Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chihuahuas at our ankles (yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:13 PM
Original message
Chihuahuas at our ankles (yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!)
Perhaps some of you have heard about the big Democratic pow wow in Hilton Head just before New Years Eve. It was attended by a few hundred elected Democrats, staffers, strategist, activists, and tag alongs. There were discussion panels on any number of political, cultural, and religious subjects and more than one so-called "Democratic Rising Star."

You did hear about it, right?

One such "star" gave a stirring extemporaneous speech on the future of the Democratic party. His name wasn't familiar to many at the time, but his speech hit a home run.

A heated discussion followed about the "fate" of the "leaderless" Democratic party. In the middle of the free-for-all, another unfamiliar face spoke up. She spoke deliberately and pointedly but with great logic. She reasoned that a party out of power is a party with hands tied. But she, along with the speaker before her, oozed a shining confidence that the party was not dead, even after nearly eight years of the GOP controlling the white house and the Senate. She echoed the first speaker's assurance that the Democratic party would rise again.

Was this some Democracy For America meet-up? Some regional convention for elected officials?

No.

It was a DNC event in the winter of 1987. The first speaker? William Jefferson Clinton. The second was, of course, Hillary.

They made good on their promise, too. Despite the yipping and yapping of the left about spinless and leaderless Dems and third party threats, the next year the Democratic party reclaimed the US Senate. And though George H.W. Bush won the next year's presidential race on Reagan's popularity, he was trounced four years later, even with a viable third party candidate, by Bill Clinton.

Of course, 1987 wasn't the first time the left had declared the Democratic party dead or useless. Similar winters of discontent happened during FDR's time. Surprisingly, Republicans gained 81 House seats in 1938. Again In the mid-term election of 1942, the Democrats lost 44 seats in the House of Representatives. And Harry Truman was blamed for losing Congress in 1946.

Harry Truman! Now THERE was a Democrat! I strongly suggest that you read up on him. Here was a guy abandoned by the far left of the party (who backed third party candidate Henry Wallace) for reasons that would have many on Democratic Underground screaming "Truman was DLC!!" And he was essentially declared political dead meat by the rest of the party.

But he came roaring back to win the presidency in 1948. One of my favorite stories about Truman involves the night of the election in question. As his Republican opponent dined on roasted duck and braised apples in an posh Upper Manhatten apartment, Truman checked himself into a hotel outside Independence, Missouri, had a ham sandwich and a glass of buttermilk, and went to bed.

"The greatest achievement," he wrote in his memoirs, "was winning without the extreme radicals in the party... I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the extreme left-wing or the southern bloc."

There are similar events surrounding John Kennedy, who purposely distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party, and LBJ, Carter, and Clinton.

Point is, when the Democrats are out of power (and it goes in cycles), we can't expect to have our way. Not even some of the time. Senators who don't vote our way are called "traitors" by the reactionary elements among us but they never consider that Senators represent their wants and needs of their states and they are beholden to the political winds that blow there. And when the leftwing of the party begins their predictable and tired "third party threats" and starts chanting "purge," just take it in stride. We've been there and done that. Over and over.

I didn't want to see Alito confirmed. And I do get a bit upset when our own don't vote the way I'd like them to.

But I know the tied will turn in our favor soon. It always does.

I would never advocate a "purge" of the 2% of the "Democrats" who always call for purges and speak of "dinos" and "spineless Dems."

But I almost wish you WOULD all go third party. Get that big 2%!!

With the independent vote breaking our way, and the American people growing more and more disgusted at thr Bushies, I think the Democratic party will win in a big way with or without you very soon.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverevergivein Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i seriously need to get that avatar
where do i do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Right click on the image
click copy image location. Next go to edit profile and paste in avatar image section, don't forget to save changes to profile.
That should do it. Hope it works for you neverevergivein!

And welcome to DU!

In peace and hope,
V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. What a fantastic post!
Thank you so much for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
41. Just as fantastic as Bush's upcoming SOTUS speech!
And the aliens come in peace and "To Serve Man" is not a cookbook.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. You need to read Gore's last speech.
He plainly lays out the case why the "pendulum" may not swing back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. We need a link, please. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
86. Happy to oblige:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #86
99. Wonderful, thank you very much. BTW whatever happened to that guy
that ran for President in 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sure, keep attacking the commited base of the party.
Your screed runs like a freeper rant. The fact is DLC has been poison for the Democrats. We continue to lose as our candidates tack right. Clinton was an aberration--and his win against Bush was probably made possible by Perot.

If you sit and wait for the "tied" to turn, well, you are going to be sitting for a long, long time.

After the Goldwater debacle, the right did exactly what we on the left are asking the Democrats to do. Find your core beliefs and stick up for them at all costs. Eventually the public gets the message that you actually stand for something other than elections. Then the Democratic party will reclaim it's majority status, but not until that time. We might win a few elections here and there because the Repugs screw things up so consistently. But, that isn't bringing a lot of dedicated new people to our party. Republican lite will never do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. once again, that unsubstantiated claim
The fact is DLC has been poison for the Democrats. We continue to lose as our candidates tack right. Clinton was an aberration--and his win against Bush was probably made possible by Perot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. You doubt that the DLC has catered to corporate interests a bit too much?
:shrug: I am not one to paint the DLC as all-evil. However, they have compromised too damn much IMHO and their willingness to compromise to the degree of sacrificing the people's interest have been not only detrimental to US but also led to LOST elections. If they would create an agenda that advances ALL our interests and FIGHT for that, they'd be doing something different, something that may very well capture the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. was that subject mentioned in the post in question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It is certainly relevant to the post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Which claim is unsubstantiated?
We lost the 2002 cycle when virtually every Senate Democrat was voting with Bush on the IWR. Guys like Cleland got creamed anyway. What has this party gained since the DLC came into being? We don't control the house, the senate, the white house, the courts, the statehouses. We've gone from a majority party to a Vichy party because of the DLC and their kind. The party is split and not unified-we lack a unified theme/program. DLC is a big part of that problem. They are the Zell Miller Democrats.

Clinton won in 1992 with a plurality, not a majority. We'll never know how the Perot vote would have broken down without him in the race. Perot's hammering Bush certainly didn't hurt Clinton's chances. Note I said "probably" because we'll never know. Clinton's victory did not return us to majority party status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. the entire quoted part
And by the way - When Clinton won in '92, we were the majority party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
47. ah, assert that the other guy's claim is unsubstantiated
So, where is the evidence to back up YOUR claim that the DLC has
not been a total disaster for the Democratic Party. Here are three
examples to counter wyldwolf's two strawmen:

Exhibit 1: Joe F-ing Lieberman. (best remembered for immediately capitulating on the 2000 election)
Exhibit 2: Joe F-ing Biden (enabler of three rotten SC justices)
Exhibit 3: Al From, the zero former head of the DNC

The DLC is a bunch of corrupt insiders and no amount of smearing its
opponents can cover up its negative impact on the Democratic Party.

arendt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
114. Meanwhile, being lectured on how to win elections
by the Dennis Kucinich bandwagon is like being lectured on theatre etiquette by PeeWee Herman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. commited base of the party? Right
hey, define this mythical base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. They're the ones who squeal the loudest and work the least.
At least that's been my experience with them in the local party. They show up at meetings, yell at the rest of us and then are too busy to leaflet houses or register voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Oh G*d! Absolutely!!
It's all about screaming. But working? Canvassing? Phone banking? Tabling? Forget it.

I've done the far left in my party more favors than I can count, had over a dozen letters to the editor published, manned booths, registered voters, and these cretins come in and do everything they can to damage the party they claim to be the one-and-only true representative of.

As far as I'm concerned, if all you ever do is encourage people to vote Green and work on spoiler candidates, you have no right to be considered a member of the Democratic party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. *LOL* whew brother have I witnessed that!!!
None of us liked it. But, we were committed to defeating our dictatorship, first. Then, we could pull up the weeds.

I dunno'. Maybe, we're gonna have to find a way to do both, somehow. We just CAN'T do anything else that ends up empowering the right-wing freaks. We just,...can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
55. How much work did you put in this Alito thngy? or it wasn't inportant
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 06:18 PM by robbedvoter
enough for your strategery I take it. Ya know, that brilliant "just win" plan...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #55
75. My Democratic Senator voted against cloture
...and if you think Senators from other states care one whit what you think, you're sadly mistaken.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #75
110. Mine too - but did you ask? Or texaslftist - whom I asked
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 08:24 PM by robbedvoter
You know, all you hard working people that were AWOL from here the past few days biut now are full of beans and "I told you so"s - including delusions that you're the only ones doing any work....Did you call? Any of you, ptomoting this thread - did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
90. They actually show up at your meetings??
Here they just sit at home, posting another rant on the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
87. Committed base?
When all they do is complain, tear down, attack and try to silence? There's no tolerance for a different opinion and they don't put forth any ideas of their own, never offer alternatives.

This "committed base" reminds me of the "moral majority" - in that it's neither!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ahhh my goodness from the flames of insanity come words of wisdom
THANK YOU DEAR SIR!!!!

THANK YOU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. Great post...and right to the point!
Thanks for that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. The majority of us, here, are NOT "far left" or "leftist extremists".
I can say that with great confidence having been here for awhile.

I can say that with confidence because MOST of the posters' express cogent, fact-based, rational opinions and/or reactions. Extremists CAN'T do that.

I like your post with the exception of the implication that we're a buncha' leftist extremists 'cause we are NOT that. On the contrary, in my judgment 85% PLUS are a combination of realistic idealists.

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I agree with you, Just Me.
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 05:47 PM by Pirate Smile
I like most of the post (I recommended it) except the part you mention.

Any implication that all DU'ers are either extreme leftists or Dem apologists, isn't true. Many of us are somewhere in the middle with our own pet issues and pet peeves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
91. IMO, the 2% applies to DU as well.
Unfortunately it's a loud 2% that likes to start arguments, but it's still just 2%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yes, keep pushing the DP further and fuhrer to the reich
It will indeed be a Winning Position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. "Let's just win" - yeah, that's the ticket.
I bet you think Obama is that rising star - because after all, MSM sez so.....
There's no more stars for this party - not in a long time. The junta is here to stay - past the time all your "stars" go nova.
Sorry to spoil your ra-ra-rah - but it's all deja vue for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wixomblues Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. "Let's just win" is my slogan.
Thank you. Copyright pending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Amazing that you claim responsibility for it!
Can I use it instead of "moran"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
93. So, you'd rather lose? There's 2 choices: win or lose. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. "Let's just win"
That's actually a pretty good slogan.

Let's just win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. "let's just sprout wings and fly south" - another good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. You prefer booo hooo boo hoo?
'Cause that's what I'm hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. You're hearing nothing. You are unable to assess the situation and
are simply calling names for those who do.
No effect on me - I already lived through a dictatorship and know what's ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
70. Obama voted against cloture
25 patriots:
Kerry-MA
Kennedy-MA
Feingold-WI
Durbin-IL
Obama-IL
Schumer-NY
Clinton-NY
Dayton-MN
Reid-NV
Reed-RI
Boxer-CA
Feinstein-CA
Biden-DE
Lautenburg-NJ
Menendez-NJ
Bayh-IN
Sarbenes-MD
Murkowski-MD
Stabenow-MI
Levin-MI
Wyden-OR
Jeffords-VT
Leahy-VT
Murray-WA
Dodd-CT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. Nice try
How many elections have you DLC'ers won lately?

Tim Kaine, and um err
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. well, gosh Steve
How many elections have the far left ever won?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. So, I take it that your motivation was to classify us ALL "far left".
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 06:19 PM by Just Me
That's what I suspected. I appreciate you validating my suspicion.

Edited to add another appropriate response:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #40
57. The founding of the nation and the elections of 1860, 64, 1932, 36, 40,44
IOW not nearly enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #57
80. those don't fit the bill
Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. says you. The revolutionary war was and still is the most radical
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 07:17 PM by greyhound1966
political action in history. The elections of the depression were also inspired by, and the themes taken from, Huey Long, a radical by any definition. Had FDR not adopted these positions the United States would have gone communist. You can't get much more left than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #85
128. That Is Far From True, Sir
The American Revolution was not much more than a factional dispute among propertied aristicracy. Some, such as Mr. Paine, certainly attempted to make it more, but could not carry the day. To claim it was a more radical action than, say, the French Revolution shortly afterwars, or the revoluitions wrought by Lenin and Mao in the last cebtury, to name just several obviosu examples, is an exercise in futility.

The Kingfish is a long favorite of mine, and certainly was a radical sort, but whether he would qualify as a far left radical is a fine subject for debate. He would certainly have quarreled with such a designation.

It is certainly true the United States circa 1932-1933 was near to the opening stages of a revolutionary state, but it certainly cannot be stated with any confidence had matters continued on those lines it would have experienced a Communist revolution. Much more likely, it seems to me, would have been some form of syndicalism, or a strong-man along the lines of Peron or de la Rivera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
97. Why do you frame the argument this way?
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would say exactly the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Apparently, we are ALL leftist extremists in his view.
Good grief!!! Wouldn't ya' like to know what he's REALLY about? I would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
65. Well lets see....
The 1992, 1996, 2000 Presidential races come to mind...and if you subscribe to the theory that 2004 was stolen as well that would make 4 in a row!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nice Post. Excellent analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Flamebait post. Strawmen, false analogies, and smears. Typical
I love how all sides in today's politics have adopted the tactic:

1. make an outrageous, counterfactual assertion
2. support it with an anomalous (or even an unrelated) factoid
3. claim victory in a debate.
4. smear your opponents as losers and whiners.

Lather rinse repeat.

Your mileage may vary, depending on how belligerent you are.

wyldwolf's post serves only to keep the pot boiling. It offers no
solutions, just new epithets.

Get a life.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. do us a favor
take each of the points (1, 2, 3, 4) and associate them to my post line for line.

That should get the discussion going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #44
62. Please, please do NOT speak on my behalf. The RWers do that,...
,...all the damn time and it makes me mad as hell. I'm not saying you are a RWer,...just asking you to AVOID speaking like you are speaking FOR me,...ESPECIALLY on a thread where there are CLEARLY different interpretations/opinions/views of your OP.

Thanking you in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #44
64. Fine. You owe me a favor. Eat hearty.
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 06:35 PM by arendt
As you requested.

Chihuahuas at our ankles (yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!) FLAMEBAIT

Perhaps some of you have heard about the big Democratic pow wow in Hilton Head just before New Years Eve. It was attended by a few hundred elected Democrats, staffers, strategist, activists, and tag alongs. There were discussion panels on any number of political, cultural, and religious subjects and more than one so-called "Democratic Rising Star."

You did hear about it, right?

One such "star" gave a stirring extemporaneous speech on the future of the Democratic party. His name wasn't familiar to many at the time, but his speech hit a home run.

A heated discussion followed about the "fate" of the "leaderless" Democratic party. In the middle of the free-for-all, another unfamiliar face spoke up. She spoke deliberately and pointedly but with great logic. She reasoned that a party out of power is a party with hands tied. But she, along with the speaker before her, oozed a shining confidence that the party was not dead, even after nearly eight years of the GOP controlling the white house and the Senate. She echoed the first speaker's assurance that the Democratic party would rise again.

Was this some Democracy For America meet-up? Some regional convention for elected officials?

No.

It was a DNC event in the winter of 1987. The first speaker? William Jefferson Clinton. The second was, of course, Hillary.

They made good on their promise, too. Despite the yipping and yapping of the left SMEAR about spinless and leaderless Dems and third party threats, the next year the Democratic party reclaimed the US Senate. And though George H.W. Bush won the next year's presidential race on Reagan's popularity, he was trounced four years later, even with a viable third party candidate, by Bill Clinton. STRAWMAN - "this dog won't hunt", to quote Ross. Everyone else would argue that it was the third
party candidate that *allowed* Clinton to win. 3rd parties hurt those ideologically closest. In this case, Perot
drew voters from Bush, not from the Dems.


Of course, 1987 wasn't the first time the left had declared the Democratic party dead or useless. Similar winters of discontent happened during FDR's time. Surprisingly, Republicans gained 81 House seats in 1938. Again In the mid-term election of 1942, the Democrats lost 44 seats in the House of Representatives. And Harry Truman was blamed for losing Congress in 1946.

Harry Truman! Now THERE was a Democrat! I strongly suggest that you read up on him. Here was a guy abandoned by the far left of the party (who backed third party candidate Henry Wallace) for reasons that would have many on Democratic Underground screaming "Truman was DLC!!" And he was essentially declared political dead meat by the rest of the party. FALSE ANALOGY or SMEAR, take your pick - Wallace was a looney tune.

But he came roaring back to win the presidency in 1948. One of my favorite stories about Truman involves the night of the election in question. As his Republican opponent dined on roasted duck and braised apples in an posh Upper Manhatten apartment, Truman checked himself into a hotel outside Independence, Missouri, had a ham sandwich and a glass of buttermilk, and went to bed. STRAWMAN - and this particular incident is supposed to relate to today
exactly how? A successful candidate should be eating a Big Mac, like Bill? I don't get your point, but you expect
me to be impressed.


"The greatest achievement," he wrote in his memoirs, "was winning without the extreme radicals in the party... I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the extreme left-wing or the southern bloc."
FALSE ANALOGY - anyone elected by the DLC depends upon the anti-populist corporate wing of the party. The DLC
is not as centrist as you make it out to be.


There are similar events surrounding John Kennedy, who purposely distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party, and LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. FLAMEBAIT - name them, or your just wrapping yourself in his corpse.

Point is, when the Democrats are out of power (and it goes in cycles), we can't expect to have our way. Not even some of the time. Senators who don't vote our way are called "traitors" by the reactionary elements among us but they never consider that Senators represent their wants and needs of their states and they are beholden to the political winds that blow there. And when the leftwing of the party begins their predictable and tired "third party threats" and starts chanting "purge," just take it in stride. We've been there and done that. Over and over.

I didn't want to see Alito confirmed. And I do get a bit upset when our own don't vote the way I'd like them to.

But I know the tied will turn in our favor soon. It always does. Oh, and POLYANNAISM - I forgot the happy talk
that the DLC spouts even as we get deeper and deeper into the jungle


I would never advocate a "purge" of the 2% of the "Democrats" who always call for purges and speak of "dinos" and "spineless Dems." STRAWMAN - and neither would I. So, its a phony argument.

But I almost wish you WOULD all go third party. Get that big 2%!! SMEAR - I didn't vote for Nader, I don't want
to go third party. I want my party back from being a corporate whore. You imply that I am a Naderite, and I should
clear out. Sorry. I campaigned for Dean.


With the independent vote breaking our way STRAWMAN and POLLYANNAISM - I'll believe it when it happens and it isn't fucking stolen, and the American people growing more and more disgusted at thr Bushies, I think the Democratic party will win in a big way with or without you very soon.

---------

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #64
79. yum yum
Chihuahuas at our ankles (yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!) FLAMEBAIT

An analogy. :)

Harry Truman! Now THERE was a Democrat! I strongly suggest that you read up on him. Here was a guy abandoned by the far left of the party (who backed third party candidate Henry Wallace) for reasons that would have many on Democratic Underground screaming "Truman was DLC!!" And he was essentially declared political dead meat by the rest of the party. FALSE ANALOGY or SMEAR, take your pick - Wallace was a looney tune.

Where is the false analogy or smear? The far left DID abandom Truman. It's a fact. Truman's record would have many on DU accusing him of being DLC. He was very hawkish. Korea was much like Iraq. He threatended to draft striking workers into the army if they didn't end their strike. He spoke of communism in the same way people speak of terrorism today.

But he came roaring back to win the presidency in 1948. One of my favorite stories about Truman involves the night of the election in question. As his Republican opponent dined on roasted duck and braised apples in an posh Upper Manhatten apartment, Truman checked himself into a hotel outside Independence, Missouri, had a ham sandwich and a glass of buttermilk, and went to bed. STRAWMAN - and this particular incident is supposed to relate to today
exactly how? A successful candidate should be eating a Big Mac, like Bill? I don't get your point, but you expect
me to be impressed.


1. Strawman: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

So how was that a strawman?

2. I don't give a rat's ass if you're impressed.

"The greatest achievement," he wrote in his memoirs, "was winning without the extreme radicals in the party... I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the extreme left-wing or the southern bloc."
FALSE ANALOGY - anyone elected by the DLC depends upon the anti-populist corporate wing of the party. The DLC
is not as centrist as you make it out to be.


Seems the "anti-populist corporate wing" of the party is not only the only ones who can get their guy to the dance, but also the only ones who can get them elected.

There are similar events surrounding John Kennedy, who purposely distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party, and LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. FLAMEBAIT - name them, or your just wrapping yourself in his corpse.

Sure, but I'll be brief:

Carter was at war with liberals in the party for his desire to cut the federal budget. After four years in office, he faced a challenge from liberal Ted Kennedy that extended to the convention floor over Carter's polices that Kennedy described as "conservative."

Kennedy himself faced abandonment from the left when the leftwing of the party insisted that Adlai Stevenson get the nomination in 1960.

When Kennedy offered the VP office to Johnson, the ADA threatened to withhold their endorsment.

Clinton? The left attacks him to this day.

I would never advocate a "purge" of the 2% of the "Democrats" who always call for purges and speak of "dinos" and "spineless Dems." STRAWMAN - and neither would I. So, its a phony argument.

This is the second time you've indicated that you think this post was directed at you personally. So, again, where is the strawman here and "purges" of the dreaded DLC are discussed on DU pretty often.

Like here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2421593&mesg_id=2421593

But I almost wish you WOULD all go third party. Get that big 2%!! SMEAR - I didn't vote for Nader, I don't want
to go third party. I want my party back from being a corporate whore. You imply that I am a Naderite, and I should
clear out. Sorry. I campaigned for Dean.


Third time you've indicated a belief this thread was directed at you personally. It wasn't. So where is the smear?









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #79
117. Nothing personal about blanket smears. Fine - enjoy the GOP pissing on you
> Third time you've indicated a belief this thread was directed at you personally. It wasn't. So where is the smear?

Is that like when Limbaugh says "folks, its just comedy."?

Do you think you can walk into a black neighborhood and shout nigger and then excuse yourself by saying
it was nothing personal?

Provocateur.

Your flamebait is not only a waste of time, but it adds to the divisiveness here.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. is somone's feelings hurt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. Nice to see a logical post once in awhile
It gets tiresome seeing the other side of this argument constantly, repeated ad nauseum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Logical - no. Polemical - yes.
Tell me how Harry Truman, with a Democratic Congress, a full treasury,
and free speech as yet unstifled by McCarthyism compares to today's sellout
rightwing Democrats. Sixty years ago was a different universe. The comparison
is apples and oranges. Politics was still back in smoke-filled rooms.

Tell me what Bill Clinton accomplished politically, other than surviving
and serving his corporate masters well. Let's see: NAFTA, check. GATT, check.
End welfare, check. Screw up health insurance, check. Lose the Congressional
majorities, check. He won first term because of Perot, who spent $60 Million just to
screw George Bush Sr. He won second term because Dole was the worst candidate
the GOP had run since Gerald Ford. So, you can say that Clinton was LUCKY
(and very well bankrolled).

The only things I give Clinton credit for are surviving and balancing the
budget. Not that balancing the budget was a small thing. It was a great thing.
But he did it for Wall Street, not for you and me. And he was, again, LUCKY. The
Internet boom happened on his watch.

The only successful GOP candidate or initiative was getting Clinton elected. And,
for four years of Zippergate, followed by his current love fest with Bush Sr, I
am supposed to swoon with gratitude? I think not.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
52. uh... hmmm...
Tell me how Harry Truman, with a Democratic Congress, a full treasury,
and free speech as yet unstifled by McCarthyism compares to today's sellout
rightwing Democrats.


Truman had a Republican congress. :)

Tell me what Bill Clinton accomplished politically, other than surviving
and serving his corporate masters well


The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

He won second term because Dole was the worst candidate
the GOP had run since Gerald Ford.


And a high approval rating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #52
72. Fun to play. Play again?
Tell me how Harry Truman, with a Democratic Congress, a full treasury,
and free speech as yet unstifled by McCarthyism compares to today's sellout
rightwing Democrats.

Truman had a Republican congress. You got me on that point. Want to
talk about the others?


Tell me what Bill Clinton accomplished politically, other than surviving
and serving his corporate masters well

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.
Yeah, but the last three years were a bubble. Dot-com bubble, real-estate bubble. Also, oil prices were at
unrealistically low levels, for which you might want to thank GHWB and the first Gulf War. When you subtract out
the bubble and the free oil, the economy was very focussed on tech.


21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. as the joke of the time went: There
are 10 million new jobs, and I have six of them. They weren't all great jobs. In fact most of them were pretty
low wage. I remember being shocked at college grads taking jobs working in Enterprise rental mini-offices.


Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades. see above on stock market bubbles and cheap oil

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.as James Kunstler says in "The Long Emergency", the economy has been
restructured around the only thing we can do - build and fix homes. They sent all the manufacturing overseas,
and all we have are shitty service jobs. Homeownership and construction jobs are "making a precarious living by
taking in each other's laundry", especially when the hammers and nails are made in China.


Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998. see the
bubble and the cheap oil


Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993. a good thing. no complaints on that. It doesn't cost much. You just have to be a non-GOP bastard
to see that kids deserve a fair shake.


Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs. same as last comment

Increased the Minimum Wage. good. gutsy. Got away with doing it only once because no inflation - see bubble, oil

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965. again, kids - no argument

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans. be precise

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands. showboating which was immediately cancelled
by Bush


He won second term because Dole was the worst candidate
the GOP had run since Gerald Ford.

And a high approval rating.Gentleman Jimmy Walker had a high approval rating. That didn't help NYC get
thru the Great Depression any better.


----

Fun to play. Play again?

arendt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. uh.. so?
Every "point" you've just made are ones I've heard Limbaugh make.

He doesn't provide any evidence either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
116. Great racket. Demand I produce facts. Then smear me.
Since you brought up Limbaugh, its fair to say that you play the game
the way he does - dirty.

I didn't challenge your credibility. I answered you. OTOH, you attacked me
personally. You didn't answer me, other than to say "drop dead".

I could make exactly the same mirror image accusations and denunciations you do.
But you seem to get off on trying to browbeat other people; and I have positive
things to do.

Glad I took the time to find out who you are. You are a nasty piece of work.

I'm not wasting any more time talking to someone that is convinced that everyone
who isn't impressed with Clinton is somehow a fascist.

goodbye,

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. ah, the "game."
Play the victim when someone asks for something beyond your word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
29. Heartily recommended...
And oh so true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Mega dittoes - dude n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Take a look in the mirror...
These anti-DLC, anti-Hillary posts that we are treated to dozens of times a night, contain virtually nothing but halleluiahs from 90% of the respondants, but the 10% of us who disagree are the mega dittoes....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. So. this is a retailation thread then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. A little sanity is all...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
53. I don't write Clinton bashing posts. I do respond to generic bashing...
of party activists under the guise of "defending" Clinton
and or the DLC.

In my personal case, I feel attacked by the broad smear that
started this thread. I have not been a Clinton basher. I
have stated facts about the DLC when the occasion arose.

What has Hilary done lately except test the waters for moving
even farther to the right? (The filibuster vote was required
cover for anyone who wants to run for President on the Dem
ticket.)

It is not the percentage that makes you a mega-ditto. It is
the repetition without any additional useful input. Say something
intelligent other than "way to go" or "yeah", and I wouldn't have
wished you m-d's.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. Considering your response consisted of a title...
And nothing else, I had little to go on as to your feelings on the matter. The fact is, the vast majority of the "bashing" that goes on is directed at DLC members and Hillary Clinton in particular. With constant references to her as a "whore," "Hitlery," "Shillery" and other names that thankfully are deleted fairly quickly by the mods. This is usually followed by some call for a purge of the party of varying degrees, and has now evolved into the term "Vichy" Democrat that I frankly think is insulting.

I am not accusing you in particular for making these statements, but most of us that have attempted to respond to these slurs rationally are usually shouted down, often in the same insulting terms as were directed at the objects of the post.

Unfortunately in a post like the one wyldwolf just made, it is not possible to go through every poster to see if they should be included or not. If you feel insulted by it, respond to wyldwolf with your sincere objections and I am sure he will discuss it with you in that way...he seems to be a good guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. I have. See post #64.
I agree that stepping into the middle of a flamewar, I am going
to get whacked and whack others that I would not ordinarily fight
with.

But, I normally stay away from the Clintons. I am working positively
for alternatives, not negatively as I perceive wyldwolf to be doing
with this thread.

Thanks for not just responding with a one-liner.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
61. WTH. People who agree with the post in all or in part are ditto-heads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
74. See my response above - it was for the content-free attaboy n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Gotcha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. Was this meant as satire?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. That would imply sense of humor/us being in power
it's only satire from the powerless to the powerful.
This is clueless AND bad taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. No, the DLC believes on its own propaganda
and we see in what fine shape we find ourselves. It was the DLC that opposed the Alito filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. And now merrily come out to taunt us...."niah, niah, niah...."
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 06:16 PM by robbedvoter
A world for you idiots: whether you see it today or not, you get to live in the same f*d up country as the rest of us, and the fascists won't treat you any better than they do us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. So are you saying all DLC members opposed the fillibuster
& all non DLC supported it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Did you read Al From's article on the filibuster posted on NDOL?
For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation. A filibuster is certain to fail; indeed, the Senate is certain to respond to a filibuster by outlawing them permanently in judicial confirmations. Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253692
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #59
69. You didn't answermy question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #69
108. sure they did --- DLC, DLC, DLC, DLC -- no matter the question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
103. I didn't use the word "member" in my post
Are you in the habit of rewriting peoples' posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. Honestly, for whatever reason, I don't think this is DLC generated.
I'm suspicious/skeptical,...as always. I can't help it!!! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
54. Good analysis.
And I'm sorry for the abuse you are taking for it.

TRUTH is what we perceive it to be, and I guess some folks think theirs is the only viable one. People feel that way about religion too, and we can see the chaos and hatred that causes.

It's okay to disagree.

It's those that punctuate theirs with rude retorts and oaths that don't really belong in a group environment. But it gives 'em something to talk about over at PI. They have a good 'ol time trashing DU, calling for reinforcements when one of their own gets in trouble: http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=12095&mesg_id=12095.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
68. Thank you....
and they called me Good German and laughed. I try to see all sides, but sometimes there is no side, no party, no structure. It is out of control here, and logic is useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #68
94. When someone's fighting for the sake of a fight, there's no logic...
...and no point in continuing. They accuse you of everything they do and wind up sounding more like Republicans than anything else. It's frightening sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
96. I thought disagreement was part of the democratic process?!
Discussion, argument, debate, conversation...anyone here who thinks the Founding Fathers themselves all agreed and nodded and sang Kumbaya had better take another history class - fast! That is the democratic way. But they didn't call each other names and make personal attacks and if they argued, they had facts and information to present and back up their position. I've been doing a lot of research lately about the men (and women) who founded this country and they educated themselves about a topic before they spoke out. Some here should try that and try a little civil behavior. And, if they aren't happy with that, then there's other boards they can post at, as you pointed out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
56. Great. But the Republicans now use nasty, unethical, criminal, bare
knuckle ruthless tactics that some in their Party may even not know about. They have spent the last 25 years "seeding" the federal benches. They spread hate on a daily basis, not just during elections. Most Dems wait a week before an event and argue over strategy. Do we have our million bags of brass tacks and nails ready for the 06 elections. Do we? Who is setting that up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
63. Excellent analysis...and oh so true.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
67. Once I told someone here that hell would freeze over if we agreed.
Since that time we have found hell freezing over quite often.

So wyldwolf, hell just froze over. I am not fond of the DLC or the Blue Dogs...but I will stay with the known over people who will destroy the party without knowing anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Jack Murtha is a blue dog
he endorsed Dean and votes my way about 85% of the time. As opposed to some republican who votes my way 10% of the time. :shrug: There's only one candidate that votes my way 100% and that's me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Well, that is what I was saying, I thought. That I don't agree with...
anyone 100% or all the time. I never have. I think they do not always vote in our interest, and I say so when I think so.

I am tired of the extremism here, the calls to kill the Democrats...and I will stand up for reason right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. I'll stand with you. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #76
89. I'll stand with you too
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #89
98. Me three.
It's a party. :party:

(no pun intended)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
82. ain't common ground a beautiful thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. it's a cohesive strategy that wins elections
and, no, I haven't given up hope because hope is all we have right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. What elections? Not a flame question
I know about Kaine's recent win in VA.

Does the DLC claim credit for others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. common ground wins elections - see post #82
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 07:24 PM by AtomicKitten
I'm certain you could connect the posts, but some of you have DLC on the membrane.

Q: How's the weather?
A: DLC.

Q: What time is it?
A: DLC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. So essentially Kaine is their first post-Bill Clinton win?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #95
105. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #105
113. ?? Just wondered if other DLC candidates had won
Didn't mean to offend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #83
100. I don't think you can ever make a change without hope.
Hope means that you can envision something different - no, actually it's more than that. Having hope means that not only can you envision it, you know it's possible. It's having something to work toward and a goal in mind. If you don't have that, you're just floundering.

Well, look at that, I just went to dictionary.com:
hope
v. hoped, hop·ing, hopes
v. intr.
- To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
- To look forward to with confidence or expectation.
- To expect and desire.


No, the minute you give up hope is the minute you're done. Not until then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
71. You didn't get the MEMO. Centrism is dead.
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 06:48 PM by bvar22
Unlike your OP, I WILL provide documentation.

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:

"Over 3 surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national survey show (that)...By a 20 point margin (56 to 36 percent), voters think the country is seriously off on the wrong track.

<snip>

But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats gains in in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiments about the Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats can achieve major gains, however, if the party moves
decisively to a new stage of engagement. They must poise sharp choices-
ones that define the Democrats, not just the Republicans and ones that, in every battle, make the the instrument for reforming and changing Washington"

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html
2005-2006
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis (link here)



The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.




"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774






summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #71
102. What bvar22 said!
There's no such thing as center anymore. You're either with Bush or you're against him. I'm against him in every way. Democrats who vote WITH him are not.

It really is that simple.

No more triangulation. No more pandering.

Start your own centrist party. We're taking this one back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #71
104. Your post deserves a thread of its own
instead of being buried in this pile of appeasement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #106
125. I DID get THAT memo from the "Centrists" and their propagandists.
Those who advocate representation and rights for the Working Class and Middle Class are no longer welcome in the "NEW Democratic Party".

The "Centrist" mouthpieces always avoid discussing the actual "issues" and engage in empty rhetoric and Logical Fallicies.
Why not atttck the facts, polls, and issues I posted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. Appeasement is just another word..
used by those who insult the ones who are working to change things one way.

Appeasement sounds a lot like "good German" talk, you remember that day, don't you, IG?

I do. I have not forgotten. So if comes down to having people who are not Democrats anyway making fun of those of us are actively, financially and otherwise working for change....then my decision is easy.

You should be ashamed of using those words against people like me who care about this country...you really should. And you should be ashamed of using something lovingly set up by my good friend, Tinoire, to do it. She does not talk to people like that, even if she disagrees.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #71
111. great post
probably deserves a thread of its own, if it doesn't already have one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
112. ouststanding post! love the roadkill in the "center" picture.
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 08:46 PM by jonnyblitz
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Castilleja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #71
129. After reading the rest of this thread in dismay,
Great post!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
84. Here Here!!!
Kicked and Recommended!

(and Printed and Posted at my house!)

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
107. Bullshit
Some of your stuff is just pure bullshit. However, write me again when you are in Guantanomo. How do you expect the Democrats to win when they continue to turn against the people who elected them. You should read the Republican Noise Machine. YOu will find out by reading that book that the Republican Party of today is not like the one of 1948 or any other time. This new bread of Republican hate us. Let me repeat that they hate us. They do not just dislike us, they do not look at things as just politics. They want to distroy us not just beat us. Listen to what some of them say. THey call us NAZIS and they we need to be distroyed.

The Democratic Senators are supposed to stand up for democracy. None of the Democrats should have supported Alito's confirmations due to his stances on the issues especially the issue of presidential power. What Democrats on the left are saying is the Democrats will never raise to power if they do not give the people an alternative and voting for issues that Bush supports and acting like him will not get that done.

Finally, as for Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, and Carter the thing that got them elected was being liberal. You might remember that Kennedy was not afarid to label himself or be labeled a liberal. How many Democrats go running scared when asked if they are a liberal. Do not give me any of this BS that the liberals have screwed up the Democratic Party. In addition, what got Kennedy elected was his liberal idealism. His willingness to believe in the best of people and believe that we all shared this country and the world. It was the hope he gave instead of the fear of the Republican Party. This is the same thing that happened with Carter and Clinton. We Democrats have become fearfull and like Republican people began voting for the Republicans.

I like the Clinton's do have some hope left that the Democrats will raise again. However, Democrats will have to be bold enough to stand up for ideas and give alternative to the fear everything and everyone. Until they start doing that they will lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #107
127. Here are a couple of quotes for you
"I was never a liberal. I am and have always been a conservative" - - -Jimmy Carter

"I'm not a liberal at all... I'm not comfortable with those people" - - - John Kennedy

But do tell where the bullshit is in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaaargh Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
115. If you had even an elementary grasp of history, wydwoof,
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 08:55 PM by Aaaargh
you would understand that you cannot lift politicians out of the context of their own time and insert them neatly into ours.

No one can say what Harry Truman's views would be if he were alive and involved in politics, let alone president (in fact, it's more than a little hard to see a guy like Truman as chief exec in this age of corporate-media driven politics.) But we can say this: the policies of his presidency do NOT at all accord with the current DLC agenda, as you suggest. In fact, when it comes to that, Truman looks like the kind of Democrat whom the DLC and their smug little frat-boy operatives on political discussion boards want to drive from the Democratic Party.

Truman's 'Fair Deal' program amounted to a proposed expansion of FDR's 'New Deal,' and included precisely the sort of measures that the DLC opposes today: worker protection, federal control of education, rent and price controls, public health insurance and housing projects, and even the expansion (gasp!) of Social Security. The fetish for 'privatization' promoted by the DLC is something that Truman wouldn't recognize as having anything to do with the traditional Democratic agenda -- and he'd be right, because it doesn't.

Would Truman, if he were alive today, take different positions because of changing times? Sure, he might - but we can only speculate about what those positions might be. It's definitely not a given that he wouldn't take the same positions as he did in his own time, because in fact, THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS TODAY, AS WELL AS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN GENERAL, STILL RELATE TO TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY VALUES, DESPITE DLC AND CORPORATE-WHORE-MEDIA PROPAGANDA TO THE CONTRARY, and Truman might well be among those who strive even today to represent the people's interests rather than the interests of the corporate/moneyed elite.

Truthfully, your only point of comparison between Truman and DLCbot 'Democrats' today comes with the fact that Truman was challenged by a leftwing third party contender in the 1948 election.

If you actually knew anything about the history of the period, you would know that that was about the beginnings of the Cold War, and left opposition to confrontation with the Soviet Union in the first few years after WWII, and not about opposition to a 'moderate' (Republicanizing) DLC-style domestic agenda, as you suggest.

Furthermore, comparisons between the Cold War and the neocon/'progressive internationalist' 'War on Terror' (that is, the war to place the Muslim Middle East under imperial control) falter when you consider that the Soviet Union at that time had recently been a major ally with the United States in the greatest and most terrible war ever fought --and that in years to follow, that nation became a superpower competitor with the United States, as the Islamic Jihadist networks cannot be said to be, at all. The comparison overall, in fact, is as much a fraud as the neocon/'progressive internationalist' rhetoric about 'The Axis of Evil,' which is no 'axis' at all.

The claim that Truman was a proto-DLCer is actually pretty ironic, given that Truman set the spark which began the major political shift which led southern Democrats to leave the Democratic Party, a development which the DLC regularly bemoans.

In 1948, Truman ordered the desegregation of the US armed forces, a quite unpopular but principled and forward-looking move. That same year, in response to that and other early attempts at Civil Rights legislation put forth by liberal Democrats, Strom Thurmond ran against Truman in another third party, the Dixiecrat Party. It was in 1964, after a decade and a half of so-called Dixiecrat attempts to undermine traditional Democratic progressivism, that Thurmond finally bolted to the Republican Party, and was followed by many other 'Dixiecrat' (though back in the Democratic Party fold) segregationalists.

As we know, the DLC spokemen today, like the Republican campaign operative Marshall Wittmann, often speak wistfully of the fact that the Democratic Party used to have this solid support in the South, and according to them, lost it due to, ummm, some Democratic leaders getting just too darned liberal! At the same time, out of the other side of their mouths, they claim retroactive support for the '60's Civil Rights movement and anti-Jim Crow legislation, now that that's a done deal -- the same as with the Republicans who used to be southern Democrats, and who've now changed their 'White Citizen's Council's into 'Conservative Citizen's Council's. But the plain truth is, in calling for a capitulation to Republican-style corporatism and attempting to drive out traditional Democrats in the name of 'getting the South back,' the DLC is trying to make over the Democratic Party into a bizarre 'updated' semblance of the Dixiecrat Party which tried to topple Harry Truman as much as the supporters of leftwing challenger Henry Wallace did.

But as I say -- that was then, this is now. I do wish, wydwoof, that Harry Truman could be returned to life and full vigor and respond to your post here, because I suspect he'd be inclined to turn the air to an interesting shade of blue as he kicked your ass up one street and down the next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. you undermine your credibility with childish name games...
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 09:13 PM by wyldwolf
See... you almost make sense until you purposely distort my name (no, my feelings aren't hurt) like some playground taunter. Then, you descend into tinfoil hat hell with lines like "DLC AND CORPORATE-WHORE-MEDIA PROPAGANDA" and "Republican campaign operative Marshall Wittmann" and "'War on Terror' (that is, the war to place the Muslim Middle East under imperial control)" and "the DLC is trying to make over the Democratic Party into a bizarre 'updated' semblance of the Dixiecrat Party."

You make some bold claims about the DLC and provide no evidence to support them. But that is typical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaaargh Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. in other words, you're not capable of responding to the points I make
Edited on Tue Jan-31-06 09:29 PM by Aaaargh
I already knew that, having read some of your other posts. To dismiss arguments about the nature of today's corporate media and the DLC's agenda as 'tinfoil' is a cheap little smear, but obviously that's all you have to offer.

And then you say I "provide no evidence" of my claims? Am I LYIN' when I say that the DLC complains about the Democrats having lost the South? Did I MAKE UP the 1948 Dixiecrat Party? You need some PROOF of these familiar facts?

As for Marshall Wittmann, that one is just too easy to back up. He has worked for John McCain's campaign, the Christian Coalition, certain 'conservative' think-tanks, and likes to describe himself as a 'Bull Moose,' in reference to Teddy Roosevelt's Repig spin-off party. Look up his bio on the home website:
http//www.dlc.org

As for childish taunts, look who talking -- YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. On the contrary, Mr. Aaaargh
It is your conclusions that veer off into tin foil hat territory.

Am I LYIN' when I say that the DLC complains about the Democrats having lost the South?

In the context of the Strom Thurmond/Dixiecrat movement, your statement is misleading. But the DNC itself regrets not being able to carry the south in recent races.

As for Marshall Wittmann, that one is just too easy to back up. He has worked for John McCain's campaign, the Christian Coalition, certain 'conservative' think-tanks, and likes to describe himself as a 'Bull Moose,' in reference to Teddy Roosevelt's Repig spin-off party.

Does that make David Brock and Arriana Huffington undercover Republican Operatives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #124
132. Apparently you have never heard Wittmann speak ill of the base.
Or Al From

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #121
130. Sputtering nonsense is not the same thing as making "points"...
...it would behoove you to learn the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. One would think it would behoove YOU to address even one sentence
in the poster's reply.

I know there is allot of words n stuff. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #115
122. I believe it is you with an elementary grasp of history, Mr. Aaaargh
Volumes have been written on Harry Truman, many detailing just how "unprogressive" (at least by today's definition) he was. Any serious student of Democratic party history who isn't biased will tell you that Truman's policies closely resemble those of the Blue Dog Democrats (who policies closely resemble those of the DLC).

And it is, as any historian will tell you, perfectly acceptable to compare moments in time with one another. It's called "Comparative History."

Now many here have convinced themselves of things and, when it is shown that their beliefs are in error, go into extreme denial. But yours is the first I've seen that includes so many irrelevant points and a suggestion that a former and now deceased President would kick anyone's ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaaargh Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. You have no idea what you're talking about
"Any serious student of Democratic party history who isn't biased will tell you that Truman's policies closely resemble those of the Blue Dog Democrats (who policies closely resemble those of the DLC)."

Pitiful.

"...a suggestion that a former and now deceased President would kick anyone's ass."

Thanks for the laugh, straight man!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderate Donkey Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. I know exactly what I'm talking about
And thanks for providing a case example for my thesis. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
131. How... productive.
Seems to me there is yipping coming from the rightmost side of the party as well, or at least the verbal equivalent of a mooning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
134. Locking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC