Progressives support them for positions but never give anything to Progressives in return for that support. They demand, never negotiate.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Then we dig in our heels. Two can play that game.

Why do you give them so much power??

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Who is demanding what exactly?

The latest I've heard from the DLC is basically in so many words, "We don't like Howard Dean, we don't want to be associated with him". I haven't heard, "We don't like Howard Dean, he should resign because we say so."

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

[Robbien]

29. The demand is

vote for the DLC, if not you get a GOP.

When has the DLC ever supported a Progressive or a non-DLCer? Never. As you clearly stated they are working against non-DLCers. If DLCers want the support of Progressives, then they should support Progressives in return.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Well, there's no progressive equivalent of the DLC

Voters don't identify themselves as DLCers, the DLC is an organization. Can I name an instance where, more moderate voters whom the DLC appeals to have voted for a progressive candidate, yes. Have there been instances where DLC Senators and congressmen have campaigned for non DLC senators and congressmen, yes. Would you ever hear Al From endorsing Dennis Kucinich for office? No. Likewise, would you ever hear... I dunno say moveon.org endorsing Evan Bayh for office? No.

Do you see my point?

[Robbien]

35. What is this more moderate business

Unless you mean right of center to be more moderate. To the DLC the center is left and anything left of center is the looney left.

MoveOn is not Progressive, it is what I would label moderate. When Kucinich won the poll by a large margin, MoveOn suspended the vote and delayed awarding Kucinich their support until the issue got dropped. MoveOn is sitting in the ground between the DLC and Progressives.

Your DLC more moderate talk is just Rove-like talk for corporate friendly.

[ClassWarrior]

38. Why won't you answer my question?

Why do you surrender so much power to your opponents?

NGU.

[Robbien]

40. I believe I did

The DLC equals the GOP in many many ways. In my opinion they are worse because they are trying to hi-jack a party which has no affinity with them and are using Democratic dollars under a false front.

Surrendering to the DLC is surrendering to my opponent.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Exactly! You're granting the DLC all this power to demolish you.

You've already decided that they're invincible. That CAN'T be healthy for one's psyche!!

NGU.

[Robbien]

42. No one said they are invincible.

Just despicable. Why you are saying Progressives should vote for them is beyond me.

[ClassWarrior]

46. I agree. They are despicable. No one said love them.

Why you refuse to accept the fact that they can be exploited to advance the Progressive cause is beyond me.

NGU.

[Robbien]

52. Because it would hurt more than help

Out of 45 Senators, 20 are DLC. The DLC has the power of the party in fund raising but is still in the minority when counting votes. Electing more DLCers puts more power in the hands of corporate-friendlies and lessens the power of Progressives.

Once they are elected it would be almost impossible for someone in the Democratic party to get the DLCer out of office. In terms of Progressive party power, supporting a DLCer will not help and sure would hurt.

[ClassWarrior]

55. Are you talking about competitive primaries or conservative districts?

By virtue of the GOP Gerrymandered district maps, some of those DLCers are all but unavoidable. So since we're stuck with 'em, we might as well learn to squeeze the most we can out of them.

If you're talking about a competitive primary between a DLCer and a Progressive Dem, the Progressive Dem deserves our votes EVERY TIME.

NGU.

[CWebster]

78. Yet, you are the one who wants us to support them. nt

[ClassWarrior]

84. No, I want you to USE them as long as we have them...

...while working to eliminate any need for them.

NGU.

[CWebster]

89. No offense, but don't be a fool

they use us. And until the day comes when that strategy doesn't work, they will continue to use us.

[ClassWarrior]

107. No offense, but don't be a victim.

NGU.

[CWebster]

120. A victim of fucking what, ClassWarrior?

Those who bow to the Corporate class, ClassWarrior?

[CWebster]

76. Man, that is a fantasy

It is us who gets led around and held hostage, and it is a very precarious balance. Note that the third party threat comes increasingly from the Left. Now, why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose there is such a VOID there?

[Mary 123]

63. Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

This thread reminds me of the 2004 election when I was trying to convince Libertarians to vote AGAINST Bush to help end his attack on our Constitution. They all said the same type of thing....not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I voted for the lesser of two evils and I have been frustrated with the democratic party ever since I as old enough to vote. The only time I didn't vote for the lesser of two evils in my lifetime was when I voted for Clinton. You keep saying that you want a more liberal...I mean more "progressive" candidate; but the ones you nominate are already too "progressive" to get the votes needed to win against the republicans. I think that has been the downfall of your party. You insist on candidates who do not appeal to the center and take it out on people like Ralph Nader. Should Ralph Nader voters vote for the lesser of two evils or is it now ok with you that he runs?

[cornermouse]

3. DLC's ...

Would that be anything like the infamous 7 who cut the deal which gave us our most recent Federal judges?

[Racenut20]

4. yep

[lastknowngood]

9. We are not going to get back the house or the senate or the WH

they own the voting machines and EVERY media outlet! Get it! It's over we lose, America losses, the world losses and the fascists win. I'm not trying to be a defeatist just a realist. Until sometime long into the future we are the new Jews.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Okay, calm down for a second and think about this rationally...

Yes, voter fraud is a big problem. Yes, we can and do need to do something about it (I think Andy Stephenson proved this quite clearly). We do need to do as much as we can to improve the situation by the next election.

That being said, voter fraud is not our ONLY problem. Fair voting will not make the Democrats take back the House. Diebold or no Diebold, approximately half of this country voted for Commander Cuckoo Bananas and we need to win over some of those people if we are going to take back the House. We also need to make sure that our base turns out and we need to overcome the fact that mathematically we are at a disadvantage.

There are many things that we need to do before 2006. Fixing the voting machines is only one of them.

[bearfan454]

20. You said

"Diebold or no Diebold, approximately half of this country voted for Commander Cuckoo Bananas and we need to win over some of those people if we are going to take back the House."

Only if you believe the voting machine results. Bush got more votes than there were voters in several Ohio counties. They didn't call Ohio until early in the AM because they needed to know how many votes they had to flip.

Voter fraud is THE big problem. We will never win again until that is fixed no matter what we do.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Okay, so you're saying without Diebold, Kerry won in a landslide?

The same exit polls that say Kerry won, don't say that he won in a landslide. I have never seen a single poll taken that showed a Kerry landslide. Even if Kerry did win it was STILL a close election hence APPROXIMATELY half the country still voted for Bush.

[Totally Committed]

123. I agree...

I feel Kerry won, but not by a landslide, and that's how they got away with it.

The point is though, he didn't give a shit,and just walked away, leaving us with the mess we're in today. Just left. Ugh.

TC

[OzarkDem]

81. You have the power

As the percentage of grassroots donations to Dem campaigns and the DNC continues to grow, the more power you have to control the agenda. Notice how grassroots Dems donations are becoming a larger part of the picture (see single issue/ideology & other sectors).

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/sector.asp?Cmte=DPC&cycle=2004

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/sector.asp?Cmte=DPC&Cycle=2006

[Hippo_Tron]

154. Very good point

A lot of people say that we can get the party to listen to us by refusing to vote for DLCers. I think the better way is to hit them where it REALLY hurts, the wallet.

[brentspeak]

12. You can tell if someone's a genuine Democrat or a fraud

if they insist voters abandon Democrats without providing an alternative Democratic candidate who stands a good chance of being elected.

And there's a lot of the latter trolling on these boards.

[wyldwolf]

18. true that!

I think your post sailed above a few heads here.

It was the best description of what a true "DINO" is I've heard.

"This country is being killed by people who try to break us down and tear us up and make us be little when we have to be big..."
-- Bill Clinton.

[welshTerrier2]

26. genuine Democrats?

well, i label myself a progressive ... and i will not be voting for Democrats in the future who are not progressives ...

if you would like to call me a "fraud", i'm sure we could probably waste a fair amount of time and effort calling each other names ...

in the last election, i worked very hard for Democrats and sent them some serious money ... i voted for Kerry even though i really hated his IWR vote and continue to hate his position on the occupation ... we need not argue these details ... the point is, my vote for him was a compromise on my part ...

but i have come to the conclusion, and i understand you disagree, that without a real dialog between the various groups within the "big tent", those with the power will continue to do whatever they like and will ignore, and not represent, those of us who often feel alienated by their policies ...

right now, i am working WITHIN the Party for change but i will not vote for those who don't represent my views ... doing so only enables them to continue to impose their ways and their views without coming to a meeting of the minds with those who disagree ... i don't need to "have my way" on each and every issue but i do need to be heard and i do need to know there's a process for dialog and compromise on both sides ... if you want to label my views as fraudulent, flame away ...

[ClassWarrior]

30. Well, I'm not too worried about your vote, terrier.

I've found that friends of mine who have your mindset tend to need constant reinforcement from like-minded people, so they end up living in districts that are pretty Progressive to begin with. Which means their Dem candidates are usually pretty Progressive - not moderates.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

32. constant reinforcement?

what a curious statement, ClassWarrior: "friends of mine who have your mindset tend to need constant reinforcement from like-minded people" ...

i realize you don't know me but to suggest, as it appears at least to me that you've done, that i (and those with my "mindset") require "constant reinforcement from like-minded people" strains the bounds of the absurd ... do my posts strike you as the posts of a conformist?

anyway, i'm am glad you're not worried about my vote ... i'm not worried about yours either ...

[ClassWarrior]

39. I can't say, terrier. I don't know you.

But the folks I know who put down the Dem Party because it's not Progressive enough are generally people who didn't have the internal strengh needed to stay in the party and fight for Progressive values. So they seek out the comfort of a choir. Just a defense mechanism, I guess. Nothing wrong with that. We're all different people with different needs.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

43. to clarify my position ...

my current thinking about the Democratic Party is that it has lost its majority status because it has followed a "presumed politically expedient" path rather than the conscience of a majority of Democrats ...

i can certainly see the logic behind fighting for voters in the center ... "if we could just win over a few percent of the moderate republicans, we'd be OK" ...

but i have two major problems with this ... one is that i believe the Party is seen as NOT having strong convictions ... i think this view is widely held and has killed us for many election cycles ... chasing after votes in the center while republicans became more and more ideological has helped them; not us ... so, problem number one is that the "move to the center" has not served us politically ...

and problem number two is that most elected Democrats have sold out on the war; they've sold out on fighting the corporate state; and they seem to be at least partially alienating some of their core constituencies because the Party is so centrally controlled ... so, problem number two is that i don't like where the Democratic establishment has taken the Party on some of the big issues ...

BUT, and here's where i disagree with your post, i have not stopped working within the Party to try to bring about change ... for you to suggest that those "who put down the Dem Party because it's not Progressive enough are generally people who didn't have the "internal strength" needed to stay in the party and fight for Progressive values" is just plain wrong ...it certainly doesn't apply to me and it certainly doesn't apply to many progressives who are working for change from within the Party ... and while i'm at it, those who have left may have plenty of "internal strength" but may have just become so alienated that they've sought to work for causes they believe in via other organizations and other parties ... i see no basis to generalize about their weaknesses any more than i see a basis to suggest that those who just go along with the Democratic elite are sheep ...

personally, i believe those who take the time to learn the issues and participate in the process are at least in some sense worthy of respect whether we agree with their conclusions or their politics ... to suggest that they lack "internal strength" doesn't seem right to me ...

so i do often "put down the Dem Party" because it is not progressive enough ... and i also put the Party down because i don't believe it is adequately democratic ... i think too much is handed down from the top and mainstream Democrats have very little chance to direct the Party ... most of us rarely if ever have an opportunity to speak directly to our elected reps (unless of course you attend a fund-raising event) ...

what's needed is not intra-Party squabbling ... what's need is a much more open, more democratic, more participatory process ... if the Party conveys a message of "here's what we're doing and you're expected to comply even if you don't like it", i for one will be voting for progressives regardless of Party ... when the process is more open and i feel the Party represents me on some of my top issues, count me in ... for me, whether i remain a Democrat or i don't, the issue is not about internal strength ... the issue is about the strength of my convictions and how and where i think i can best fight for them ... and right now, whether anyone agrees with me or not, i think Democrats want my vote, my money, my campaign work and my silence ... and that is just not OK with me ...

[ClassWarrior]

45. Why do you think "the Party is seen as NOT having strong convictions??"

Because good people like you are bailing when we need you most.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

47. heh ...

well, i appreciate the compliment but ...

you raise a bit of a chicken and egg argument here ... and btw, i was recently (last January) elected to my town's DTC ... why are you assuming i'm "bailing" ??

if the Party really is concerned about people bailing, and i'm not at all sure they are concerned, they should do something about it rather than cramming more centrist policies down our throats ...

just as an example, and again this is only to make the point not to argue the issue, i believe a majority of Dems are well to the left of elected Dems on the occupation of Iraq ... something's not right when the Party's processes don't connect the voice of mainstream Democrats to the elite Democrats in the Party ...

i may or may not ultimately remain a Democrat ... i take this issue deadly seriously ... but understand this, whether i'm "in" the Party or not, i'll always vote for and work for progressive Democrats ...

what's really sad is that i believe we are approaching the collapse of the neo-cons and Democrats should be the heirs apparent ... Democrats may even win a few Presidential elections as a backlash ... and they will take from this the misguided belief that they are doing things just right ... "see, i told you we'd win if we did this" ... unfortunately, that's an "ends justifies the means" argument ... with the decline of the republican right-wing, the Democratic Party should be pushing for prolonged "regime change"; not just winning a few elections ...

to really entrench themselves as the majority Party, Democrats cannot foresake their left-wing ... but, no matter how hard i fight and how hard i try, i'm concerned that that's just what they're trying to do ...

[Hippo_Tron]

49. And that's why I'll be working hard for a progressive candidate in '08

You are right, if the GOP falls, we definately do need somebody to pick up the pieces, and believe me, I don't trust anybody who currently has a DLC next to their name to do it. At the same time, we have to remember that we have the most right wing regime in office in the history of the country. We do have to think about the short term a little bit. If we take back congress, we can seriously reduce the amount of damage that Bush can do in the next two years. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't vote our conscience and support progressive candidates. However, there will be close general election races next year that will be between a DLCer and a Republican. I'm just suggesting that in these situations, where there is really no hope of electing a progressive anyway, that there is a clear reason to get out and vote for the DLCer over the Republican.

[welshTerrier2]

50. vote for the DLCer?

i respect where you're coming from, Hippo_Tron ... it's basically how i came to vote for Kerry last year ...

but for me, i'm done with that ... the Party is going to have to meet me part way ... if they aren't worried about the loss of last year's ABB'ers, fine ... if they think they don't need many of last year's campaign workers to win, fine ... all i can say is "good luck" ... personally, i think they're courting disaster ... i think they believe the left "has nowhere else to go" ...

if those of us on the left who, rightly or wrongly, don't feel the Party represents us continue to go along with their bullshit, where's their incentive to change? yeah, i'm willing to seek common ground but not if they aren't ...

when the Dems nominate a war supporter, i'll be voting for somebody else ... will a Green or a Democratic Socialist win a national election? of course not ... but it's not always about winning ... sometimes you have to do what you have to do ... at least that way, i'll be fighting for something i believe in ...

[ClassWarrior]

56. I'M concerned, and I'm the party.

And they only way the we're going to have the party you describe is by having MORE people like you and me in the party. Not fewer.

NGU.

[Mary 123]

60. Dems forsaking their left-wing?

Since when? Dukakis, Gore, Kerry?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis weren't so left-wing that you'd notice

They were at the most center-left, no more.

My European friends tell me that they'd all be considered conservatives in Europe and the Republicans would be considered neo-fascists.

[Mary 123]

129. We Can Learn From History

Both Carter and Clinton were moderate democrats from the south. The democratic party keeps trying to motivate their base as a tactic rather than doing what has worked in the past. Nominate a moderate democrat rather than a leftie and you have a shot this time.....otherwise, you might as well nominate Michael Moore. At least then when you lose you can't complain your candidate wasn't progressive enough.
This isn't Europe by the way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. But Clinton RAN as a left populist and then sold out

by pushing NAFTA and welfare "reform" and bumbling health care.

Carter was against the hawk establishment and got into trouble for proposing human rights as a criterion in foreign policy.

By the way, I get suspicious of anyone who uses Michael Moore as an example of something bad.

[Mary 123]

132. Clinton

was one of the few democrats to make it to the White House and one of the best presidents in my opinion.

I wasn't saying Michael Moore was "bad". I was saying that just because you like someone doesn't mean he has a chance to make it to the White House.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

144. I just thought of something else that Clinton and Carter have in common

They're both warm, folksy personalities.

There is something basically distant about Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. They say the right things (although in the case of Mondale and Dukakis, they often said exactly the wrong things), but you don't sense any geniune passion or warmth in their public personas.

I was disappointed when I first heard Kerry in person, because I thought he was too cautious and saying what he thought he should say instead of what he really believed.

Edwards was better at handling a crowd, but not by much.

The second time I saw Kerry in person, it was so clear to me that the real passion was not for Kerry but for Not Bush.

He was unable to win over the voters who were too uninformed to see what was wrong with Bush.

We need candidates who can win with the force of their own personalities, no matter who their opponent si.

[Hippo_Tron]

152. Dukakis could've easily won without personality

Dukakis was leading Bush by 17 points after the Democratic National Convention. In the last four election cycles, do you remember a candidate leading by 17 points? Dukakis was crippled by his inability to respond to Bush's attack ads. He also made the idiotic move of getting rid of Sasso as campaign manager, only to re-hire him, but by then it was too late. In response to the idiotic tank ad, Dukakis should've responded with an ad about Iran contra and demanded that somebody who won't tell the truth about a coverup like that is clearly not fit to be commander in chief. Instead, he responded with attack ads questioning the competence of Dan Quayle. While it was a valid attack, people weren't voting for the Vice President... if they had been, Dukakis/Benston would've won in a landslide.

[bread_and_roses]

44. No fruad here: proud Working Families Party registrant

So those of us who are not Registered Dems need "constant reinforcement from the like-minded" and lack "internal strength"? Them's fightin' words,but I will let them pass in the interests of peace and dialogue.

Others have made the same points I would, here, including that I've worked extremely hard on a lot of Dem elections, and virtually daily for a solid year on the last Presidential election. Despite my dismay at Kerry's IRW and continued support for the occupation.

I would add two things to what the others have said. One, is that the political work that I do takes me to poor, disenfranchised, and minority neighborhoods. Do you know how often I hear "what difference will it make to me?" when I am trying to turn out the vote for a Dem candidate? Do you know how often I hear, "they come around every election and we never hear from them again" about Dem candidates? You can argue all you like that a Supreme Court nomination will affect their lives - and I would agree - but when you have Dems opposing Living Wages, or using "law and order" talk that is plainly code for "those (Black) people" or ignoring the decrepid housing in poor neighborhoods OR passing the Welfare "reform" that has caused untold hardship among the poor - well, THEN try to go out and tell people a Dem is going to make a difference to them. You'll have to do it for me, because I can't anymore.

The other point is that John Kerry's unwillingness to stand up for the very people who stood for him - all those people who stood in line for hours and hours in Ohio, for instance - was the final straw for me.

No more.

[ClassWarrior]

51. Them's fightin' words?? Then why are you bailing on us??

Them sound like quittin' words to me.

And believe me, we can ALWAYS use fighters like you.

NGU.

[pgh_dem]

64. Think the operative word there is a different meaning for 'use'.

These folks do feel that the Dem party has used fighters like them, as in taken for granted.

When I was volunteering for Kerry campaign, I wasn't driving around 'centrists', knocking on doors with 'moderates', passing out flyers with 'joe sixpack'. I was working with (and working for) people who supported gay marriage, who were anti-war, who were adamantly pro-choice. Those few who were genuinely Kerry fans from the get-go were mostly crazy bout the VVAW Kerry, or the BCCI investigating Kerry, and definitely not the pro-war Kerry.

I realize that not everyone we contacted was as liberal/progressive as we are, or even as interested in politics, but the national party should make at least some effort to keep these volunteers committed.

For the volunteers and activists, it's the difference between fighting a tough fight, where you should never give up, and beating a dead horse, where your efforts are pointless.

I'm sure that someone in Cleveland or Columbus, who put in the same effort I did (hardly a storm-the-bastille, lead the people thing, but still...), and they have the smarts to see that EVERY contact, EVERY reminder, etc was completely nullified by the misallocation of voting machines, and even reversed by the coordinated employment of caging lists, challenges, and fraudulent 'vote on wednesday' flyers, they just feel hopeless. Furthermore, when the DNC (note not talking about the DLC) tells me 'nothing to see here, move on...there are always irregularities, blah blah' it completely takes the fight out of me.

All that being said, I will certainly vote for Bob Casey, Jr against Rick Santorum (should Bob be the candidate, as seems likely), despite his anti-choice position. Despite the fact that he might be counted on to confirm King Retard's anti-choice SCOTUS picks. But only because ole Man-on-Dog Rick would, too, and so much else evil besides.

But I've got to say that I completely understand that some people are getting really goddamn sick of choosing the least overtly harmful candidate. AND being asked to do phonebanks, fundraising, flushing and so on.

[ClassWarrior]

66. Please don't spin my words. If you have something constructive to add...

...to the discussion, fine. But don't twist my sincere plea to a fellow Progressive to help us take back our party.

NGU.

[pgh_dem]

86. Whatever...didn't spin your plea, tried to point out why it might fall on

deaf ears, when people feel sold out.

When you say 'take back our party', it is implicit that the party has not followed progressive interests, and needs to be taken back. That shows you understand the frustration loyal Dem activists feel.

So try a little more honey, less vinegar. Something constructive to add...

[Totally Committed]

127. And then, there are people like me,

who worked hard and long for over 35 years for this Party only to see it going down the toilet. And today I am left asking myself, "For what???"

I can't tell you how sad I am that our Party seems to have lost its collective spine, while: The poor are poorer. The "minorities" are less "equal". All Americans have fewer rights and less freedom. There is almost no seperation between Church and state. Women are about to lose their hard-won right to Choice. The Constitution is being gutted. And, most of this Party voted to ratify a PRE-EMPTIVE and illegal war.

I can't decide if all my hard work for this Party was for nothing, or if it just enabled it to take us to this place. My heart is heavy from the sadness of it all. I used to be a Democrat because I believed so strongly in all the true ideals of the Democratic Party. If we lost an election, I could hold my head high, and know that at least I fought for the right side.

But, the Party we have become is like a dose of bitter medicine: We lose AND we can't hold our heads up because the candidates we are forced to support are so lame and weak and sniveling. I feel we are being assimilated. We are being forced to accept second-best because there is no longer another choice.

It's time, I feel, to support only those candidates that reflect our personal ideals. We must be willing to destroy this village in order to save it.

The Supreme Court choices (there will be at least two more in this administration) made by BushCo have just about guaranteed us that their influence will be felt for an entire generation or more. I say we use that time to build a truly great Democratic Party... a true alternative to the Cynicism, Cruelty, War-mongering, and yes, the Fascism of the other side.

I am someone who remembers when the Democratic Party lifted all the people up, respected all people, educated all people, and cherished the Rights and Guarantees under the Constitution. Compare that to what we have become, and tell me again about my internal strength.

TC

[mike_c]

28. no fraud here-- I'm a genuine EX democrat....

I've never made any attempt to hide my green-ness here!

[LittleClarkie]

99. I wish some folks would go Green and get it over with

They could work for something positive then, and the negativity would be out of my Party.

[mrdmk]

15. Please give us a break. The DLC is a major reason the

Democratic Party has the problem of being a Republican Lite.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Is John Conyers a Republican lite?

I don't think so. Imagine how much good it would do the progressive cause if Conyers is truly given the opportunity to take down the Bush administration.

[mrdmk]

54. I do not put bets in favor of the DLC.

The DLC is a strange crowd. There have been many post explaining who they are. Mostly this crowd is people with financial ties to corporations that have very extreme right-wing leanings. So right-wing as a matter of fact that I do not think these views and policies are in the favor of the General Public. The DLC is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

I will go this far and say that the DLC is in favor of the United States to become an Imperialistic power because corporations will do better under those type of economic conditions. Personally I think they are full of it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. with deep regrets and moral outrage--I'm afraid I have to agree

I loath the DLC and their doctrine of Republican Lite and everything they stand for. However, until we get a Democratic majority in one or both houses--we have little or no restraint against the current madness of the neocons--and little or no ability to advance ANYthing remotely progressive. Needless to say, congressional investigations are out of the question. However, if you are voting in a safe race-where the outcome is already certain--well then perhap--there is room to vote ones conscience without regret. It's a terrible state of affairs--but what else to do?

______________________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html








http://www.iwtnews.com/

ABOUT IWTNEWS
Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising. Using the web to organize and raise funds across borders, IWTnews is building an international movement for democracy.


http://www.iwtnews.com/


http://www.iwtnews.com/

SPREAD THE WORD!!

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[PeachyDem88]

48. Babysteps forward are better than cartwheels backward...

The thousands of Democrats in the 10th district of Georgia would kill for a DLC congressman. Right now a Republican runs unopposed, election after election.

The things that unite us as Democrats... SS, healthcare, unionized labor, affordable education... The things that unite us are far greater than the things that divide us.

I'd rather see Biden or Lieberman or Hillary as president than Frist or Jeb.

The 2000 election showed us that there is a progressive majority in America.

The DLC, and the rural (and for that matter, corporatist) Democrats that they represent, are a part of that majority. There is no social democratic majority in America. There is no Bernie Sanders/Ralph Nader/Ted Kennedy majority in America. At least, not yet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. Why does a Republican run opposed in the 10th district of GA?

What a stupid tactic on the part of the GA party to let ANY Republicanite run unopposed.

By the way, do you really think there's a majority of Americans clamoring for "free" trade and corporate tax cuts--the DLC's pet topics?

If the DLC actually fought for universal healthcare, unions, public education, and a sensible defense policy instead of issuing wordy position papers and caving in to the Republicans when it comes to actual voting, I could respect them.

But what I've seen from them again and again is collusion with the Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Totally agree with you there

I think that I already mentioned this in another reply below.
Like I said, I don't like the DLC and I think that their political strategy is a great way to lose unless you are somebody like Bill Clinton who could win no matter what you say.

Of course, we can't purge the DLC from the party by November 2006. The whole point of this thread was just to say that there is a good reason to hold your nose and vote for the DLCer rather than stay home, which IS an alternative, but a pretty crappy one.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. That's my feeling exactly

I don't like the DLC and I don't like what they stand for. But right now we need to worry about stopping this administration and taking back the House or Senate would be a huge start.

BTW, I'm excited about the prospect of Senator Sanders. The Senate could always use another principled soul who makes his views known.

[eridani]

53. For me, it's all about organizational strength

Either progressives have strong enough local organizations to get progressive Dems through both primary and general elections, or we don't. In the latter case, even pro-corporate Dems will vote our way on at least a few issues, which makes them better than Republicans.

[MadHound]

59. Sorry friend, but I can no longer do that

I was a faithful player of the "vote for the lesser evil" game for over twenty five years, but I can no longer play that game in good conscience. For it has become increasingly obvious that voting for the vast majority of Democratic, especially DLC ones, is in direct conflict with the interests and ideals of the majority of progressives and liberals.

If this wasn't made clear during the Clinton tenure, with such corporate friendly legislation as NAFTA, '96 Telecom Act, and welfare "reform" among many other, then it should have been very obvious with the overwhelming Dem support of the Patriot Act, the IWR, the Bankruptcy Bill and other such atrocious legislation. And while this corporate friendly stance would be more palatable if the Dems had at least pushed hard on liberal societal issues, that hasn't occurred. Instead, at best, the Democratic party has paid mere lip service to such issues, and at worst, run screaming away from them.

Therefore, if the Dems aren't going to push traditionaly liberal issues such as civil rights and justice, if the Dems are going to join with the Cons in screwing the working man, why should I vote for anybody who is going to oppose my best interests? We scoff and laugh at the poor and middle class Neo-Cons whose embrace of fundemetalism has led them to vote against their own best interests, yet here we are, doing the same damn thing, voting in corporate whoring Dems time and again, and yet wondering why the liberal agenda isn't making any headway.

Sorry friend, but the madness has to stop somewhere, sometime, and that is the here and now. I'm refuse to vote for any candidate who takes corporate cash, and that is going to rule out the vast majority of Dems. Instead, I will be working hard for real change in this country, and that has to start with removing corporate cash from our political process. When the Dems embrace this concept, then I will be back, but until then I will be working actively for the only party that makes it a rule not to take any corporate donations, the Greens.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Again, it's not about supporting the DLC, it's about supporting Conyers

Since the 2004 election, Conyers has made it clear that he is dead set on taking down this administration. To do this, however, we are going to have to be in the majority, because it's very hard to investigate things when Sensenbrenner turns off your microphones during committee hearings and banishes you to the basement for the ones that he doesn't like. However, the fact that he's trying to silence Conyers is HIGHLY suspicious. If there was nothing to find, Sensenberenner would just let Conyers have his hearings. If the Dems got the majority, Conyers may very well take down the Bush administration. Not only would that be incredible, but Conyers would become a party icon. Wouldn't it advance the progressive cause when people know that it was a progressive like Conyers and NOT the DLC that ruined the Bush administration and set us up for inevitable victory for the 2008? Isn't that worth electing a few DLC backbenchers to congress, some of which will probably lose their seats in two years anyway.

[MadHound]

91. Then let us go with your premise

We elect a few DLC member to get a solid majority in Congress, Conyers is given free rein to do his thing, he takes down Bushco, the Dems sweep to power in '08, and then what are we left with.

A corporate controlled, DLC led government, doing the wishes of their corporate masters, and this country continues its madcap plunge into corporate fascism. And given that the vast majority of Dem presidential candidates not only voted for the IWR, but are continuing to actively support it, we'll still be in Iraq. In fact, with a Dem in power, we'll probably wade even further into the Iraqi morass, given that any Dem elected will not want to appear "soft on terra".

Sorry friend, that still doesn't work with me. I'm looking for real change in this country, and that change starts with getting rid of corporate controlled politicians, no matter what their party affiliation.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Why would we nominate a DLCer in '08?

When it was the progressive Conyers, who took down Bush. The DLC will have no claim to the success of the dem party and the dems will be inclined to nominate somebody who was in full support of Conyers, NOT a DLCer. Will there still be DLC within the party? yes. But, if the President, leader of the party, doesn't listen to them, then they don't matter.

[MadHound]

96. Let's see here, who are the names being batted around now?

Hillary, DLC, Edwards, DLC, Clark, not a member, but very friendly with the DLC, Kerry, DLC. Oh, and the DLC puts the squeeze on almost all Democratic candidates, since the DLC is THE money purse for the Democratic party.

Conyers is not currently planning a presidential run, and even if he brought down Bushco, I doubt that he could, or would, be a serious candidate. And unless he is willing to become a party pariah like Kucinich(who isn't DLC, and the only Dem not to take corporate money the last election cycle), his need for money will inevitably lead him to that corporate lucre that the DLC doles. But of course that money comes at a price, namely your morals and ideals.

Sorry friend, what you are proposing seems sensible, and even noble given the hoped for outcome. But the fly in the ointment is the DLC, and until they along with their corporate cronies are excised from the party, the Democratic party will be completely and fatally compromised by corporate cash.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. Question, do you think Clark would be significantly better than Clinton?

I mean would Clark be a better President than Bill Clinton was? I know that people like Edwards and Clark do have ties to the DLC. But I feel like Edwards and Clark are significantly better and much less tied to corporate interets than people like Lieberman or Bayh. Honestly, you got me on this one. Unless we nominate Feingold, who I will work my ass off for, or Kucinich, the nominee will have ties to he DLC. But even though they have some ties to the DLC, haven't Edwards and Clark have taken strong positions in favor of middle class and working people and not in the interests of corporations? Bayh, Lieberman, or Biden would seriously get me thinking about voting for a third party candidate. Edwards or Clark I could vote for. Then again, I can't help take into account the fact that Bill Clinton ran as populist who was going to stick to his guns and put up a fight. Then he gave up the second he met a little bit of opposition. I'm curious how you feel about this.

[Totally Committed]

122. You know I disagree about the

"Clark has ties to the DLC" meme, but that aside, I feel he would be a far better President than Clinton was (I actually believe he would be a far better President than anyone, but...), and AMONG the reasons is this: He has an amazingly Liberal, Progressive social agenda. Clark and Edwards have been the ONLY ones I've heard even mention the poor. I really like Feingold and Kusinich, but I don't see them capturing the nomination, sadly.

There are Democrats I would work my ass off to get elected if they are the candidate, and there are some which I won't even bother to leave the house and vote for on election day. I am waiting to see what the Party decides about its direction. I have real hope it will begin to come back to the base because Howard Dean leadership seems to be taking it in that direction... God bless him. But, if we do not get rid of the front-loaded primary schedule we used in 2004, we will be guaranteed another disastrous candidate, and another easily stolen election. There should be absolutely no preumptive candidate in this Party until well after Super Tuesday. But, I know... I'm dreaming.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

150. The front loaded primary system is ridiculous

This year was especially crazy, the New Hampshire primary didn't even matter because of the Dean "scream" an because Kerry was the comeback kid. At least back in '92, Clinton had to get all the way to Illinois before it was declared "over". Kerry was the presumptive nominee after Iowa.

The said advantage to a front loaded primary system is that it gives candidates with little name recognition and little money a chance to win. What it wound up doing this year, though, was having all of the candidates putting all of their resources into Iowa, a state with lots of agricultural special interests that aren't important in anywhere else that we need to compete in the general election. The two candidates who had very little resources Kucinich and Clark (due to the fact that he entered late) did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire because Kerry, Edwards, and Dean had been pouring money into TV ads for months. The people with the money wound up on top.

I think that the DNC may consider reforming the primary system for 2008, the question is... how much will they?

[FightinNewDem]

101. Hate to break this to you

I hate to break this to you, but the 2008 nominee is almost certain to be someone with strong ties to the DLC:

Hillary Clinton: Giving the keynote address at the DLC convo next week

Joe Biden: Honored by the PPI with its Harry Truman Award

Evan Bayh: Former DLC chairman

Bill Richardson: Longtime New Dem leader

Mark Warner: Hosts DLC meetings at his own house in Viriginia; main speaker at PPI education conference this spring

John Edwards: DLC president Bruce Reed is a top advisor

Wes Clark: Strongly backed by many of the Clinton inner circle; his views on national service and military reform have been touted by the DLC as models for national policy

[Totally Committed]

139. Conyers is going to be 80 in '08! n/t

TC

[Totally Committed]

72. AMEN, Madhound! n/t

TC

[KingFlorez]

79. Then you'd rather have the GOP in control

What's worse Tom Delay in the majority leader's office or a few DLC members?

[Totally Committed]

85. They are already IN Control...

The Republicans, because Kerry (a DLC member) wimped out on fighting as he vowed he would, are in control. They are gutting the Constitution daily. They are about to replace 2, maybe 3, Supreme Court Justices (Kerry knew that would be one of the results if he lost) -- These things will keep their Theo-Con influence in our government for an entire generation, even if Bush is impeached in a couple of years because Conyers is the head of the Judiciary committee. The damage is done.

Do NOT lecture me on "giving up". After 35+ years fighting for this Party, I have nothing left to give just for "the lesser of two evils". Never again.

TC

[MadHound]

92. Gee, let's look at what happened the last time the DLC had their boy in

Clinton started the shift of jobs overseas with NAFTA, turned the media into a propaganda machine with the '96 Telecom Act, ripped out the social safety net with welfare "reform", continued to erode our civil liberties by stepping up the War on Drugs and much much more.

Sorry friend, but I'm looking for real change, and it isn't going to come at the hands of any corporate controlled politicians, whatever their nominal part affiliation is.

[Totally Committed]

61. Sounds to much like the "ABB" reason to vote in the 2004's...

No thanks. That is the last time I ever vote against a candidate rather than for one.

If we don't start voting for candidates who will truly represent our interests, we will continue to get these half-ass candidates who care more about Special Interests and Corporate Interests than ours. If enough if us stay home, the DNC is bound to get the message. They still aren't hearing us.

TC

[ClassWarrior]

62. You're right. ABB surrenders too much power to the enemy.

Instead, judge what support you give to each candidate individually, based on what is gained and lost - overall. All other thing being equal, TC, I'm right there next to you pulling the lever for the Progressive. But I'm a Progressive. I don't see things in black and white. I realize that the world is complex, and therefore I must choose wisely, Grasshopper.

NGU.

[Totally Committed]

65. Well, I'm a life-long Democrat who is proud to be a Liberal...

I lean further left these days on social issues, but am still not ready to sign over my soul to the middle ground on National issues.

I feel the Democratic Party has sold me out. Not only did their front-loaded primary season in 2004 DIENFRANCHISE me -- Kerry was already the presumptive by the time my state voted. It was almost as if they were saying, "well, who else ya gonna vote for?" There was no thought or consideration for my interests. There was no respect given to the genuine Democratic base. We were taken for granted worse than we had been in the decade before.

I went to the polls and voted for Kerry, as an ABB protest vote. But, to be honest, I felt like I needed a shower after I voted. And when he conceded after only hours, I made a deal with myself: NEVER AGAIN. I told myself I would NEVER AGAIN vote the interests of the Party just to support their cockamamie and disastrous choices. If I couldn't vote FOR a candidate on my side, I was not going to even leave the house to vote against the one on the other side. NEVER AGAIN.

This is the only way the Democratic Party will start nominating and electing candidates that I CAN vote for. It may take a few election cycles for them to "get it", but if enough of us stick to our guns, and vote for the truly Liberal and progressive candidates and causes, they will have to either come around or die.

That's how I see it.

TC

[ClassWarrior]

67. Why do you refer to the Dem Party as "them?" The party is OURS, unless...

...of course, you surrender it to "them." And in that case, why on earth would you be surprised that "they" represent "their" values and not yours??

This is isn't a high-school tiff where it really doesn't matter a rat's ass if you say, "You disrespected me, so I'm not going to hang around with you anymore." This is life and death. If you feel disrespected, then get in the faces of your party leaders and DEMAND their respect. Don't take the easy way out and quit.

NGU.

[Totally Committed]

68. That's just it...

I am not surrendering anything. I refuse to surrender further, as a matter of fact. It's gone past "life and death" for me. WHen I saw Kerry walk away... conceding only hours after the voting was finished, even after promising a fight "until the last vote is counted", I knew that it wasn't "life or death" for him... WTF, he went on vacation (taking with him all the media that would have stayed and covered the voter fraud if he had), and came back a couple of weeks later making noises for 2008. He walked away to keep his viability. He didn't give a shit that by walking away he was leaving us to live under the most oppressive, the most criminal, the WRONGEST governement we have ever had. He probably figured after four years of this hell-on-earth, he could just waltz back in, claim the DNC mantle, and we'd vote for him just not to vote for them -- AGAIN.

I won't have it. I won't. I will probably not live to see the 2008 elections. But, if I do, it will not be The usual ABB bullshit. No way.

I worked for the Party for 35+ years (starting as a young girl, stuffing envelopes for John Kennedy.) Over the years I gave my time, my effort, and money that could have gone for other things, just so the Democartic Party would always be there to fight for the little guy, the neediest among us, the people of color, so everyone would have the same rights. And, this is what it's come to?

They will be "them", thank you (especially the so-called "leadership"), until they decide they stand for those things again, and start nominating and electing candidates that reflect those values. Until this Party does that, they are more like moderate Republicans than real Democrats. They truly are the lesser of two evils.

That's how I see it. I'm sorry if what I've written has upset you. But, it is genuinely how I feel.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

77. let's zero in a little on this philosophy ...

you wrote: "get in the faces of your party leaders and DEMAND their respect. Don't take the easy way out and quit" ... to this i say, "OK" ...

but that's a little too easy ... let's make the question a little tougher ...

for example, let's say the Party ultimately nominates a corporate, war hawk candidate (like Hillary) in 2008 or a "force women to carry a fetus to term against their will" candidate (like Casey) ... in spite of your best efforts to get a progressive candidate nominated, it doesn't happen ... now what do you recommend?
a. send money to Hillary, Casey and the DNC, work for Democrats at all levels, be a true blue Democrat, maybe progressives will do better next time
b. support only progressive Democrats with money and effort
c. support progressives regardless of party?

i appreciate your encouragement to fight for power and control within the Party ... but, there is also wisdom in the second line of the song that says "you gotta know when to fold 'em" ... each of us needs to make this assessment for ourselves ... what's really tragic is that those currently in control of the Party don't give a damn what we think ...

[Chan790]

70. A DLCer in power...

would inevitably vote to kill any attempt on the part of Conyers to act on the evidence he has against Bush et al.

It's the first rule of the DLC...pretend to be Democrats then attack any Democrat that acts like a Democrat. The "Democratic Leadership Council" is the definition of political cannibalism. I'm sorry, but I'll uphold my policy of voting for anybody (including a GOPper if necessary) to marginalize the DLC.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. What DLCer in what position of power are you talking about?

I'm talking about electing a few DLCers to be freshmen in congress. Freshmen in congress are told to sit down and shut up, they barely have speaking privilages, let alone power.

[Totally Committed]

83. Kerry, Hillary, Vilsak....

just a few DLC-ers that could assume power of some kind.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

88. Okay and electing a few more DLCers to congress...

Will help SENATORS, Clinton and Kerry how? And Vilsak is a Governor, now chairman of the DLC. The only thing left for Vilsak to do is run for President. Electing a few more DLCers to congress isn't going to help Vilsak win the nomination. Basically, I'm failing to see the connection here.

BTW, don't take this personally or anything, but you do have a Clark avatar and I'm assuming because of that, you are a Clark supporter. Clark has had DLC ties, especially early in his campaign for President. I'm not saying that he's DLC like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman are DLC, but neither is John Kerry. Hillary I'll agree with you, though, she's becoming more and more of a hack for the DLC every day. Oh yea, I'm also a big fan of the general myself.

[Totally Committed]

93. I support Wes, yes...

I am not aware of any "DLC ties" except that he is good friends with Hillary and Bill, and he believes we should support all Democrats, DLC or otherwise against the RNC. As a matter of fact, it was at his request I finally broke down and voted for Kerry.

He already knows that that will never happen again, and he gently chides mavericks like me amongst his supporters constantly, to always support the Democratic Party. That's Wes. That's what he sincerely believes. He is loyal through and through.

I am, however, older than dirt, and being an adult of a certain age, I have learned to agree to disagree with people I respect. My support for Wes is based on his extremely liberal and left-leaning social agenda, his overwhelming integrity, and his stance on war in general. ("Only only, only as a last resort...".) I trust his intelligence, and I trust him. I've had a few years of getting to "know" him. I know what's in his heart. I would vote for him no matter what Party he belonged to. It goes beyond Party with Wes. If he declares tomorrow as a registered Teddy Bear, I go with him... a fellow Teddy Bear forever. Posting at Teddy Bear Underground on his behalf.

So, yes, my avatar is of Wes Clark -- proudly so! It reflects no adherence to any ideology other than vehemently believeing that he -- Wes Clark, the man -- should be President of the United States.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

95. The DLC backed Clark in the beginning

I do emphasize LOSE when I mention his ties to the DLC, because it has become pretty apparent that Clark is a man of integrity and that they have very little influence over him.

[Totally Committed]

97. Hippo_Tron...

I haven't been around here forever, but you are one of the people for whom I have a great deal of respect. I always read your posts, and whether I agree with them or not, I always respect your point of view. You have a certain truth to you, and I really respect truth-tellers. Your wonderful avatar reflects that -- Paul Wellstone was one of the finest people that ever went into American politics. He was always a truthful man, first, and a Democratic Politician, second. I admired him so much.

I assume "LOSE" is a typo (or a Freudian slip :) )... if it's LOOSE ties you meant, I hope you can believe me when I tell you I am not aware of the ties of which you speak, loose or otherwise. I was very busy at the time trying my danmdest to draft him.

Wes is a man of deep and abiding integrity. He is not the sort of person I can imagine would ever let himself be "used" knowingly. Beyond that, I have no knowledge. I just know I trust him.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

108. Well thank you very much for your compliments

Yeah I meant loose, it was a typo, no freudian slips there. At the very beginning of his candidacy it was well known that the DLC was very supportive of General Clark. In all honesty, their reasoning behind this was because Clark had no history in politics and his best friends in the business were the Clintons. The DLC probably figured that they could control him, so they hyped up his candidacy. Well, since Clark stopped campaigning for President and has had some free time on his hands, I haven't seen him doing any DLC fundraisers.

My point was, that you can loosely tie many members of the democratic party in some way to the DLC and Clark was one of them. Does this mean that Clark is a corporate shill, absolutely not. He's a man of great integrity and also, he's truly his own man, he is not controlled by anybody. Feingold is my first choice, mostly because he reminds me so much of Wellstone, but I would be proud to work for Clark if he was the nominee. The point I was really trying to make was that while Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, and Lieberman all have a DLC next to their name, it doesn't mean that Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, and Lieberman are all the same. Kerry and Edwards do have significantly better voting records, especially on economic issues than Bayh and Lieberman. Again, I think that we can and SHOULD do better than Kerry and Edwards, but unlike Lieberman and Bayh who are complete corporate hacks, they do take stances of principle on many occasions.

Oh yea and about Hillary... The fact that she's a hugely polarizing figure even on DU, is not a good thing. If nominated, there would be many in the party who would not be happy with her, let alone how much the GOP would be motivated to get out and vote against her.

[Totally Committed]

119. I knew what you meant, I just never saw it...

There were even times when I felt that the Clintons (Bill, especially) said or did things (will not re-hash...) that kind of hurt Wes's candidacy.

I am a Kerry constituent, and I can tell you that his voting record may be better than Lieberman's, but as soon as he decided that '04 was "his" year, he stopped voting on anything even the least bit controversial altogether. He missing-in-action on so many votes that we here in Mass thought his picture belonged on the side of a milk carton. After the miserable way he acquitted himself in the election, I wouldn't vote for him again if he ran for dog-catcher. And, a lot of my neighbors and friends feel the same way. I was never a fan of Edwards, but I will say this: when it was time to stand and fight for every last vote, he was up for it. He did not want to concede -- you could see it. I found a whole new respect for him that night. As for Bayh, he is a nothing... beige, vacant, fill-in-the-blanks, and so pro-corporation it makes my skin crawl. Lieberman is just contemptable. It will turn into a rant if I tell what I think of him. He just sucks. Period.

I also agree with you overwhelmingly about Hillary. I liked her when she was First Lady, and I liked Bill okay (some of his social policies were way too Right-leaning for my taste -- I particularly deplored the "Workfare" program, but that's all water under the bridge...), but I agree that a Hillary Clinton candidacy for President this time out would be a disaster, not only for our country (we will lose), but for our Party (we will lose becase she will have split our vote badly... she IS polarizing!) I think those that support her mean well, but are deluding themselves. She is the political equivalent of a third rail... if we step on it, we're dead.

I meant all the compliments. You have a great mind, and some fine politics. I always enjoy reading your posts.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

153. I totally get what you are saying about Kerry

I was actually discussing this with my history teacher at one time.
Kerry is a perfect example of why people say that Senators can't become Presidents. Kerry actually has a pretty good record of standing up for what he believes in. He was an excellent prosecutor and for many years he was an excellent Senator. Then as you say, he decided that '04 was his year. He decided that he had to make himself "electable". The IWR was the biggest example of this. Kerry thought to himself and I have to admit, Edwards probably did to... "I can't vote against this, I want to be President." It's that attitude, that I believe made Kerry seem like a weak leader who doesn't really stand for anything and ultimately cost him the election. Do I believe that Kerry genuinely wanted to do some good things for the country as President, absolutely. I don't believe that he wanted to be President so that he could make his rich friends richer. However, I could easily see him as being the type of President that wouldn't take a stand on something because it polls bad.

There's the old saying "I'd rather be right than be President". The Clinton mentality was that you can do both. The ending scene of Primary Colors summed this up perfectly when Governor Stanton basically tells Henry "Yeah I play dirty politics and sell my soul to the devil, but I'm doing it because it's the only way to win and unlike the other guys I want to win because I genuinely want to help people." Clinton/Stanton said "I can be right and be President." Of course once Clinton got into office, he basically said, "I'm president, I don't need to be right."

Kerry and Edwards also have that mentality that you can be right and be President, but during the 2004 campaign, Kerry kinda forgot about being right and thought too much about being President. Edwards I can't really tell what the deal with him is yet. I have to admit that when I hear him speak, he does genuinely sound like he wants to help people but he's also a very good down to earth speaker, unlike Kerry, and it could all be a show.

Bayh and Lieberman have pretty much decided that they would much rather be President than be right and that's why I would have a MUCH harder time voting for them than Kerry or Edwards.

Feingold and Clark care a lot more about being right, but I do think that both have a good shot at being President. That would certainly be something if one of them does. Frankly I think that a ticket of comprised of these two would be the best that we have. Feingold/Clark is my ideal ticket, but I would work just as hard for Clark/Feingold and frankly I think that Clark/Feingold has a better shot of winning, given the fact that Clark has better commander-in-chief credentials, no legislative record, and he is a southerner.

[FightinNewDem]

100. In other words, you're a GOP enabler

"I'll uphold my policy of voting for anybody (including a GOPper if necessary) to marginalize the DLC."

In other words, you are willing to leave the House in the hands of Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay because you want to throw a tantrum in the name of ideological purity.

I'm sure the folks who would be helped by a Democratic Congress (the unemployed, kids in failing schools, troops in Iraq) are impressed by your priorities.

[CWebster]

71. Like a DLC dominated party

is gonna give Conyers the time of day.

[Totally Committed]

74. They'll just tell him to pipe down, and shut up...

It wouldn't be "polite" enough for them if he was the attack-dog he is now. Not only that, but we wouldn't even need him fighting the fight he is now, if the "chosen one of 2004" had stayed and fought himself for the election I believe he won. He was so afraid a fight -- if he eventually lost it -- would have ruined his chances for 2008. Viability was more important than deserting us to fight these monsters on our own.

Never again. No more "lesser of two evils". The DNC either gives me a real choice, or I don't play.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

80. They don't have that choice, he can do whatever he wants as chairman

Pelosi will be Speaker (I know she's no prize herself, but she was against the war and hates the administration) and she will let Conyers do what he wants.

Plus who said anything about DLC dominated. I don't know the exact numbers, but Dems have approximately 200 seats in the House. Approximately 40 are DLC. Let's say that we get 25 more seats (which would be a pretty bare bones majority). Let's say 15 are DLC and 10 are non DLC (which more likely, it will be the other way around). 170 of the House members will be non DLC and 55 will be DLC. I don't think that's a DLC dominated party.

[CWebster]

87. As long as the Clintons have their hooks in the party

the DLC is in control.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. What are you talking about?

Clintons, hooks, I don't see ANY connection. Hillary is a freshman senator. Bill is following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter and working on humanitarian causes around the world. He has been completely absent from internal affairs within the democratic party for the past few years.

Do you really think that Hillary can, or even would, just make a phone call and say "Hey, I don't want John Conyers to be judiciary committee chair, make it happen." Come on, that's a Rush Limbaugh talking point.

[wyldwolf]

116. Is there really any difference between...

fringe right and fringe left talking points? No.

[CWebster]

124. Is there really any difference between corporate Dems

and Republican flagwaving over an illegal and criminal war? No.

[wyldwolf]

138. of course there is. And the reply you made is completely irrelevant

Far left and far right talking points are completetly reactionary with very little substance. Case in point - what you just posted.

[CWebster]

145. But you didn't address the reality

you just threw out the usual venom.

Case in point.

[wyldwolf]

148. The reality? The reality is "talking points"

YOU haven't contributed to that topic.

You've attempted to hijack it (as usual) and veer it somewhere else.

[Hippo_Tron]

156. It has nothing to do with far right and far left

It has everything to do with making intelligent arguments versus making bullshit statements with no substance. There are some extremely intelligent people on both extremes of the political spectrum that can argue their case very well. OxyRush isn't one of them. OxyRush is a low grade assshole who gets away with making shit up because half of his audience are morons and the other half don't know anything else about politics.

[KingFlorez]

75. a DLC Democrat is better than a Repuke

I mean next year's election is all about numbers and we need as many pickups as we can get. Nancy Pelosi is going to be the Speaker and she will make Conyers judiciary chair. She'll also hand out committee assignments and the judiciary committee will have enough progressives to get action. The DLC almost always votes the party line, except on a few issues. This is how our party structure must be, with people who are from all spectrums, progressive, DLC and Blue Dog.

[ElectroPrincess]

102. No, not any more ... No more compromises for DLC - they can

rot in hell if they will not meet the base half way. I'll stand by and watch the bon fire. They (DLC) are only different in "package" not in any meaningful legislation for the people.

Both DLC and Republicans are pro-multinational corporations above all else. Workers be damned. Nope, they're IMO not much different save for the purdy (Democrat) label.

I hope Hillary and her gang ponder this on their way out of office and into obscurity. :evilfrown:

Forget all this worry over your Republican contenders, the DLC NO LONGER has "the base" in it's back pocket. We're fed up and not going along with this "facade" any more. DLCers, Do something for LABOR and the average working American, then maybe we will consider voting for you and yours?

[Totally Committed]

103. What is that phrase?:

"I will destroy this house to save it."

Never again.

TC

[CWebster]

125. What house?

[Totally Committed]

135. Actually, I looked it up, and the correct phraseology is:

"I will destroy this village in order to save it."

That should make the metaphor easier to understand in the context of my reply.

TC

[CWebster]

146. Well, yes, the DLC is destroying the house

and the village too--if you want to take it global.

God forbid that we would actually appreciate a politician like George Galloway in this country while our Dems prop up the Republican's house.

[ElectroPrincess]

137. The DLC has destroyed any semblance of support for "working people"

You know, us average hourly working stiffs? NOT them (DLCers) and the rest of their corporate contributers and the "investor" class.

The DLC has destroyed the big Democratic tent. Anyone without assets cumulating to at least over $300,000/dollars and money in the stock market, will NOT be REPRESENTED.

Us little people will get a few crumbs but it still will be fascism. Might as well let it come hard and fast. THEN the sheeple will wake up much quicker to set things straight ... move the political pendulum back to the "sanity zone" CENTER.

[FightinNewDem]

104. You haven't been at this too long, have you?

You clearly don't understand what constitutes a DLC Democrat, aka, New Democrat.

John Edwards, mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Vilsack...all should be tossed into the bonfire for the sake of purity?

Let me use my own congressionaldistrict to show where your idea runs off the rails.

Here's the likely Dem candidate:

State Rep. Peter Sullivan. Sullivan was named to the DLC's rising star list in 2003, and is an unabashed New Dem. Here's a bit about his voting record:

Supported raise in the minimum wage.

Co-sponsored bill to restrict mercury disposal.

Prime sponsor of bill modeled after FMLA giving crime victims unpaid work leave.

Leader of the fight to protect NH's Hate Crimes Law from a far-right repeal attempt.

Sponsor of legislation to tighten disclosure requirements for lobbyists.

Will vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

Now, let's look at the incumbent, Jeb Bradley:

Flip-flopped on Social Security when pressured by the White House to shut up and get in line.

Voted against the Obey Amendment to increase funding for veterans health services.

Owns thousands of dollars in Halliburton stock while sitting on the Armed Services Committee.

Supports the fiscal child abuse of the Bush tax plan.

Supports the Hastert/DeLay team.


What if there is a one vote margin in control of the House. Do you really think that chucking Sullivan, an environmentally minded, reformist Democrat, is a smart move? Do you really think that we are going to be better off with a Congress full of mediocrities like Jeb Bradley? Think long and hard about the potential consequences of what you suggest.

[Forever Free]

114. AMEN BROTHER

I'll take a DLC candidate over some of the really radical nutjobs in our party and across the aisle.

[Robbien]

118. Nice. Spit snears while demanding votes

Looking down your nose at the stupid Progressive snearing "You haven't been at this too long have you?" then stating Progressives are stupid if they don't follow orders of the DLC.

Typical GOP-like behavior. Not buying.

And you give an example of one not so bad NewDem/DLCer. Out of the 40 in the House and 20 in the Senate there is bound to be one who is not so deep in the pockets of the lobbyists as almost all are.

[Forever Free]

121. Name the so-called DLC "corporate whores"

And we'll see who's really splitting hairs and sneering.

[CWebster]

126. You haven't been at this very long, have you?

[ElectroPrincess]

140. Quite a while, in fact ... many of us would like "solid representatives"

NOT corporate profiteers. ;)

The truth about the DLC hurts but it's out there. You do NOT have a base. If the DLC continues to steer the Democratic Party, it will be destroyed. It's up to you "party liners" above all else to decide.

Not me. It's up to you. If you maintain this rightward leaning of the New Democrats, I promise you ... with all my heart and soul, that IMO, you will LOSE the lion's share of your base (left of center).

You've used up all your "positioning promises" for a brighter tomorrow. None of these lies have proved true, but instead, have only increased the Corporations' strangle-hold on our government.

It's up to you *die hard* Democratic Party liners. Does the DLC control the direction of the party? If so, the base will NO LONGER VOTE a straight PARTY LINE.

GAME OVER :(

[Mary 123]

141. Gee...better not STOP trying to appeal to the base

and nominate someone who appeals to moderates and independants who DO vote or you might end up with another Clinton situation....you remember that, don't you? It's when a democrat actually made it to the White House.

You need to face reality....you want to be a third party or you want to work with what you have? You need to be more inclusive and stop crying because Dean isn't the president.

[ElectroPrincess]

142. What was moderate, or considered centrist is where most of us

stand now. The DLC is anything but progressive and centrist.

In other words Michael Moore, being the rightie's favorite target was NOT far off that, if he served 25 years ago, President Clinton would have been one of our best REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

I'm in my late 40s and it honestly cracks me up being a proud Army Veteran, gun owner and local democratic party volunteer, that YOU consider my views (anti-corporate control of our government & pro-choice) as being FAR LEFT.

The above views were considered MODERATE 20-25 years ago. Heck, my SECULAR right wing libertarian family are, like many libertarians - in general - "more moderate" than the DLC on the social liberties scale. That is, many libertarians are are pro-choice but don't want the government to fund birth control or abortion.

No, I strongly disagree with you - The crones in the New Democratic Party - The DLC party for those holding wealth above > $300,000 are TELLING you that people like me are LEFTIST.

But that's a big lie. Many baby boomers' (40s and 50s) can attest to the above claims.

[paineinthearse]

105. a simple reason to vote for even DLC dems for congress

<------------- "a simple reason to vote for even DLC dems for congress"

[ElectroPrincess]

113. You're on your own ...

No way will you now be successful at guilt tripping the base into supporting republocrats.

Go ahead and stifle dissent, but the DLC candidates will, er IMO "tank" in both 2006 and 2008.

Time will tell ;).

[wyldwolf]

115. no he isn't

No way will you now be successful at guilt tripping the base into supporting republocrats

They'd rather support psuedo-socialist lefties?

Isn't what the polling data from Pew and Gallup says.

But I forget sometimes that the anti-DLC folks here have a different impression of the what base is than damn near everyone else.

DLC candidates will, er IMO "tank" in both 2006 and 2008.

I'm sure that opinion is based on DU.

But, yes, time will tell. ;)

[FightinNewDem]

128. Who is stiffling dissent?

You are the one who is saying that anyone witha voting record th the right of Bernie Sanders is somehow unworthy of a role in the Democratic Party. That's just silly.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, try running a Sanders/Kucinich/McKinney-style progressive in every Congressional district. The result would be an absolute debacle. Sure, we would hold on to a smattering of seats in New England, California, Wisconsin and the Pacific Northwest. But that's about it. You could wave goodbye to Democratic House member in Arkansas and Colorado, in the suburbs of Seattle, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. And any hope of winning potentially marginal districts in places like New Hampshire, Connecticut, Texas and Arizona would go up in smoke.

If you relish the thought of a hard-right supermajority, then by all means, purge the infidels.

But if you truly care about a better Congress, get off the high horse and accept the fact that this is a big-tent party. Bernie Sanders is great for Vermont, and Adam Smith is a good fit for suburban Seattle. They both represent their constituencies well, and both are well-positioned from an electoral point of view. If that is what advances Democratic ideals, then for pete's sake, let's let it happen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. It's been so long since anyone ran a populist in so many areas

that no one knows what would happen. Why not run them in areas that would otherwise be uncontested R seats and see what happens? Show up the Republicans for the underhanded elitists that they are.

There are tons of voters who have decided that neither party speaks for them. It would be electrifying if there could be a candidate (suited for the region) who actually spoke for the interests of the forgotten and could speak to them.

If you want to keep voter turnout down, just keep nominating the same old, "I'm just like the Republican only not quite as much" candidates.

[FightinNewDem]

133. Here's a case in point

Doris Haddock, aka Granny D. Unabashed lefty populist. Wonderful woman, I voted for her, chatted with her at the polls on Election Day.

She ended up with 35% of the vote.

You might prefer Granny D to someone like Jeanne Shaheen, Dick Swett, or John Lynch, but the cold truth is that Shaheen, Swett and Lynch can beat a Republican. Doris, for all of her good work on CFR, is out of the NH political mainstream on too many issues to win a statewide race.

[CWebster]

134. The point of change is making it acceptible

rather than giving credibility to the Republican frame as the conventional preference.

That is what the Neoliberal does--while ostricizing or trivializing or belittling or downright blaming and attacking Progressives.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. A couple of points in response to that

1) Peter DeFazio: Sure, his Congressional district includes the very Green city of Eugene, but it also takes in a huge swath of macho timber towns and macho fishing ports. DeFazio manages to be equally popular with the ex-hippies, the farmers, the loggers, and the fishermen. (Despite Oregon's Green reputation, the rural areas are dominated by Libertarian-leaning Republicans, and fundies are a growing threat) Why is DeFazio successful? He stands up for international peace and cooperation and a sane military policy, but he also votes against gun control and for issues that affect the working class. On top of that, he's utterly laid back and approachable. Unlike a lot of political figures I've met, he gives off vibes that say, "Come on over and chat."

If he had his foreign policy positions without his gun control positions, his advocacy for working class issues, and his friendly manner, yes, he would fail.

2) You don't know whether Granny D was rejected because she was "too left " or because she campaigned on things that were irrelevant to the job. For example, back when there was a proto-Green group called the Citizens' Party, they ran candidates for the Minneapolis City Council on a platform of no intervention in Central America and nuclear disarmament. While these were worthy goals, Minneapolis has no military force of its own, and what the Citizens' Party really needed was a policies on things like snow removal. They didn't have one on snow removal nor on any other city councilish issues, so of course, they got single-digit votes.

I wasn't there, so I don't know, but perhaps Granny D came off as personally flaky or campaigned on the wrong issues or simply fell victim to ageism.

3) A suburban Portland state legislative district (33) had never been represented by a Democrat and was considered so solidly Republican that the Dems didn't even bother to run anyone. Then in 1998, a genuine Socialist ran against the Republican and got 20% of the vote.

The DLC response would have been, "See? A genuine leftist ran and got only 20% of the vote. If we ever run anyone here, we'll have to import Zell Miller."

Fortunately, the Oregon Dems were smarter than that and thought, "If 20% are willing to vote for a Socialist, then how many would be willing to vote for a left-leaning Democrat?"

Mitch Greenlick ran in 2000 and got something like 47%. In 2002, he ran again and won the supposedly "safe" Republican district." He won the seat yet again in 2004. Yes, a very liberal Democrat has won a supposedly safe Republican seat twice in a row.

By the way, the Socialist did the Dems an even bigger favor by running in 1998.

I knew a resident of District 33 who was planning not to vote at all because he was so tired of not having any choice about his legislative representation until he heard that the Socialist was running. He voted that year simply because it was to him a rare chance to vote against the fundamentalist weasel who had been representing his district.

That was the same year that David Wu was running against Republican whiz kid Mollie Bordinaro, whose only paying job had been as an aide to Newt Gingrich. After a couple of recounts, Wu won by 300 votes.

How many left of center voters, like my friend, would have stayed home if they not had the Socialist to vote for as a protest vote?

The moral of this story is "Always run a candidate everywhere."

[Hippo_Tron]

151. I think that will be one of the key things that Dean fixes

Part of Democracy for America's goal was to make sure that no Republican in the country was running un-opposed. If Dean is using that mentality as party chair, then we will be in better shape. Sure, there are white suburban districts with lots of rich people who won't vote Democratic no matter what, because it's not in their economic interests. I don't mind surrendering those districts.

But here's what gets me, these districts that are "socially conservative" right leaning but are mostly comprised of lower, working, and middle class Americans. Instead of running a populist, we end up running a DLCer. The DLCer basically says, "Look at me, I'm not a real Democrat. I'm basically a conservative but I don't like labels because I'm above party politics."

What we should be doing, is running populists in these places, even if they are to the right on social issues. A populist would say, "Vote for me because I want to stop your jobs from going overseas, save your social security, medicare, and medicaid, preserve your workers' rights and your right to declare bankruptcy if necessary, give you the opportunity to send your kids to college no matter what your financial status, and make healthcare available to everyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

158. That's basically the tactic employed by DeFazio (who votes against

gun control) in Oregon and Jim Oberstar (who votes anti-choice) on the Iron Range of Minnesota.

They throw a crumb to the die-hards on behavioral issues while fighting the good fight on economic, political, and foreign policy issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

159. I wouldn't even cede the rich white suburban districts

The district in suburban Portland, Oregon that I mentioned above (went Republican to Democratic in 3 election cycles) is white and affluent, and last year, Edina, one of the most affluent suburbs of Minneapolis, went Democratic for the first time in years.

[ElectroPrincess]

136. Talk about "over the top"

"If you relish the thought of a hard-right super majority, then by all means, purge the infidels."

Oh give me a break, I'm a little left of center politically. Hell, I served in the Army and Government Service positions. I love the military (when used properly) and that 2nd Amendment (plenty of rifles and shotguns purchased and handed down within our family line).

What I mean by "on your own" is that the DLC pro-corporation, pro-Israeli interests about all other foreign affairs CANDIDATES will NOT get my vote.

IF that means that the Democratic Party itself will not win either the Senate or House, then, *party liners* need only look inward.

Screw this "well positioned bull shit" when it only means a kinder, more gentle (human factors, small incremental increases in hourly wages) form of corporate and Zionist take over of our government.

That's IMO where we are headed. It's the Democratic Party and the DLC themselves who have to wake up and "realize" the concern of the Average Working American (under 100,000/year), VICE the protection and welfare for THEIR (DLCers) investor class (over 300,000/year).

Give me a break. You sound like the Republican Attack dogs. And guess what? For every person who has the courage to speak out, there are hundreds if not thousands more who are DISGUSTED with the Democratic party's rightward leanings ... especially about a woman's right to choose.

I'm done voting for the least evil and will instead vote for the best candidate. In essence, I will RETURN to the Democratic Party - the same amount of respect (ZILCH) that it has shown those of us "left of center" for the past decade. And NO, I'm far from alone. ;)

[cleveramerican]

117. don't decide before its time

this might sound foolish but I could never say how I would vote in any election before seeing who I am talking about. I decide each and every vote on the merits of each candidate. To do anything else seems foolish.I vote for the candidate who does the better job of convincing me I should. I never tip my hand until the stakes are clear.

Democrats must weave a cohesive thread through all of our various positions so the public can see a clearer overall direction we want to take the country in.This lack of a common theme to all of our various positions is the main thing standing in our way.I hope folks smarter than me are working on this.


" its not where your from, its where you stand" R.F.Kennedy