Notice how easily we were diverted to attacking each other ?

[kentuck]

Rather than Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Republican fascists in the Congress? It is not productive at this time but we are Democrats. Round up those cats. Put them in that wheelbarrow....:)

[sniffa]

1. same shit, different day

i don't think a day goes by, that we don't tear each others' throats out.

[CWebster]

2. What can you expect

When they attack us for opposing Bush, while they so often enable him?

C'mon

[madfloridian]

3. It started about the time of the DLC conference.

Real or imagined, it did divert. Hillary's alignment, becoming a leader in that group, was a sort of a slap to the DNC at a crucial time.

It is just like 2004 in some ways....deja vu all over again.

[Totally Committed]

4. But, who's doing the provoking?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1964899&mesg_id=1964899

[wyldwolf]

8. oh, sure... Sirota

His piece "Debunking Centrism" was exposed twice for several exaggerations and fabrications.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html

His latest piece is more of the same - just worded differently. As the Greg's Opinion blog said: "I knew ignorance was bliss ...I just didn't know it was damned wordy. I mean, seriously ... how many times can you cut and paste the same ol' "I Hate the DLC" drivel and call it new material?"

[CWebster]

14. So much for reality based

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=4329D1C5-DF04-BA0B-FDB90A3C370BD232

[wyldwolf]

44. so much for relevance

Your reply has little - if anything at all - to do with my post. I will say, however, that I agree with 99% of what Matt wrote in the link referenced from your link. I do, however, draw a distinction between being "anti-war" and "anti-Iraq war."

There really aren't many Democrats who are anti-war.

But now back to the issue at hand without getting off track again:

Why not read the links provided and and tell us Sirota wasn't really lying and being deceptive in his piece "Debunking Centrism" - he was just having a bad day.

[KoKo]

69. Sirota has hit a nerve that's causing alot of good Dem introspection....

I think his viewpoints are "fresh" and "current." It's good to see a Democrat not afraid to call out the DLC for what it is. And, it's good to see the DLC defend itself. Instead of being the "powerhorse" in the background (the entity some of us love to hate) Sirota is the first one who has gone at them as being stale and devoid of fresh ideas.

I applaud Sirota. He doesn't over intellectualize all of it...he doesn't couch his words in obscure philosophical meanderings. He's fresh, bright and "to the point." I'm glad to see him out there. He was onto the CAFTA vote last night when those of us who watched it and others who posted running threads on DU were trying to figure a way to deal when we saw the Repugs get another win after many of us had faxed,phoned and e-mailed. Sirota got it...he was there on the scene of the crime and he planned to dig into it.

That's spunk...we need this.

[wyldwolf]

70. "fresh" and "current" vs. "lies" and "exaggerations"

Do you see them as one in the same when it comes to Sirota?

[KoKo]

85. I've read the links in your post. Stand behind Sirota...but

that's just our political difference as how you and I might differ in how the Dem Party should go about the business of moving forward and getting Elections won. :shrug:

[GracieM]

5. Healthy heated debate is good

even amongst ourselves. It only becomes bad when it diverts us from the goals that hold us together.

[kentuck]

6. You may be right GracieM...

but still a diversion...?

[GracieM]

12. Unfortunately it is diverting us

funny thing is, there are a lot of threads about the diverting threads. 2 for the price of 1

[zanne]

13. What's the alternative?

Should we all walk in lockstep like the Republicans?

[LittleClarkie]

54. Only some of it was healthy heated debate

DUers being labeled as DLC operatives, or as Republican-lite party destroyers, or as not belonging in "our" party ( like we get to choose who puts a D by their name -- how arrogant) or as freepers in disguise, or as not belonging on DU because we progressives shouldn't have to deal with them on OUR board, all struck me as unhealthy, divisive and counter-productive.

Debate, by comparison, woulda been nice.

[kevsand]

7. It's what we do.

It's who we are. Yes, it's frequently counterproductive, but what's the alternative, I mean really? To be lockstep dembots, ala the repubs?

Lamenting it is kinda like decrying free speech, because we might hear something we don't like. We are the party of diversity, and dissent, and discussion, and dis and dat and dose. We should embrace our "spatfulness." In many ways it is our greatest strength, and our ultimate salvation.

And when push comes to shove, when the stakes are high enough, we usually have some kind of consensus, more or less. Sorta.

Having said that, now don't be disagreein' with me...

[kentuck]

11. Well said, kevsand...

:)

[NinetySix]

26. Well said, but...

...just remember that it is the big tent that will make us the majority. Pare down the agenda too much, alienate too many from the party, and what have you got?

Well, what we have NOW, I guess.

[kevsand]

39. Funny how that works... /nt

[ibegurpard]

9. each other?

A lot of the "each other" you refer to have done little to convince me they're even on my side.

[welshTerrier2]

10. bullshit

the Democratic Party has two choices right now ...

either it can bury its head in the sand and pretend that we are all one big happy family under the big tent or

it can change its ways and seek new processes that lead to an open dialog to hopefully find ways to resolve the very deep differences we have on the issues ...

to view the very necessary struggle among the Party's various constituencies as a "diversion" from fighting the real fight against republicans is total BULLSHIT ... putting our own house in order is part of the fight against republicans ...

going back to business as usual is no longer an option ... progressives who do not feel represented by elite Democrats are no longer willing to just go along ... every voice in the Party, regardless of political ideology, must be listened to ... failing to so and using empty rhetoric that calls for unity without calling for greater participation is a prescription for electoral darkness ...

[Eloriel]

15. Thank you very much

for saving me the (tiresome) trouble of refuting this rather weak argument.

First and foremost, I think DU is an important place, but it's NOT as if we affect policy, drive polls, or have much influence with the power brokers (let alone ARE power brokers). To my knowledge, the WP commentary yesterday on Hillary's dud of a speech calling for some faux unity (as in, "be reasonable, do it the DLC way") is about the FIRST real recognition of the blogosphere and thus the first real indication that we have some growing power -- (and note well: "WE" does not equal DU, but rather the entire left of the internet dial and especially a few key blogs).

Besides. Diversion? It's nothing of the sort IMO. These are real and rather urgent issues within the party and its allies outside-the-party and I know *I* am going to address them whenever they arise, and I know there are others who will as well. After all, we have a new crop of newbies here each week it seems, and they need educating too. (Of course, some of the ones we've gotten lately think they're already educated, esp. re the DLC, which is problematic, but not totally irresolvable, probably.)

So IF those who are our enemies like to bring these topics up to "divert our attention," then let those whose gift of sight helps them see THROUGH that just continue to soldier through, poking and prodding the issues they think we ougtn't be diverted FROM so we're only partially "diverted." It's that simple. As the old saying goes (to borrow a phrase): the cure for bad (e.g., diversionary) speech is more speech.

[welshTerrier2]

17. the great irony is ...

first, thanks for your kind words, Eloriel ...

i'm hoping to start a thread on the WP article you referenced ... it really was an eye opener for me ...

there have been so many posts over the last few days that basically argue "we have to stick together so we can win" ... and many of these posts point fingers at those of us on "the left" for criticizing the Party, its leaders and its policies ... they argue that our dissension could cause the Party to lose ...

the massive irony of this is that they fail to understand what progressives in the Party really want ... first and foremost, we DO NOT WANT THE PARTY TO LOSE but we do want the Party to represent us and to hear our voices ...

we are not bringing up our differences to create distractions from the real issues; we are raising the REAL ISSUES WE CARE ABOUT ...

we believe the Party MUST RESOLVE this dispute ... it cannot just be swept under the rug in a game of "Hillary pretends" ... if the problems are not addressed, they fester ...

the very goal most of us seek is unity ... but not an empty, meaningless unity where one group controls the direction and the other group is dragged along behind them ... the goal is real unity where each and every Democrat believes the Party and its candidates truly represent them ... that is NOT going to be achieved by pretending candidates represent us when we know they don't ...

Dean needs to call for intra-Party Town Meetins ASAP ... he needs to breathe a fresh new democratic energy into the elitist stagnant processes that have controlled the Party for far too long ... this is not about giving in to the left ... this is not even about political ideology ... this is about good governance and truly representing the people you hope will be energized by what the Party is fighting for ...

the irony is, that it is we the critics and the dissenters who are seeking to find unity; it is those who seek to stifle the dissent who are preventing it from being achieved ...

[kentuck]

18. Perhaps they think it is too much of a load to carry..?

"first and foremost, we DO NOT WANT THE PARTY TO LOSE but we do want the Party to represent us and to hear our voices ..."
============================================================
What do we want the Party to represent? Does it matter whether or not the majority of voters agree with what you want your Party to do? Does there come a time when there is so much weight on the wagon that the little donkey can no longer pull it up the hill?

Yes, we can find us another horse, and he may be strong and determined, but will he win? He may make you feel good but he might not win.

It's not about unity. It's about doing what is necessary to regain control of the agenda. No matter how bad things may seem right now, they can always get worse. I say, we need to use our brains and use what we have to our advantage.

[welshTerrier2]

22. on winning

Kentuck, most of your responses to me have focussed on the importance of winning ... you have raised very practical concerns about how to meld the Party's various constituencies ... your little donkey analogy was amusing and relevant ...

i want to win too ...

but, speaking strictly for myself (and probably many, many others) as a former ABB'er, i am not going to continue supporting a Party that does not represent me ... i've heard all the arguments from those who are comfortable with the Party's positions that this view is wrong ... i even went along with ABB last year because bush had to go even if i hated much of what i saw in the Party ... but i, and i believe many, many others are just not going to help elect people we don't agree with ...

and i agree with those who say this will, or certainly may, cause the Party to lose ... things have to change ... in the end, the big tent may have been stretched too far ... in the end, the Party may find far fewer people in the wagon for the donkey to pull ...

you asked whether it matters whether the majority in the Party agrees with me ... no, it doesn't matter ... we are not going to be able to dig in our heels, rigidly adhere to each and every position without compromise, and each get our way ... those who criticize "the left" as purists miss the point ...

what is needed are new processes to increase the responsiveness of our candidates to the grassroots ... by grassroots, i don't mean left, right, center or any other ideological group ... i mean each and every Democrat ... yesterday's WP article said it all ... Hillary was truly stunned by the reaction of the left to her call for unity ... she was unaware (that's exactly what's wrong here !!) of the intensity of feelings among those who have not and do not feel the Party represents them ...

i'm all for helping out the poor little donkey, if it can be achieved ... that's the whole point here ... we have to start working to BUILD unity ... we do that by respecting those who are dissenting and trying to hear their message ... we do that by holding regular nationwide Town Meetings for Democrats with their elected officials ... we do that by having our leaders regularly participate in online blogs and forums ...

this is no distraction from the real fight ... we have to solve these problems or suffer their consequences ... the status quo is not an option if we really care about winning ...

[kentuck]

30. Do you agree that we have no power if we do not win?

I agree with most everything people have said about the DLC and Hillary, etc, but I am coming around to the opinion that we must find another way to "win". Hell, I have posted many similar positions myself. However, I have serious doubts that a "liberal" can win after so many years of being defined by these corporate Repubs. That is a hard postion to accept, I agree. Perhaps we should look for a different strategy?

Perhaps we "liberals" should be just as deceptive and political as Karl Rove and the Repubs in order to take the power out of their hands? It is for the better good. Nothing they do is good for our country. If we must defeat them with spies, with propaganda, with the truth, with deception, we should be open to their defeat. I'm not talking about submitting to the DLC agenda.

I'm talking about using the DLC to get our own agenda on the table. How is that possible? First of all, we have to determine and decide whether we think a defined "liberal" has a better chance than does a defined "moderate" to win as a Democrat. Times have changed. This country is under the spell of a very powerful, right-wing propaganda machine. Unlike any we have ever seen, in my opinion. John Kerry lost by a lot in the popular vote count, in my opinion, no matter what may have happened in Ohio.

Should we pick a "moderate" like Hillary? No, I think we might want to pick someone more white bread, like Bayh or some Southerner, it doesn't really matter. It really doesn't matter. The point of strategy being that the candidate be someone the Repubs have not painted as a "liberal". They do not believe the Democratic base would ever nominate a "moderate" anyway. Perhaps that is where we should deceive them? We choose a candidate, so close to the middle he/she is standing on the line, and that would tend to defuse the most partisan Repub voter who would go to the polls just to vote "against" Hillary. Not that they are real fond of their candidate, they simply refuse to vote for a perceived liberal.

However, this would never happen, because the left would never adopt such a strategy because their "principles" do not permit it. However, after a few more elections, those "principles" may become a little more flexible. I am simply proposing another idea for strategy purposes, because if we are locked out of power, nothing but bad is going to happen to our country and our people. I truly believe that.

I say we should look at the DLC from a different perspective. Look at them as a tool to help us attain our agenda. Do not be afraid to use deceptive tactics against the Repubs. What is the alternative?
I see us, in our present status, as a minority for a good time to come. I do not see us winning any elections with our present agenda. I do not see us persuading millions of Americans that we are right and everybody else is wrong. But, I am not willing to admit that we are not smarter and capable of doing what is necessary.

[welshTerrier2]

37. my "kitchen sink" post ...

i want to comment on two sections of your post ... first, your reference to the inflexibility of "the left" and then your belief that a "liberal" candidate cannot win at this time ...

However, this would never happen, because the left would never adopt such a strategy because their "principles" do not permit it. However, after a few more elections, those "principles" may become a little more flexible. I am simply proposing another idea for strategy purposes, because if we are locked out of power, nothing but bad is going to happen to our country and our people.

regarding your statement that the "left's" principles may become a little more flexible, i have two comments ...

first, i consider myself very far to the left although the term is thrown around so much i frankly wonder whether any two people mean the same thing when they use it ... it's truly sad to see the stereotype of "the left" repeated over and over and over that the left is inflexible and rigidly adheres to their principles and requires perfect purity without any pragmatic considerations whatsoever ... it's just wrong ...

what i think leads to this unfortunate characterization is the left's refusal to go along, anymore, with the status quo ... read my early posts as an example ... yes, there are some issues that i feel very deeply about ... there is certainly some limit beyond which i will not compromise ... i would hope that is true of every single citizen in a democracy ... but that doesn't mean i'm not willing to bend at all ... that doesn't mean i'm inflexible ... that doesn't mean i'm blinded by my principles ... what many on the left are calling for is a voice, a discussion, a negotiation ... they want to believe they are being represented ... does that make them unyielding and inflexible?

second, i think the energy the left has found by communicating with each other over the net is a tidal wave that will never be squeezed back into the bottle (do tidal waves come out of bottles?) ... i am willing to sit down with anyone who wants to discuss the issues ... i am willing to balance winning with fighting for my beliefs ... but i am no longer willing to quietly go along with parties or candidates who want my campaign work, my money and my vote but not my ideas ... I AM DONE WITH THAT FOREVER ... time, and losing a bunch of elections, will not change that ...

However, I have serious doubts that a "liberal" can win after so many years of being defined by these corporate Repubs. That is a hard position to accept, I agree. Perhaps we should look for a different strategy?

you have very clearly stated the "common wisdom" ... it is widely believed that the electorate is a bell curve ... it is widest in the middle and gets thinner and thinner as you move to the extremes ... this is considered great political wisdom ... everyone knows that this is true ...

everyone, that is, except for me ... and everyone, that is, except for the republican majority ... because that is exactly what they, the republicans, have NOT been doing ...

so how is it possible, one might ask, that it makes any political sense whatsoever to go sticking yourself way over on one narrow end of the bell curve? now if you've arrived at asking this question, you've come to the right place ...

and the answer, the right answer, is NOT the "common wisdom" ... this is exactly why Democrats have done so poorly over the last 25 years ... to me, the answer is very simple and very obvious ... but I have not been able to convince very many people of this fundamental truth ...

ready? stay with me now ...

with the exception of a tiny segment of "god, guns and gays" voters (e.g. the Christian right), most voters are not primarily focussed on political spectrum issues at all ... most voters can barely identify any position (even a single one) that candidates hold ... how many Americans today (or during the last election) could tell you a single thing about the difference between Kerry's plan to create jobs and bush's plan (did he have one?) ??? how many very knowledgeable DU'ers could tell you the difference between Kerry's views on trade and bush's ... yeah, i know, some could ... but not many ... and virtually 0% could in the real world (i.e. outside DU) ... how many could tell you the difference between Kerry's views on the use of the military overseas and bush's ??? see the point ???

voters do NOT vote, with the exception of the cultural exploitation issues, based on a candidate's location on a political spectrum ... perhaps it should NOT be that way but i believe it is ... so i strongly disagree with your statement that the country is not ready for a "liberal" candidate ... and to not run one, and acquiesce without a fight for our real beliefs, makes us lose before the election even begins ...

there are 3 key issues the Democratic Party should be pushing ... and instead, they are running from two of them in terror and virtually ignoring the third ...

first, corporatism ... the individual American citizen has been subjugated to a back seat over the interests of mega-trans-national corporations ... big money has poisoned our electoral process and it has seeped into every aspect of federal policy ... the government no longer functions for the benefit of its citizens; it functions for monied interests only ... and the Democratic Party's response to this reality: they worry about the republicans painting the Party as "anti-business" ...

second, imperialism ... the American foreign policy is almost totally (if not totally) done for the purpose of "conquering and exploiting" weaker nations for the benefit of, you guessed it, mega-trans-national corporations ... America has two great big global black eyes ... the rest of the world has lost all respect for our country because they see the truth ... we prop up dictators, sell our deadly death weapons, topple democratically elected governments, exploit natural resources, pollute and suck every penny we can out of weaker nations ... we're not the good guys anymore ... and the Democratic Party's response to this reality: they worry about the republicans painting the Party as "weak on defense" if we don't go along with every military adventure ...

in both of the above cases, the Party has sold out the country and its constituents to do what they wrongfully believe is politically expedient ... they couldn't be more wrong !! why ?? because what Americans want from the Democratic Party is a real choice on these important issues ... they want to go with a Party that has a clear plan and the strength of it convictions ... worrying about how the opposing Party labels you is NOT having the strength of your convictions ... just when Democrats should show they are strong, they go along to project a macho image and only confirm they are weak and lack the courage of their convictions ...

so Democrats can run a "liberal" candidate ... they should run one ... and this candidate should talk about being pro-business but putting the best interests of the American people ahead of those interests when the two conflict ... and they should tell the American people the truth that we have not always been the good guys in conducting our foreign policy ... it's not weak on defense and it's not un-American ... imperialist foreign policies are destroying our country ... nothing could be more American than to point that out ... and finally, Democrats should push to RENEW OUR DEMOCRACY ... most Americans understand that insiders and lobbyists control this country and that common citizens truly have very little influence ... let's embrace that idea, make some proposals and fight for change ...

last thing in my seemingly endless (sorry about that) ramble: you asked if i agree that we have no power if we don't win ... in the way you mean it, the answer is "yes, we have no power if we do not win" ... but that's not the right answer ...

we always have power ... we have the power to educate the public ... winning an election but not having a public that understands and agrees with your values will be a short-lived victory ... nice? sure! ... but that's the wrong approach ... we need a long-term, cohesive message ... not a politically expedient do-anything-to-get-elected message ... the real struggle is for the hearts and minds of the American people ... we always have the power to sharpen our case and make our case to the people ... and if we don't define who we are, what we believe in and fight like hell for our beliefs, i'm afraid we will be doomed to more of what we've been getting ... we need to start with principles, deepen our convictions, hone our message and fight as hard as we can to show Americans that we are right ... Americans are not voting on political spectrums; their voting for candidates with a passion for their beliefs ... that's the big secret the Democratic Party has yet to understand and it's why the "common wisdom" about fighting for the center is wrong ...

again, sorry this was such a long one ... someone once said "brevity is the soul of wit" ... i'm afraid i'm just not that witty ...

[kentuck]

43. So you are saying we are the majority and a "liberal" can win?

If a moron like George Bush got 9 million more votes than a liberal like John Kerry, excuse me if I am skeptical. And John Kerry has been considered a liberal since his Vietnam days, regardless of whether he tried to portray himself as something else. We can ignore that little fact.

Although I agree with your observation that "we always have power ... we have the power to educate the public ... winning an election but not having a public that understands and agrees with your values will be a short-lived victory ... nice? sure! ... but that's the wrong approach ... we need a long-term, cohesive message ... not a politically expedient do-anything-to-get-elected message ... the real struggle is for the hearts and minds of the American people".... but that is going to be a long struggle, I think. Once that battle is fought, will anything be worth fighting for? By then, we should be so deep in the shitter that anything will look like an improvement.

Basically, you have hit the nerve of the argument. You believe a "liberal" can win. Under the present political realities and after 25 years of unrelenting assault on the liberal idea, I have my doubts. With that said, is it worth fighting for even if we know we are not going to win? Yes. But be prepared for a very long struggle.
For what does a man gain if he should lose his soul?

[welshTerrier2]

48. Kerry could have won the popular vote with a better campaign

comparing bush to Kerry and saying that proves a liberal cannot win misses the point i'm making (or at least trying to make) ...

Kerry allowed his campaign advisors to push him down the same old stagnant paths ... i believe they didn't let Kerry be Kerry and he came across as insincere ... that's exactly the point i'm trying to make ...

Kerry was easily painted as a candidate who lacked passion ... he came across as someone who equivocated on every issue and lacked the courage of his convictions ...

Kerry's losing the popular vote did NOT occur because he was too far to the left ... as i said, do you really believe most Americans could even describe his position on a single issue ... i spent a ton of time talking to voters last year ... many of them were highly educated and thought of themselves as politically sophisticated ... they knew nothing ... zero ... zilch ... they could not explain even one single position that Kerry held ... was he really a liberal? was he a moderate? they couldn't name his position on even one single issue ... elections are NOT about political spectrums ...

to answer your questions: yes, i am saying a liberal can win ... and no, i am not saying we are the majority ... i am saying that there is no majority ... i am saying that voters will respond to candidates with a clear, solid message who have the courage of their convictions regardless (within reason) of where that candidate stands on the political spectrum ... Kerry could have won the popular vote with a better campaign ...

future candidates have to have their campaigns eminate from a core platform, a long-term platform, that espouses our Party's deepest beliefs ... no one candidate, regardless of political ideology, will be able to instantly manufacture a 25 year old campaign that the republicans already have built ... we have to begin laying in a solid foundation for all our candidates ...

[kentuck]

49. We had Howard....

but he couldn't get out of the first round. Any more "liberals" you have in mind?

[welshTerrier2]

56. i was not a Dean supporter ...

but dismissing "liberals" because Dean did not win in the primaries is crazy ... Gephardt didn't win ... Clark didn't win ... Lieberman didn't win ... neither did any of the others ... there can only be one winner ...

slapping a spectrum label on a candidate and then throwing a whole wing out because of one failed candidacy doesn't make any sense ...

[kentuck]

58. Any favorites for the next election?

:)

[welshTerrier2]

63. therein lies the rub !!

i assume you mean 2008 and not 2006 and i assume you mean Presidential candidates ...

my current answer is no ... there are people i admire ... i'm a really big fan of Bernie Sanders and of my own Congressman, Jim McGovern ...

but the question you raised is a critically important challenge for the Party's progressive wing ... who are the big names? who goes on the Sunday talk shows? who gets all the headlines? Biden, Hillary, Kerry, Vilsack, Dean, Schumer, Biden, Hillary and Biden ... and, oh yeah, Hillary ... are there any truly high-profile candidates who represent the progressive wing of the Party ????? nope ... well maybe with the exception of Dean but i prefer not to get into that here ...

the truth is, we ain't got no horse to root for ... why ??? well, maybe Dean's endorsement of Pennsylvania's anti-choice candidate instead of a more progressive Democrat running against Casey in the primary tells you something ... maybe the Party has sought more conservative candidates ... that's sort of what all the dissension is all about ... who the hell represents the progressive wing of the Party ????

now, and this idea came to me while i was writing this, it's possible that the Party has muzzled people to fit within the Party's conservative, scared-of-their-own-tails political expediency ... for example, suppose Hillary or Kerry actually believe we should cut the bloated, we-can-kill-everyone-on-the-planet-ten-times-over defense budget by 25% or even 50% ... do you think they would dare espouse this position? maybe they choose not to do it on their own because the Party itself is too busy convincing everyone that we're "tough on defense" and that's why we support all this wasteful spending ... to take that position, they would be going way out on a limb by themselves and their own Party would not support them ...

i don't really know whether this is the case of not ... but if the Party itself moved its platform to the left, perhaps current Democratic leaders would be free to move left as well ... and then perhaps progressives would be more comfortable with some who are currently in power ... it's all wild speculation but i suppose this would be possible ...

as things stand now, however, the progressive wing of the Party remains an unrepresented constituency with no "little donkey" to pull our wagon ... if that doesn't change, or if the Party doesn't meet us part way by moving further left, i'm afraid many of us will be taking our marbles and going elsewhere ... let's hope for all our sakes that doesn't come to pass ...

[kentuck]

64. And if we take our marbles and go elsewhere...

where would that leave us and the Democratic Party? And how wise would that be?

[welshTerrier2]

67. wiser than ABB was ...

i have listened to those, after the last election, who said we should not abandon the Party but rather we should remain and try to change it ... i have since become an elected Democrat in my little town ... i am trying to change "it" ...

but i will NEVER AGAIN work for, pay for or vote for a candidate who ignores the constituency with which i identify ...

my current views are those stated by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) (you can read the details in the BP and the first response in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=297x121)

basically, at least for now, i plan to remain a Democrat ... truthfully, i'm not totally comfortable with this position ... but so be it ... i agree with PDA's position that says they will support all progressive Democrats but will vote Green when no progressive Democrat is running ... ultimately, and i've never done this before, it means i will probably vote for a Green Presidential candidate in 2008 ... there is no way i'll be voting for Hillary or Biden or Bayh ... no way ...

where will it leave the Democratic Party? it will leave them with their beloved "center" they so covet ... they can't have my work, my money and my vote for free ever again ... i'm flexible; i'll compromise but i will not acquiesce with this misguided move to the right ... what could be less wise than continuing to support a Party and its candidates who ignore you and don't represent your views ???

i'm working for change and hope we can work it out but i'm keeping my bags packed just in case ...

[Eloriel]

74. Where are the big names?

You're probably on the right track here with your speculation about "muzzling," but from my observation of the "Party," it works a little differently than your explication.

Good grief, look at how our own side jumped all over Dean recently -- precisely to muzzle HIM. Some display of party discipline, huh? Too bad we can't do nearly as well over things like harmful legislation or even something approaching a coherent message.

And this is more where the DLC exercises its influence, btw, as I see it. There is a small core of people, headed roughly by the Clintons, who jump to follow a particular "agenda" or line of thought when pressed to do so. There are probably a number of consultants involved.

Actually, I think this article outlines the process -- and its purpose -- pretty well:

Gaggin Dr. Dean
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1281/article13433.asp

[KoKo]

87. The Democratic Convention Organization and Coverage was a disaster...

They went for a worn out Clinton Style "I feel your pain" convention instead of a subdued, serious, ISSUES format.

Democrats are sick of being "pandered to." They wanted "Meat on those bones." Instead it was a "reality TV kind of fest" with "Reporting for Duty" crap that really didn't show Kerry for the candidate he might have been. Was Kerry misused by these old tactics, complicit, or clueless. I don't know.

But the Repugs copied him and even Kerry's wonderful daughters couldn't compete with the antics of the Bush twins that seemed to cheer the Repugs.

We've got to get away from these Hollywood Produced Convention Extravaganzas and get back to some meat and bones.

Repugs got away with their crap because their base wouldn't care if Chimp raped someone on the platform...But a Dem comes off as whiney and too much "feeling your pain" or "trying to reach out to poor, disenfranchised Americans." (Most DEM Americans didn't see any "disenfranchised Americans because they are all in their Churches and voting for Bush) Only the DLC would stoop so low as to mock us Convention after Convention. Speaking down to us...and pandering to every person with a constituency they can find and then ditching them once the Convention and failed election is over.

I've had enough! And alot of Americans didn't buy it even though they went the "ABB" way ...it was hard to explain to folks WHAT we stood for when McMansions were being built down the street and everyone was so happy with their WalMart purchases. I walked for Kerry...I heard what folks asked me...It was hard to answer what we stood for as a difference from Bush when no pain was being felt and the true poor and disenfranchised were disenfranchised at the polls or before so they didn't even bother to vote when they were contacted with voter outreach. :shrug:

[eridani]

90. Someone they won't paint as a liberal????

WTF are you smoking, anyway? I don't see how you can say that with a straight face after what they did to Cleland in 2002.

[Eloriel]

45. These are two absolutely BRILLIANT posts, IMO

I wish you'd start another thread with these thoughts. Really. As you said, perhaps with the WP article:

what is needed are new processes to increase the responsiveness of our candidates to the grassroots ... by grassroots, i don't mean left, right, center or any other ideological group ... i mean each and every Democrat ... yesterday's WP article said it all ... Hillary was truly stunned by the reaction of the left to her call for unity ... she was unaware (that's exactly what's wrong here !!) of the intensity of feelings among those who have not and do not feel the Party represents them ...

DUers have been excited about what Conyers is doing in D.C. relative to the hearings he's holding, and the actions he's calling for, and a petition here and there....

What *I'm* most excited about re what Conyers is doing is that he has a blog and is USING it as a 2-way communications tool. Imagine that: TWO WAY!! (Of course, Dean did that as well -- one part of what made him a grassroots fundraising phenomenon, frankly, but he was just a candidate at the time.) Conyers is posting to it himself, regularly -- hell, imagine THAT, all by itself. And he interacts also with one or more of the liberal blogs (Kos???? I forget), as well as has things up on Huffington's site. And he ALSO has one or more people who come here to let us know when things are popping -- I don't know if these are staffers (there have been some in the past, I know), or just volunteers or interested parties, but the point is that there's an outreach to DU, which is only as it should be.

I haven't spent any time at his blog (nearly all my time is spent here unless I follow a link elsewhere), but it's my understanding that he and his staff also pay attention to what's posted there by others. OMG, look at this:

July 23rd House Parties featuring Amb. Joe Wilson and Randi Rhodes
http://www.johnconyers.com/ (Can't find a permalink, unless the printer version will suffice: http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Design=PrintView )

It's an update on the House Parties (I'd forgotten about those!) from this past Saturday. Over 8ooo people participated. That's nothing to sneeze at, frankly.

I see all this as revitalizing democracy itself, and as actions and tools that EVERY Dem in Congress MUST take hold of and run with. They must. They have GOT to get more in touch with ThePeople they are supposed to be serving and representing. Right now, they're in a freakin' different world, and it just isn't the REAL world.

I agree with this too:

we have to start working to BUILD unity ... we do that by respecting those who are dissenting and trying to hear their message ... we do that by holding regular nationwide Town Meetings for Democrats with their elected officials ... we do that by having our leaders regularly participate in online blogs and forums ...

You DON'T do that by telling one segment to sit down and shut up. You don't have to do what they want in order to build unity, you DO have to let them know they're HEARD and UNDERSTOOD. Trust me, it's not about getting everything we want, it's about being heard, genuinely heard.

this is no distraction from the real fight ... we have to solve these problems or suffer their consequences ... the status quo is not an option if we really care about winning ...

Yeah, forget coming up with strategies for WINNING anything. There's far too much work to do elsewhere -- within -- first, before that's anything but a laughable idea. In fat, the discussions about WINNING are insulting when so many of us are SO disenfranchised, SO unrepresented, SO unheard, SO dismissed and cavalierly and even contemptuously treated.

Oh, and another thing, and this is ALL about winning: the U.S. is a LIBERAL nation. In poll after poll on the ISSUES Democrats traditionally support (and still do, DLC aside), Americans overwhelmingly support our stance on those issues. OVERWHELMINGLY.

WHY DO YOU FOLKS THINK THE REPUGS HAVE TO LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING? Because they've got nothing else! They're outclassed on the issues, they're outnumbered among the growing Dem-supporting demographics, etc., etc. They've got NOTHING -- nothing except lies, fearmongering and demagoguery.

Got that? Lies, fearmongering and demagoguery.

And on top of this stark, irrefutable reality, there's ANYone in the Democratic Party who honestly believes that we can't win, that LIBERAL isn't a winning political philosophy (if NOT a winning word -- for now, I'll admit).

Get real, people. DEMOCRATIC IS WHERE IT'S AT. We just have to (a) realize it, (b) speak right up, and (c) claim our rightful position as natural leaders of the American experiment.

[kentuck]

47. I agree with this point:

"WHY DO YOU FOLKS THINK THE REPUGS HAVE TO LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING?"

If they "lie" about everything, why can't we defeat them? Why do people believe the "lies"?

By any standard around the world, the U.S. is NOT a liberal nation.

[Eloriel]

52. People believe the lies because there's literally NO ONE to tell them

different. No one. Not the media, not most Dems in Congress. Howard Dean does it, and he gets excoriated for it, even by his own side. But the PEOPLE love him for it and flock to him because of it.

We'll never defeat them if we don't expose the lies -- because they'll always lie about us (again, it's all they have). But it'll take more than Howard Dean doing it.

[kentuck]

55. I agree...

Thanks...

[welshTerrier2]

72. "start another thread with these thoughts"

actually, i've written on these topics many times especially over the last few days ... i do enjoy the quieter, cerebral nature of being tucked away in the back pages sometimes ... kudos to yourself, Kentuck, KoKo01, CWebster and suigeneris ... that's quite a heady crowd to be yakking with ... are we allowed to talk about yaks in GD?

if you're interested in reading some of my views on reforming the Party, here's a bunch of links ... it's sort of a "best of" collection ... most of my posts (not included here) have been about Iraq ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1887894
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1838633
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1827795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1961981

really appreciated your very positive feedback, btw ...

[Eloriel]

80. Okay, I skimmed those

and while good, they don't actually cover the topics I was most interested in and found so brilliant on your part, but it's your choice.

[CWebster]

29. Well, it seems we got the issues on our side

Should our side ever want to take advantage of that fact.

[kentuck]

35. What issues do we have on our side....?

exactly?

[CWebster]

36. Gees Kentuck

the war, Social Security, the envirnonment, outsourcing, Enron style corporate domination and the class issues that accompany it, Choice, all the lies and deceptions and war crimes that went by with little notice, torture, the economy. A presidency with tanking numbers.

What don't we have? Its all there ripe for the picking.

[kentuck]

41. I'm sorry I didn't hear the tree fall in the forest...

They may be issues to you and I but to the average American, they don't give a damn. And we have no one to communicate with them in an effective way, so they are meaningless. We surely don't expect the media to educate people. Sorry if I have become too cynical...

[Eloriel]

57. Forget cynical. IT's just not TRUE.

They may be issues to you and I but to the average American, they don't give a damn.

No, average Americans DO give a damn. They support traditional Democratic positions on these and other issues when they're properly explained in the poll questions.

This IS a basically liberal nation. It is. Yeah, there are big pockets of red-ism (the politics of selfishness and greed), but overwhelmingly, real people -- averge, everyday Americans -- would vote with us IF it's about issues. That, you see, is why the Repugs have to LIE about us, have to use WEDGE issues by ginning up homophobia and racism and 2nd Amendment fears, along with other fearmongering. They HAVE to because they literally have nothing else.

And we have no one to communicate with them in an effective way, so they are meaningless. We surely don't expect the media to educate people.

You know, Al Gore and John Kerry both won despite having a media deadset and heavily biased and constantly propagandizing AGAINST them. What the hell does THAT tell you? (And if you don't think they both won, you need to spend a lot of time in the 2004 Election forum, and do some research on the 2000 election.)

Sorry if I have become too cynical...

Cynical, hell. You drank the damn koolaid and deluded yourself that it was given to you by Dems. :eyes:

[kentuck]

60. I do believe Al Gore won but...

If you think John Kerry won, even though he lost the popular vote by 9 million, then it may someone else sipping on the kool aid.....

[Eloriel]

75. Tsk, tsk

Haven't paid ANY attention to the 2004 Election Forum, I take it? What a shame. What a resource you missed. Here's how it worked:

First, vote suppression. The Repugs have literally become expert at it, and even that takes many, many forms. So there were plenty of votes that simply never got cast OR got cast and were ruined in the process (say, by having been sent to the wrong "precinct" to vote -- even tho in the right building).

Second, exit polls do NOT lie, period. The data from these alone -- even in THIS election -- correct where there were no problems, and myterioulsy and outrageously WRONG where there WERE problems.

Third, the machines. Oh, my, the machines. They shaved votes for Bush EVERYwhere -- in places where Kerry was going to win and DID win, and in places where Bush was going to win and DID win, and in places where it could be "stolen." (And who would look at or suspect the vote TOTALS where the outcome was as expected??) They shaved enough votes total so that there was a nice 3 million vote cushion to stave off any hint, any suspicion of a stolen election.

Just Ohio alone -- all we needed to have won, actually -- was frought with enough fraud and anomalies and shenanigans to sway the outcome AND the entire election. We wouldn't even need to look at other states, but there were plenty of problems in other states as well.

[kentuck]

78. Do you really believe Kerry got more total votes than Bush..?

Since he lost by about 9 million votes?

Granted, Ohio was obvious voter suppression, in my opinion, but even then, how did Kerry lose to such a moron as Bush? If we could not beat Bush, is here anyone we could beat?

And, it is true, if we had won Ohio, we would have won the electoral votes needed, even though we did not have the popular vote. Just the opposite of what we said about Al Gore in 2000.

But the Repubs played to America's fears and prejudices and were able to win in several states they probably would not have won if they had run on the issues that were important to this country. But, they did not wish to run on the "issues", they chose to run on what they could win with - no matter how prejudiced or under-handed. And they will do it the next time also, unless we find a response. And I have not seen such a response.

That is why I pose the question about whether a "liberal" is capable of winning. But the bigger question should be, is any Democrat capable of winning. Unless they change the way they respond to the Repub personal attacks, I do not hold out a lot of hope.

I am not a DLCer and I do not support the way they have managed the issues while in charge of our Party. I think they have done irreparable damage. However, that is not the point I am trying to make. Who stands a better chance of beating the Republicans in a Presidential race? A moderate or a liberal? I'm not sure. But, it doesn't really matter as much as we think. Moderate DLCers are followers - not leaders. They would follow the leadership of the Party in the House and Senate if they were in the White House, imo... So, the basic issue remains: who stands the best chance of winning the White House?

[Eloriel]

81. Two things

First, I'm not going to go into the whole election mess. There's a whole forum that you can avail yourself of, with some absolutely incredible work done. INCREDIBLE work. (And I'm pretty sure it was 3 million votes and I'm DEFINITELY sure the vote suppression was pretty much everywhere, just for practice if no other reason.)

Second, I kinda agree with something that I think WelshTerrier said to you, only perhaps moreso: I think "who can win" is not just the wrong question right now, but offensive as hell. It's offensive on the face of it (no matter who brings it up), but it's also offensive to me because you keep coming back to it while ignoring the larger, more important, more urgent questions that the party faces. Until more of us feel represnted by "our" party, who we need to get to run is the WRONG question. The question alone is just another way to ignore us, and the festering problems.

So frankly, I'm done with your question, this thread -- and you, frankly, if that's all you care about, because ultimately I find it an unprincipled pursuit (aka: winning at any cost or winning is the ONLY thing), and I see enough unprincipled-ness in the party to gag on sevral times daily, thank you very little.

[kentuck]

82. Uh, ok...

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

86. well, on that cheerful note ...

let me ask you this, Kentuck ...

you've focussed in this thread primarily on what the "left" has done and on what you think they should not do (like leave the Party or create distractions from a unified front) ...

but let me ask you this on the premise that many of us, as Eloriel's post demonstrated, really don't believe the Party represents us ...

what course of action do you think the Democratic left should follow?

[kentuck]

88. I understand where you're coming from and I feel the same way...

About 1996-97, I left the Party temporarily because I was so pissed off at Bill Clinton. I could not take any more of the Republican-Lite DLC bullshit. I decided to run for Congress in '98 and I beat the favorite at the State Convention in Pueblo, CO for the top line on the ballot for the primary. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party called me soon after and informed me that I was disqualified because I had been a registered Independent and had not been a registered Democrat long enough. Just to give a preface to my long-time dislike of the DLC and the "moderates" in our Party that I felt were hurting our Party and giving away our nation to the right-wing conservatives with their go-along to get-along attitudes. I have given this much thought.

I have tried to look at the political reality in the starkest manner possible. I have come to the conclusion that the DLC cannot win without the "liberal" wing of the Party and conversely, the liberal wing cannot win without the moderates within our Party. Perhaps in days gone by, we could "win" without them. In my opinion, those days are gone. The Republican Party has consolidated it's power with it hold on the communication systems (Thanks Bill! and the Telecommunications Act) and are now more or less equal with the Democratic Party.

That said, I think we need to take a "radical" approach. We should not assume that a "liberal" Democrat will be stronger than a "moderate" Democrat, or vice-versa. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that we can work with one as well as the other if he or she is sitting in the Oval Office and either will be better than any Republican that might win.

Also, understanding that where you campaign from has nothing to do with where you might govern from, neither the moderates or the liberals should fear the other. The mistake when Clinton was President was not Bill Clinton's as much as it was the Congress and the Democratic voters. We all thought we had to go some type of bullshit Third Way and "triangulate" to defeat the Republicans. We ended up defeating ourselves. We never spoke up. That was our fault.

So now, I take the "devil's advocate" position that maybe a "moderate" might be the strongest candidate to run against the present Republican political machine. I say "maybe". Because for the last 25 years, we have permitted the right-wing machine to make "liberal" a dirty word. I do not think we can deny that. It makes it very difficult for us.

Now with Hillary's speech the other day and all the controversy created because of it, we need to focus on where we want our Party to go. I believe we can steer our Party more in the way we want if we take back the House or if we win the White House. The Repubs are starting to feel like they own all the branches of government, which they do at this time. It is important that we re-claim at least one branch, in my opinion.

As for the Party not representing many of us, I agree. But, we can make it worse, rather than better, if we are not careful. I think we should be as vocal as possible. Tell the truth about the neo-cons and the fascists. Put forth a progressive agenda. Challenge them at every turn. Weaken them. And then put a stealth moderate up for President. Someone they cannot portray as a "liberal". Someone that even Republicans might vote for (Not Hillary :))and then work behind the scenes to make this a progressive nation - not up front where we can be attacked and destroyed. Let the DLC represent our "moderate" image and then put forth the most progressive agenda since the New Deal. That is my strategy.

[KoKo]

61. Well...due to DU some folks here in NC managed to help that little Donkey

pull that loaded wagon up a hill recently with "verified paper ballots" finally getting a vote (House and now our State Senate), plus we got an activist Party Chairman who cares about people and what they think who was a Dean campaign worker who also managed to help Dean to get into the DNC spot and this was against DLC'ers who were moaning that voting machines were so much easier if they were Touch Screen, and oh...it's so sad our state is a Red State but what can we do about it? whine, whine whine.

That little Donkey has thousands helping push that wagon that's loaded with DLC'ers (just along for the ride) way up that big huge hill.

Kentuck you've been here long enough to have heard the old Daschle stuff of "wringing hands" and saying "just go along, don't make waves." And, all the DU'ers saying "He has a plan...Dems have a PLAN...just WAIT it will all be revealed. They suckered us here on that "plan" twice and many of us aren't about to take the bait again.

There's lots going on off DU because OF DU...which was the first real interactive political site for Democrats, (that I know of anywhere), which allowed us all to "brainstorm," sharing information, experiences and links to other sites just cropping up that gave us POWER for the FIRST TIME...we the small and voiceless could go up against the Corporatists and Party Hacks and K-Street operatives.

I never liked all the fighting and groupies here...but I learned alot and I and others have used it. We don't talk about what we do much anymore because the site is so huge that no one really cares to hear it, but it doesn't mean a new opportunity doesn't erupt that pulls us all together and gets us working as a team. (Well...I'll leave out the Lounge folks, on that one)..but, in general, the group efforts here have been worth all the fighting.

One day we will look back and see what a difference it has all made. We can't see it now...but it's there. I don't ever want to go back to the way I felt after Stolen Election 2000 or Stolen Election 2006 and feel the way I felt. The difference in those two elections though was that I was alone in 2000 but by 2006 I knew what went wrong and so did thousands of others all networked with POWER. So, my feelings of sorrow and despair over 2000 had transferred to anger and resolve after 2006. I knew what had gone wrong...and I had hope that it wasn't just a bunch of us on a couple of internet sites that held the burden of fixing it. Although....it's hard going now that we fight our Party insiders and the Repugs at the same time...now that they all know where the new power center is..

I hope that your post was just to get a dialog going. It's hard for me to understand why you would be so committed to DLC after going through what we old timers here, have all these years. I never thought I'd be here clicking away all this time...Never...but our country needed us. And, it will for a very long time ...to help that Donkey up that hill. If the this Donkey can't do it...we may have to find a healthier one that still has the energy and put the current one in a nice pasture to graze it's final days away in reverie of all those losses.

:rant:

[kentuck]

62. I hear you KoKo01...

but I am no committed DLCer. I hate the direction they have taken our Party. But unfortunately, we are there. And the same people that criticize the DLC will turn around and praise Bill Clinton??

I have heard all the arguments and have made a few myself. I am trying to start a constructive discussion, hoping it does not deteriorate into a flame war, but I'm attempting to get us to look outside our little four-cornered contraption. Perhaps the DLC is not our enemy? Perhaps if we were a little smarter, we could use the DLC to our advantage? How could we do that? That is my question.

I hate what those Democrats did voting for that CAFTA crap last night. How could they be so fucking stupid?

I think we are the heart and soul and conscience of the Democratic Party and it would cease to exist without us. But, at this time in history, I think we have been discredited as "liberals" to a large extent, because we did not fight back 25 years ago when it began in earnest. I really think it may be more difficult for a "liberal" to win at this time than a DLCer. But that is not an acceptable idea. I understand that.

[KoKo]

66. It goes to Clinton....I'm thinking.

I defended Clintons for so long to my Repug friends all through his term with all the RW Trash they threw at him. I lost friends over my defense of Clinton.

But...in the last year I've changed my opinion of his Presidency. I apologized for most of what he did thinking he was so pressured by scandal and the RW attack machine that he was forced to do everything he did. NAFTA (I was against that from the beginning) but I excused it because when Clinton came in Poppy had aleady started to ruin our economy and start the Corporate Downsizing and Mergers that Reagan's group had dreamed about. The Japanese were buying all our Commercial Real Estate and Ross Perot was pointing out how badly the "engine" needed to be fixed. Looking back NAFTA was the mistake I and others thought it would be...Lieberman and Dodd's deregulation of the SEC in '94 meant when the Dot Com Mania started there weren't enough safeguards left in place for it not to become the "Bubble Disaster" it turned out to be for innocent investers. Liberman and Dodd are both DLC. To his credit Clinton vetoed it but his veto was overidden.

The "Telecommunications Act of 1996" was possibly the worst bill Clinton ever signed. It's led to the demise of the "free press" in the US. There are others who blame him for Kosovo and getting involved with Monica...whatever.

But, up until a year ago I would have fought anyone who said anything bad about Bill Clinton. Now, I'm starting to think he wasn't as great as I thought he was...and that I defended him "emotionally" rather than rationally because he was so villified and abused by the Right Wing that I gave him an excuse for his caving on so many programs that I think in his heart he wanted to do but allowed himself to be compromised so that he couldn't accomplish it. His OWN PARTY (DLC BIGWIGS) NEVER defended him way back before Monica. The DLC did NOT come to Gore's aid during 2000 Election Debaucle.

Perhaps the worst of it is that the DLC has not defended any Democratic Candidate the way the Repug Machine defends it's own even when it's own are worse crooks and liars than most any Democrat one could find.

So...the DLC that brought Bill Clinton forth ...doesn't defend him and he doesn't manage to be able to stick to his guns because he "danced with those who brought him to the party." Hillary will be the same, I think. As long as our candidates are beholden to the DLC they will never act independently, I think. That's not good. That's why I'm for getting the K-Street/DLC/Hacks out.

Anyway....I'm ranting too much and it really isn't addressing what you requested. I do disagree with you...but it's not personal, Kentuck.

:loveya:

[kentuck]

16. Even if I agree with your basic point does not mean we will win...

the political battle. We can stand by our principles and be ready for a longer struggle, in my opinion. The majority of Americans do not agree with us at this time, and we are doomed to electoral darkness, for the immediate future. Although I agree that the best remedy is more speech, not less, that does not mean we have the "prescription" for electoral success. I am not even calling for Party unity. I say we should use what assets we have more wisely and intelligently.

I look at the DLC as one of those assets - not as an enemy. We should use our brains to figure out a way to use the DLC to our advantage, rather than placing them on the same side with our political enemies. It may be impossible to do, I do not know. However, if we can envision it, we can make it true, I believe.

Understanding that the Republican Party does not stand for anything they say they stand for - in fact, the exact opposite - we should look at the DLC from a similar point of view, in the context of political battle. We should use them as foot soldiers to attain what we want this country to be. Even if, it would mean putting in a DLCer as President of this country. Even if that were to happen, we would be stronger than we are at present and it would not necessarily mean that the DLC would control the agenda of the Democratic Party. The point is to get in the door. Don't close yourself out, hoping that the people will eventually see the light. They will not, except under very desperate circumstances. Those we should not wish for.

[suigeneris]

34. No, I disagree

We need numbers and we need passion. What is required is to bridge our differences (not paper over them granted) in a way that allows us to move forward for the common good even though we disagree on some points that are important to us. We are powerless otherwise and merely tilting at windmills while we get run over by a Republican juggernaut that has learned how to keep diversity in its own house while we cannot.

[welshTerrier2]

38. sounds like you AGREE ...

you said we need to "bridge our differences (not paper over them granted) in a way that allows us to move forward for the common good even though we disagree on some points that are important to us." ... i completely agree as long as all views get a fair hearing ...

the goal of giving voice to our differences and debating our differences should not be destruction but rather healing ...

what is it you disagree with ???

[suigeneris]

59. It takes a lot of maturity and an

eyes-on-the-prize mentality to successfully negotitate differences and agree to disagree. Because of the likelihood of disaster I'd actaully recommend avoiding it for all but the most important divisions.

When discussing those, things like are we going to actively be for gay marriage, or can we accept pro-lifers, do we break bread with business, etc., I think such threads need a strong leader or two who will militantly keep the discussion from deteriorating into hard feelings, as they are otherwise wont to do.

[cindyw]

19. yes

[LoZoccolo]

20. It's an Internet thing; message boards attract the socially maladjusted.

You should see someone as moonbatty as the typical rabble-rouser you see here show up to an actual Democratic or progressive social event; everybody's like "...uh...". Interrupting people, acting like they know so much more than everybody else, talking about stuff people have never even heard about, trying to spread like ten points of their agenda in the short time they have there...it's a trip.

In other words, I wouldn't worry too much about what happens in the real world based on what you see here.

For one thing, for a lot of people here, whining on a message board is the only way they see of changing anything, so obviously they take it way seriously and give it all they got.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Also funny is the other message board...

...where a bunch of other people who are even abrasive by the DU scale (some tombstoned) have exiled themselves...it's freaky, like a women-in-prison movie or something! Some of them subject each other to all these degrading verbal spars trying to dominate each other and junk.

So if anybody thinks that uniting against the DLC will fix everything and THEN we can be unified...ba ha ha ha ha!

[welshTerrier2]

73. socially maladjusted?

just how familiar are you with women-in-prison movies??

[LoZoccolo]

76. I've seen two of the Pam Grier ones.

The Big Bird Cage and Women in Cages. Usually any cult film buff has seen either one of these two or Arena, which is more of a gladiator movie. They're really bad though; you'd pretty much watch them primarily for the cultural-historical value.

[Pithy Cherub]

65. Thought long and hard about the sarcasm and belittling.

It demonstrates anger a bit, but reflects more hurt from having an accepted orthodoxy suddenly jettisoned by friends without warning. DU is a community that does have real world political impact. There are the many that lurk and learn, those who respond and those who passionately engage on a point of view and those who decide where and when to give their hard earned cash.

Agreement or complicit unity is not a sign of a healthy community. The deep divisions are about philosophy. As Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living. The tacit coalition and cooperation that has existed in the Democratic Party is now gone forever. The examination of ideas and ideals is now bottom up and no longer top down. The Democratic Party had been goverened as a corporate entity with the flawed communication methods. The Democratic Party is now being rebuilt as a community cooperative. Though not a Howard Dean supporter during the primaries, I absolutely applaud his leadership in walking the talk of "For the people and By the people" as it relates to the changes in the DNC.

Those who had been in power (DLC types) exhibited a leadership entitlement philosophy that is the bane of arrogant executive committees the world over. With the speed of light and sound, it has changed. Based on what is written here more people now have a much clearer idea of what the fight is really about and how they are invested in its outcome.

Many here speak to others and share information not available through traditional means. The internet is now more powerful than any other communication tool. The previous leadership of the Democratic Party erred in focusing on traditional ways and means.

The unexamined Democratic Party is a party not worth having.

[KoKo]

83. Pithy Cherub, your post is so interesting....Thanks for this!

Quote from you:


Many here speak to others and share information not available through traditional means. The internet is now more powerful than any other communication tool. The previous leadership of the Democratic Party erred in focusing on traditional ways and means.

[KoKo]

71. Wow! it's nice to know what you "REALLY" think of us all...LoZoccolo....

Sheesh...let it all hang out.

I've run across only a couple of the kind of person that you say offends you. But, I'll bet any local Repug gathering has more "loudmouthed know it alls" than any "Progressive/Dem" event you would attend.

There are all kinds of people in this world...some are obnixious and some can get their point accross without offending anyone.

Some folks here on DU are not as serious as others but please don't take for granted that those of us who "rant" here aren't out there working our butts off. Maybe you are new to DU and don't see the history? :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

77. I didn't say all.

I've seen some really thought-out stuff here as well.

And I'm sure the Republicans have their zealots as well, sure.

I'm just trying to say that I wouldn't worry too much about division in the Democratic Party because DU as a group doesn't really reflect the Democratic Party, or even Democratic activists (I rarely see anyone from DU at real-life functions).

[KoKo]

79. It might depend on where you live, though.

There are active cells of DU'ers here in big cities...but the rest of us are spread out. And, there's such a huge age divergence with DU'ers that it's not so easy to find a network.

If you are out there on your own..and have these "loudmouth's" then maybe you could think that all of us just sit here on our duffs and do nothing but whine, post frivolity, etc.

I don't know what else to answer you except that there are many folks here who lurk, don't have a group, don't want to have one, but just come here to be "informed." And this is a great "instant stop" on the Net to get "One Stop Shopping."

Please don't judge us all as sitting here doing nothing but whining and not being active outside..

:shrug: It's up to you...but there's better here on DU if one looks at the totality from a long time "oldie DU'er's perspective" than what one would see if you only come here once in awhile and "click a link."

[wli]

23. ideological discipline

If we don't enforce some of it, e.g. valuing workers over corporations, we really don't stand for anything.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. There are Freeper Moles working here guys, starting arguments.

I am pretty sure of this, because I was following one of the trouble makers around, trying to stop the arguments by being the voice of reason, and one of these posts got posted in DummieFunnies even though it wasnt "funnie" at all and was actually pretty short and innocuous and wouldnt mean much to anyone except to the person who was trying to start arguments at DU.

So, the next time you see a post which looks like a BIG RED FLAG BEING WAVED IN FRONT OF A BULL think to yourself "Would my fellow DUers really be so tactless?". And if you think that the purpose of the post is not to start a meaningful discussion but is, instead, to incite fruitless argument, ignore it, like they do in Salon, or do like I do and post "Solidarity".

[snowbear]

46. Thank you McCamy~

:hug: ~For being a voice of reason~ :hug:

[ray of light]

50. Yep! Great post!

[kentuck]

51. Are you calling me a "Freeper Mole", McCamy ?

I'm attempting to establish a thoughtful discussion, which I think it has been, mostly speaking.

[AntiCoup2K4]

92. Actually, I believe there are 2 Freeps doing "tag team" in another thread

...even as we speak.

[NinetySix]

25. God, I posted the same sentiment and inadvertently started a flame war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1963639

I'm surprised I wasn't tombstoned for my conciliatory calls for unity.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. DU vs DLC is a real difference like Religious Right vs. Economic Right

The GOP has a lot of internal bickering about which is more important, like getting rid of social security vs. getting rid of abortion, that kind of thing. But you notice that they still pool their vote to elect officials from their party on the principle that you will get more done if you time share politicians than if you have no share in any politicians.

I looked over the thread you started. Since this is a real political divide, all a Freeper Mole would have to do to fan the fire would be to kick the thread any time it moved off the first page.

[Q]

32. Actually...I think this 'debate' has brought the party together...

...and it wouldn't take a 'mole' to be interested in kicking this thread and continuing the discussion.

Strange how you have just planted the thought that anyone who kicks this thread MUST BE a 'mole'. Great way to get people from continuing the discussion. No one wants to be accused of being a MOLE. (Besides...it's just as believable that they could be a mole for the DLC trying to chill the discussion.)

[NinetySix]

33. I don't know whether that constitutes an accusation, but

surely you understand that I'm advocating cooperation between the factions. Would a Freeper mole urge you to link arms and move forward, or begin swinging wildly with your fists at everything around you?

Internecine warfare leads solely to Pyrrhic victories.

[welshTerrier2]

42. actually, moles are hard to spot because ...

they taste like chicken ...

and the answer to your question, "Would a Freeper mole urge you to link arms and move forward, or begin swinging wildly with your fists at everything around you?" is "YES" ...

if one wanted to inflame a board like DU, what could be better than saying you are DLC and everyone should just calm down and get along ... you'd have a hundred responses in no time if you valued such a thing ...

[CWebster]

28. How come no one ever complains when they attack us?

Why doesn't anyone ever question why they put such time and effort into siding with the Right in their efforts to attack the base?

Where are the calls for unity then? Notice the underlying expectation--one that so many aren't even conscious of because they are so indoctrinated to unquestioningly accept that the calls for unity are a demand to line up behind them.

[KoKo]

84. If you mean the DLC...who doesn't complain when RW attacks the left

I couldn't agree more. That's why so many of us on the Left are angry.

And, as I keep pointing out...the Left Wing of the Dem Party is really where the "Center" used to be decades ago. So "WE" are not the problem...THEY are. :shrug:

DU does have a healthy contingent of Socialists, though. :D I don't presume to speak to them. But since RW Repugs think current "Socialists" somehow fall into some old "Cold War" group speak...it hardly matters to me. I've been driven so left that if the RW can embrace a bunch of "Rapture Enthusiasts," "Opus Dei," "Likkudists" and "Dobsonites" then falling in bed with some Socialists doesn't bother me at all.

[Catrina]

31. Well, we are a big tent

no need to bicker. The DLC is welcome to get on board with us in opposing Bush's policies anytime they wish. There's always the other party if they like the neocon agenda more.

Don't know why they chose to raise this 'why don't you all join us in supporting war, etc.' right in the middle of Bush et al getting so much negative publicity. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think it was deliberate. It sure has worked.

[marions ghost]

40. ditto

the last thing we need to be doing is pandering to the DLC in some kind of misguided attempt at party unity.

"The DLC is welcome to get on board with us..." = now that's a much stronger position.

[JNelson6563]

53. None of which occured in my real world politics

In the many counties I am involved in I didn't hear a peep on this. All those I know and am working with are focused on business in their counties and getting ready for '06, as well as CAFTA, Plame-gate etc. All I've heard was in passing and it was basically along the lines of what a bunch of losers the DLC is and how we ain't playin' their game anymore. By what I've seen across my state, they mean it. I have witnessed serious re-organizing, party building and fundraising. New candidates and potentials I have met are all progressives, think Dean's great and are ready to take it to the Rethugs.

Nevermind the pretend world of the internet, it is a bad gauge for what's going on in the real world.

Julie

[leftofthedial]

68. you ought to put that on a t-shirt

and sell it on the DU homepage

[Zinfandel]

89. Divide and Conquer! (Art Of War) and every other prognostication...

Right-wing "Think Tanks" have it down to an "Art".

Believe it!

[KoKo]

91. Kick.........

:kick: