Republican labeling us "MoveOn" wing really means NON-DLC (compromised)

[iconoclastNYC]

Everytime you here a Republican in the medid talking about the MOVEON wing of the party just know that that means Democrats who are not under the DLC control.

THE DLC is the right wings' infiltration of the Democratic Party.

[snowbear]

1. ...Here we go again

[WCGreen]

2. Isn't that horse dead yet.......

It's all about positioning....

And our side does it...

Just not as well...

For instance, we could say the Pat Robertson wing of the party...

[iconoclastNYC]

4. Wrong.

The Republicans take is the only good Democrat is a DLC democrat. Thats why DLC DINO Joe Liberman gets invited to the White House.

[wyldwolf]

48. do you have a quote of any influential Republican saying this?

[mtnsnake]

200. Don't stay up too late waiting for a reply

You won't get one because he can't back up his absurd claims with any facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

205. It depends on which Republican you ask...

The only good Democrat is one that agrees with them on all of their pet issues. So if you have a far right nutball, Zell Miller is the only good Democrat to them. Move to someone a bit more sane and Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are the only good Democrats. Then move to John McCain and you have someone who is comfortable with most DLC members.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. I don't think I follow.

What's the dead horse here?

[Toots]

12. Don't you need permission to show Cheney doing that to that poor horse

:silly:

[AtomicKitten]

120. whip that horse, whip it good

New Rasmussen poll:

Who does a better of job against terrorism:
Bush 41%
Democrats 43%

[madrchsod]

3. you mean something like this?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/171/171_blankfort_mckinney_seniority.html
The Black Commentator - Why Cynthia McKinney Lost Her Seniority and Didn't Get It Back

a brave woman who nancy deemed not worthy...

[MrBenchley]

6. Interesting to note the article omits McKinney's open anti-Semitism

her ties to Louis Farrakhan, and her idiotic claim that Al Gore was a racist.

[LincolnMcGrath]

7. Why do you hate Democrats? Why are you trying to purge McKinney?

Are you some kind of Purist?

What number is McKinney on your enemies list?

Why would you stay in a party you hate so much?


Just Sayin... (chortle)

[MrBenchley]

8. In other words, you still have nothing to say worth hearing...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

11. Feel free to post everything I've ever written

It's not like you've got anything to say worth hearing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. LOL

:hug: <-----

[iconoclastNYC]

14. Oh look who popped up again.

How about the time when you were a DLC critic instead of a knee jerk apologist? Wonder why the cha-change of heart?

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Funny Stuff.

lol

[MrBenchley]

17. I'm happy to tell you....

There was a time when I was actually gullible enough to take what some of what our DLC critics said as fact.

Then I looked into the matter and realized how utterly full of shit they are.

[iconoclastNYC]

18. oh please share your wisdom

What did you learn. Please share with the class.

Here comes the typical "Go look it up yourself" bit.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

58. That's an AIPAC talking point

she's about as anti-semitic as any other American politican

[MrBenchley]

80. Sorry, that's actual fact....

So which other American politican sashays around the campaign trail arm in arm with Louis Farrakhan?

Democrats would have been much better off had McKinney actually defected to the Green Party, as she threatened....

[Capn Sunshine]

90. You can be arm and arm with Farrakhan, but

isn't a congressional representative supposed to represent all the people in one's district?

No, I was referring to the "anti-semitism" charge.
That's straight out of AIPAC's brochure that circulated in the Synagogues pre-2004. That's where the huge out of state funding came from for McKinney's opponent.

[MrBenchley]

91. So sashaying arond with America's loudest anti-Semite is okey-dokey?

How is that representing all the people in her district?

"I was referring to the "anti-semitism" charge."
Which is well founded.

[PassingFair]

137. I don't know...but Joe Lieberman "sashays" around

lip to lip with *ush!

[MrBenchley]

144. In other words, McKinney's an anti-Semitic loon.....

[Clark2008]

114. It's not anti-Semitic to think Israel's government is horrid.

If it is, then my Jewish husband is (chortle) anti-Semitic.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

145. Yeah?

Does your husband wander around the campaign trail with Louis Farrakhan? Does he indulge people who rant about "J-E-W-S controlling everything?"

[LincolnMcGrath]

149. Maybe we should ask whether

BillClinton wanders around with loons ?

[MrBenchley]

150. Bill Clinton wanders around with Farrakhan? Ri-i-i-i-ght.....

Better stick to posting what I've written. Once again, your post isn't worth reading.

[LincolnMcGrath]

153. What kind of anti-semite would call the folks at 'Forward' Liars?

Why do you hate the Jews that over at Forward?


"Once again, your post isn't worth reading." Mr B's patented non-answer. :rofl:

[MrBenchley]

156. Better stick to posting what I've written

Your own posts aren't worth reading.

[LincolnMcGrath]

158. Another hug coming Up!

:hug:

Again, an attack. Surprise Surprise :rofl:

[mdmc]

179. you got a link to your lies?

:kick:

[mdmc]

178. God bless McKinney

:kick:

[ClassWarrior]

10. The "MoveOn" wing is the people. The majority of average Americans who...

...support a Progressive agenda.

16-5.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

53. nah

[BootinUp]

15. Purge em! Purge em all!

You know, I could say we need to purge people who favor purging anyone that defends the DLC. Basically you're goal as I understand it, is to further shrink the Dem party?

So how is you're vision of the party going to win in 2008?

[MrBenchley]

19. Hilariously

When Paul Hackett (favored by the DLC) quit the race for Ohio Senate, paving the way for progressive Sherrod Brown, the anti-DLCers IMAGINED they got the party purge they've been yowling for, lo these many months...and they erupted in rage.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. Some people did that.

Not all. If you search my posts you'll see that I've pointed out these people bashing Brown have been brainwashed by the cult of personality. I donated to his house campaign becasue I liked what he had to say, even tho he's more to the right then i'd like.

This shows that your "progressive purist" line is a bunch of bull.

[MrBenchley]

22. Yes, some people did that...and I find it hilarious

Now sob about how apt the "progressive purist" line is to somebody who gives a shit. Try the sad little bobo who keeps posting links to my posts because he's got nothing to say himself worth hearing.

[iconoclastNYC]

26. No one is sobbing over anything you say, more like laughing

The best way expose a useless shill is to throw thier words back at them.

The truth hurts. We know who's sobbing -- the person constantly made to look like a fool.

[MrBenchley]

28. It shows (snicker)

"The truth hurts"
Which is why I feel no pain whatsoever from you and your little chum.

[LincolnMcGrath]

139. You will note, the abundance of links to all these threads he carps about.

Oh wait, forgive me, there are none posted. :eyes:

Only 3 or 4 dozen cookie cutter posts claiming there are :rofl:

[LincolnMcGrath]

138. Posted for the hundredth time with no basis in fact.

As if only leftists were upset with the Hackett/Brown situation.

[iconoclastNYC]

20. my goal is to purge them from the leadership

By expsoing the corrosive nature of the DLC on our party and then encouraging more true progressives (people not connected to corporations) to run for office.

the model is the way the conservatives took over the republican party.

we have to do it.

[BootinUp]

23. I'll tell you how the repubs did it.

Federalism, it works wonders for the minority party. Notice how they don't talk about it now.

[sandnsea]

25. Let's look at that model closer

How the radical fundies and wingnuts took over the rational and reasoned Republican Party. Hmmm. Not quite sure why I'd want to follow a model that put extremists at the helm.

[iconoclastNYC]

27. THE DLC are the extremists

Thier agenda is completely divorced from the values and policies that made our party great.

[BootinUp]

30. The DLC

is a think tank that looks at how to win a National election. Your goal seems to be winning bigger in the blue states. A lot of good that will do us in the Presidential election in 2008.

[Clark2008]

119. The problem is that it won't.

Being DLC is more akin to siding with big business than being moderate.

DLCers aren't moderate because they sell out blue-collar workers.

I'm a moderate Democrat who can't stand the DLC. I'm a Southerner, too.

[BootinUp]

127. Hi there.

Give me chance to make a point or two here. I am not a big DLC fan btw, I tend to look for candidates that have latched on to winning policies and have the right qualities like charisma etc. I just want to win again. And the problem is that the National party plank and the nominees we are picking are just not unacceptable to many of your neighbors and my neighbors.

the DLC method sure did work in 92 and 96 as Clinton basically used it.

While I decry the treatment of workers by the upper class of America, the board members and other executives, I really do not blame politicians who must attract money in order to get elected. Maybe someday the American people will really demand that money is removed from politics, but as of right now they seem ok with it.

I do want to see tax policies moved back to being more progressive, but how can we do that without attracting votes in the Red States. We must eliminate certain issues from the National party plank that hurt us in the Red States. Move them to a Federalism policy to be set at the State level like the Repukes did.

Blue collar workers are mostly suffering because manufacturers are shipping jobs overseas. The only real solution is more investment in education and R&D and other infusion of cash into jobs here. That will never happen if we can't take back power first by fixing our National party image.

[sandnsea]

33. Right

Anarchists and socialists are the ones who made our party great. You betcha. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

31. Yes, if only we Democrats had crazies at the helm too...

By golly, then folks like iconoclast could get their blood a pumpin'!

Until; then, I guess we'll just have to get by with pretty much every prominent Democrat around....(snicker)

[SaveElmer]

34. List this vast number of Democrats...

Unconnected to corporations...

Do you seriously think the DLC is the only entity or individual that takes corporte money? Virtually every politician Congress takles some kind of corporate money.

[iconoclastNYC]

41. It's not just taking corporate money i have a problem with

The DLC reinforce GOP frames -- attacking progressive and liberals.

DLCers have the least liberal voting records in Congress - they vote against the middle class.

DLCers executives from the Christian Coalition and PNAC (DLC's Marshall Whittman and Will Marshall?)

Triangulation policies that alienate our base and divide us

Discourage advocating policies that the vast majorities of American support becasue thier paymasters do not approve of those policies

You DLC defenders will never get it --- it's not just about the money, it's about the MOVEMENT.

[SaveElmer]

45. These are talking points....

That have been argued over, and refuted in my view innumerable times. Name one DLC member currently running for political office for whom you would rather have a Republican in office?

You make ridiculuous statesments like the DLC "Discourage(s) advocating policies that the vast majorities of American support becasue thier paymasters do not approve of those policies"

Prove that statement. Show me any scrap of evidence that the vote of any DLC member is up for sale. That statement is so vague and unsupportable it could be made about any candidate taking corporate dollars.

Name thae last Presidential candidate who successfully ran on a "progressive" platform.

[iconoclastNYC]

60. Name the last Democrat that won on the DLC's platform

And don't say Clinton because he ran as a progressive populist.

[SaveElmer]

74. Clinton...

Hardly ran as a populist...

[iconoclastNYC]

78. "I feel your pain"

I bet you are going to say Gore ran as a DLCer too right?

[SaveElmer]

79. Gore was a DLC'er...

Which simply proves they are not as powerful as you say they are. They cannot even control their own members...

Tell me, which DLC'er currently running would you rather have replaced by a Republican? Are there any? And if not, why do you spend all of your time attacking fellow Democrats rather than the true enemy?

[iconoclastNYC]

92. Oh there's that old straw man.

It's possible to replace a DLC with a Progressive in the primary and we're going to prove it with DINO Liberman in CT.

I don't spend my time fighting Democrats....i spend my time fighting the DLC. There's a huge difference.

[SaveElmer]

97. So those who support the DLC...

Are not Democrats? Do you include DU'ers who support the DLC?

[iconoclastNYC]

99. I said I attack the DLC

I'm not attacking the members, I'm attacking the MOVEMENT.

[SaveElmer]

101. Ahhh I see...

And the movement just rolls along on its own...no human intervention?

[iconoclastNYC]

105. You'll do anything for the last word, won't you.

:eyes:

[SaveElmer]

121. Nope...

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

77. Bill Clinton did run on the DLC's platform

Challenge me.

[BootinUp]

81. Clinton created the DLC.

Sorry I couldn't wait for someone to challenge you. heh.

[wyldwolf]

83. Clinton's own words

Going to the Democratic Leadership Council.

In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense. Later on, I traveled to thirteen states and the District of Columbia to speak on topics about evenly divided between politics and policy. The most important political speech was one called "Democratic Capitalism," which I delivered to the DLC in Williamsburg, Virginia. I thought the DLC was the only group committed to developing the new ideas Democrats needed both to win elections and do right by the country. In Williamsburg, I spoke about the need to make access to the global economy "democratic" -- that is, available to all citizens and communities. I had become a convert to William Julius Wilson's argument, articulated in his book The Truly Disadvantaged, that there were no race-specific solutions to hard-core unemployment and poverty. The only answers were schools, adult education and training, and jobs.

In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation. In December, we launched the Texas DLC chapter in Austin. In my speech, I argued that, contrary to our liberal critics, we were good Democrats. We believed in keeping the American dream alive for all people. We believed in government, though not in the status quo. And we believed government was spending too much on yesterday and today -- interest on debt, defense, more money for the same health care -- and too little on tomorrow: education, the environment, research and development, the infrastructure. I said the DLC stood for a modern, mainstream agenda: the expansion of opportunity, not bureaucracy; choice in public schools and child care; responsibility and empowerment for poor people; and reinventing government, away from the top-down bureaucracy of the industrial era, to a leaner, more flexible, more innovative model appropriate for the modern global economy.

I was trying to develop a national message for the Democrats, and the effort fueled speculation that I might enter the presidential race in 1992. I spent the next few months  traveling the country for the DLC. Because I was out there making the case for how we could regain "mainstream, middle-class" voters who "have left the party in droves for twenty years," the press continued to speculate that I might run in 1992.

The DLC's mission.

While I still didn't believe I could or should run, and President Bush's approval ratings were still above 70 percent in the afterglow of the Gulf War, I was beginning to think a DLC Democrat who could relate both to the party's traditional base and to swing voters might have a chance, because the country had serious problems that weren't being addressed in Washington. The President and his team seemed determined to coast to victory on the wings of the Gulf War. I had seen enough in Arkansas and in my travels around the country to know America couldn't coast through four more years. As 1991 unfolded, more and more people came to share that view.

Bill Clinton, New Democrat
Book Excerpt

MY LIFE
by Bill Clinton

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

[Hippo_Tron]

206. How about Clinton ran on Clinton's platform

Bill Clinton is by far the most influential person to ever be a member of the DLC and in 1992 he was still chairman of the group, I believe. Basically, the DLC's platform was whatever Clinton's platform was, not the other way around.

The way that Clinton's campaign rhetoric somewhere between traditional populist rhetoric but also new third-way rhetoric of the DLC. There is no question that there was DLC rhetoric on welfare reform during Clinton's campaign. During the campaign he used the "Welfare is a second chance not a way of life" mantra. It's not that previous Democrats had considered welfare to be a way of life, it's just that until Reagan, the idea that welfare was wasteful spending never took off. Mondale and Dukakis failed to respond to the notion that Reagan Republicans had convinced the public of. Clinton didn't.

But Clinton's rhetoric also supported some very traditional democratic principals that I'm not so sure that the DLC supports today. During the campaign as well as either the first or second State of the Union, Clinton said that he wanted EVERY American to have health insurance. Now, I'm not totally up on my DLC policies so here's my question for you Wyldwolf. Does the DLC platform support health insurance for every American?

Also, in all of this debate lets remember who we are talking about. Bill Clinton is still by far the strongst politician in the democratic party today and he had the best run campaign machine since John Kennedy in 1960. DLC or no DLC, Clinton still would've been elected president.

[wyldwolf]

214. as posted in the reply above yours, in Clinton's own words

[Hippo_Tron]

230. I read the reply, it didn't answer my question

[wyldwolf]

231. Perhaps this will better answer your question

Bill Clinton is by far the most influential person to ever be a member of the DLC and in 1992 he was still chairman of the group, I believe. Basically, the DLC's platform was whatever Clinton's platform was, not the other way around.

Bill Clinton: In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation.

But Clinton's rhetoric also supported some very traditional democratic principals that I'm not so sure that the DLC supports today. During the campaign as well as either the first or second State of the Union, Clinton said that he wanted EVERY American to have health insurance. Now, I'm not totally up on my DLC policies so here's my question for you Wyldwolf. Does the DLC platform support health insurance for every American?

It wasn't until his State of the Union address in 1994 that Clinton unequivocally said he wanted to guarantee every American private health insurance. I suppose to many, this meant free healthcare.

However, on the campaign trail, Clinton stated, "In the first year of the Clinton Administration, Congress and I will deliver quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

A New Covenant for Economic Change
Remarks to Students at Georgetown University
By Governor Bill Clinton

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=250528

Clinton's plan called for employers to provide health insurance for their workers. Under the plan, people would join a regional health-care alliance that would contract with insurance organizations and others to offer health insurance to its members.

The DLC today still advocates a universal healtcare sytem:

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=251191
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252417&kaid=85&subid=65
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251284&kaid=111&subid=137
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=138&contentid=253538

Also, in all of this debate lets remember who we are talking about. Bill Clinton is still by far the strongst politician in the democratic party today and he had the best run campaign machine since John Kennedy in 1960. DLC or no DLC, Clinton still would've been elected president.

I would agree only because GHW Bush was so weak at that point. But then again, many Democrats were polling better than Bush in '92.

But Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat," and his TV ads were full of New Democrat ideas. I believe that is ultimately why he won the nomination and went on to win the presidency.

[Hippo_Tron]

232. Thanks for answering my questions

I think that you might be right that people confused Clinton's statement about healthcare for all to mean "free" or as I would call it socialized healthcare. I know that, that was never Clinton's intentions. However, I still do contend that Clinton's position was that all Americans should have healthcare. From the DLC's plans I see nothing that mentions people who are unemployed.

[MrBenchley]

82. In the 2005 elections a bunch of DLCers won, including Tim Kaine

In 2004, quite a few won all over the country. In the House, for example, there was:

Brian Baird (WA)
Shelley Berkley (NV)
Lois Capps(CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Ed Case (HI)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Joseph Crowley (NY)
Artur Davis (AL)
Jim Davis (FL)
Susan Davis (CA)
Rahm Emanuel (IL)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Harold Ford (TN)
Jane Harman (CA)
Stephanie Herseth (SD)
Brian Higgins (NY)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Darlene Hooley (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Ron Kind (WI)
Rick Larsen (WA)
John Larson (CT)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
David Price (NC)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Allyson Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (GA)
Adam Smith (WA)
Ellen Tauscher (CA)
Tom Udall (NM)
David Wu (OR)

[SaveElmer]

84. The OP uses the same tactics my 12 year old uses...

Challenges you to disagree with a point he makes, and then tells me not to use the argument he knows refutes his....

"Dad how come you won't let me go to the movies by myself, and don't say its cause I'm not old enough"

"Tell me the last candidate to win on the DLC platform, and don't say Clinton"

[MrBenchley]

87. Sure seems so....

[mtnsnake]

201. Hell will freeze over before you get him to back up any of his wild claims

You're wasting your time, SaveElmer, if you think he can back any of his nonsensical claims.

[LincolnMcGrath]

221. I know one - Al Gore. If you want to believe Joe Lieberman, anyway.

Joe was happy to attack the Gore 00 campaign in 02 for being too populist.

[sandnsea]

24. Like clockwork

Create an impossible policy proposal, like nationalizing ports, then beat Democrats over the head for not supporting it. Or, looking at this thread, for no reason at all. Run out of excuses or something??

[iconoclastNYC]

29. Impossible? Like Nationalize airport security was Impossible?

In case you didn't notice Rasmussen came out with a poll that says:

Should Dubai Ports World Be Allowed to Buy Port Operating Rights?

Yes 17%
No 64%

If they'd asked the question: "Should private for-profit corporations or the US or State Governments Operate US Ports?", I bet it would be in the high 50s if not in the low 60s.

Knocking down your arguments is easier then shooting fish in a barrel.

Rass poll thread here.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x509609

[sandnsea]

32. Airports arent nationalized

The Coast Guard secures the ports. DPW is going to manage port operations, not own any ports. You don't even have your facts straight. I bet if people were asked who should manage port operations, most would be perfectly satisfied with a US corporation and would be very hesitant to turn the whole thing over to yet another government agency. Another example of jumping to illogical conclusions that are completely disconnected from the way Americans think.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Air Port security is done by Federal Employees now.

Airports are owned by governments. Who ones them if not the governments?

And the TSA employees are federal employees. Before 9/11 they were done by a private company.

The Ports should be operated by the government.

[sandnsea]

132. Port Authorities manage ports & airports

Security is done by a host of agencies, including customs, coast guard, and at airports, the TSA.

The operations of port terminals are done by private companies, passenger airlines, cargo services companies. It's been that way in seaports and airports forever.

[ncteechur]

35. They can call us tapioca pudding--it doesn't change the fact that we are

correct and they are idiots.

[Armstead]

36. Let 'em....Add it to liberal and progressive as badges of honor

[dolstein]

37. Actually, it's the left wing that's compromised

They compromised the economic agenda upon which the majority Demomcratic New Deal coalition was based by pushing that agenda aside in favor of a pacifist foreign policy and a controversial social agenda. Let's not forget that the "new left" was formed not to advance the Democratic Party but to bring down the most liberal Democratic administration this country had seen since FDR. The new left did something that Richard Nixon and the Republican Party could never have accomplished on their own -- they put an end to LBJ's Great Society.

Seriously, you guys need to wake up to the dirty little truth that it was the left wing that effectively destroyed liberalism as a political force in American. And the great irony is that in so doing, they ended up prolonging the Vietnam War.

[msgadget]

38. Interesting take on it,

why do you think the liberal wing had to be taken down? To get back those voters lost after Johnson? I agree with you, just want to see why you think they did it.

[dolstein]

59. As for the new left's motives

I think their motive was the end the Vietnam War AT ALL COSTS, even if that meant destroying the Johnson administration. Perhaps they didn't consider the consequences of their actions, which included provoking a major conservative backlash in the country (just read up on the Brown-Regan race of '66 to get a picture of things to come) and the election of a Republican administration that was far more bullish on the Vietnam War than a Humphrey administration would have been.

[Capn Sunshine]

69. I was there

and that's a solid take on what went down.
End the War at ALL COSTS. That was our mantra.

[iconoclastNYC]

40. Excuse me?

What was the pacifist foreign policy? Pacifist like Johnston getting us more involved in Vietnam?

So you are saying that ending the Vietnam war was what killed the Democratic party, not the rise of corporate power? That's interesting. Blame the victim if you ask me.

Your accusations are laughable.

[The Magistrate]

46. Mr. Dolstien's Comments, Sir, Are Quite Sensible

Whatever one's views regarding the Viet Nam War, and the opposition to it mobilized on the left in the late sixties and early seventies of the last century, it is an indisputable fact that it has had long-term political consequences, many of which have played more to the benefit of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Among these are the divorce between large segments fo the working class and the left, with the former coming to regard the latter as anti-patriotic, and therefore unwholesome in their eyes whatever the domestic policies they propose, and the widespread conviction among our people that the Republican Party is more competemt to handle matters of military action and national security than the Democratic Party. Though uncomfortable to look in the face, these things are not creations of rightist propaganda, but real facts of our political landscape.

[iconoclastNYC]

49. I think that view

Ignores the other more important reasons for the downfall of the left

- The right wings wholesale take over of the mass media - Democrats look the other way

- Reagan's attack on labor with Democrats looking the other way

- Campaign finance getting out of control with Democrats looking the other way

- The merger of church and state (GOP to Chuches - give us your names!) - Democrats look the other way



The reason the left wing is so effective is because we dont have a party that represents us.

The DLC has made the Democratic party the party of the center-right.

We need to be the party of the LEFT again. We need to appeal to those voters who want stuff like universal healthcare and greater protection of the environment and a higher minimum wage.

Problem is the DLC's paymasters won't allow the party to go into that direction, and instead we move farther to the right.

[SaveElmer]

51. When?

Has the Democratic Party ever been successful electorally as a party of the left?

[iconoclastNYC]

56. FDR, Kennedy, Johnston

New Deal, Great Society.

Hell Nixon is to the left of the Republicans now.

Do you think any Republican would sign the clean and water act, or the EPA act, or the endangered species act?

Now here's where you say well FDR did this conservative thing.....or Johnson did this thing, as if it negates my argument. That's your typical tactic. You've used it on me before and it just makes you look foolish.

[The Magistrate]

68. It Is Unlikely, Sir

That you would have viewed President Kennedy as a leftist. His campaugn for election was pitched on teh idea President Eisenhower was not nearly bellicose enough towards the Soviets, and had allowed a "missile gap" to open between their strategic forces and ours. the claim was, by the wholly false and fraudulent. You would probably nit have liked his tax policies either.

Both President Roosevelt and President Johnson were marked by serious Anti-Communist convictions, and indeed, both defined being on the left in manners very different than you seem to employ.

[iconoclastNYC]

70. I didn't grow up in the cold war

And you have to put Kennedy's approach in context with that.

My point is that the Democratic party was liberal and has moved away from it's roots. No political scientist will disagree with this.

[The Magistrate]

73. The You Should Inform Yourself About It, Sir

People who lived through that ar still predominant in our nation's electorate, and much of their political thought was formed in those times.

It remaions quite unclear to me what you means by the Party's "roots", other than that the sound of it has a nice ring. It could be very easily argued that the "roots" of the Party were segregation and urban corruption; these certainly played as great a role in the New Deal coalition as liberalism under the definitions of the period between the two World Wars.

[SaveElmer]

88. Kennedy did not represent the progressive wing of the Party...

In 1960. Adlai Stevenson and Eleanor Roosevelt did. Stevenson considered challenging for the nomination for this reason. Even in the context of their times these men (Kennedy, FDR, Johnson) did not represent what was considered the "progressive" wing of the Party.

[iconoclastNYC]

109. 80x more progressive than the DLC

[wyldwolf]

115. would you like to do a point by point analysis of Kennedy's policies...

...as compared to those of the DLC?

[iconoclastNYC]

117. If I did you'd reject it.

You are a DLC sychophant and you'll never listen to a word I say.

[wyldwolf]

118. No, go ahead. Wanna start with free trade? Military?

I'm a student of Post-Wilsonian Democratic party history before I'm a "DLC sychophant."

[iconoclastNYC]

122. Wow I'm impressed.

Why don't you provide some links to your work so I check it out?

[MrBenchley]

125. So I guess that means your absurd claim is dead....

[wyldwolf]

126. why don't you accept my challenge?

Show me how JFK was 80x more progressive than the DLC.

[MrBenchley]

123. How about Quemoy and Matsu?

[Hippo_Tron]

211. Apples to Oranges

I think when Kennedy was running for president, the highest tax bracket was like 90% or something incredibly high like that as a leftover from the New Deal era. Kennedy cut them down to like 70% which is WAY higher than it still is today. We still had plenty of money for social spending.

If my figures are wrong then please correct me.

I think that the point that he was trying to make though was regarding economic issues. The DLC much farther to the right on economic issues than Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson, and I would say yes even Kennedy. There was a time in American history where Democrats truly did enact policies that helped working people and there was a time that they were very popular for doing so.

[SaveElmer]

75. My typical tactic...

Is to point out the numeorus factual errors you insist upon repeating. Fact is no Democrat has successfully run on a progressive populist platform. All successful candidates run to the center.

The only one who approached it was Johnson, who was the last Democratic beneficiary of the solid south.

[iconoclastNYC]

112. Didn't Gore run to the center? Did he win?

[The Magistrate]

64. You May Think What You Want, Sir

No one can stop you, and there is no help for it. But you are quite wrong in your view of the matter. One of the things that strikes me as most interesting about your view of this is that all the causes you cite are the actions of others, and none involve any scrutiny of the actions of us on the left. It is likely that matters are not so one-sided, and that the decline of one side owes nothing to its own activities. A person you met in daily life who blamed all his travails on other people and insisted everything he had done was spot-on and absolutely right probably would leave you convinced he was wallowing in self-delusion in short order.

One [point in particular seems worth engaging by way of illustration. You mention Reagam's assault on labor. But Reagan's very election was a product of the divorce between between rank and file labor and the Democratic Party that had occured a decade before: that is what the so-called "Reagan Democrats" were, after all --- working class people who were turned off by the left as they had seen it since the Viet Nam era. What is most instructive about Reagan's assault on labor is that it did not turn these people back away from the Republican Party and towards their Democratic roots, and thus it serves to ilustrate the depth of that estrangement rather well.

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. Then Sir, why not say that it was the Viet Nam War that fractured the

Democratic Party--not just the opposition to it. After all LBJ ran in 1964 on a pledge not to escalate the American involvement in contrast to Barry Goldwater who openly advocated escalation.

Richard Nixon was not elected in 1968 on a promise to stay the course. He was elected on a promise to end the war and bring peace.

Could liberal minded Americans in the late 60's and early 70's have possibly lived in such isolation from the mainstream of world opinion that viewed the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam as an atrocity?

I realize that public opinion cannot be ignored. But to what extent can anyone of conscience refrain from speaking out on such basic matters as war and peace? Having a caviler attitude about war may at times prove politically popular. It sure helped Ronald Reagan and at times George W. Bush. But what if it is wrong and in the long run self-destructive?

What if there had been little protest against the Viet Nam War and as a result the U.S. involvement sank deeper and deeper into a quagmire? Would that have benefited the Democratic Party? More importantly what would it have done to America and to the people of Indo-China?

I myself don't recall the Democratic Party ever adopting anything remotely like a pacifistic foreign policy. I don't believe that anyone with an international perspective can remember that either. People these days have much less patience with war than they did in the early days of the Viet Nam adventure. The total U.S. military budget now roughly equals that of the whole rest of the world put together. There are elaborate plans for military weapon systems to be sent into orbit in outer space and plans for a whole new generation of "mini-nukes". Are we as Democrats so suppose to compete with that? The day will come-and I don't think it is so far away-when the American people will get tired of war and weary of empire. I do hope they will have a mainstream political party to represent them and seek a policy that wants equity at home and peace with the world.

[The Magistrate]

155. That Is A Sound Enough Point, Mr. Carpenter

And my point is not that opposition to the war was wrong, or a mistake, or any other such thing; my point is merely the uncomfortable truth that doing the right thing can have consequences that are unpleasant for those who do it. Things do not always turn out well for those who do good in real life, though generally they do in fictional tales.

It is quite true that President Johnson's decision to escalate U.S. involvement in Viet Nam split the left, and the Democratic Party, in the wake of the 1964 election. There were several reasons for that decision, mostly relating to Cold War politics and to President Johnson's personal attitudes and career in that regard. He had gotten a good deal of mileage in his career out of the "Who lost China?" and "Who lost Cuba?" posturing that had been so popular in the wakes of Mao's and Castro's successes, and greatly feared offering his foes the opportunity to use such a line against him over Viet Nam. He felt that the strongest possible Anti-Communist posture in foreign affairs would protect his flank from attacks against the "Socialism" of his Great Society proposals, and against the reactionary backlash against Civil Rights legislation, which was routinely associated with "Communism" on the right in those days. That this proved a miscalculation on several levels does not make it an act of deliberate evil, but merely that most common of human acts, a mistake.

It is also a fact that, at the start of his escalation, the people of the country did indeed widely support the engagement in Viet Nam. The countrey was, in those days, essentially unanimous on the proposition that Communism was to be resisted to the last ditch wherever it seemed to be advancing; that feeling was nearly as strong even in typical liberal left circles as it was in the most reactionary rightist circles. The popular mood turned on several factors that built over time. One was the repellent character of the Vietnamese government we supported, as demonstrated by the wide-spread protests of Vietnamese themselves against it, highlighted by the self-immolation of a number of Buhddist spiritual leaders. Another was the evident futility of the effort, as victory after victory was reported, and yet the situation showed no trace of improvement. Finally there was the effect of increasing U.S. casualties, coupled with the need to conscript at least a third of the young men turning to draft age in any given year, which meant everyone had to face the fact there was a good chance they themselves, or their sons, would be fed into that mangle, and to no apparent chance of success.

The final point is unfortunately more subtle, and gains much of its salience by effect of deliberate distortion. The Democratic party certainly never did adopt a policy of pacifism, but the activist left most certainly has. In the popular mind, the Democratic Party is the Party of the left, and so it is very easy for demagogues of the right to tie the views and actions of the activist left to the Democratic Party, and make them interchangeable in most minds among the electorate. To many people, the activist left seems quite unreasoning in its opposition to military action, and it seems so because it opposes all military action. Most people support some military actions and oppose other military actions, and so view opposition to all military action as arising from causes independent of the particular instance. They come to regard people who behave in such a manner as a species of political stopped clock: it may even be right on occassion, but when it is, it is not owing to any merit, but merely to random chance, for it would have displayed the same thing regardless.

[Douglas Carpenter]

190. Thank you Mr. Magistrate for your very thoughtful response

I personally believe that LBJ was a good man and was on the road to becoming a great President. But I doubt that America could have afforded both the continuation of the Great Society and the continuation of its very misguided adventure in Indo-China. I don't blame President Johnson personally. He had become an unfortunate captive of cold war ideology and the political zeitgeist of the time. I don't agree with those who think it would have all been just hunky dorey if Mr. Kennedy had been around instead. I think that notion comes from romanticized wishful thinking. The same ideology and the same political zeitgeist would have dominated policy no matter who was in the Oval Office at that point.

One of the things that bothers me about debate within the Democratic Party over the past few decades is an excessive degree of argument about what policy will sell best to the voters on a given election day and a noticeable lack of debate about what is the right policy. Amazingly even Peter Beinart raised that issue in an editorial not long ago. It was one of the very rare occasions in which I agreed with Mr. Beinart.

Does anyone in their right mind seriously believe that the right-wing of the Republican Party reflects mainstream American values? Does anyone seriously believe that they rose from the ashes of the 1964 Barry Goldwater landslide having been largely rejected as a fringe movement to dominating the political landscape of America because of their policy positions?

More sooner than later America will have to choose between maintaining the domestic social fabric of our own society or continuing down the road of full spectrum military dominance. It cannot afford both. America will also have to choose between being on the same side as the vast majority of people in the vast majority of countries of the world including our allies; or being on the opposite side.

What might win a popular poll at any given moment can change with the wind. I just hope the Democratic Party finds itself on the right side of history.

[The Magistrate]

194. Thank You, Mr. Carpenter

I greatly appreciate your own thoughtful comments as well; they are a great contribution to a serious, as opposed to a sloganeering, consideration of these matters.

One of the keys to what has happened to our political life over the last several decades, it seem to me, is a failure on the part of left thinkers to appreciate some basic facts of electoral behavior. The largest of these is that voting is an emotional, not a rational, exercise, for the great preponderance of people. The most important specifics are that people vote on the basis of identification with a group, and vote more eagerly against something than for something.

Thus, to approach an election as if it were a debate to be scored by a neutral panel, and was going to be won by the best presentation of facts and reason, is to be doomed at the outset. It is often remarked that a great many people, even a majority, express support in the abstract for many positions dear to us and the Democratic Party, and yet these find little traction in political life, as reflected in the majorities put into office by their votes. The cause of this behavior is that, considered in the abstract, these positions do appeal to their reason, but their reason is overtaken by emotion in the heat of electoral campaigning. These positions are mostly tied emotionally in our political culture to labels that many people have come to react viscerally against, and so as they are reminded in campaigns that the figures promoting them are a sort that they do not like to identify themselves with, and find satisfaction in demonstrating disdain for, many come around to voting for figures who oppose much of what they agree with through rational consideration.

The power of the extreme right of the Republican Party, today and for some time previous, is not really that they reflect "mainstream values", but that the left, at least as it has been popularly perceived over the last few decades, is taken by a great many people to reflect these even less. A great deal of standard leftist rhetoric is aimed at making people feel they are doing, or even being, something wrong, or that there is something greatly wrong about the country they love. Most extreme right rhetoric is aimed at telling people they and what they do is just fine, and the country they love is the finest thing on earth, and adds into the bargain that the only fly in the ointment is these pestiferous nay-sayers telling you everything you hold dear is foolish at best and vile at worst. It should not be necessary to point out which of these more greatly encourages identification with the person promoting the line, and rejection of the person seen as opposing it. It does not matter if the left critique is accurate as a matter of fact or superior as a logical frame of thought, or even likely to result, if its proponents were placed in office, in policies that would obviously bring great benefit to the greatest number of people, because the other side makes a superior emotional connection, and we have yet to find a means of beating them on that field.

[Douglas Carpenter]

215. yes Sir, that is a major part of the difficult task

Not long ago I was expounding away about recent history regarding U.S. Government backed interventions in Latin America. The person I was talking to happened to be a Democrat. Yet even they reacted like I was calling their mother a whore and advancing some preposterously absurd conspiracy theory. Although I am certain that every point I made was 100% factually accurate and conformable by irrefutable neutral sources.

So added to the tendency of people to take such critique of American foreign policy as a personal attack is the reality that the majority-perhaps even the vast majority-simply do not know enough information.

Then added on top of all of that is the fear factor. People in any society will support repressive domestic policies and a morally dubious foreign policy if they are lead to believe that it is they themselves who are the victim or potential victim under eminent threat. There is a reason that at the end of World War II some planners decided to change the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense.

I doubt that there is any simple formula to counter these factors that misguide people into supporting reactionary policies and politicians. It does seem as though that some very progressive political figures are able to reach an otherwise socially conservative audience with a message of old fashioned economic populism. That seems to be able to change the focus on who the enemy within really is.

Another factor came to my mind when I was listening to some old political speeches from the early and mid 60's. It struck me like a lacer beam at just how moralistic and how visionary the message was. And I am not just talking about the rhetoric of Gene McCarthy, George McGovern or even Bobby Kennedy. I am talking about the speeches, sloganeering and campaign commercials of the likes of LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and even Nelson Rockefeller or Bill Scranton.

I would guess that you would remember the very famous 1964 Lyndon Johnson political commercial which showed a little girl picking a daisy when a nuclear bomb goes off while we heard Presidents Johnson's words in the background. Everyone who follows politics remembers that add. But, I wonder how many people remember LBJ's words in the background as the commercial ended? They were very powerful and very moral and absolutely visionary. "We must all learn to love each other or we will all surely die".

Among many other factors, I believe that our message must be populist and it must be moral and it must be visionary.

[Hippo_Tron]

210. So what should those who were against the war done?

Just sit at home and not do anything about it?

The sword is two-edged. How about if Johnson hadn't escalated Vietnam into a full military conflict and instead spent the money to further fund his social programs? Then there would have been no anti-war left movement to begin with and perhaps every American would have health insurance. Johnson would have been re-elected in 1968 and civil rights would have been further advanced. Hubert Humphrey or Bobby Kennedy would have been elected president in the 70's and we would have seen even more progressive change.

Johnson shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, he is just as much at fault for starting a failing war than the anti-war left is for protesting it. Johnson, for the most part, a great president, but like all presidents going back to Harry Truman he just wasn't that smart when it came to matters of foreign affairs.

I hate to say this but Nixon and Kissinger had much better minds for foreign policy than Johnson did. The only problem was that both of them were cold hearted bastards who had no problem seeing our soldiers keep dieing for their own gain.

Only when we get to Jimmy Carter do we see someone with the intelligence and the morality to challenge traditional cold war policy to a certain extent. And then of course America throws him out of office him for a stupid cowboy actor. Go figure...

[BootinUp]

44. I think there's more to it.

The civil rights act changed the makeup of our party. Although there was no better option.

The lack of the ability of elected dems to make people feel secure on National Security Issues is killing us.


The changing manufacturing environment and an aging demographic has made New Deal economics harder to sell. (I said harder not impossible)

[iconoclastNYC]

52. I'm sorry but I think you are repeating Right-wing frames

Respectfully I ask you to consider this poll from Rassumusen:


Trust More on National Security

President Bush 41%
Democrats in Congress 43%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=509609&mesg_id=509609


How high does that second number need to be before DLC gives up this self-defeating : "we look weak on national security" non-sense?

[BootinUp]

62. Lets look at actual election data

polls change all the time.

Are you saying that we didn't get our asses kicked in 94, 96, 2000, 2002, 2004? And you think I can't go back and find analysis on why we lost from exit poll data? It sure as fuck wasn't because people think the dem party is too right wing.

[iconoclastNYC]

65. The reason we got our ass kicked

Is because we didn't GO BOLD buy advocating popular policies. We targeted the SWING VOTERS who are so misinformed they dont know who to support.

We need to target non voters. That's like 40% of the population. Swing voters are 3%

[BootinUp]

71. I hear that every damn election

guess what, the non-voters don't vote every time. Join me in the real world.

[MrBenchley]

86. Dennis Kucinich was good and "bold"

and he couldn't even pull 10% of Ohio voters as the favorite son in the primary.

He also didn't bring non-voters to the polls....

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

100. Sure as shit does....

[iconoclastNYC]

108. The expert has spoken.

Cha-ching.

[MrBenchley]

111. Pout louder

[LincolnMcGrath]

222. Connecticut Primary; Lieberman 6,703 votes 5% 0 Dels.

OHIO Primary; Kucinich 107,685 votes 9% 4 Dels.

Pretty sad, considering Joe was on the winning ticket four short years earlier. Attacking Gore and running to the right worked out real well for Mr. Lieberman didn't it?



Here is a preemptive :hug: before you studiously avoid the topic above by stating that I post nothing worth reading.

[The Magistrate]

72. The Problem With That View, Sir

Is that there is no reason whjatever to suppose people whi do not vite woud b=vote in a different way than people who do vote. there is, ideed, some polling data to suggest they woulod break out about like the voting populace does.

People do not vote for several reasons. One is a feelingt hat things are pretty well in hand whoever wins, and that bloc is hardly good soil for a hope of radical response. Anotyher is simple disinterest in politics: oit is a taste, you know, like sports or collecting Franklin Mint plates, that some have anmd some do not. This bloc could be counted on, of it were move dto the polls, to go with the peceived likely winner and the most approved candidate in general.

It is a myth that there is a great reservoir of voters who agree with radical views but simply do not vote....

[SaveElmer]

89. Kucinich went bold...

How'd he do?

[iconoclastNYC]

95. How DLC Liberman do? Or Gehphart?

Both DLCers ... How'd they do with thier DLC campaigns?

[SaveElmer]

98. Kerry did quite well getting the nomination...

And if you believe many here, winning the election!!

[iconoclastNYC]

106. He's the exception

He has one of the most liberal records of any of the DLCers in Congress.

He's a real man, most of the other DLCers just tow the DLC line on every issue.

I like Kerry. I loathe the DLC. It's harming my party.

[SaveElmer]

116. Actually...

If you go by DU conventional wisom, the last 4 Presidential elections were won by DLC members...

[wyldwolf]

124. and, in addition (and this is sure to raise some eyebrows)

I've been doing a bit of research on Jimmy Carter's early political life and influences (He was a delegate in '72 to Scoop Jackson, thought by many to be the father of the DLC). Carter's economic policies forshadowed the DLC.

[LincolnMcGrath]

147. Let us venture down that road.

Kucinich beat Edwards/Clark/Sharpton in Maine

Kucinich beat Clark/Lieberman/Mosley-Braun/Sharpton in Iowa

Kucinich beat Edwards/Clark/Sharpton Washington

Kucinich beat Lieberman in New Mexico

Kucinich beat Lieberman/Sharpton in N Dakota

Kucinich beat Sharpton/Clark in Wisconsin

Kucinich beat Edwards/Dean/Sharpton in Hawaii

Kucinich beat Dean in Utah

Kucinich beat Dean/Sharpton in California

Kucinich beat Dean/Sharpton in Massachusetts

Kucinich beat Dean in New York

Kucinich beat Dean in Ohio

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Now I realize, you may have read right here on DU that D.Kucinich finished no better than 5th in any primary, but please go the the link, there is some great stuff there. Then ask yourself about the legitimacy of the attacks on Kucinich (or Dean/Clark/Sharpton) by some of DU's finest. Are they just angry, fuming because Dean won handily in his home state (beating the Kerry by 2-1 margin), while Lieberman got trounced in his home state? (losing to Kerry by 10-1 margin) :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

148. Kucinich brought up the rear pretty much everywhere

It's funny that you don't post actual figures in all those Kucinich "victories".....

Let's give some ACTUAL facts instead of chilidsh fantasy...

on January 19, Kucinich racked up 1% in the Iowa caucuses....(by the way, Clark and Lieberman didn't campaign in Iowa)

On January 27, Kucinich racked up 1% in New Hampshire

On February 3, Kucinich got 2% in the Arizona primary, 1% in Delaware, 1% in Missouri, 1% in Oklahoma, 1% in South Carolina, 3% in N. Dakota, and 5% in New Mexico.

On February 7, he got 3% in the Michigan caucuses and 8% in the Washington caucuses.

On February 8, he got 16% in Maine.

On February 10, he got 1% in Tennessee, 1% in Virginia, and so on.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2004primaries1.html

Dennis had some fucking juggernaut going, all right.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

152. The Lieberman losses really sting don't they brother?

You need another :hug: don't you?

I posted links for all to see.


To say DK bought up the rear everywhere is exactly the type of lie I was addressing. I also noticed you failed to address the numerous claims made by some here that DK never finished better than 5th. We all wonder we that is. :rofl:


Actual facts? OK Kucinich got 23 TIMES the number of Delegates as Joe Lieberman. By the way, Lieberman was 'in the race' in Iowa. It matters not whether he campaigned here.

chilidsh ?

[MrBenchley]

154. Yeah, that was some Kucinich juggernaut....NOT

"To say DK bought up the rear everywhere is exactly the type of lie I was addressing."
In other words, you hate facts.

Better stick to posting what I've written. You don't have anything to say worth hearing....

[LincolnMcGrath]

161. Facts are what they are. DK beat finished ahead of many candidates

in the primaries.

Despite the false claim made by some here that he "finished no better than 5th in any primary."

A statement that you conveniently keep refusing to address. We all wonder why that is, and why you are forced to resort to "that was some Juggernaut." :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

166. Yeah, that was some Kucinich juggernaut (snicker)

[LincolnMcGrath]

183. Again, you offer nothing.

So I give you a :hug:

[mtnsnake]

203. You might wanna think about getting into your diving gear

I sense a "Lloyd Bridges" defense is just around the corner, MrB. :evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

218. Glub glub glub....

LOL!

[The Magistrate]

170. As A Matter Of Fact, Mr. McGrath

Rep. Kucinich does not seem to have finished ahead of any genuine active candidate save Rev. Sharpton in any primary, and the latter was never considered a serious candidate, even in his own estimation. Rep Kucinich's best performances came in small caucus states, a mode of selection that rather over-values activist insiders. Difficult as it may be for some to acknowledge, Rep. Kucinich demonstrated no appeal whatever to rank and file Democratic party voters nationwide in the recent primary season, and there is not a shadow of a reason to suspect he would have exercised a greater appeal to voters in the general election.

[LincolnMcGrath]

184. I am truly sorry you feel Edwards/Clark/Dean were not genuine.

"Rep. Kucinich does not seem to have finished ahead of any genuine active candidate save Rev. Sharpton in any primary"

I am also truly sorry you feel California is a small caucus state. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/CA/index.html

[The Magistrate]

193. The Word, Sir, Was "Active"

If you will check the dates of the primaries in question, you will find that in all cases where Mr. Kucinich out-polled the major figures you have named, they had already terminated their candidacies. When someone announces they are no longer standing for an office, it tends to depress the number of people who cast a ballot for them....

[BootinUp]

157. I guess you might convince some neophyte

but how many here are going to fall for this nonsense? When Lieberman withdrew from the race he was doing better than Dennis K. Dennis never withdrew and picked up some Delegates by forfeit basically.

[LincolnMcGrath]

163. Are you going on the record here stating that DK had zero delegates

before Lieberman withdrew? Are you willing to do that?

Let me know.

[BootinUp]

164. Why not.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

All of DK's 23 delegates came after February 3rd which is when Joe withdrew.

Calif, March 2nd, 1 delegate
Hawaii, February 24, 8 delegates
Min, March 2, 9 delegates
Ohio, March 2, 5 delegates

[wyldwolf]

176. hello? McGrath? What say you?

[LincolnMcGrath]

182. Will it be alright if I go to work?

Or should I clear my schedule with you beforehand?

[LincolnMcGrath]

181. You are correct.

I was thinking of state caucus delegates and linking/typing Nat delegate wins. Hence the confusion. I bow in your presence, and offer the following link as a token of my esteemed appreciation. :hi:


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/IA/index.html

You will note, DK had 39 confirmed St. Delegates and I personally know of three others, also note JL had a big fat zero.

A man who won the vice presidency 4 years earlier, had no support what so ever.

[T Town Jake]

159. Ah, yes...the mythical "non-voter"....

...if we could just get that mysterious creature to the polls we would win every election by double-digit landslides...

You know what? I've heard about this magical "non-voter" every year since I started paying attention to politics, and that'd be 1972. Every four years since then, in the lead up to an election, this skulking lurker in the shadows of our electoral system was going to be the "ace in the hole" that was just waiting to played...if only we could coax him/her out from under our left sleeve (I've heard over and over), the race wouldn't even be close...the GOP candidate would be doomed.

Guess what? The one time we saw even a glimmer of this electoral Loch Ness was 1980 - and he emerged from the shadows just long enough to help give Ronald Reagan his first presidential landslide.

Sorry, I've heard it all before, and ain't buying it.

[rman]

189. "New Deal" is NOT 'privatize everything' -

privatization of everything is what mainstream Dem party is supporting, and it also is what the DLC and the RW are supporting.
It is however not what the majority of Americans is supporting.

[Hippo_Tron]

209. Actually, Sirhan Sirhan put an end to LBJ's great society

Bobby Kennedy was the only figure influential enough to be able to stand against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights but also to keep the support of the pro war faction of the democratic party. The public was very tired of the Vietnam War by 1968 after they saw the horrors of the Tet Offensive. Gene McCarthy just wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the nomination let alone beat Nixon. Humphrey didn't have the support of his progressive base because of the war and also didn't have the support of the conservative democrats because of Wallace.

And WTF is this radical social agenda that you are talking about? Because I don't see a woman's right to choose and equality for all Americans as radical regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender as radical.

I'll concede one point to you, though. The left should have voted for Hubert Humphrey who was a great liberal. Although he supported the Johnson's Vietnam policy due to the political pressures during the election year, I have no doubt that we would've been out of Vietnam much sooner than Nixon got us out.

[adwon]

224. So true

Wow. I had to double-check that I didn't write this :P. Could not agree more.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Too binary

I'm neither.

[SaveElmer]

43. The stupid thing about this whole argument is...

That on election day in 2008, 99.9% of the people posting on these threads are gonna vote for the same person for President...

[iconoclastNYC]

54. If it's so stupid why don't you ignore it?

Why are you so compelled to attack it if it's just stupid and pointless.

To make my point more clear. THE DLC IS THE ENEMY WITHIN.

No the individual politicos...THE MOVEMENT.

[SaveElmer]

55. Pointing out the stupidity...

Is probably more useful than the argument itself...

[iconoclastNYC]

57. Useful to what, your ego?

Please.

[wyldwolf]

47. The "MoveOn" wing is out ot touch with the Democratic mainstream

Challenge me.

[SteppingRazor]

61. Oh, I dunno about that...

like the DLC on the other side, I think Moveon.org is made out to be something of a bogeyman. If you look at moveon's homepage right now, it's pretty standard stuff -- in fact, a lot of the same stuff the DLC says. Like, for example, getting Democrats in Congress so that we can focus on healthcare and energy independence.

Although neither side of the democratic political spectrum may like to hear it, I think that MoveOn and the DLC have more in common than we would like to admit, and there is plenty of midsdle ground for agreement. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm ditching this thread before I get flamed to death :yoiks:

[iconoclastNYC]

63. No flaming.

You make your point well.

I just disagree with you that there is any common ground.

DLC gets it's money from a secret list of big oil companies, right wing foundations and the fortune 500.

MoveOn get it's money from small donors - citizens, not corporations.

See the difference?

[Capn Sunshine]

66. OK. The "Move On " wing is active and involved

The DLC seems more issue oriented. The primary concern and focus of the DLC is inside the beltway lobbying to Dem politicians.

The primary concern of MoveOn is grassroots activism and giving avoice to a wing of the party consistently ignored by themedia.

This all started, of course, in the buildup to war. I think the DLC is still pro war. Stop me if you disagree with this.

MoveOn is unequivocably anti-war, and the result of BushCos ill advised and unilateral invasion of Iraq is the quagmire we find ourselves intoday, which MoveOn warned about all along.

Thus, MoveOn feels simultaneously vindicated and saddened by the quagmire/civil war in Iraq. Now the only issue is whether you view the anti-war stand as "mainstrem " or not.

but 65% of Americans against the War in its current context is pretty convincing.

The DLC? Please fill me in. Where are they at?

[iconoclastNYC]

67. DLC = Stay the course.

And why not, some of thier donors are military contractors.

[wyldwolf]

76. I'll speak to the original point - MoveOn is out of touch

...and I'll begin by reminding you that they were against the Afghanistan invasion that had the support of the vast majority of not only Democrats but the nation as a whole.

The founders of MoveOn admit they are out of the loop:

This kind of closed feedback loop is indicative of a larger problem: the group's almost hermetic left-wing insularity. "We don't get around much," acknowledges Boyd. "We tend to all stay in front of our keyboards and do the work." Rolling Stone

MoveOn's founders throw around the "professional election losers" label at the DLC but have little electoral victories themselves:

For a political organization that likes to rail against "the consulting class of professional election losers," MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group's leadership and you won't hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd -- the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn -- blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins "in the classical sense." Rolling Stone

During 2004, MoveOn members were out of touch with Demcrats on issues and the presidential nominee:

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.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7048293/the_online_insurgency/?rnd=1140817338309&has-player=false

[Capn Sunshine]

85. we should move this debate to its own thread

but while I'm here, what part of the CURRENT MoveOn position is "Out of touch"? And why? because a writer in "Rolling Stone" says so?

And does this mean you are implying that the DLC is "in touch"?

Because you still haven't said what the DLC's position on the War is.

Howard Dean is another issue; you know darn well how that shakes out; and don't plan on using Dean as a straw man.

We're talking MoveOn here. not DFA.

[wyldwolf]

102. As usual, you're diverting from the original point

but while I'm here, what part of the CURRENT MoveOn position is "Out of touch"? And why? because a writer in "Rolling Stone" says so?

That was just a little over two years ago. And the quotes and stats came from Move On. Rolling Stone just reported them.

And does this mean you are implying that the DLC is "in touch"?

Because you still haven't said what the DLC's position on the War is.

Not the point.

Howard Dean is another issue; you know darn well how that shakes out; and don't plan on using Dean as a straw man.

You don't call the shots on THIS forum. Gonna run back across the street and complain?

[Capn Sunshine]

133. That's another non answer answer, and I'm NOT diverting anything

And does this mean you are implying that the DLC is "in touch"?

Because you still haven't said what the DLC's position on the War is.

Not the point.

Oh Noooo, my capable debating friend. That is exactly the point.
You asked about MoveOn and I explained: that to me, they are mainstream, grassroots and activist and that the DLC is not a group of activists. Nor are they mainstream. This due to the primary raison d' etre of MoveOn: opposition to the Iraq quagmire. You replied with a quote from a two year old Rolling Stone hit piece without answering the question or addressing the point.

The point , the question I am asking: that MoveOn made it's bone opposing the WAR. Since MoveOn and 65% of the American people are in agreement about the prosecution of the Iraq War, WHAT is the DLC's position on the WAR? Beacuse I'd really like you to explain that.
Because to me, a majority usually indicates "mainstream"

[BootinUp]

135. What exactly does "opposition" mean?

in your context there. Thats pretty vague.

You seem to be saying that being activist is being mainstream, and not activist is not mainstream. Are you serious?


The DLC website is free to browse on a tremendous range of policy proposals. Including the war.

[wyldwolf]

143. He knows the DLC's positions

He used to constantly brag that he was member.

[Capn Sunshine]

172. that is correct.

I wouldn't call it bragging though. :hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

168. I'm saying the majority = mainstream

and since MoveOn is on the side of the majority in this case ( the Iraq quagmire), that makes THEM a hell of a lot closer to any mythical mainstream than the DLC, which pointedly eschews "activism".

"Opposition" is exactly that. AGAINST the Iraq war in all it's iterations; whether it was the rationale to invade in the first place to the placing our soldiers there today with no clear mission except survival.

Now will ONE of you explain the DLC's position on the Iraq war?

Look, I'm not minimizing the worthy ideas at NDOL, but seriously, without a definitive statement against the Iraq war , and pre-emptive wars in general, the DLC is seriously OUT of "mainstream " thought on this issue.

Not "mainstream". As Joe mentioned. Out. Not even near the water.

[BootinUp]

169. That explains it

whew. Where to start. You are in another reality than I am my friend. My understanding is MoveOn is small group of people relatively speaking. Certainly not representative of mainstream anything.

[Capn Sunshine]

171. alternative reality?

3.3+/- million members. What's the membership numbers of the DLC, by comparison?

And how is being aligned with the American peoples majority view against the Iraq war NOT mainstream?

Really. You think by saying that MoveOn is not mainstream, that it is not.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOkay.

You DLC defenders really enjoy deconstructing and microparsing.
Not really a good debating tactic, no matter what the style manual from Tufts University says.

[BootinUp]

174. 3.3 million wow

I guess that would be every email address they registered in the last few years especially just prior to Nov 2004. I think I even signed up at one point.... how much weight do these online emailers really pull politically we could look and see how much success they have had I guess.

But in any event there are polls that still show the public is divided on whether troops should stay in Iraq or not. Check it out at pollingreport.com

As for me, I was quite opposed to the invasion, and I am not in favor of continuing a losing strategy over there as it seems we are not having much success. But I am in favor of aiding Iraq any way we can to fix the mess that was created. I bet the majority is with me on that. As to the details of how to do it, I don't presume to know the answer. I do know who needs to be held accountable and it is not the politicians that had no power to stop it in the first place.

[Capn Sunshine]

175. we agree on that then

but this whole thread was on whether MoveOn was "mainstream" or not.

And I never did find out the DLC's position on the war, because I suspect it's as muddled as Hillary Clinton's.

[LincolnMcGrath]

188. When the DLC gets 3/4 s of a million signatures on any policy

position, please come back and post a link. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

192. when those 3/4 million signees result in an electoral victory

please come back and post a link.

[LincolnMcGrath]

199. See post 200

[wyldwolf]

207. so MoveOn has to resort to endorsing a DLC candidate? LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

220. The DLC has candidates now.

You folks need to make up your minds, are they just a think tank, or are they a national party?

[wyldwolf]

226. They've always had candidates - Just like MoveOn and DFA

Hell, I have candidates,

In 2003, Wes Clark was MY candidate.

Let's play semantics.

[wyldwolf]

142. "Oh Noooo, my capable debating friend"

LOL.

Ok, let's review.

Post 47, I said "The "MoveOn" wing is out ot touch with the Democratic mainstream."

Post 66, you spun away with some fanciful statements like, "The primary concern of MoveOn is grassroots activism and giving avoice to a wing of the party consistently ignored by the media."

A statement which is absolutely ridiculous. MoveOn wants to influence elections and get like-minded people elected.

I think the DLC is still pro war. Stop me if you disagree with this.

Of course the DLC is pro-war. The DNC is pro-war. A pacifist can't get elected this country and any politician who declares themselves "anti-war" will only get the support of the fringe.

MoveOn, however, opposed the Afghanistan war - making them waaaay out of the mainstream.

Yes, currently, the larger part of the American populace disagrees with the war (though the figure is closer to 55% - not 65%), but that isn't the point of this discussion.

One issue makes MoveOn "in touch?" Why not speak to the original point of the discussion and all the points I raised about MoveOn?

Because "Iraq" is your red herring.

These are currently are national priorities according to the polls:

The war in Iraq
Job creation and economic growth
Health care
Terrorism
Illegal immigration
The cost and supply of energy
Congressional ethics and lobbying reform
The wiretapping of suspected terrorists

With the exception of several new ones, these priorities and the order in which they rank, have changed very little in barely two years.

Barely two year ago, MoveOn's founders cited as most important to their members the evironment, 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.

So WHAT is the Moveon's position on the issues that matter to the majority of Americans? Beacuse I'd really like you to explain that. Because to me, a majority usually indicates "mainstream"

[LincolnMcGrath]

146. Challenge Me Challenge Me Challenge Me OK! Not that it will matter....

MoveOn did not oppose the Afghanistan War. I mean, I guess if you want to agree with Karl Rove and/or Byron York over at National review, that is your prerogative.


snip

Beinart is simply wrong to state that MoveOn opposed the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We did urge that retaliation be targeted at military bases and at those who attacked us, believing that excessive military force, if not limited to terrorist camps, could lead to unnecessary civilian death and suffering and further fan the flames of terrorism




If * announced tomorrow that he was going to turn the whole middle east into glass with a nu'cu'lar bomb, would you be against it? Or would you advocate a better course of action?

[BootinUp]

151. What better course of action

Afghanistan was sponsoring terrorism, that government had to be stopped. The policy of bombing terrorism camps and such was what Clinton had already been doing, it simply was not effective.

[LincolnMcGrath]

160. Don't change the subject. Address the untrue claim made above.

MoveOn was not opposed to the Afghanistan War, as the poster above claimed.

[The Magistrate]

162. As A Matter Of Practical Fact, Mr. McGrath

Any attempt to destroy the al Queda basing and activities in Afghanistan necessitated the destruction of the Taliban government, as the two were wholy inter-twined.

As a matter of curiousity, what was your own position on events in Afghanistan?

[LincolnMcGrath]

185. I object your honor!

The only relevant practical fact here is a certain poster put forth a number of falsehoods above. One of witch, I proved to be false. (only one due to time constraints)

MoveOn did not oppose the Afghan War.

If you would like to hear my testimony on the Afghan War, lets you and I start a thread and discus the merits of the Taliban meeting in Crawford Texas in the late nineties, and anything else related to my position on the war.

[The Magistrate]

195. The Group's Position On That Matter, Sir

At least in my view, fell rather short of support for what was necessary in the situation. Mere strikes at "terrorist camps" would not have sufficed; the overthrow of the Taliban regime was essential. That the success in this endeavor was squandered by the feckless incompetence of the present regime does not alter that. It does indeed seem quite possible the Taliban will achieve control of that unhappy land again in few years, if present trends continue, and that will be supremely unfortunate.

As for your offer, Sir, if you wish to make clear your own position on that war, and enter into a seperate discussion of it with me and others here, it would be a pleasure on my part to participate, to the degree my time permits.

[LincolnMcGrath]

197. May I approach the bench?

The Group was not against the Afghan War.

[BootinUp]

165. In your own words

MoveOn did not support taking down the Taliban government of Afghanistan. That is opposing the War. End of debate.

[LincolnMcGrath]

180. Where did I speak those words?

A. MoveOn never had a petition. End of Debate. One of the founding members of Move On had a petition Prior to forming MoveOn. And even that petition said nothing similar to what you seem to think it did.

B. If you want to go on record as supporting the slanderous RW lies about MoveOn, feel free, just know that it puts you in league with the likes of Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh, Byron York and many others.

[LincolnMcGrath]

187. See post 188

MoveOn never opposed the Afghan War.

[bvar22]

216. Containment, surveillance, observation, sanctions,

diplomatic channels with responsible nations to curtail weapons, and MOST EFFECTIVELY aggressively track and curtailing of funding. Some laws protecting Secret Offshore accounts and the international transfer of funds would need to be changed.

The Clinton administration was 100% effective in preventing Saddam from buying, building, or deploying ANY weapon systems OR exporting Terrorism (whatever THAT may be).

There are MANY, many effective options that could have been implemented BEFORE invading or wholesale BOMBING of entire countries.

BTW: In spite of PERSISTANT Republican obstructionism, Clinton came close to nailing Osama in one of those missile attacks you discredit.

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.

[BootinUp]

217. we came close

Yeah, but that only counts in horse shoes. I am merely pointing out that posters here and active in Moveon often hold views that don't win elections (rather they lose them). You can argue with me about foreign policy and the war on terror but it doesn't change that.

Is war a terrible thing? Without a doubt. But I oppose pacisfism that threatens to continue to erode the power of the democratic party.

If we democrats had any real power in government we could be doing so much more to reduce tensions between the Middle East and the Western worlds. You have to make tough choices to get there.

[LincolnMcGrath]

219. You could start by not alowing the right to define your positions.

[BootinUp]

225. That's what I call

the spine meme. Voters don't know what to think so they will follow the dems with spine.

Its nonsense.

Voters want someone who shares their values, not someone who tells them they are evil, stupid, or whatever.

[LincolnMcGrath]

227. The spine meme?

I am talking abo put not allowing the right to define every issue. I'm not sure what you are coming
from.


Example;
Some RWer or Media Whore says the 2004 election was won on moral values

Like clockwork, the DLC steps up and says "We got morals too!"

Thereby validating a false dichotomy created wholly by the right.

[BootinUp]

228. framing, showing a spine, whatever

I call it the spine meme. The idea that Americans are not voting the way they are based on policy/ideology but they are voting that way because dems have no spine. Its ludicrous. The majority of the electorate has rejected the National Democratic plank too many years to conclude anything else.

[LincolnMcGrath]

229. I think we are debating different issues here.

Carry On

[wyldwolf]

167. heh! Wrong again, McGrath

After 9/11, MoveOn.org Collected Signatures For Statement Calling For “Justice, Not Escalating Violence That Would Only Play Into The Terrorists’ Hands.” “Joan Blades of Berkeley, a founder of MoveOn.org, an online network of liberal-leaning activists, said her group had collected 30,000 signatures since the attacks Sept. 11 on a statement calling for ‘justice, not escalating violence that would only play into the terrorists’ hands.’ ‘It’s a frightening thing to find out there are nations of people that think we’re evil,’ Blades said in a telephone interview. ‘We don’t want to support that imagery; we want to turn it around.’” (Tony Pugh, “Against Tide, They Clamor For Peace,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/21/01)

MoveOn Peace Website: “A Non-Military Response Is The Best Strategy For A Permanent End To Terror.” “Why peace? Because we want justice for our dead; and because we want our safety back. Because we want a world in which the events of September 11 can never be repeated. We support President Bush’s resolve to end terrorism, but not his military agenda for doing it. … It is our strong belief that a non-military response is the best strategy for a permanent end to terror. … war on terrorism is likely to increase terrorist activity at home, not just overseas. Indiscriminate killings of Afghani citizens or other innocent citizens of the globe will achieve nothing but death, and it is certain to inflame retaliation and even further terrorism – and it lowers us to the level of the terrorist attackers. …

resident Bush must pledge to discontinue the U.S.’s own violence-supporting actions across the Middle East. … OUR CALL IS THIS: President Bush and citizens around the globe, let us not enter into World War III. Rather, let us begin immediately to forge WORLD PEACE I.” http://web.archive.org/web/20030512072603/peace.moveon.org/peace.php3

MoveOn.org Petition Called On World Leaders To “Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To” Terrorist Attacks. “We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.” http://web.archive.org/web/20031023003904/http://www.moveon.org/peace/petition/petition.html

[LincolnMcGrath]

186. You posted those to prove I am correct? Why thank you!

ELI was not aligned with MoveOn when the PE article was written. But don't let facts get in your way. lol

snip; September 27, 2001

Peter Schurmann, executive director of MoveOn.org, emails Eli to solicit feedback on MoveOn's "Justice not Terror" petition. Peter and Eli discuss the possibility of a collaboration in which MoveOn's technical systems and political experience would support the work of 9-11peace.

from; http://web.archive.org/web/20030512074353/peace.moveon.org/history.php3


BTW; Why the clever editing?
"We must proceed with the investigation into terrorism via the use of a truly international team, citing and utilizing international human rights law. The Geneva Convention and other international agreements are steps toward a system of international human rights law that is agreed to by nations around the globe. By supporting this system, the United States makes clear that despite its power, it is accountable to the core values of democracy"

and

"Because a war on terrorism is likely to increase terrorist activity at home, not just overseas. Indiscriminate killings of Afghani citizens or other innocent citizens of the globe will achieve nothing but death, and it is certain to inflame retaliation and even further terrorism--and it lowers us to the level of the terrorist attackers. Just as we condemn these terrible attacks, so we condemn all situations in which civilians are killed for the values or actions of their governments."
from; your link :eyes:

"Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.

"Lastly and most emphatically, we demand that there be no recourse to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or any weapons of indiscriminate destruction, and feel that it is our inalienable human right to live in a world free of such arms."

Are you saying these are wrong headed ideals? Are are you willing to rubber stamp everything the * administration has done in the last 6 years? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

191. the passages speak for themselves

Specifically the ones calling for a non-violent response. And they were from MoveOn's website. Are you saying MoveOn posted something on their website they didn't endorse?

Clever editing? It's called "snippets." Once doesn't have to post every word of a passage. Just the part relevant to the point. What you went back and included may very well explain why they opposed the Afghanistan action, but that is irrelevant to the point.

[LincolnMcGrath]

198. I can lead you to the truth.

I cannot, however, make you read or understand it. :shrug:


Once might want read every word of a passage.

[wyldwolf]

208. once you discover it. let us know

[LittleClarkie]

94. All y'all are out of touch with the mainstream

From's approach is too milquetoast in regard to the war, as if he doesn't want us to take a stand that looks to different from the Republicans. He's too worried about how it will look if we say this thing or that thing, instead of selling boldly and with passion what we DO have to say. He ends up working against Dems since the Repubs love to quote him and some of the others, showing the rift in the party. Too much backseat driving, and not enough bold action.

Not to mention that if Hillary is an example of how they plan to do business, then she misses the mark more than she hits it. With everything else going on, she chooses videogames of all things to take a stand on. I fear that the DLC will find out that their mode of operation won't get them anywhere without the charisma of Bill. And I remember hearing that it wasn't the DLC agenda that finally clicked with the people back in 1992. It was a more populist message.

And the Moveon folks turned me off with their plans to campaign against Dems instead of Repubs, and also their declaration that they paid for and now own the party. Gee, are you my new massah?

Neither side was much help in the electon. The DLCers were to lackluster, like their hearts weren't in it (cough... Hillary 2008...cough). And the Moveon folks operating outside the campaign, parallelling and duplicating their efforts until the voters were ready to scream, and acting as if the candidate was more in the way of their message instead of finding a way to sell HIS message (cough... ABB... cough)

I'll take people who have elements of both but don't belong fully in either camp. Mature people. People who don't remind me of a grade school schoolyard, the way both sides here do with their eternal baiting of each other.

We'll never get anywhere if you guys are at each others throats and not focused on the Republicans and winning seats.

[iconoclastNYC]

96. From gets his power taking money from the Fortune 500

And he does thier bidding. Everything else is window dressing.

[BootinUp]

103. From is not trying to appeal to your need for more hot stuff.

He is presenting a possible compromise that you and some red state voters can agree on for a national leader.

[LittleClarkie]

104. It's not about hot stuff

It's about being overly concerned with how what you do will look rather than what is right.

Interesting screenname you have there. Wes Clark is one of those people I see having a foot in both camps, and actually leaning a bit more toward the moveon.org folks. He wouldn't disavow his connection to Moore. The only thing he stands for that the moveon.org folks would balk at would be his semi-hawkish, but still well-reasoned and sensible stance on Iraq.

[BootinUp]

110. Lets analyze that sentence.

"It's about being overly concerned with how what you do will look rather than what is right."

This is a popular meme around here but what does it really mean?

I think it means... to hell with what the Red States think do what the Blue states think is right. Isn't that it? I mean its the mirror image of the Bush unifying plan isn't it? Works pretty good in a primary anyways.

So we don't need a unifyer we need a divider?

A real National leader has to represent the nation not Mass, not NY, not Calif, the whole country. As to the war issue, I find very little difference between Dem or Dem v. DLC positions since the actual invasion. Most Dems are in favor of doing everything possible to fix Iraq before we leave. It may be a moot issue very soon.

[LittleClarkie]

128. Analyze it, or distort it to fit your pov?

Here is what I base my opinion on:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060219-105049-638

DLC chief raps party's liberals

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 20, 2006
...
(snippage)

In yet another stinging critique of the Democrats' liberal wing, DLC founder and chief executive Al From said his party could lose this year's midterm elections if it continues sending a message to voters that it is weak on national security issues in the war on terrorism.

"Despite all that has happened since November 2004, I fear the 2006 national election could turn on whether voters' unease with the Democrats on national security again trumps their apprehension with the direction Republicans are leading our country," Mr. From writes in the latest issue of Blueprint, the DLC's national magazine .

(snippage)

Mr. From said the 2004 election turned on several questions in the minds of the voters, one of which was, did Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry understand that America has enemies in the world who are out to kill us?" Enough voters didn't think so, and they gave President Bush the margin he needed to win re-election, he said.

Mr. From, the architect of the centrist-leaning agenda, which led to Bill Clinton's election in 1992 and re-election in 1996, fears that what happened last year could happen again if the party nominates another liberal like Mr. Kerry.

John Kerry is not weak on national defense. It is in fact one of his strengths, as evidenced by the first debate with Bush, one he was supposed to lose. Considering that Sen. Kerry is supposedly apart of the DLC, this tells me that I am likely correct that they weren't really behind him in his run for president.

Further, the article tells me that he's more interested in the appearance of strength then actually being strong in national defense.

He's worried about how things will look. I went to breakfast with a woman who rather likes Hillary, and when I suggested that her support of the Iraq War would likely hurt her in the primaries, the woman said that Hillary was probably waiting for the number of dead soldiers to go up before she came out against the war. What kind of fucked up plan is that?

From should have been concerned more with presenting Kerry as strong on defense, countering the Republican spin instead of agreeing with it, and not worrying about how liberal he was. I wish Kerry would just quit them, anyway.

Hey, in case you didn't read the other half of my original post, I'm not from the moveon.org side of this either. Both you guys drive me nuts. I'm all about unity. All I want from either side is that they learn to play nice in time for the 2006 elections. Doesn't leave you much time. Y'all need to get cracking, hold a conference, go to breakfast, something.

[BootinUp]

129. Sorry to say this

but Kerry created his own problems on the defense issue with conflicting statements and a history of admiral but controversial actions that made him an easy target in our television garbage news times.

From is right on target btw.

[LittleClarkie]

130. We will see

Hillary will be his test. Let's see if he and his can win a presidential election without the charisma and political artistry of Bill Clinton.

I'd be proud if we'd nominate another liberal like John Kerry again.

But you never addressed my other comment. Why do you support Wes Clark if you are also in the DLC camp? Of all the things that Clark stands for, the DLC would not seem to be one of them. And as I said before, his refusal to disavow Michael Moore must have driven From nuts.

No, From was not on the mark. I'm not speaking of appearances here. I'm speaking of actual foreign policy experience. Kerry had it, and would have been 100 times better for the country than Bush, who only had the appearance of being strong.

We don't need the appearance of strength. We need strength. Regardless of Kerry's snafus in a hostile media environment, he had that strength. I saw precious few Democratic spokesperson's who came out to give him a hand with any effectiveness.

[BootinUp]

131. Hillary could not win

because of all the distortion that has been attached to her over the years.

But on the question of whether Clark fits in the DLC mold, you would be correct in saying not quite. Clark is unique in that he could easily appear to be centrist without necessarily being one. But then he is not all that far from the DLC playbook either. He never said that he agreed with Moore after all only that Moore had a right to speak his peace.

[iconoclastNYC]

107. We dont need to pander to Red state voters

We need to grow the party and appeal to people who don't vote and show them there is in fact a party that cares about thier problems and not just the corporate agenda.

[BootinUp]

113. Pander? lol.

You're right and we don't need to pander to Blue Staters either. We need to lead the country.

[thatsrightimirish]

134. holy toledo ohio!

Enough of this already. Instead of just yelling and blaming each other for every wrong thing that has happened in the past 20 years. And please for one day not have a flame throwing thread about Clinton, DLC etc. I think our time could be used more wisely such as getting each other organized in every state and district to elect Democrats and beat the republicans. Don't like Lieberman? don't vote for him in the primary. Don't like Feingold? Don't vote for him either. But good Lord we really are getting absolutely nowhere here so will you people puuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhllease! Just stop! Don't you think it's scary that the only thing that unites democrats is the fact we love bashing each other?:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

136. agreed

In fact, I posted an article about lefties working together parallel to the Democratic Party to nudge the nation progressively to the left. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2479601

It involves much less hate, but what the heck.

[LunaC]

141. PNAC and DLC share the same origin

In the 1970s the neo-conservatives in the Democratic Party grouped themselves into the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM). The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Patrick Moynihan. It was these two Senators' offices that spawned the Leo Straussian PNACers behind today’s no-exit Iraq War. Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today.

PNAC and the DLC are cut from the same cloth so it's really not about Repugs vs Dems but hawks vs doves.

[Capn Sunshine]

173. not quite

There ARE some signatories of the PNAC document, like Will Marshall, who are DLC. But I think the DLC is much more moderate in their approach towards the ME than The PNAC crowd.

Where the PNAC guys think that every answer to the problems of the ME involves military force, the more economically oriented DLC sees mutual cooperation in economic activity as the salve.

Note this quote regarding the witholding of funds from Palestine and Hamas :

This is a bad and dangerous argument that undermines the genuine path to democracy in Palestine and the region.

I doubt that the PNAC boys would agree with that.

[mdmc]

177. moveon

already

[Catchawave]

196. Both the DLC and MoveOn endorsed Tim Kaine

http://political.moveon.org/2005endorse/endorsed.html#VA

[Hippo_Tron]

204. Gee what a concept, Democrats endorsed a Democrat

If I remember correctly, the DLC and MoveOn also endorsed John Kerry.

[Catchawave]

212. Yes indeedy :)

Google MoveOn and Tim Kaine, and what pops up first are freeper sites that predicted the MoveOn endorsement for Kaine was the Kiss of Death for him :rofl:

I support the DLC and MoveOn !

[AtomicKitten]

213. dogs and cats living together ....

[mtnsnake]

202. The DLC is "the right wings' infiltration of the Democratic Party"?

I think the only rightwing infiltration of the Democratic Party are the people spouting this divisive shit on a 24/7 basis.

[guidod]

223. Finally!!

Someone that makes sense!! Let me buy you a cold one! :toast: