DLC, their minions and the phrase "far left"

[dionysus]

Ever notice how your "moderate" DLC types repeatedly categorize the non-DLC people as "far left"? What exactly does that mean? Is it supposed to be a dirty word like the republicans made "liberal"?

It's as if they want you believe that unless you are a Hillary loving "centrist", you must be some radical socialist/communist loon, no matter what your stances are on actual issues. The "far left", as they like to say, doesn't really exist.

Anyone else notice that?

[Iris]

1. No, but then again, I'm a radical socalist loon. n/t

[WCGreen]

138. And I am proud of it...

[polichick]

2. Yep, that's the tactic...

Problem is, their "far left" is our "progressive" ~ votes they take for granted.

[wildhorses]

3. yes.

i find it sickening and ignorant.

[meegbear]

4. I thought we were an autonomous collective?

:shrug:

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

35. You're fooling yourself.

We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes..

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I find the phrase bothersome ... but it also has a modicum of reality about it

I'll use your example of 'Hillary' as describing a place on the left/right continuum. For argument sake, if the measure is 0 for far left and 100 for far right, let's say that Hillary is at .... I dunno .... say .... 40.

Given that, I'd have to put myself at 30 ...... maybe 25. I'm a liberal. Whatever.

If those two are true (let's stipulate they are), then who are the people I see daily on DU who are at 20 ...... 15 ...... 10, even? And what about the people at 5 or 0?

Yes, there IS a far left ..... and a far right.

I'm more tolerant of the people from ..... I dunno ..... 15 to 65? Those outside that range and I have little in common and even less hope to find common ground on anything.

[dionysus]

you've got a point, however...

i think that the segment that could truly be considered "far left" is a negligible amount of DUers.

I've read your posts for a long time, and though you may be liberal, nothing I've ever heard you say is far-left-radicalism, at least to me.

I'm talking about using the phrase "far left" (as if it were some kind of insult) being applied to anyone who isn't a "centrist".

Especially when the "center" today would be equivilant to "moderate right" in past times.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. hehehe .... you won't hear very much from me that even comes close to .......

...... "far-left-radicalism"

I also agree with you that the whole spectrum has been dragged to the right.

Now, the use of 'far left' as an insult? Sure it is. I heard some guy (Deroy Murdock) who claimed to be not a republic but a libertarian) on teevee just yesterday (Tweety's show with Ron Reagan on, too). He called Hillary a 'far left liberal'. Both Reagan and Tweety burst out laughing. Tweety said to Reagan, "Ron, I know you're further left than Hillary. Where does this leave you?" Ron said, "Gee, I don't know. Maybe out where the busses don't run."

The willfully misinformed Mr. Murdock

[Totally Committed]

6. I think in DLC-ese being "far-left" is supposed to be as shameful

as being "liberal" is in Republican-ese. It's meant to be a slam.

Since I amd a LOUD and PROUD LIBERAL, I also equally enthusiastically embrase the term "far-left" as a badge of honor.

The DLC can bite me.

TC

[rinsd]

7. Minions? Oh the hypocrisy.

[dionysus]

9. hypocrisy? I don't carry water for any candidate, unlike you.

take note of your mature and thoughtful "debate tactics". The wahhmbulance, how quaint...

[rinsd]

12. How else to respond to a hypocritical whine about name calling?

"I don't carry water for any candidate, unlike you."

No you just bitch and complain, doing nothing but add negativity to this fourm.

[Alexander]

33. Why, with insults and misleading statements, of course.

The same as you've always been doing, ever since you came here. :eyes:

[assclown_bush]

46. Other posters "carry water for any candidate"...

Yet you question their tactics as "mature and thoughtful".

:crazy:

[dionysus]

48. hey, if you and your buddies think what you do is otherwise

knock yourself out.

[assclown_bush]

52. "what you do is otherwise"???

Unfortunately I don't understand your response. I am sensing displeasure from you but you are, otherwise, incomprehensible.

[Forkboy]

8. I agree with your point,but using the word "minions" to descibe them isn't helpful.

I know there has to be more ground somewhere between the "far left" and "warmonger/corporatist whores" paradigm that's played here,and using these labels to cover all that ground is just making things worse.

[dionysus]

13. I think minion is an apt term.

[Forkboy]

16. Then don't expect to be taken seriously by the people you need to reach.

Are you looking for cheerleading and backslapping agreement or do you want to try to make a point to the people you're speaking about?

You're making the exact same mistake you get mad at them for making. :shrug:

[dionysus]

38. I highly doubt the people I mention in the OP are open

to changing their minds. Purely to be rude and pick anonymous internet fights is my guess.

[dionysus]

43. HOOB

where you been brother? PM me or get online man.

[realbluesky]

10. I wouldn't call those "moderate" DLC types

I consider myself middle-of-the-road. But it seems everyone else would consider me "far left". Yet I am just as much against Communism as I am against Fascism. The only problem is, Fascism rules the day, so anyone taking a stance against that is considered far left. I wish we could get rid of the labels and speak meaningfully.

[rufus dog]

30. agreed

I would consider myself just a bit left but would be characterized as being far left. 50 years ago I would have been middle of the road.

Oh fuck that bullshit I would always be considered far left no matter the time. And that is fine. If you think gay/lesbians deserve equal protection you are far left.

If fifty or one hundred years ago you supported civil rights, you would be far left.

In some ways the country has moved to the right in the past 40 years and here is where it gets a bit controversial.

"The Greatest Generation" deserves a great deal of credit for WWII, BUT, if I was going to vote on the greatest generation it would go to the parents of the so called greatest generation. They lived through the depression, and supported the next generation, including numerous sacrifices. My issue with the Greatest Generation is they got theirs, the support for Education, the subsidized loans for homes, then a good number of them went to the right and said, I'm not paying for someone to get X.

IMO they moved they moved the country to the right and their offspring jumped on the wagon. It appears that this in now being corrected, we can only hope.

NOTE: This in not an indictment of any specific person, but the generation as a whole.

[dionysus]

118. very interesting post. cool.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I'm a moderate/conservative Dem. I use the phrase "far left" as

a reference point, not a slam on anyone.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[TwilightGardener]

57. Wow--see, you're dragging in Pol Pot and Mao, and I'm only

referring to the limited spectrum of the United States Democratic party (say, from Ben Nelson to Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich), using myself and my own beliefs as a reference point. I'm not referring to the entire worldwide political spectrum. My apologies if that was unclear. Now, we can go into the oft-used-as-epithet "DLCers"--I see THAT a lot. The contempt seems to run both ways, but I'm (usually) not a part of it.

[SaveElmer]

14. How do you feel about the term neocon...

Used to apply to centrist Democrats, and to Hillary Clinton...

It's like if you don't follow the edicts of the "far left" (or whatever term you choose), you must be some George Bush loving fascist...

[dionysus]

37. Hillary's an ubermoderate, not a neocon.

To me she's like an old style new england republican.

GW loving facist, no. Corporatist? Yes.

[AntiFascist]

61. The proper term used to be "neoliberal"...

but if you read some of the older writings of the DLC's thinktank: the Progressive Policy Institute, they are very similar to some of those of PNAC including writings implying that aggression can be a good thing, with statements such as "draining the swamp of the Middle East." In fact, Will Marshall was a cosigner of a PNAC letter expressing support for the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

The PPI was called Bill Clinton's "idea mill":

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100

[wyldwolf]

15. the phrase predates the DLC by decades

I realize those on the far left (oops!) have a foggy sense of political history, but the term has been used forever.

Truman, for example, used it in reference to Henry Wallace and the "progressive" party.

Here's a few more:

* 'Lunatics' of Far Left and Right Denounced by Young Democrats, New York Times - Feb 2, 1964

LAS VEGAS, Nev., Feb. 1 -Young Democrats were on record today with a strong stand against lunacy in politics. It was a highly flammable issue.

* Frolic on the Far Left, TIME, Sep. 20, 1963

Amid all the din about the radical right, it sometimes seems as though there no longer is such a thing as a far left in U.S. politics.

But there is— a fact demonstrated by 250 delegates of the California Federation of Young Democrats, who met in convention at San Diego. They came up with a set of resolutions urging that the U.S. should: 1) recognize East Germany and "the existing status quo of a divided Germany; 2) reopen normal diplomatic and trade relations with Castro's Communist Cuba; 3) open diplomatic relations with Red China; and 4) denounce the Diem government in South Viet Nam as a "reactionary dictatorship," gradually pull out all U.S. troops and cut off all U.S. financial help.

Even California's regular Democratic leaders, a pretty liberal lot themselves, were highly embarrassed. Said State Chairman Eugene Wyman: "The Young Democrats, a small organization numbering under 5,000 individuals, do not speak for the Democratic Party . . . This weekend they were off on an independent frolic in San Diego, speaking only for themselves."

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

But I rather agree with Joe Klien's list of Far Left traits which he describes as tendencies, not cast-in-stone beliefs.

–believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

–believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

–believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

–tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

–doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

–believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

–believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

–believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

–believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

–believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

–is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

–dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

–regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

[dionysus]

42. Let's see....

nice strawmen.
However, some of what he says are actual truths. See below.

–believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

has been since bushco took over. otherwise, not so much.

–believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

not American, but rather Western imperialism, which has happened for hundreds of years, isn't going to piss them off? It's certainly a part of it.

–believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

this was a combination of that and *'s personal vendetta. And it's not "America's imperialistic nature", it's big businesses nature. MIC. Read Smedley Butler some time.

–tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

Actually the neocons do that, not liberals...

–doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

fair and regulated capitalism *is* good. When was the last time our country had that?

–believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

money's always been the ruling class. Read the Jungle sometime.

–believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

huh?

–believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

it is on paper at least.

–believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

without being regulated they often end up that way

–believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

not a conspiracy, they pretty much run the show once they get in bed with government

–is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

what good ideas?

–dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

could care less about fundies, as long as they keep it to themselves

–regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

hahahaha, if you don't see the irony of that mr kettle

[wyldwolf]

50. Let's see...

Good to see you're admitting them.

[eridani]

66. Whatchu mean "United States" white boy?

The global corporate elite is a negative force in the world, and they are not "the United States." All the Dem and Repub thugs that are arguing to pardon Scooter Libby are in that club, and all the rest of us are on the other side.

It just so happens that American imperialism IS one of the fundamental causes of Islamic radicalism, which didn't exist other than in complete isolation of Saudi Arabia before the 70s. Who overthrew Iran's secular democracy in 1953? Who backed the Iranian shah and his brutal SAVAK, which drove all opposition into the mosques? Who funded the Afghan anti-Soviet fundie whackjobs and let Wahabism out of its Saudi straightjacket to become a multinational movement? (OK, the US didn't create Hezbollah or Hamas--that was Israel.)

America has been in only two wars that were not imperial in nature, WW I and WW II. Those involved fighting other imperial powers. The Iraq war is a straightforward resource grab. And 700+ military bases all over the world have fuckall to do with "defense."

Intolerant of good conservative ideas? Actually, I think that Bob Barr and Dick Armey are right to hate the PATRIOT Act, and Andrew Carnegie had a great idea in his suggestion to buy the Philippines for ten million and set them free. Not to mention those libraries. Even old Hitler loving Ford had a better idea--pay workers enough to be able to afford his products. Beats the shit out of WalMart, which believes in keeping its workers poor enough that they can't afford to shop anywhere else.

Oh, and since when is DLC interested in regulating capitalism?

Those Young Dems in California were sure awful. Maybe Nixon was a member and that's where he got the idea to open relations with China. They probably all have grey ponytails now and really regret getting all that outsourcing started.

People who are antiabortion and anti gay marriage are not the slightest bit different than advocates of slavery and child labor. What about thinking that faith that is inherently divisive has no place in politics and should be replaced by common ethics (shared by people of any faith and no faith) which unites people instead?

Oh, and poverty is not an eternal problem. It's a social decision.

[bread_and_roses]

67. Amen, eridani. (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

84. "The global corporate elite" - - - I rest my case.

[eridani]

97. OK--instead let's call them anybody who thinks Libby should be pardoned--

--or who waffles on the subject. Or just "the people who don't have to obey laws."

[eridani]

98. Or the people who want my life to be worse, and theirs better--

--even though they don't have a clue about how they'd spend what they already have.

[wyldwolf]

132. no, just typical "progressive" revolutionary rhetoric.

[eridani]

111. If you don't like that term, what do you want to be called?

You people who own the rest of us and who think that people like yourselves and Scooter Libby should never go to jail--got another term? Or any justification for you continuing to dictate public policy?

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?

Wolff: Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can't really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.
The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

The middle class's major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.

{b]The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.

[dionysus]

119. what case? you have no fucking case!

[wyldwolf]

133. I made my fucking case! (wee! acting angry and putting exclamation points is fun!)

[eridani]

71. Here are some exellent conservative ideas for you

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040407J.shtml

Leading voices in the conservative movement are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress restore checks and balances within the government and rein in the power of President George W. Bush.

But their point of view is consistently being drowned out by the "Ann Coulter wing" of the Republican Party, fed by the "ignorance of members of Congress about the principles of a constitutional democracy."

This is the view expressed by Bruce Fein in an exclusive Truthout interview. Fein served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and is a founder of a conservative movement known as the Liberty Coalition. The Coalition has launched a new initiative, known as the American Freedom Agenda. The AFA's ten-point action program calls on Congress to:

• End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.
• End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.
• Challenge presidential signing statements.
• Bar executive use of the state-secret privilege to deny justice.
• Prohibit the president from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain or torture persons abroad.
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.
• Prohibit of the labeling of groups or individuals in the US as global terrorists based on secret evidence.

The AFA plans to draft legislation to achieve these goals and to lobby Congress to put the proposed measures on the House and Senate calendars.

[wyldwolf]

85. uh... so? Relevance?

[eridani]

96. You said that lefties didn't like conservative ideas

I posted some that I like a lot.

[wyldwolf]

130. no I didn't

:shrug:

[onenote]

17. everyone seems to want to label everyone else

My self-described label is liberal, although relative to some of the positions taken here on DU, I would characterize myself as "moderate." But I would never label myself a DLC-type. As for what others label themselves, I have no control over it. I admit to using the terms left or far left to describe individuals whose positions go beyond mine, but I've not done so with the intention of stigmatizing them but rather to indicate that, relative to my positions, the positions taken by these individuals go beyond the positions I take.

I guess I would turn around the question and ask: how does someone who describes others as "moderate" DLC-types describe him/herself?

[dionysus]

120. I'm liberal, but I don't think my beliefs are out of the mainstream.

I expect RW'ers to bandy the term "far left" around. When "dems" do it, and make no mistake it is a slur, it raises red flags.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Yes, what used to be Democratic Values (and platforms) is now disrespected as "Far Left"

It changed through both Saint Reagan, et. al., influence and increasing power of the DLC. :thumbsdown:

[wyldwolf]

19. Show me some examples

[Totally Committed]

20. War over peace, for one.

Corporate bottom lines over safety nets for the poor, for another. Privatization, out-sourcing, globalization, and on and on and on.............

There are many more, and you know what they are.

TC

[wyldwolf]

22. The Democratic party has been the war party for 100 years

A Democrat got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc. And Democrat developed the doctrine used as the reason - liberal internationalism.

Corporate bottom lines over safety nets for the poor, for another. Privatization, out-sourcing, globalization, and on and on and on...

Until very recently, "corporate" concerns were not even in the Democratic lexicon, so one can hardly call the reference a Democratic value. Safety nets were instituted during the great depression, many of which were not supposed to endure beyond it. FDR first proposed Welfare Reform. JFK proposed a welfare to work program, RFK said safety nets should be a hand up not a hand-out, and Jimmy Carter proposed Welfare reforms.

So, neither of your examples can be considered "Democratic principles." Perhaps "progressive" ones, but we both know the relationship of the Democratic party and "progressives" has never been a good one.

[ieoeja]

26. Correct. Isolationism and Protectionism were both Conservative.

Conservatives opposed open trade to protect American businesses from overseas competitors. And they opposed military entanglements because, just like today, they only care about themselves.

I don't have a problem with the government trying to help American business. I *do* have a problem with the government *not* helping American labor. It's not what the gov't *is* doing, it's what it is *not*.

[eridani]

105. Whatchu mean, "isolationism"?

If you don't want our main form of interaction with other countries to be a military boot in their faces, that means you want no interaction whatsoever?

Typical winger bullshit. If you don't like their rules, you must not want any rules.

[eridani]

106. Whatchu mean "protectionism"?

Corporate insistence that global rules protect intellectual property is somehow not "protectionism", but wanting rules to protect labor and the environment is? Why do you suppose that is?

[Alexander]

34. If it walks like a DINO and talks like a DINO...

"A Democrat got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc."

Gosh, that sounds a lot like Bob Dole's "Democrat wars" nonsense spewed during the '76 debates.

I wonder why.

"So, neither of your examples can be considered "Democratic principles." Perhaps "progressive" ones, but we both know the relationship of the Democratic party and "progressives" has never been a good one."

Yeah, FDR must've really hated the progressive Henry Wallace, to choose him as Secretary of Agriculture and Vice President. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

49. The only DINOS are the "progressives"

"A Democrat got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc."

Gosh, that sounds a lot like Bob Dole's "Democrat wars" nonsense spewed during the '76 debates.

WWI - Woodrow Wilson
WWII - Franklin Roosevelt
Korea - Harry Truman
Viet Nam - JFK/LBJ

Dispute that?

Yeah, FDR must've really hated the progressive Henry Wallace, to choose him as Secretary of Agriculture and Vice President.

And then dump his ass.

[Alexander]

100. Yeah, "progressives" like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

Those two Democratic traitors definitely were not ever confused with the "far left".

BTW, FDR was forced to dump Wallace against his own wishes, and even after the fact gave him the Commerce Secretary Cabinet post.

That's okay, though. I realize you slept through history class.

[wyldwolf]

108. no, "progressives" like the simon-pure netroots...

...who haven't a clue about the history of this party, as indicated by...

BTW, FDR was forced to dump Wallace against his own wishes

Yeah, in your dreams. After Wallace publically fueded with several high official, Roosevelt stripped him of all responsibilities and told him he would not be on the ticket again. He was given the Comm. Sec.'s position to pacify him but was fired again by Harry Truman.

Wallace was a nutcase. That's okay, though. I realize you slept through history class.

[Alexander]

127. Do you expect me to believe you over the Senate Historical Office?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Not going to happen, ever.

"As the 1944 elections approached, four influential Democrats decided to ensure that Wallace was not nominated in the next Democratic convention. Terming themselves the "Conspiracy of the Pure in Heart," the four consisted of Democratic party chairman Robert Hannegan, Postmaster General Frank Walker, New York Democratic party chief Ed Flynn, and Democratic party treasurer Edwin Pauley. The Democratic leadership had unsuccessfully opposed Wallace in the 1940 nomination convention, but this time they had the advantage of Roosevelt's declining health and his increasing preoccupation with wartime diplomacy."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/henry_wallace.pdf

So this

"BTW, FDR was forced to dump Wallace against his own wishes"

remains true, and this

"Yeah, in your dreams."

is pure horseshit.

"Wallace was a nutcase."

I didn't realize we had a psychiatrist in our midst. :eyes:

"That's okay, though. I realize you slept through history class."

Yeah, you like to repeat a lot. A good sign that you can't be clever on your own. At least I never attended a revisionist history class.

[wyldwolf]

131. you're link doesn't say or imply FDR was forced to dump him, as you assert.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

By the way, this source was quoting a pro-Wallace writer who adoringly called Wallace a "prophet."

Let's continue with your quote:

Roosevelt himself appears to have grown dissatisfied with the vice president's record. Wallace had not proved himself to be the political partner Roosevelt had hoped he's become...

The passage shows how FDR set Wallace up by sending him to Asia and how Roosevelt had no desire to dictate to the convention Wallace's future status.

He was set up, then dumped, by FDR! :rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Alexander]

135. It's not my fault you apparently can't read...

But I'm sorry you never bothered to learn.

"you're link doesn't say or imply FDR was forced to dump him, as you assert."

Oh yeah?

Well, for starters, there's evidence FDR wanted Wallace to succeed him as president.

"There is evidence that suggests that FDR was concerned about the question of a successor in 1940. In discussing Wallace, for example, FDR intimated to James Farley that "the man running with me must be in good health because there is no telling how long I can hold out...a man with paralysis can have a breakup at any time.""

"when it appeared that Wallace might fail to receive the party's nomination at the <1940> Democratic Convention in Chicago, FDR threatened to drop out of the race, preparing a statement that argued that he could not run for a party that was not overwhelming in its support for "social progress and liberalism," and had refused to shake off "all shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement.""

And, there's this little gem:

"Exhausted by the war effort, and unwilling to risk division in the party and hence its chances for electoral victory at this critical juncture in history, FDR offered Wallace only a limited endorsement by stating simply to the convention that "if he were one of the delegates, he would vote for Wallace.""

So even in the passage you mentioned, Roosevelt still supported Wallace.

From here.

http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/essay.htm

And here's what happened at the convention.

"Nonetheless, at the 1944 Democratic convention in Chicago, Wallace showed surprising popularity among the delegates, threatening to ruin the Democratic leadership's carefully orchestrated plan to dump him. After his rousing speech, cheering delegates began to shout for "Wallace in '44." The convention chairman, Indiana Senator Samuel D. Jackson, noted the crowd's enthusiasm and feared that Wallace might win on the first ballot. He therefore called for an adjournment until the next day, blaming fire code infractions due to the more than capacity crowd at the convention center. Although the nays drowned out the ayes on the motion, the chairman declared the session adjourned."

So a party hack single-handedly postponed the vote on Wallace, because he was afraid Wallace would win anyway. Sounds like party boss politics to me.

"The passage shows how FDR set Wallace up by sending him to Asia and how Roosevelt had no desire to dictate to the convention Wallace's future status.

He was set up, then dumped, by FDR!"

Reading is your friend. I promise.

"Historians continue to speculate on whether Roosevelt expected Wallace to accomplish anything diplomatically or simply wanted the vice president out of the country while preparing to dump him from the Democratic ticket."

So, now we know you like to state speculation as if it were fact. Anything else you'd like to tell us?

Oh, and the "Conspiracy of the Pure in Heart"?

They were opposed to Wallace in 1940 as well, and Roosevelt's threat to drop out was directed at them.

"The Democratic leadership had unsuccessfully opposed Wallace in the 1940 nomination convention, but this time they had the advantage of Roosevelt's declining health and his increasing preoccupation with wartime diplomacy."

"By the way, this source was quoting a pro-Wallace writer who adoringly called Wallace a "prophet.""

So did FDR, if you bothered to read. This is from the original article that you like to cherry-pick.

"Roosevelt thought that Wallace was a few years ahead of his time and expected that his ideas would eventually be realized."

Gee, that sounds like the definition of a prophet to me! :rofl:

Some days I wonder if you're for real, because your arguments are so ridiculous.

[wyldwolf]

137. It's not my fault you're trying to spin the 1940's version of Ralph Nader into a hero

:rofl:

Some days I wonder if you're for real, because your arguments are so ridiculous.

[dionysus]

121. you spin worse than FOX news...

"YEAH THE DEMS ARE THE WAR PARTY!!!! GOTCHAAA!!!"

[wyldwolf]

134. can you refute anything I wrote?

[eridani]

70. A liitle more than 100 years ago, Dems were firmly anti-imperialist

July 4, 1900

http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties.

[wyldwolf]

74. ..and they're not now, nor have the ever been. Where is this American Empire??

[ieoeja]

80. Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, Wake, US Virgin Is., Somoa, etc.

Yes, I know we surrendered control of the Philippines following World War II. And accepted Hawaii as a state. And we would likely surrender control of these others (or grant them equal statehood) if they asked. But certainly throughout the first half of the 20th Century, the United States ruled over a far flung empire.

(Sidebar: wouldn't it be great if Spanish speaking Puerto Rico finally voted in favor of statehood? Freeper heads would explode and the Republican party would descend into decades of minority status.)

Whether empire was good or bad, I can't say. On the one hand, following our defeat of Spain, while Europe shuddered the rest of the world celebrated and thought their freedom was at hand. Then we shattered their dreams by annexing the Philippines and allying ourselves with Europe. We would be a whole lot more loved had we gone the other route.

Of course, we would have had Europe allied against us, and might look more like Russia today as a result. Also, I look at China and often wonder how much better the situation might be there had we not stopped the European powers from carving up China. THERE is a situation where we did take the anti-imperialist side of the non-European world, and do you *ever* hear the Chinese (or certain DUers) praising us? No, instead all we get is damned for not doing more.

[wyldwolf]

87. hardly rises to the historic definition of "Empire."

Hegemony might be a better description, but even that is a bit strong.

[ProudDad]

82. Plundering 25% of the world's resources

for its ultra-consumerist society...That's modern imperialism.

Outspending the REST OF THE WORLD on a war machine to "protect their interests" --- that's modern imperialism.

The U.S. has been an imperial empire from the time the first Europeans stole the first lands from the native peoples of this hemisphere.

Your little tuches is firmly planted on the American Empire and its main alter is Wal-Mart...

It's a fucking lousy way to run a world...

[dionysus]

122. excellent post!

[eridani]

94. In every country that has one of the 700+ military bases

In every country that is ruled by US elite-approved proxies. In Iraq and Afghanistan. No modern imperialist wants the responsibilites that come with direct rule--much easier to use local elites and give them a share of the loot.

[eridani]

95. If they never have been, where did that 1900 platform come from n/t?

[wyldwolf]

99. Exactly. Just because it was in the platform of 1900 doesn't mean we ever were imperialistic

There are instance since 1900, under Democratic rule, where this country has done things that some call imperialistic.

For example, Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1913, chose to keep the Phillipines as a "colony." A status that remained unchanged until 1935, when (under FDR) it became a common wealth.

[eridani]

102. What other word is there--

--for domination of other countries by armed coups, military bases all over the world, sponsoring ongoing terrorism and occasionally the direct military hobnailed boot right in the face?

[wyldwolf]

107. look up the definition.

[eridani]

110. I did--here it is

http://www.answers.com/topic/imperialism?cat=biz-fin

im·pe·ri·al·ism (ĭm-pîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

According to you, no territorial acquisition = no imperialism. Dictionaries say otherwise. Care to explain why dominating other nations, as opposed to minding our own fecking business, is a good idea?

[wyldwolf]

113. "hegemony" is much more accurate,

[eridani]

114. Well, fuck hegemony and the horse it rode in on too

Pro-hegemony isn't much different from being pro-rape.

[ulysses]

109. "the war party"

A Democrat got us into WWI

You do know how hard Wilson tried to keep us out of that one, right? He got dragged kicking and screaming.

WWII

FDR "got us into" WWII? How so? He wanted to for a while, sure, but unless you're of the "Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP" camp, I'm not sure how you'd say he succeeded.

Korea, Viet Nam, etc.

Ah - the "forgotten war", the one Kennedy would likely have regretted had he lived (and I suspect that Johnson very much did regret), and...*what* etc? Iran?

FDR first proposed Welfare Reform.

How do you figure?

JFK proposed a welfare to work program, RFK said safety nets should be a hand up not a hand-out, and Jimmy Carter proposed Welfare reforms.

All well and good. I notice you have posted to my welfare reform thread, so let me ask - is reducing the rolls, by itself, a sufficient goal of welfare reform or does it need to be something more?

[wyldwolf]

112. "the war party"

...but interesting how it was a Democrat each time?

You do know how hard Wilson tried to keep us out of that one (WWI), right? He got dragged kicking and screaming.

When Germany began unrestricted Submarine warfare, Wilson called on Congress to declare war once factors that would favor that decision built up.

FDR "got us into" WWII? How so? He wanted to for a while, sure, but unless you're of the "Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP" camp, I'm not sure how you'd say he succeeded.

He was the President at the time? He championed re-armament after 1938? He provided extensive support to Winston Churchill and the British war effort and opposed the Neutrality Act passed by Congress? How about the Quarantine Speech? The secret program to build long range submarines that could blockade Japan? FDR bios (the two I've read) both say he was itching to get in.

Korea, Viet Nam, etc... the "forgotten war", the one Kennedy would likely have regretted had he lived (and I suspect that Johnson very much did regret),

Your regret theories aside, STILL Democrats.

FDR first proposed Welfare Reform. How do you figure?

State of the Union Address, 1935.

"The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Roosevelt stated the burden of welfare should no longer be left to the Federal government, that States should play a role, and that a welfare to work program should be established. He expressed his views on life-long welfare:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers."

All well and good. I notice you have posted to my welfare reform thread, so let me ask - is reducing the rolls, by itself, a sufficient goal of welfare reform or does it need to be something more?

Though I'm not versed in the fine details of policy making, after the initial period of payment, I would institute a jobs training program and pay them to take it. This would help in two ways. It would get welfare recipients used to a schedule and prepare them for a time when they have to report to a job. It would also train them for the job. Childcare provided, of course.

States would act as "personnel" service of sorts. I heard a speech recently by someone who finds veterans work. The system they had in place had a better than 80% success rate.

[ulysses]

117. "but interesting how it was a Democrat each time?"

Luck of the draw. Are you really suggesting that any of your four examples came into office ready to declare war? (Noted that HST came into office during wartime, of course...)

When Germany began unrestricted Submarine warfare, Wilson called on Congress to declare war once factors that would favor that decision built up.

Wrong. Wilson repeatedly refused to go to war over sub warfare. The Zimmerman telegram forced his hand. And even if the sub campaign had brought him into the war, that hardly makes him a "war party" member as you're using the term.

He was the President at the time? He championed re-armament after 1938? He provided extensive support to Winston Churchill and the British war effort and opposed the Neutrality Act passed by Congress? How about the Quarantine Speech? The secret program to build long range submarines that could blockade Japan? FDR bios (the two I've read) both say he was itching to get in.

Sure he was, and he was right to do so. Yet you'll note that he didn't tallyho off over the horizon without the consent of the people. As a sometime student of history, I'm frustrated with the American isolationism of the time, given the circumstances and the enormous advantages of hindsight. Yet, I can balance that with a knowledge of the differences between the 1930s and the present day. Would FDR have invaded Iraq, or agreed to the act? I have to say no.

Korea, Viet Nam, etc... the "forgotten war", the one Kennedy would likely have regretted had he lived (and I suspect that Johnson very much did regret),

Your regret theories aside, STILL Democrats.

Happenstance. I'm not sure why you would want to cling to Viet Nam as a Dem legacy, but you be you.

"The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Allow me to continue with the quote.

There are, however, an additional three and one-half million employable people who are on relief. With them the problem is different and the responsibility is different. This group was the victim of a Nation-wide depression caused by conditions which were not local but national. The Federal Government is the only governmental agency with sufficient power and credit to meet this situation. We have assumed this task, and we shall not shrink form it in the future. It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three-and-a-half million people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment.

Emphasis mine.

...I would institute a jobs training program and pay them to take it. This would help in two ways. It would get welfare recipients used to a schedule and prepare them for a time when they have to report to a job. It would also train them for the job. Childcare provided, of course.

What if the job isn't there?

[wyldwolf]

129. LOL! WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam was "luck of the draw!" ROFL!

When Germany began unrestricted Submarine warfare, Wilson called on Congress to declare war once factors that would favor that decision built up. Wrong. Wilson repeatedly refused to go to war over sub warfare. The Zimmerman telegram forced his hand. And even if the sub campaign had brought him into the war, that hardly makes him a "war party" member as you're using the term.

You're not a history teacher, are you? SURE he tried to keep us out of the war. But he didn't. In fact, he was the first to use a variation of the "we must go to war to make the world safe for democracy." EVERY bio on Wilson discusses German submarine warfare and a major factor in his decision to go to war.

The Zimmerman letter declared Germany's intent on submarine warfare and and allowed every possibility this would bring American into the war.

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1917/zimmerman.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram#United_States_declares_war_against_Germany

Sure he was, and he was right to do so. Yet you'll note that he didn't tallyho off over the horizon without the consent of the people. As a sometime student of history, I'm frustrated with the American isolationism of the time, given the circumstances and the enormous advantages of hindsight. Yet, I can balance that with a knowledge of the differences between the 1930s and the present day. Would FDR have invaded Iraq, or agreed to the act? I have to say no.

We're not arguing a single point in this portion of your reply. You ask how FDR got us into WWII. I told you in detail. :shrug: By secretly aiding Europe, we were actually in before Pearl Harbor. And, again, the bios I read say FDR wanted in before Pearl Harbor.

(Korea, Viet Nam) Happenstance. I'm not sure why you would want to cling to Viet Nam as a Dem legacy, but you be you.

I'm not sure why you want to overlook historical fact, but you be you.

There are, however, an additional three and one-half million employable people who are on relief. With them the problem is different and the responsibility is different. This group was the victim of a Nation-wide depression caused by conditions which were not local but national. The Federal Government is the only governmental agency with sufficient power and credit to meet this situation. We have assumed this task, and we shall not shrink form it in the future. It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three-and-a-half million people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment.

Which certainly doesn't disqualify the fact FDR sought a change, a reform, in how welfare was distributed. Notice the last line of the quote you quoted: "It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three-and-a-half million people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment." Here, FDR plainly states welfare recipients should be given work by the government. A major reform.

Lyndon Johnson said, “We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief or welfare rolls. We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our population opportunity and not doles . . . . The days of the dole in our country are numbered.”

[dionysus]

123. you argue like a repuke. you should be ashamed.

[wyldwolf]

128. Oh, yeah? Dispute anything I wrote. Truth hurts to uniformed like yourself

[Iris]

31. you left out continued funding of abstinence only programs, even though they don't work. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

21. repeat, repeat, repeat

It's standard framing. They claim to be centrist, and everyone else is "far left.

Reality: progressive is the mainstream.

[OHdem10]

23. In fairness, let us then call them what they are

No matter how it is sliced, diced or cubed, a DLC Centrist,
is a Conservative Democrat.

They would have a hard time trying to call me some
far left loon. I am a proud liberal who is not
so ashamed of my party I have to adopt some new
description like Centrist. Code to RWers, I am ok. I guess.

[dionysus]

39. excellent post!

[ProudDad]

83. When I was young

they were called Dixie-Crats and machine pols...

They represented the most repressive wing of the party.

Just picture Strom Thurmond, Jim Clark and Mayor Daley's face at the '68 Convention...

[pretty_lies]

24. "Far Left" Means You're Against The War

And therefore most of the country are far left...

[Bonobo]

25. They also refer to "purging" and "ideologial purity" as catch phrases...

I want these goddamn right-leaning DLC types out of the party and the Progressive agenda that favors human rights, compassion and redistribution of wealth, tightening of laws against monopolies, corporate greed, etc.

I want the Clinton droids out, I want those who continue to fund this gross injustice of a foreign occupation OUT!!!

Out! Out! Out! Nader is right. Kucinich is right. We need to adopt a real progressive agenda and stop the cowardsly, COWARDLY scrambling to the middle and bottom.

[rucky]

28. "Far Left" is anything "left" for those DINOS.

Kum by fucking ya, assholes.

[Zodiak]

29. I laugh at the monniker

It has no bearing on my political beliefs. I am a Texan, raised in the 1980s. I believe strongly in gun rights, I cannot stand nanny-statism when it pertains to personal choices, and I am against amnesty of any kind for undocumented workers, and I do not care if some school or football coach in Podunkland wants to say a prayer or two. I am a nationalistic, patriotic, and proud American, but then again, I know what this country stands for....or stood for anyways, and I don't bow to flags, but principles.

I am for economic justice for all Amercan workers. I believe that corporate power has usurped the only building block of power in this country....the American citizenry, and that we need to restore our balance. We need to secure the American worker from his economic masters in the same way that the original Bill of Rights shackled from government from such instrusions. I believe very strongly in FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights.

I am not anti-war, but I am anti pre-emptive war. Take one aggressive step on my soil and I'll tear your throat out with my teeth.

That makes me a populist and somewhat of a centrist, by 1980's standards.

Now I am accused of being "far left" just because some group of cynical Democrats decided that they wanted to play for the big donations and go Republican-lite? Not on your life! I haven't changed...they have.

[donco]

32. DLC, their minions and the phrase "far left"(A meaningless term)

Too me the term is meaningless, on election day I go into the polling booth, after doing plenty of homework on the candidates, as well as campaigning for the ones I think would do the best job of meeting my expectations. What is in front of me in the voting booth is more that likely not the perfect candidate, but I vote for the one that looks to me to be the closest. Can you say horseshoes? :)

[FarLeftRage]

36. Yeah... Well a big FUCK YOU to the dlc!!!

And they can kiss my Socialist/Anarchist ass too!!!

I am PROUD to be a FAR LEFTIST!!!

[dionysus]

40. that's not the point.

the point is these people call anyone left of dead center a "far leftist", and they don't mean it in a nice way.

[Totally Committed]

69. Amen.

This is the point, entirely. Name-calling, smearing, insulting, disrespecting... and it starts with Al From, and goes all the way down the ranks.

TC

[illinoisprogressive]

41. Anyone left of republican is the far left to the DLC

[assclown_bush]

44. Funny how YOU take umbrage at "far left" but...

bandy about the terms "moderate DLC types" and "Hillary loving centrist" and use them as political "pokers". It would appear to me that you are trying to make those terms into "dirty word(s)" yourself. Is it not possible to support Hillary Clinton and NOT be a "Hillary loving centrist"? I support her campaign, but I am not in "love" with her and I have never considered myself a "centrist".

Perhaps if we refrain from labeling one another we might realize that we have more things in common.

[dionysus]

45. well, assclown

if you're not one of the people slinging around the term "far left" as Bill-O or Hannity would do, then the OP obviously isn't aimed at you.

[assclown_bush]

47. well, di, since your OP makes no mention of Billo or Hannity...

but does mention "Hillary-loving", the DLC and "minions" I felt compelled to post. I was unaware that this was thread was by invitation only.


Don't be so disingenuous~~~the OP was not in the least bit cryptic.

[dionysus]

51. Hey,

the hillary\dlc locals here love using that "far left" label to insult people. If the shoe fits...

[assclown_bush]

53. So your protest is not the "far left" insult...

You are fighting for the right to insult others, yet want sympathy for your plight?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

79. huh?

[mvd]

55. I will say that..

under Bush, the center has artificially moved to the right. Now moderate can be seen as center-right. Thus, Guiliani can get away with calling himself a moderate while he's mainstream conservative overall, and extremist on the Iraq war. I can't really speak for all DLC-related candidates because some of them are center-left (Hillary,) mainstream liberal (Kerry, though he ran too much from his record under Shrum,) and center-right (Harold Ford.) But Democrats have created social security and medicare - they should be committed to stopping the destruction of the social safety net. Even I think WWII was a necessary war. Vietnam was a mistake, but some say Kennedy secretly had a plan to get out. And it wasn't a war based on lies - it was just misguided. Everyone wants to fight terror now, but I knew that Iraq was a huge distraction. Just like a progressive like McGovern was proven right. It's most in sticking to our principles and putting up a fight that we need - even more than a very liberal platform that I personally would like. We can't be afraid of offending - that's when we lose ground as an alternative.

[dionysus]

56. One thing you said stuck out there.

"Even I think WWII was a necessary war."

Do you somehow get the impression that I am against us winning WW2?!

[mvd]

59. No

Actually, I was saying the Democrats have been separate from Repukes on war. Can't think of one necessary war a Repuke started, outside of the Civil War. But Lincoln was far removed from today's Republicans.

[ProudDad]

58. In DLC-ese --

"Far Left" is anyone who doesn't believe in the divine right of corporations to grab, hold and own anything that isn't nailed down and most of what is.

"Far Left" is anyone who doesn't believe that Health Care is a legitimate profit center.

"Far Left" is anyone who believes the following:

"MATTHEW 25:31-46 (RSV) - The Sheep And The Goats

Then the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with
him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate
them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the
left.
Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world;
for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave
me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I
was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee
hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and
clothe thee?
And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it
to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you
gave me no drink,
I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not
clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or
thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not
minister to thee?'
Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not
to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'"



The DLC prefers that everyone pull oneself up by their own bootstraps -- especially those with no boots!

[eridani]

72. Loser liberals vs power populists

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051407I.shtml

The loser liberals similarly control the debate in other areas. A modest tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, like the one that England has, could easily raise more than $100 billion a year in revenue. But, the hedge fund crew knows that this would be real money out of their pockets, so they don't even let the issue get discussed. After all, it's fine to make a bunch of stupid auto workers lose their jobs — we can always give them "wage insurance" - but it's another matter altogether to cut into the income of the hedge fund crew.

The loser liberals also keep single payer health care insurance off the table, although they might be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes to allow a few more kids to get health care coverage. The loser liberals would never allow for a serious discussion of alternatives to patent-financed research for prescription drugs, no matter how many Vioxx-type scandals fill the newspapers. After all, we're talking about the profits for Merck and Pfizer, not pensions for steelworkers.

There is a long list of government policies, many of which are extremely harmful to the economy and society, that have the effect of redistributing income upward. Like the Republicans, the loser liberals want to make sure that these policies never come up for public debate. But, the loser liberals may be willing to pay taxes on their billions. Perhaps we should be thankful for small favors, but real change will require overturning the structures that redistribute income upward, not a modest trickle of tax revenue that allows some of this money to flow back down.

[Norrin Radd]

60. We should call the DLC the "far wrong"

or the "nearly rightwing."

[dionysus]

124. lol

:)

[William769]

62. And most on the left try to use the term "DLC" as a dirty word.

Since you want to throw labels around "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

ON EDIT: "Anyone else notice that?.

[ShortnFiery]

63. It couldn't be a result of the DLC behaving like corporate whores or calling us "far left?"

:eyes:

[William769]

64. Don't you just hate it when the left gets called on something.

I guess they are not as pure as the driven snow.

[dionysus]

125. called on what exactly?

[bunnies]

68. they've called us a hell of a lot worse things than that....

Heres a good one. From Blueprint Magazine.

"The reality is that left-liberal activists tend to be slow learners who, still reflexively clinging to a Vietnamera framework, are trapped in mindless negativism."

Link: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253221&kaid=127&subid=170

[eridani]

73. Any signatory to Project for a New American Century deserves far worse than name calling

At least a few DLC people have signed it.

[mod mom]

81. Will Marshall + PNAC:

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

AND LET'S NOT FORGET CARVILLE'S HELP TO BUSH IN '04:


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio



On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[eridani]

65. The "far left"--

--was anti-slavery in the 1830s
--was pro-women's suffrage in the 1870s
--was pro-union in the 1890s
--was anti-imperialist in 1910
--was pro-civil rights and anti-Jim Crow in 1930
--was pro-"homophile" in 1955
--was for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1970

--has fought the wafflers and cowards as they opposed the expansion of the category Real First Class Human Being (TM) throughout our history, and is responsible for any progress whatsoever that any society has made on this front.

It always happens that way. First some outcast unfashionable queers kicked some ass at the Stonewall Inn in 1969, and eventually created a social space that made it possible for the cowards in the Log Cabin Republicans to tiptoe out of the closet. And so on for just about every social movement. "Centrists" never got us the 8 hour day.

[Totally Committed]

76. Beautiful! ---Tell it like it is, sister!!!

I wish I could "recommend this post!

TC

[paulk]

75. you don't have to be a "centrist" to like Hillary

and that's only one of the things you've gotten wrong with this woeful thread.

Most Democrats I know, out here in the real world, think she's pretty liberal. Which is supported by her overall voting record. The Republicans I know think that she's some kind of socialist...

And I have to agree with "Forkboy", who I rarely agree with, that using the word "minion" is not going to get you very far if you're looking for any kind of meaningful discussion. Which I gather you're not, from reading your other posts on the thread.

It sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder. I guess an anonymous internet message board is as good a place as any to get it off.

[ShortnFiery]

77. "Most Democrats I know, out here in the real world, think she's pretty liberal. "

That's because "most democrats" you know help the M$M perpetrate this BIG LIE (HRC Liberal? :wow:) when it assists in snagging votes. Poor babies are not accessing the Internet in order to break through our Media's PsyOps/Unitary Executive Firewall. :shrug:

No worries. As soon as HRC snags the Nomination, old Rupert Murdoch will turn loose all of his FOX machine smear doctors. MSNBC and CNN being the chickenshit corporate whores they are will soon follow suit. Yes, right after HRC wins the nomination our illustrious fourth estate :eyes: will have her painted as a Marxist. ;)

:(

[paulk]

88. do you have anything to offer the board

other than this same old tired uber whacko extremist rhetoric post after post?

ps - you don't know jackshit about who "I know".

[eridani]

93. What did he say that was "extremist"? n/t

[paulk]

101. it's a she, I believe

and it's been the same juvenile conspiracy crap since she joined...

over and over

if you don't know what I'm talking about, then do a search.

and if you still don't know, then whatever...

[eridani]

103. Examples, please n/t

[paulk]

104. I don't have time for this

you got a problem with what I think about another poster?

tough shit.

[dionysus]

78. The OP makes only a brief reference to your beloved Hillary

the point of the thread is the Conservative dems use of the phrase "far left" as an insult. You missed the point, woefully.

[paulk]

89. first of all, she's not my "beloved Hillary"

she's one of four candidates that I will consider voting for in the Democratic primary, and if it seems like I'm defending her, it's because I'm sick and tired of the nonsense that gets posted about her here on DU.

I didn't miss your point. You're upset because there are people on this board who show contempt for the far left.
Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Only in the upside down/black and white world of the extremists on DU am I a conservative Democrat, but if you want to see it that way... well, cry me a river.

Be insulted if it makes you feel better.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Capn Sunshine]

86. well release your lock on the "centrist" meme, because she's a conservative hawk

as far as Democrats go.

[paulk]

90. I can see very little difference between her and Obama

they are both moderate liberals, based on any real world measure. Some people call that "centrist", especially at places like DU.

[wyldwolf]

91. Obama is Hillary with a penis and a tan. Two BIG differences.

[Alexander]

136. Being black is having a "tan"?

That's pretty racist. :wtf:

[eridani]

92. The litmus test is the Libby pardon

Members of the elite club to whom laws don't apply are for it (or have waffled on it), and the rest of us are against it.

[rainman99]

115. Funny, I'm for everything on the far left but I used to think

I was an independent. HA.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. The Liebermanites called everybody who wanted Ned Lamont to win "far left," including Lamont himself

Where are they now that Lieberman has proved 9,283,457 more times what a sack of pus he is?