Why pro-Iraq war (Hillary, etc) DLC Dems Will Never Win:

[gulfcoastliberal]

SNIP

"A couple of years ago, I thought the invasion of Iraq was justified," said Victor Diaz, a 30-year-old consultant in Los Angeles. "I believed the reports that stated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and figured it would only be a matter of time before they were found."

SNIP

A majority of Americans - 54 percent in the latest Gallup Poll - now say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. That's up from 46 percent who called the invasion a mistake in March.

A minority - just 34 percent in a Newsweek survey earlier this month, and 38 percent in a similar Associated Press-Ipsos survey - approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. That's down 10 percentage points since March in Newsweek's polling and down 8 points in AP's polling.

SNIP

In the gentle hills of upstate South Carolina, a deeply conservative bastion, the tradition of military service runs strong, and voters instinctively rally to support the troops. But the duration of the conflict in Iraq and the continuing casualty toll are stirring unease even there.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/12384245.htm

SNIP

These sentiments are reflected in the polling trends. When the war was a year old, in March 2004, roughly 65 percent of Americans were supporting the decision to wage it. But in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, support has sagged to 44 percent. Meanwhile, 57 percent now say the war has made the United States ``less safe from terrorism'' -- a Gallup record high and a key finding because it undercuts a core Bush argument for launching the war.

SNIP

Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, an expert on war and public opinion who teaches at Boston University, said: ``At this point, the president has nearly exhausted the extra moral authority that he was granted after 9/11. It's hard for people to accept battlefield deaths when they can't see where a war is going.''

``In comparison to World War II,'' he said, 1,846 ``deaths is obviously not huge. But in the context of Iraq, with the public having no clear sense of how the mission is going and where it will go -- that's why support is systematically eroding.

SNIP

Many have grown weary of waiting. Debby Boarman, a 58-year-old retiree from Evansville, Ind., voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but you would never know it now. During a visit Wednesday to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., she said: ``I don't think he's doing as good a job as he said he was going to do. I don't like the way he is handling Iraq -- well, he isn't handling it. . . . It's more of a lack thereof.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/12381373.htm


Hillary, the dems who want to increase troops by 100,00 and add trillions to the DOD budget just don't get it. The American people understand this war was based on deceit, lies, and now their gas costs more than ever and they want the troops home.But the "3rd way" Dems live in a parallel universe. And they will never win. Pathetic, that's what they are. Despicable. Losers. Liars. Neo-con wannabe's. And servants of the elite rather than the people. I am so sick of these so-called dems who want to back the majority of the Bush agenda. They will never win a national election acting like repukes but they're blinded by idiots like the DLC. The only reason Bill Clinton won was because of Perot's candidacy - and you know what, I think the country would be way better off if Perot had won. No NAFTA, GATT, etc to suck away our jobs and ship our factories overseas and make labor a commodity like coffee beans.

Edit for spelling & gramme.

[lojasmo]

1. I have never failed to vote for democrats

But I can say for certain that no presidential candidate who voted for the IWR, NCLB, and the patriot act will EVER AGAIN receive my vote.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Hillary I will REALLY have to think about before I pull that lever

John Kerry didn't inspire me, but I liked him. Hillary I just plain don't like.

[lojasmo]

63. For me it's not a matter of "like" or "dislike"

I won't vote for a third way democrat.

[LittleClarkie]

31. No Boxer then eh?

I'm thinking Feingold's your guy then, but I'd have to go back and see if he voted for NCLB.

[lojasmo]

62. I'm talking trifecta

One yes vote I MIGHT be able to swing.

Two will be harder.

All three is a deal killer for me.

And yeah....Feingold or Gore.

[Eloriel]

34. Don't forget bankruptcy bill -- or at least that's on MY list n/t

[Kolesar]

2. Really?

"The only reason Bill Clinton won was because of Perot's canidacy, and you know what, I think the country would be way better off if Perot had won. "

I have heard that refuted. If you feel so strongly you could do some organizing for the Reform/American-Independent party. Go look up Jesse Ventura. Start a web site or something.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. 'm saying Clinto F'd up supporting NAFTA, GATT, etc.

Please tell me how the trade deals, welfare reform, etc have made this a better country. I'm not saying Clinton was a terible or even bad president, but he made some horrible decisions that have cost us dearly. And it's a fact GWHB lost a 2nd term because of the Perot Candidacy siphoning his votes. I just wish dems like Kerry - who votd against th 1st Gulf War - voted for the IWR out of pure political expediency rather than conscience - and look where it got him. I just want dems to be true to their roots and befor the people. voting based on morals, rather than do whatever looks good. I've no interest in setting up a new party.

[Kolesar]

10. The last I heard was that this republican fantasy was refuted

It seems plausible, but it was not so..."it's a fact GWHB lost a 2nd term because of the Perot Candidacy"

[wyldwolf]

13. It's a political myth. Must we really go through it again?

The last time out, the one pushing the myth really veered into rightwing land to "support" the myth.

Perot DID NOT cause Bush the election of '92.

[gulfcoastliberal]

15. I'm not trying t be hostile or anything, but could you provide concrete

evidence to the contrary? And wha about the DLC's unwavering support for the Iraq war despite the majority of American citizens now either opposing it or not thinking it's worth it? And why it supported CAFTA despite even the house "new dem coalition" opposed it? I know we're going off on a tangent; basically, please explain to me how how the DLC represents the American people's interests rather than those of multinational corporations?

[wyldwolf]

22. I'm responding to the "Clinton-Perot-Bush" myth

And there is no concrete evidence for anything.

But pollsters, researchers, and the like have studied it and found no evidence to support the myth other than them thinking that Perot MUST have pulled votes from Bush otherwise how could Clinton have won? No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Unfortunately, alot of that comes from the left now because to discredit the DLC Clinton must also be discredited.

-------------------------

1. Perot got 19,660,450 votes

2. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988.

3. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis

4. Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier.

5. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined.

If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead?

Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. Thepartisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.

However, only a handful of states that Clinton won show such trends. Perot definitely seems to have caused Bush to lose Georgia, as the usually double-digit pro-GOP partisan index in that state cratered at +5.0 GOP in 1992. The same goes for Nevada, which relatively favored the GOP by 13.2 in 1988 and 7.5 in 1996, but only by 2.9 in 1992.

I'll grant that without Perot, Bush probably wins both states.

Looking at the chart, however, only Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and Tennessee are other possible states that Perot swung to Clinton. Still, even if Bush had won all of these states as well as Georgia and Nevada, Clinton would have won the Electoral College 315-223. Further, there is no conclusive evidence that Perot actually cost Bush any of these other six states.

Of course, like I already noted, even if I am wrong about all of these states, that means Clinton would still have won 315-223. No other state shows evidence of Perot costing Bush victory. Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election--not even close. That is one popular myth that can be put to bed.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post.

Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:”

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

We all know exit polls are imperfect. But these are the actual available data about the preferences of Perot voters. Nor was this exit poll kept secret. One day after the election, the AP sent the news far and wide.

(Headline: “Perot's Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race”):

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[gulfcoastliberal]

58. May I ask an OT question?

Is TPM blogger Josh Marshall at all related to Will Marshall? I know it's a common last name but politcs is also a small world. Thanks!

[AJH032]

26. here's the evidence

56% of Perot voters voted for Dems for governor; 18% of Perot voters voted Republican for governor; 17% voted independent.

The congressional races were split basically 50/50 (among Perot voters). The Perot vote was not as uniformly conservative as people say, so Perot didn't cost Bush the race.

And yes, Clinton was wrong on NAFTA, but his other economic policies were so good that we created 23 million new jobs during his 8 years, and people were much better off. It's a damn good thing for this country that he was president.

[gokar]

50. Yes Bill created 23 million jobs, and Hillary will do the same...

since she will basically carry on Bill's agenda and policies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I find it so very difficult to believe that these people who are

probably smarter and undoubtedly infinitely better connected could have been fooled when I never was.

THAT I find disturbing.

[GracieM]

7. Could a politician let himself be fooled

in order to watch Bush fall on his face?

I see two other possibilities:
1) They were too weak to stand up to Bush, or

2) They are as unfit for office as Bush.


I don't like the "willingly fooled" theory, but it is better than the other possibilities.

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. "Bush fall on his face" by getting our military kids killed?

I agree, your other options are much more palatable, if you could say they're even palatable at all.

[GracieM]

16. That's the problem...

none of them are palatable. Either they are fools or they accepted the deaths of our soldiers as "the price of playing the game".

You could argue that they wouldnt' have gotten reelected had they not let themselves be fooled. But to argue that means that they valued their reelection more than they valued our troops lives.

I would rather them admit to being fools or being wrong.

[eridani]

42. I think they realize that a significant % of the voting population--

--is sociopathic, and A-OK with mass murder that doesn't cost too many American lives. They were concerned that the Iraq war might very well have turned out to be easy. If it had been, a major chunk of the self-same voters who are now disturbed by casualties and no clear plan would have been perfectly happy with an imperial boot right where most of the world's remaining oil is.

[Cosmocat]

4. Look ...

First, it might be a small point, but they didn't vote for the war, they voted to give the president the power to utilize the armed forces without a congressional declaration of war ...

Taken at at face value, you can say, well, that is one and the same ...

HOWEVER, if you go back to the situation at the time, the WHOLE country was TOTALLY ramped up after 9-11, the R/Cons had COMPLETE control of the government, the media and the most of the people in this country ...

Add in that the R/Cons had gotten into power by banging the "liberals" left and right, including that they were "doves" who were not strong on national security ...

It is easy now, in hindsight, to paint the Ds who voted to give Bobo the right to use the armed forces as you just painted them, but it just is not one bit fair ...

Any D who voted against it would have had their face plasted on every paper in the country with WUSS in 25 bold font across the bottom, and would have been the top talking point for O'Reilly, Hannity and even the fringe R/Con shills for the next two years ...

The only D who could have voted against this was a D who who had just been elected AND had a BIG base to work from ...

You think the house is slanted against the Ds now ??? What would it have looked like had some of them tried to stop this thing ...

Valor is great all, and I WISH it could have been stopped, but if you are REALLY honest about it, they had themselves pinned in in a BIG way ...

[Kolesar]

6. Some people conveniently ignore what America was like 1 year after 9/11

Beast/Cheney/Card rolled out the warmongering propaganda campaign only one year after 9/11 when *bush still had high approval ratings and the news reporting was even more self-censored than it is now.

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. Did Wellstone and Feingold get labeled as "wusses"

I find it plausible Wellstone was assassinated since he could've rallied the dems to do the right thing. Maybe. Or exposed the truth as a Senator.

[Writer]

33. Bless you, Cosmocat

You speak (write) good sense.

We fail FAIL AND FAIL AND FAIL AGAIN to put the IWR vote in perspective.

[LittleClarkie]

5. After all, war on the cheap is so much better

Unlike Vietnam, neocons think they can do war on the cheap. There never were enough troops, and troops are dying as a result. There was never enough armor, and troops are dying as a result. There were never enough properly equipped humvees, and troops are dying as a result.

I think we will have to add troops just so that the ones who are there can leave in an orderly fashion. I suspect that the difference between some Dems like Kerry others like Hillary, is people like Kerry are looking at an exit plan, where I'm thinking Hillary is just supporting Bush. As is Bubba.

But I'd have to give their proposal a closer look to be sure.

My question is, and this doesn't mean I think we shouldn't get out of there, but what will happen when we leave? Civil war? A vacuum into which an extreme government will go? How fuck up will we leave Iraq when we finally do leave.

[kitsykitty]

25. That was the Powell plan from 1992

<Unlike Vietnam, neocons think they can do war on the cheap. There never were enough troops, and troops are dying as a result.>

In Defense Planning Guidance of 1992 a new military plan was set out by Colin Powell who was Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush Sr. Cheney was Secy of Defense, Wolfie was a Deputy and Libbey was an aide in Cheney's DOD. Powell devised a leaner "base force" military that was still effective with the cut backs Congress was demanding after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was effective as far as the invasion was concerned. It was Chalabi and his group who said they would be greeted with flowers and the idiots believed it so there was no plan for maintaining order to prevent the looting or to deal with an insurgency.

To me it shows racism for them to think the Iraqis wouldn't have the same reaction that we would have to being bombed, invaded and occupied. They had to have thought Iraqis don't feel the same human pain at seeing someone you love killed. Did they think the Iraqis would take the flowers from the new graves of their children, spouses, or parents to greet the troops with?

If you haven't read "Dick Cheney's Song of America" please do at this link. Their DPG of 1992 was the blueprint for the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1544.htm

[Olney Blue]

41. Hi KitsyKitty

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[gulfcoastliberal]

47. Shinseki

Got fired for speaking the truth of what it would take to occupy Iraq.

It reminds me of the way the media recently ignored when the NASA scientists/engineers who begged management 2.5 years ago to photograph the Colombia's wing damage using orbital satellites that could have provided high-res pics. If NASA management had found out about the wing being breached while in Colombia was in orbit; it would've ended the shuttle program, their ambitions, and their careers. So engineers who knew exactly what would happen during re-entry got overruled by NASA management - who decided 7 lives and a "tragic disaster" losing one orbiter were expendable and mattered less than their beloved jobs and shuttle program. A weird analogy, I know, but one in which lives were sacrificed for personal/political/financial gain.

[Totally Committed]

8. From another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2008393&mesg_id=2010961

[gulfcoastliberal]

14. Superb post- required reading

I like his emphasis on this point:

"Everybody's on the make," says Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, who led the fight against John Bolton from his blog, The Washington Note. "They're all worried about their next government job. People pull their punches or try to craft years in advance what sort of positions they're gonna be up for. The culture of Washington is very risk-averse."

Kind of explaind why the convention avoided criticizing Bush at all costs with the exception of a barb from Sen Kennedy. Dems = party of weaklings too afraid to stand up for what is right rather than risk their ambitions. Sad.

[LeftyElvis]

12. The makeover

of Hillary is sickening. She is starting to look and act like McCain.

[leetrisck]

24. There is no makeover - seems some

have always believed the rw talking points.

[leetrisck]

17. then go vote for bush

If we continue to let the republicans tell us who our candidate should and will be - we will lose - we let them tell us last time and we'll probably do it again. Some people believe all the rw tell us about Hillary Clinton.

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. Hillary's top campaign contributors:

Facts:

2006:

1 Citigroup Inc $103,950
2 Metropolitan Life $85,000
3 International Profit Assoc $80,000
4 Corning Inc $63,250
5 Cablevision Systems $53,500
6 Goldman Sachs $53,000
7 E*TRADE Financial Group $49,600
8 Monster Worldwide $36,500
9 Aetna Inc $35,000
10 Time Warner $34,350

2004:

1 Citigroup Inc $190,150
2 Goldman Sachs $137,170
3 Kushner Companies $119,000
4 Cablevision Systems $104,450
5 International Profit Assoc $86,000
6 Metropolitan Life Insurance $85,500
7 Walt Disney Co $84,850
8 Corning Inc $83,750
9 Time Warner $80,100
10 Skadden, Arps et al $71,600

Isn't Citigroup a company that's mostly Saudi-owned? Or is that a rw myth?

[wyldwolf]

23. pull the same records on any Dem.

How about Howard Dean?

Time Warner $78,736
Microsoft Corp $52,122
IBM Corp $39,335
Morgan Stanley $29,350
Citigroup Inc $26,386
Goldman Sachs $24,500
Viacom Inc $22,750
News Corp $20,650 (FOX NEWS!)


Barbra Boxer
Time Warner $58,350
Viacom Inc $35,000
Cisco Systems $24,850
Sony Corp of America $23,000
Walt Disney Co $20,250
YankeeNets $20,000
Vivendi Universal $18,749

Chuck Schumer corp donations
1 Goldman Sachs $281,590
2 Citigroup Inc $241,100
3 JP Morgan Chase & Co $158,550
4 Credit Suisse First Boston $154,794
5 Merrill Lynch $147,000
6 UBS Americas $140,500
7 Bear Stearns $140,400
8 Metropolitan Life $122,499
9 Morgan Stanley $119,500
10 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co $116,000
11 Lehman Brothers $114,500
12 Ernst & Young $105,050
13 Kasowitz, Benson et al $100,250
14 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $97,749
15 KPMG LLP $82,948
16 Paul, Weiss et al $77,000
17 Viacom Inc $74,700
18 New York Life Insurance $73,000
19 Bank of New York $72,499
20 Bank of America $70,600

[Writer]

35. No shit, Sherlock!

Good pull!

[gokar]

51. WOW .....I am shocked and somewhat disgusted that all our

politicians are corporate whores. May be that is the only
way they can get elected?

[mmonk]

20. I will oppose

any democrat that supports the neocon foreign policy just as I oppose the neocon movement in general. I will not support any democratic political opportunist who seeks the support of the people that support the neocon foreign policy. They are no different than a republican candidate. Therefore, I won't be letting down the party when I oppose such a candidate. My soul and right and wrong will always come first for me.

[mnmoderatedem]

21. Ironic isn't it?

The reason the Hillary Clintons and John Kerrys voted in favor of authorizing military action against Iraq was presidential aspirations. If they vote against, it goes something like this:

"Democratic Candidate X voted against removing Saddam. If Democratic Candidate X had his/her way, Saddam would still be in power, still pursuiing Weapons of Mass Descruction. Democratic Candidate X does not have the safety and security of Americans as a priority."

Consequently, Democratic Candidate X kisses his/her presidential aspirations, and possibly their political careers buh bye.

Now, ironically, if they had just voted their conscience, they might be looking good for 2008.

[Nimble_Idea]

27. Perot would have never won anyways

Clinton still had to enact NAFTA because we had a repug congress. People at the local level will vote god, guns and gays everytime. It's really sad to watch rich white repubs play with sheep. they don't care about jobs, and factories for manufacturing in this country.
THEY DON'T CARE. What part of that don't you get.
Third way is something we didn't try last election. We tried too hardcore left. While we may disagree with the last two sentences, the sheep would not. Win elections first and by big margins then you can control the agenda.

Until then, Dems just stay out of power and in eternal war.
You tell me if Clinton or Kerry would have gone from Afganeetown to the sandbox, and I'll vote green with you and we can sit outside of congress's Republican supermajority.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Clinton could've vetoed NAFTA but he didn't

And yes, there will always be people that will vote guns, god, and gays everytime no matter what the economic issues are. But you can bet that when the Democrats start acting like Republicans on economic issues that EVEN MORE people start voting guns, god, and gays every time because that becomes the only difference.

And yes we did try third way last time, Kerry was very much a DLC member. The news media and the Bush smear machine turned Kerry into "the most liberal senator" by skewing his voting record

[EVDebs]

28. Voted for the 'greatest page' ! eom

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Perot tipping the election to Clinton is Rush Limbaugh bullshit

Exit polls showed Perot voters split evenly between Bush, Clinton, and staying home. Even if the Perot voters had tipped slightly more to Bush than Clinton, Clinton still beat him by a comfortable margin of 5 points.

Clinton also campaigned as a populist and then disappointed everybody by the way he governed.

Let's not kid ourselves. Clinton was the best campaigner since FDR. He would've won with or without the DLC.

[LittleClarkie]

32. And then won again

Even a social worker who voted for Bush this time would have voted for him again, and her feelings for Clinton extended to Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

37. Clinton "disappointed everybody by the way he governed?"

How so?

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I should say disappointed some

In all honesty, most Americans liked and still like Bill Clinton. Welfare Reform, NAFTA/GATT, not pushing for single-payer healthcare, "don't ask don't tell", DOMA, and many other things are amongst the reasons that some were disappointed with the way that Clinton governed.

[wyldwolf]

39. nice clarification and accepted

Despite all the issues you find fault with him on (and I do on some as well), he had record job approval ratings. In addition, I'm not naive enough to believe there will ever be a politician who can be all things to all people.

[Guaranteed]

44. He did great himself,

but he lost Congress because he didn't have a serious message.

[wyldwolf]

61. Clinton didn't "lose" Congress... ANOTHER political myth

[gulfcoastliberal]

49. I admit maybe I'm wrong about the Perot factor.

But did poppy have Rove running his campaign? If so, then the Perot factor may indeed have been the tipping point. I doubt there is evidence to prove Clinton would've won without the Perot campaign or not. It's an open question, but Perot undoubtedly was the strongest (in terms of votes) 3rd party candidate in quite sometime and had some kind of effect- whether enough to elect Big Dog or GHWB is still open to debate. There's no doubt Clinton had the most articulate, intelligent way of speaking and appeal out of any of the candidates. But whether such attributes would've gotten him in the White House minus Perot and beating an incumbent, I just do not know.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Poppy fired Rove's ass for, drumroll... leaking information to Bob Novak

And there are no credible studies showing that without Perot, GHWB would've won. Most studies and polls show that Perot voters were split evenly between Clinton and Bush, which makes sense considering that Perot was a centrist pro-choice Republican.

[wyldwolf]

40. Why far left dems will never win

I. History is working against you

There have been several times since the election of 1948 that "far left" or more liberal candidates have made a run for the White House.

1948 - "Progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

1972 - "Progressive" McGovern lost in an electoral landslide.

1980 - "Progressive" Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention and did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

II. "Progressives" either lack the knowledge or desire to organize or run an effective National campaign.

The above are just examples. Dennis Kucinich is another who comes to mind more recently.

The far left bemoans the DLC yet they can't seem to figure out how to effectively counter them.

Organizations like Moveon.org are in a world by themselves. A Rolling Stone article asked:

"So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party."

Moveon isn't even sure of their place. They claimed to have taken the party "back" in 2004 when they said, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.” But they later recanted that claim a few months after they made it by saying, "We’re not the party... we are going to take positions on issues... before we acknowledge any sort of notion of Democratic fealty."

III. "Progressives" are out of touch with rank and file Democrats in regards to the direction of the party, ethnic background, and economic class.

A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course.

A Pew research survey on Howard Dean supporters in the primaries found that progressive activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.

IV. "Progressives" have two "enemies" to overcome - the moderates who stand in the way of their glorious progressive revolution AND the Republican party.

Two hurdles.

V. "Progressives" have to try to discredit other Democrats to make their message stand out.

In their loathing of the DLC and other moderate/centrist Democrats, "progressives" often (and often unwittingly) trash the policies and records of other popular Democratic icons. This takes the form of repeating rightwing myths about Bill Clinton (Perot gave Clinton the presidency), as well as criticizing the national defense and social policies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton.

They also resort to outright fabrications. Witness how Matt Yglesias and Greg Wythe both dismantle David Sirota's piece on "Centrism."

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

VI. It's difficult to follow the reasoning many "progressives" display when discussing elections.

Monday: We lost the election because of the DLC!
Friday: We lost the election because of voting machines!

uh....

VII. Progressives believe that there is some invisible, natural majority for their ideas that will simply appear like genies when they say the magic words.

The eternal slacking 2%ers fear they'll actually have to work to win political influence!

Notice how the anti-DLC hysteria has reached epic proportions here - even by DU standards?

I mean, just earlier this year people on DU were declaring The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004. Whatever, Nothingburger, De Nada, Yawn, Zen Zen...

But something seems to have happened on the way to the fringe left's "McGovern's Revenge" party and it has the 2%'ers really fired up! The DLC's relevance and influence in 2005 has been severely understated. And all it took was one little meeting of the DLC to get the neoleft McGovernites pouring out of their anthill. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore... again!

The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004? Why, Five of the top seven Democratic choices for the nominee in 2008 are DLC. Rounding out the top seven is one guy often "accused" by the left of being DLC and another guy often accused by the left of being a Republican (and who got one of his major campaign 2004 platforms from the DLC.)

Not to mention another DLCer not on the public's radar yet but getting globs or press as a potential Presidential candidate.

How could one "little" meeting, attended by more than 300 state and local elected officials from more than forty states, create such a brouhaha on far left?

Was it Hillary Clinton, who squarely accused Republicans of trying to return the country to the policies and political practices of the 19th century, calling for party unity? How dare she!

Was it Evan Bayh, generally considered a national security hawk, offering a blistering critique of the administration's handling of the war on terror, concluding: "That's not strength, that's incompetence."? How so very Republican of him to even speak about terrorism just a few weeks after the London bombings!

Maybe it was Mark Warner who scorned the Bush administration for choosing to intervene in the medical decisions of the Schiavo family while choosing to do nothing about the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

No, it wasn't really any of that. It's the fact that once again, the DLC is out-organizing the far left of the party and already fielding candidates for local, state, and national races.

Cry. Pout. Stomp your feet. Wag your fingers and shake your fists! Declare, "I'm not going to vote for ________________ ever!!!"

[Guaranteed]

43. The DLC has lost.

They suck.

Luckily for you, you're also right. The far left can't win anything, either.

LET'S FIND SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE!

How about spines and fucking common sense???

[Writer]

48. To have spines...

one first must have common sense!

We need leftists AND centrists to take back the White House!

[gulfcoastliberal]

53. Yes! I don't mean run on a platform of legalizinfpot, but one of scathing

criticism of the lies leading us into war, the untold billions going into Halliburton/KBR/Bechtel coffers as Iraqi unemployment soars is something the dems need to bring up. As well as the tax uts during wartime, and the lossof civil liberties. Hardly "far-left fringe" issues. They need to be talked and debated openly; whether the bloodtoll and if the financial and technical strain on our military by being in Iraq is worth it. Is Iraq better off today? Who sold them their weapons in the first place?

[Guaranteed]

54. YES YES YES.

yes and YES.

[eridani]

46. We'll probably have to watch you destroy the country first

How many more jobs to you think you can export and still even have a middle class interested enough in the public sphere to bother with voting?

The major problem with left Dems has been a refusal for 30 years to do the gruntwork of getting street cred holding local and state office. One major exception is Bernie Sanders.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105P.shtml

There is nothing cautious about Sanders's politics: He opposes the war in Iraq, he is an outspoken critic of the Patriot Act, he condemns corporations and he maintains a lonely faith that government really can do a lot of things - like guarantee healthcare for all - better than the private sector. Nor is there anything smooth or prepackaged or focus-group tested about the way he communicates. After almost thirty-five years of close to constant campaigning, first as the gadfly candidate of the left-wing Liberty Union Party for senator and governor in the 1970s, then as the radical mayor of "The People's Republic of Burlington" in the 1980s and, since 1990, as the only independent in modern history to repeatedly win a US House seat, Sanders has forged relationships with generations of Vermont voters, many of whom echo the sentiments of Warren attorney Mark Grosby, who says, "I used to be a diehard Republican. Now, I'm a diehard for Bernie."

And, invariably, the connection was forged in a conversation about economics. To a greater extent, arguably, than any other progressive politician in the country, Sanders is identified with pocketbook issues. Spending a day with him in the small towns of Vermont is the equivalent of signing up for a walking seminar on the real-life struggles of working Americans - as played out on issues ranging from protecting Social Security, retirement plans and Medicare to expanding access to healthcare, lowering drug prices, raising the minimum wage, helping small businesses get started and keeping family farmers on the land. The conversations are a mix of personal anecdotes and broad-sweep policies, always pulled back by the Congressman to a discussion of the perils of corporate power and lobbying. To be sure, Sanders takes questions about the war in Iraq and other issues, but the breadth and depth of the discussions he gets into regarding the kitchen-table concerns of working Vermonters is remarkable.

Note the bolded sentence--way too few lefties have buckled down an done that. Note that he began to really succeed when he shitcanned the third party stuff and went for the AA league office of mayor, instead of insisting on continuing to run for major league offices like senator.

[gulfcoastliberal]

55. Don't forget Henry Waxman, Cynthia McKinney & John Conyers

All true democrats, representing the people and fighting the good fight against these evil times, institutions, and policies - as far as their limited resources allow.

Edited to include Conyers.

[eridani]

59. Those are all very good people, but Bernie Sanders--

--is a socialist ferchrissakes, and he isn't shy about saying so. This is about as far left as you get in this country, and he has a huge following based on his street cred as a long-term officeholder. The fact that he belongs to no socialist party speaks volumes about what socialist parties have devolved into. That's always been a problem--recall the Gene Debs put-down of Milwaukee's mayors as "sewer socialists," more interested in cleaning the streets than marching on them. Would that more lefties in the last century had tried to emulate the sewer socialists.

[gulfcoastliberal]

60. Thank you for the info on him. I had no idea!!!

He sounds like the cure this nation on life-support needs!

Again, thank you for the info.

[radio4progressives]

45. The DLC must NOT go unchallenged... in fact it is imperative that

grassroots progressives, registered dems, greens and independents find a candidate completely outside of the washington beltway, that speaks the simple truth - and have what it takes to fight the good fight all the way to the white house.

absolutely imperative that none of the DLC contenders be allowed to hijack the grassroot candidate's platform only to abandon it later once the gig was in the bag, like Kerry did.

It just cannot be allowed to happen.

[gokar]

52. Easier said than done, my friend!

$$$ is the mothers milk for geting elected, and DLC has
more of it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

56. Yes, their power is great... $$$$

Reminds me of the way MGMs $ defeated Eugene Debs.

[Moderator]

64. Lock

divisive and inflammatory