A Democrat in the White House in 2008? -- It's really up to you!

[Totally Committed]

Originally I posted most of the following in a thread about the possibility of there being a "Democrat" elected to the White House in 2008. Of course, it got me thinking, so I thought I'd post here as its own thread, so that any or all of you could comment on it.

You see, it is my opinion that no matter who wins, we will have a "Republican" in the WH. As it looks now, a DLC "Democrat" will probably get the nomination if nothing else happens, if no one else enters the race.

As usual, David Sirota plays the role of canary in the coal-mine in this excellent posting from yesterday:

Democrats Kiss Up to K Street
Democrats who were sent to Congress in the tide-turning election of 2006 are selling out the economic populism that got them elected in the first place.

By David Sirota, In These Times

Excerpt:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) provides a good example of dishonest graft. In 1993, Emanuel was the Clinton administration aide charged with ramming NAFTA through Congress "over the dead bodies" of labor and environmental groups, as American Express's CEO cheered at the time. Emanuel orchestrated weekly meetings with K Street lobbyists to strategize about how to pressure Democratic lawmakers. Emanuel went on to cash in as an investment banker, raking in roughly $16 million over a two-year period. From his Wall Street perch in 2000, he published a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed demanding Congress pass the China free trade deal --another K Street-backed goodie that has helped keep American wages stagnating in the face of skyrocketing corporate profits, and is now projected to destroy at least 1 million American jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Just two years after grossly outspending an opponent to buy an Illinois congressional seat, Emanuel was appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, the panel that oversees trade policy and that helped corporate lobbyists ram NAFTA through back in 1993. Emanuel also was appointed head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which ran millions of dollars worth of ads trumpeting Democrats anti-corruption platform, and which supported the scores of Democrats running against the very lobbyist-written trade policies Emanuel has based his political career on.

Now, with Emanuel as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, we see dishonest graft kick into high gear. The same day as the press conference, a group of House Democrats wrote a formal letter to Emanuel demanding he hold a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss the secret trade negotiations going on between a handful of Democrats and the White House. That letter, according to The Hill, was "rebuffed" even though, again, it was Emanuel's DCCC that aggressively supported Democrats 2006 fair trade candidates. No meeting occurred, and instead Democratic leaders held their press conference, announcing a secret trade deal that, like NAFTA, is strongly backed by K Street lobbyists, but opposed by organized labor, environmental groups, health care groups and grassroots Democrats. Meanwhile, when Emanuel was asked by the Politico's Jeff Patch for details about why Democrats were now backing off their promises to reform lobbying laws so as to prevent Abramoff-style abuse, he did his best Dick Cheney impression, telling the reporter, "Why don't you go fuck yourself."

Running a campaign against corruption, against lobbyist-written trade policies and for lobbying reform, and then using the power granted by voters based on that campaign to engage in corruption,Êpass lobbyist-written trade pacts and reject the most minimal lobbying reforms -- all in exchange for campaign contributions -- is Plunkitt's very definition of dishonest graft. It is "political looting" and it is the result of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by Big Money interests.

http://www.alternet.org/story/56093

While this is only ONE example of the DLC way of doing things, it is truly indicative of the entire "beast", I believe. So, it won't matter, you see. Whether it is a Republican President or a DLC President that is "elected" in 2008....

:graybox: There will still be no universal (i.e. single-payer, not-for-profit) healthcare.

:graybox: We will still be entrenched in the Middle East, with permanent bases in Iraq. The War for Oil will continue.

:graybox: The fight against Global Warming will remain piecemeal, and up to what the corporations feel they can do without damaging their bottom lines.

:graybox: Inner-city schools will still be allowed to crumble to the ground around the poorest kids' ears.

:graybox: AIPAC will still have a major over-riding say in our foreign policy decisions.

:graybox: There will still be no meaningful Election Reform.

:graybox: The disparity between the very rich and the very poor will still continue unabated.

:graybox: The "War on Terror" will still be a staple used to keep the populace under control.

:graybox: Black men will continue to dominate the prison population.

:graybox: The "War on Drugs" will continue unabated.

:graybox: Africa will continue to languish in bloody genocidal war and abject poverty without very much help from us.

:graybox: AIDS, Cancer, and even the Common Cold will continue to go uncured, while the price of healthcare and prescription Drugs skyrocket.

:graybox: Lobbyists, special Interests, Corporations, and rich people will still matter more than any of us ever will to those we continue to elect.

:graybox: GLBT men and women will still be fighting for the right to marry for love.

:graybox: And the beat will go on and on and on.


And, that's no matter WHO wins now, UNLESS someone who has not already declared tosses his hat into the ring. This candidate will not be "perfect". He will hold some views (past and present) that not all of us can agree with. But he will have been prescient on so much, and spoken of late so bravely and openly against all of the above that we will be crazy not to nominate him. I see no hope for this Party and this country, otherwise. This is our last election -- our last chance -- to turn this corporatist march to the Right by our Party around. The corporatist element of this Party has to be marginalized, and a way around their Big Money "friends" has got to be found if this Party is to survive.

Again, this is only my opinion, but it is one dearly heald and fervently believed.


TC

[William769]

1. Are you speaking of the one thats doing what should be done

But you say "What a waste of time and energy." is that the one?

[Totally Committed]

2. I answered you in your thread.

I resent your coming here and hijacking this one for the benefit of your candidate.

TC

[William769]

3. And I answered you in this one.

Tit for tat. Want some cheese now?

[wyldwolf]

4. wait a minute... wait a minute...

You see, it is my opinion that no matter who wins, we will have a "Republican" in the WH. As it looks now, a DLC "Democrat" will probably get the nomination if nothing else happens, if no one else enters the race.

What policies and beliefs makes one a "Republican?" (sources and examples.)
What policies and beliefs does Hillary have that separates her from other Dems and puts her in the "Republican" category? (sources and examples.)

Gut feelings don't count.

You quote David Sirota whining again about corporations? Obama has that avenue sewed up.

Deal with this: The ONLY people that don't believe Rahm Emanuel won the day in 2006 are the netroots, yet they can't ever seem to give a reason why. The American electorate doesn't give a rat's ass about a disgruntled lackey like Sirota who got turned down when he applied for jobs with the DLC and Lieberman.

[William769]

5. Apparently this person needs to take politics 101 again.

Always saying it doesn't make it true. Just ask Bush.

[Totally Committed]

7. I object to your coming into this thread and spamming it with nothing but your insults,

condescention, and negativity.

When an opponent has no answer to an argument, I always watch for the personal attacks to begin.

This is not even your opening salvo against me, is it?

Well, soon all the Polls will start being released and you can go spam about those. Until then, I stand my ground.

TC

[William769]

8. Thats what the alert button is for.

Thankfully we still have free speech on DU, even though you may not like that idea. :eyes:

[Totally Committed]

22. I know.

TC

[Totally Committed]

6. I bullet-pointed a myriad of "examples" for you in the OP.

Or didn't you read it?

TC

[wyldwolf]

10. no, those are "predictions" by you. Naive ones at that. Or don't you read your own work?

[Totally Committed]

16. Why are you taking my worthless and naive "predictions" so personally?

Why? They are not aimed at YOU, they are aimed at the DLC. Are YOU the DLC?

It's bizarre.

TC

[wyldwolf]

19. Why do think I'm taking them personally? But as someone involved in politics...

... and who plays for the Democratic team (get it? NOT the "progressive" team but the Democratic team) I feel it necessary to point out when people get it wrong.

Am I the DLC? No, but I were an elected official, I would be.

[Totally Committed]

21. "Am I the DLC? No, but I were an elected official, I would be."

And if I were an elected official, I wouldn't be. Therein is the crux of our disagreement.

Why are your opinions more important or valid than mine? Hint: They aren't!

So, you are cordially invited to take your cynicism and derision elsewhere, thank you.

TC

[wyldwolf]

23. playing the victim?

Why are your opinions more important or valid than mine? Hint: They aren't!

Hint: Never said they were.

So, you are cordially invited to take your cynicism and derision elsewhere, thank you.

Here's the REAL crux of our disagreement. You want to make wild accusation, naive predictions, and factually inaccurate posts and be patted on the back for it. I, on the other hand, want to draw attention to the very dubious nature of your posts.

And since this is a discussion forum, I think I'll stay.

[Totally Committed]

26. Not at all.

But, if what you think you are doing is "victimizing" to me in any way, you are free to stop it at any time.

TC

[wyldwolf]

29. you just complained that I'm not allowing you have an opinion.

Sounds like the victim card to me.

[Totally Committed]

81. Whatever. One thing I can say that is positive about the DLC:

When they BUY something, they get the best that money can buy.

This thread is a testament to that!

TC

[wyldwolf]

85. And your conspiracy mongering is a testament to your side, as well.

[ldf]

179. and your "move along, nothing to see here"

in defense of the dlc is also getting tiresome.

label it "conspiracy". whatever. seems like an awful lot of past "conspiracies" have turned out to be tame in comparison to the reality.

if you presume to be one of the democratic "leaders", and hope to be dlc, then you better get the message.

the republican base will turn out, in mass. hate is a very strong motivator.

there are a lot democrats who feel that there is very little choice. we are tired of only having a lesser of two evils, choice.

we can vote, or we can sit at home. don't EVER presume that we have no choice BUT to vote. you may live to regret that assumption.

if the republicans win, they will then turn this country into an even deeper pile of shit. or we can elect dlc democrats, who then do the same damn thing.

there would then be, as nader (the bastard) implied, truly no difference in the parties.

which party loses in THAT scenario? the democrats, because we had a chance to change, but instead BECAME exactly what we were (allegedly) fighting against.

there ARE differences, as you are quick to espouse, but the dlc sure as hell doesn't represent it. the dlc has nothing but disdain for the "democratic wing" of the democrtic party. in other words, the "base", the "grassroots" of the party. you know, the people who ARE the party.

if WE don't go to the polls, we ALL lose, but we WON'T be saddled with a bunch of traitors running the party.

that may be what is needed.

if the republicans win, we know the american experiment, will be over.

there will then be a true revolt.

elect dlc democrats, who do pretty much the same, only "nicer", and the pain is just prolonged.

it may be that we, the american citzenry, need to hit rock bottom, so all those who don't have the time to pay attention, will have no choice but to do just that.

then we can hold those responsible, accountable. many may well be dlc democrats. then we can straighten out this mess, once and for all.

the "so-called" democratic leaders can ignore the party, but it will be at their peril.

[Totally Committed]

180. Awesome post.

Thank you.

TC

[John Q. Citizen]

27. That is obvious and has been for a long time.

[wyldwolf]

30. thanks for pointing out the obvious, then.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. You are welcome. Now run along and cut some bipartisan deals with the Repos....

you know, for the good of the country club.

[wyldwolf]

37. nah, running along is something kiddies like you should do.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. You keep going off on "progressives". What, exactly, is your

beef with progressives? That is, what progressive programs have damaged the country?

Medicare?
Medicaid?
Social Security?
Free public elementary and secondary education?
Free public libraries?
Integration legislation?
Environmental legislation?

What is your problem with progressives?

[wyldwolf]

48. have you ever seen me "go off on progressives" UNLESS...

Centrists/DLC/Clintons were trashed first? Your post is a prime example of the "kid on the playground" analogy I keep telling TC.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Nyah nyah touched ya last!

WTF?

I ask a question and you spit in my eye?

And you don't answer the question?

As I used to tell my long since grown children, I don't care who started it. I just would like an answer to my question.

[wyldwolf]

57. exactly

[Clark2008]

202. Um... most people in the South don't know who the fuck

Rahm Emanuel is.

They believe THEY won the elections in Virginia and elsewhere.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

9. This is the point

that the "my party, love it or leave it" people aren't getting.

If you want to encourage people to love it, instead of leave it, you don't nominate or elect DLC candidates.

All the DLC triangulation and propaganda in the world doesn't change that.

[Totally Committed]

11. Thank you for your post.

I appreciate your wisdom and support.

TC

[wyldwolf]

12. This is the point

that the "my way or the highway" crowd isn't getting.

You will not be catered to, courted, or coddled. The electoral process works. DLC candidates are nominated and win because Democrats as a whole LIKE them.

The DLC is not rigging elections. The DLC is not influencing polls. Deal with it.

[Totally Committed]

15. "The DLC is not rigging elections. The DLC is not influencing polls."

"the "my way or the highway" crowd"

Tell me again you're not here to rain on every Left-leaning OP that has even the slightest negative thing to say about the DLC.

I don't believe it. I also don't think the DLC is "rigging" elections, or "influencing polls"... I think their corporate friends are taking care of all of that for them. There's a difference... subtle, but a difference, nonetheless.

TC

[wyldwolf]

17. "Progressives" are like that kid on the playground who likes to hit other kids

...they're always shocked when another kid finally hits them back.

I don't believe it. I also don't think the DLC is "rigging" elections, or "influencing polls"... I think their corporate friends are taking care of all of that for them. There's a difference.

Then PROVE it. Without proof, ya got nothing but paranoid excuses for why "progressives" seldom win shit.

[Totally Committed]

20. Spamming my threads constantly because I disagree with you is BULLYING.

Not allowing an opinion opposite to yours without insult is BULLYING.

"'Progressives' are like that kid on the playground who likes to hit other kids" is an insult, and insulting people who don't agree with you is BULLYING.

BULLYING is against DU rules.

I object to it in my thread.

Thank you.

TC

[wyldwolf]

24. so, what you're saying is you don't want to be challenged

Not allowing an opinion opposite to yours without insult is BULLYING.

:rofl: Hey, is your OP still here? Has anyone "not allowed" your opinion? :rofl:

But, no, you do not get to post unchallenged. Sorry.

If you think I'm "bullying" because I'm calling you on your bullshit, hit alert

[Totally Committed]

28. Why did you imply I was a bully when I called YOU on YOUR bullsh*t?

You are the pot calling the kettle black if you really believe what you wrote in this post.

TC

[wyldwolf]

31. Are you playing in the real world? No implication like that was made.

The kid reference? Sorry. It's true. When you feel 100% certain you are correct (as "progressives" do) you see no problem in spewing all manner of vitriol. After all, it's "truth to power." But when someone calls you on it, you acts shocked that anyone would dare question what you mistakenly believe is established fact.

[Totally Committed]

34. "'Progressives' are like that kid on the playground who likes to hit other kids"

"The kid reference? Sorry. It's true."

So, you did, and you are unremorseful. Okay, then.

JUst so we're all being kept honest.

TC

[wyldwolf]

40. So, I see we have differing views on what "bullying" is.

You believe it is bullying to challenge a "progressive." OK. Then I will "bully" you, based on that definition, everytime you post bullshit.

[Totally Committed]

42. Characterizing my opinions as "bullshit" just because you disagree with them IS bullying.

Why is that something you just don't "get"?

TC

[wyldwolf]

49. "facts" are real things. If something isn't factual, it is bullshit.

[Totally Committed]

87. I hope you remember this post the next time I come into one of your threads and say that word.

I resent my opinions being characterized as "bullshit".

Thank you.

TC

[wyldwolf]

98. Oh, don't worry. I will. And then I'll tell you the difference

[William769]

32. Spreading bullshit should be, but it's not.

You must feel lucky about that.

[Totally Committed]

36. Spamming? On the main page of GDP right now, here are the POSITIVE Clinton stories:

Iowa Veterans Support Hillary by Alamom
Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory by jefferson_dem
Hillary's Stinging Letter To SecDef Gates Obtained by wyldwolf
CBS Poll: Hillary Clinton a good role model for women... SaveElmer
Tell Bill O'reilly: STOP SMEARING GRASSROOTS PROGRESSIVES by William769
Clinton hits back at Pentagon official: "spurious dodge of a serious issue." by wyldwolf
Gallup: Clinton most "acceptable" as a candidate in Democratic field by wyldwolf
Heading Into SC Debate, Hillary Jumps To 14-Point Lead In The Palmetto State by wyldwolf
Women Supportive but Skeptical of Clinton, Poll Says by DeepModemMom
Indian Leader’s Endorsement May Sway Nevada Primary by William769

And, I'M spamming? :rofl:

GMAFB.

TC

[William769]

39. Did i say you were spamming?

But thanks for pointing out ll the positive threads about Hillary. :)

[Totally Committed]

41. So one little NEGATIVE thread about her precious DLC shouldn't ruffle your feathers then!

Thanks!!! :)

TC

[William769]

44. NEGATIVE things about the DLC don't bother me.

Lying about the DLC does. But then when people try to brainwash other people, lying is usually at the top of the list.

[Totally Committed]

47. "NEGATIVE things about the DLC don't bother me. Lying about the DLC does."

Oh, puh-leeeeeezzzzeeeeee....

WIll you please let us have a substantive conversation about this? I promise to bring up all sort of VERY VERY VERY true things about the DLC... pretty please?

You guys kill me!

TC

[wyldwolf]

50. notice how you don't deny lying about the DLC.

[William769]

52. I noticed that.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

66. oh, more "progressive" loony conspiracy - people are PAID to disagree with you.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[William769]

70. FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3388478

Also refer to post #44 for more enlightenment.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

63. LOL! Such a lame meme, that "tag teaming thing."

[William769]

72. God forbid we out people that are less than truthful

I'm sure their cohorts will come to their defense though. :)

[MuseRider]

45. Also to point out this,

"The electoral process works. DLC candidates are nominated and win because Democrats as a whole LIKE them."

The Democrats as a whole don't pay enough damned attention to know that there is anything else out there. If they did the corporations would not have so much influence and there would be more candidates reflecting the needs and wants of the "regular" people. There would also be more Democrats voting and trying to change things. They don't because all they see is more of the same and that same is not helping them or reflecting their desires for the country.

[Totally Committed]

46. Thank you!

I appreciate this constructive post!

TC

[wyldwolf]

53. elitist bullshit. "Progressives" give so little credit to rank-and-file Democrats...

...we're all just a bunch of no-nothing hicks living in the sticks in need of "progressive" wisdom.

There are many reasons why you're turned away at the polls. That attitude is just one of them.

[welshTerrier2]

58. look at all the pro-Clinton posts - No policy discussion - just campaigning

you are among the very, very worst offenders. in fact, you relish in it, don't you.

post after post after post in this forum about endorsements and polls and fundraising ...

how can you talk about "no nothing hicks" when that's all your posts contribute to?

the real shame is, I know you know better.

and let's get real on the issues, shall we? Americans may have a general sense of issues but they ultimately cannot distinguish among the candidates' positions. go ask you neighbor to explain single payer. have them talk about the role of PSA's and how they've been part of bush's Iraq policy. ask them whether they know Hillary's views on cluster bombs. Ask them whether they can explain the impact of NAFTA or GAAT. and then, just for extra fun, have them name all the Democratic and republican candidates and how their views differ on what THEY consider to be the key issues. do you really believe they could do it?

you hand us a bunch of self-righteous "how dare you call the rank-and-file Democrats a bunch of no-nothing hicks. how about talking about Hillary's latest brilliant campaign idea to "appear more Mid-Western." The truth is, I have a lot of respect for the American people. Given the facts, I have confidence in their values. The problem is, slick, corporate-funded campaigners like Hillary give them marketing hype and not clear explanations of where they stand. The fault isn't with the American people; it's with slick polticians like Hillary ...

the reality of our very defective political process is that those who don't like Hillary have a sense that she's too aggressive or just riding her husband's name or whatever. most don't know her views on the issues. and most of those supporting her don't know either.

the OP's citing of Sirota's essay was important. it doesn't matter whether you agree with Sirota or not. what matters is that we go down the list of issues he raised and assess what is best for the country. but you never do that, do you?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

67. SO I'M CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE DLC....

If anti-DLC threads disturb you so much, ignore them.

The OP contained a Sirota article (filled with lies? I don't think so, but...) It is linked. The rest is MY OPINION. If you are calling MY OPINION LYING, you and I are gonna have a problem, and I don't care how many of your minions you get to come here and call me names and hijack this thread, I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING CALLED A LIAR for simply disagreeing with you on the DLC or Hillary Clinton!

Get outta my face!

TC

[wyldwolf]

71. where in the world did you get THAT from my post???

If anti-DLC threads disturb you so much, ignore them.

If the charges are true, I do. If they're false, I choose to call them on their bullshit.

The OP contained a Sirota article (filled with lies? I don't think so, but...) It is linked.

Do you want to examine Sirota's article? Wanna fact check it?

If you are calling MY OPINION LYING, you and I are gonna have a problem,

I'm calling your opinion conclusions arrived at void of factual information. What, we don't already have a problem?

[Totally Committed]

78. Oh, fact-check yourself. Please allow us to have this conversation without your interruption.

It is a cynical ploy to disrupt.

I ask you desist at once.

TC

[wyldwolf]

80. So. you don't want to fact check Sirota? Doesn't surprise me.. and by the way...

...if you and I are having a conversation, how can I interrupt? :rofl:

[bread_and_roses]

162. I would like to know the factual inaccuracies in Sirota's piece

I am genuinely interested.

[welshTerrier2]

111. you used the term "no nothing hicks"

i appropriately responded to what the voters do and do not know and pointed out that your conduct on DU has not made the situation better.

and whether I ignore the useless, non-policy based, pro-Clinton threads is my business, not yours. I have every right to criticize them for the vacuous bullshit they are.

[Totally Committed]

99. godforbid we should talk "policy".... the number of Clinton threads

might diminish rapidly if that were to happen.

All they want is our assimilation. Our opposition is futile. We will be assimilated!

GMAFB. Not in a million years!

TC

[wyldwolf]

101. since when have you ever discussed policy?

[Totally Committed]

105. Since when have you and your minions backed off and allowed it?

I talk policy in many threads and hoped to do so in this thread, but so far, you've only spammed it with your insults and RW tactics. We haven't been allowed to have that conversation. All you know how to do is sling mud. How can any meaningful discussion happen in the atmosphere you and your combative minions have created here?

TC

[wyldwolf]

106. since when have you ever attempted to?

[Totally Committed]

108. I believe I already stated that.

You haven't allowed it in this thread.

You are the aggressor here.

TC

[wyldwolf]

112. this is the first time you've ever considered discussing policy? No indication in the OP of it.

[MuseRider]

73. Look

I live in the sticks so I don't think that flies here. "Elitist bullshit" from progressives? HA! I would be happy to give credit to the rank and file if there was anything that actually helped the people coming from them instead of half measures like mommy uses to shut the kids up at a movie. I would dearly love to be able to support a strong party but it is not there. They are strong alright but not strong in the ways that help the everyman. They are to apt to change course when it benefits them, not the people. They are the one's who maintain us in this damned war causing more death every day for their own political expediency. Sorry rank and file, you screwed yourselves when you gave up principle for your own party advancement.

Do not give me the elite bullshit tag when it is the rank and file that benefits itself at the sacrifice of the rest of the country.

[wyldwolf]

76. that reply is another fine example of it.

[MuseRider]

91. Whatever.

You think I am full of shit and I think you are full of shit. I am very glad I do not agree with you because I see nothing for anyone but the upper notches of the "party" your way. Nothing. We will continue this ad nauseum because we both think we are right but I will not let your snide little accusations of elitism and your bullying tactics stop me from saying what I believe, remember your last threats? What horse shit. We lost and you never came after us. Lots of bravado with little to offer anyone but the few and I am an elitist?

[Totally Committed]

96. imo, Progressives (i.e. Liberals) ARE the "rank and file" Democrats....

It's just that we have voted for the (D) for so long, it's claimed as "support" by the middle-of-the-roaders.

It's not support. We voted AGAINST the GOP, not FOR your lousy DLC candidates. And, if enough "progressives" are as DONE WITH THAT as I am, you have got a RUDE awakening coming in 2008.

If not, I proudly stand alone against you and the DLC.

TC

[wyldwolf]

100. but your opinion doesn't match evidence.

[Totally Committed]

118. It wouldn't if we had all been voting against the other side for so long, would it?

I am done voting AGAINST the Republican. If I don't have a Democrat I can vote FOR, I just won't vote. I am no longer a pawn of the DLC's plan to drive this Party irrevocably to the Right.

TC

[wyldwolf]

119. ok, that was a little uncomprehensible.

[creeksneakers2]

160. If you aren't going to even vote

why bother with anything else?

Voting against Republicans is a important reason to vote Democratic. We are headed toward fascism and we need the 2008 election to stop it. I think its very uncaring of you to let this happen just because you disagree with the free trade wing of the party.

You said in your thread that you wanted all the people of Africa fed. Can we afford to feed them all? If we could, wouldn't they become aid dependent?

The per capita income of the underprivileged of the developing world is improving because of free trade. Eventually, they'll start buying things from each other too, commerce will build, and the whole world will have the benefits America has from free enterprise. Do you care about these downtrodden people?

No, I'm not a troll for the DLC or anything like that, although, if people on Wall Street offer me money I'll be glad to take it. You can't logically deduce that everyone who is for free trade was bribed into it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. Please define "elitist". nt

[wyldwolf]

149. sure...

n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Pew Research did a study on "internet activists" and grass roots activists in the Howard Dean movement a few years (the netroots - this century's "progresive" movement.)

Dean activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public. But the image of younger Deaniacs as political newcomers has been borne out. For more than four-in-ten (42%) Dean activists ­ and two-thirds of those under age 30 ­ the Dean campaign represented their first foray into active presidential politics.

Compared with Democrats in the general public, the Dean activists are much more liberal across a range of issues, more dissatisfied with President Bush and with the direction of the country. Their liberalism stands out even when compared with delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention, who themselves were significantly more liberal than rank-and-file Democrats. Roughly eight-in-ten Dean activists (82%) describe themselves as liberal, compared with 41% of the convention delegates and 27% of national Democrats.

The activists are critical of the Democratic Party in a number of respects. Most do not think the party has done well in standing up for its traditional constituencies or for liberal positions. Two-thirds (67%) want the party to change to better reflect liberal and progressive values. By contrast, a majority of members of the Democratic National Committee (52%) said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey in February 2005 that they want the party to move in a moderate direction.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240

[Totally Committed]

151. So, Deaniacs are the "elitists" of the Democratic Party?

That should signal the entrance of madfloridian any minute now...

btw -- I don't know what this does to your theory, but although I am a fan of Dr. Dean's, I was not a Deaniac in the last primaries.

TC

[wyldwolf]

152. the same was found of the 60s "new left" movement

White, secular, wealthier, more educated and significantly more liberal than Democrats as a whole. Gallup study in '75 or '76.

[MuseRider]

154. Funny that

nor was I and the elitist theme has been thrown at me several times today.

[More Than A Feeling]

163. Now wait a minute,

What does the description of Dean activists have to do with the definition of "elitist" that you posted? I glanced through the link, and saw nothing concerning attitudes held by Dean activists that would qualify for your definition of "elitist." Why did you post the two together? To try to imply that because of the status of Dean activists that they automatically held elitist attitudes without actually providing evidence (anecdotes are not evidence)?

That's pretty surprising given that you were criticizing TC above for not backing his/her opinions with evidence.

[LWolf]

55. That's exactly the response I expect from you.

You can twist and spin my words all you like, but you can't reframe my meaning or my intent. I don't know what it's like to be catered to, courted, or coddled; politically, professionally, or personally. I can't really speak to that, since it's outside my frame of reference.

Rigging elections, influencing polls....is it the DLC? You won't find anyplace I've said that, but I'll say this now. It doesn't have to be "the DLC." It's the corporations that the DLC works for that do the rigging and influencing. With the support, according to your estimation, of "Democrats as a whole."

Here is something clearcut and unambiguous. If Democrats as a whole "like" the DLC and the DLC agenda, then the Democratic Party is going to continue to hemmorhage voters to 3rd parties. If Democrats as a whole "like" the DLC and the DLC agenda, then Democrats can continue to make the Democratic Party less and less effective, and less and less relevant. If Democrats as a whole "like" the DLC and the DLC agenda, then Democrats a whole can be accountable for the failure of the Democratic Party to offer substantial, effective opposition to the Republican Party.

Frankly, I'd like to see where you've been anointed to speak for "Democrats as a whole." There might be a number of Democrats out there, a significant part of that whole, who take exception to that.

But that's just me. Frankly, and quite unambiguously, if "Wyldwolf" doesn't like some point I'm making, then I'm doing well. If my points aren't sharp, there's really no reason to argue with them, is there? If "Wyldwolf" likes my politics, then I'll join the non-voters, because my politics will have become corrupt and harmful.

What "most Democrats" "like" is failing spectacularly to win votes from the 73 million eligible voters who did not cast votes in the general election in '04, and all of those people who voted 3rd party.

Now it's possible, and quite probable, that they are failing to earn those votes because they agree with "wyldwolf." They aren't going to "cater to, court, or coddle," political spin for "earn," votes from those who won't march in the DLC corporate line with them.

That's fine. They don't get to blame all the voters they spurned when they don't win. At least, they can't do so with any integrity. I don't expect that to stop the effort, lol. They deserve everything their strategies get them, and they are accountable for the results.

Of course, it's always possible that "wyldwolf" DOESN'T speak for "Democrats as a whole."

[wyldwolf]

59. to have written so much, you've said very little - aside from the typical ...

... "doomsday" scenario Democrats face if they don't kiss "progressive" ass.

[LWolf]

61. That's a matter of opinon, of course.

In your 21,045 posts, I've yet to find anything worthy of the oxygen you're using up in anything you've said.

It's a good thing your opinion doesn't register anywhere on my list of meaningful things to think about.

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

64. It is my opinion that your "Doomsday scenario for the Democrats" is bullshit...

...but it is an opinion based on fact or, rather, lack of facts from you.

[LWolf]

75. 73 million...fact. Check out the US census.

"Doomsday scenario:" exists only in your fevered brain, since I didn't post one. It's ok; you're allowed your opinions.

I notice that your opinions didn't carry enough weight to earn a city council seat. I guess your points don't carry any more weight with the voters "as a whole" than they do with me.

[wyldwolf]

79. 73 million what? Fact check. Party identification in the Dem party is higher than it has been...

.. in years. In 2004 the Dem party garnered the highest vote total in it's history. In 2006 we sent more to the polls than the GOP did. There IS NOT third-party hemoragging.

By the way, I would just love to discuss my city council race with you, the political landscape of one the reddest districts in GA, and how DFA-backed candidates faired there. But just so we have a common reference, how did you do in your last campaign?

[LWolf]

104. 73 million eligible voters who did not vote. Again, check census data.

My last campaign?

As a candidate? I won the first round, lost the second. Of course, the fact that I never declared a candidacy, was nominated and elected by others without my knowledge, and did not campaign for the second round, might have something to do with that. It doesn't really compare to anyone who actually wants to hold a public office. That wasn't a position in government, anyway, but a figurehead position. Teacher of the year, lol.

I didn't run a campaign for the next round, but I still have my nice little plaque. :D


As far as hemorrhaging goes:

<snip>

For the fourth straight month, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has decreased. For the third straight month, the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has also decreased.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in May found that just 30.8% now say they’re Republicans. That’s down slightly from last month and down more than six percentage points from the GOP peak of 37.3% during Election 2004. The number of Republicans has been falling fairly steadily since the middle of 2005.

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans….

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/number_of_republicans_in_u_s_hits_new_low_number_of_democrats_also_decline

[wyldwolf]

110. There has always been a high number of people who don't vote

Hey, if I want to take your route, I'm actually 4-1 in elections - and they're all political. But I see you don't really want to discuss the specifics of my race and district. Not surprising.

As for your quote, where is the part about "third parties?"

People who don't declare a party often still vote either Dem or GOP. In 2006, more independents voted for the Democrats. They lean that way in 2008.

[LWolf]

113. So you want to pass over the Rasmussin poll?

Were you thinking that those numbers of people that no longer identify with the Democratic party would join the 73 million? That none of them are likely to give 3rd parties support?

It's clever of you, lol, to "ignore" the points that don't make your case. Like this one, which I'm happy to repeat for you:

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans….

I've spent most of my voting life with Independents. In the '04 primaries, I worked almost exclusively with 3rd party and independent voters, who were organized to support a Democrat they could live with. They worked hard for Democrats during the primaries, but they, for the most part, did not vote for Kerry in '04. In order to win those votes, "Democratic voters as a whole" will have to nominate a candidate that earns them.

A DLC candidate does not, and will not. Many independents and 3rd party members will vote for SOME Democrats, but a significant number of those votes will be lost with a dlc nomination.

According to the independent and 3rd party groups I've worked with, anyway.

[wyldwolf]

115. Not at all. It simply did not confirm your claim about Dems hemorrhaging to third parties

Now, if you can find a poll stating people are leaving the Dems for Greens or Libertarians or other such third parties, then you'll have a point.

I don't accept your anecdotal evidence. There is no way to confirm it.

Now. My campaign?

[LWolf]

123. People are leaving the Democratic Party.

I expect that they go to other political parties that welcome them.

Is it your statement that NONE of those leaving the Democratic party end up in 3rd parties? Are you trying to suggest that they just disappear into the ether? What, exactly, is the point you'd like to make about the people who no longer consider themselves Democrats? Do you have anything to say about the "Party as a whole's" responsibility for those losses?

Your campaign? You want me to say something more about it? Sure.

You've run for political office. You didn't win. Therefore:

1. Your platform doesn't mesh with the majority, or,

2. Your campaign strategies don't "win," and shouldn't be adopted by others, or

3. You were just running to represent the minority, knew you wouldn't win, but still wanted to stand for the voiceless, in which case, you shouldn't be denigrating those who do the same in national elections, or...

4. Some or all of the above. Personally, I'd go with this one.

Edited to add:

I've got responsibilities today that take me away from the keyboard. If you still want to "play," I'll be back tonight to spar.

[wyldwolf]

126. ... but becoming unaffiliated, NOT joining third parties as you claimed

Your campaign? You want me to say something more about it? Sure.

You've run for political office. You didn't win. Therefore:

1. Your platform doesn't mesh with the majority, or,

6th Congressional district (Tom Price) against a three term popular Republican incumbent.

2. Your campaign strategies don't "win," and shouldn't be adopted by others, or

6th Congressional district (Tom Price) against a three term popular Republican incumbent. By the way, I did better than his last two opponents...I would have had a better chance if I was Jesus.

3. You were just running to represent the minority, knew you wouldn't win, but still wanted to stand for the voiceless, in which case, you shouldn't be denigrating those who do the same in national elections, or...

No, I was running because I opposed massive commercial growth along highways not designed to withstand the traffic...oh, and I had this crazy idea that the elected officials should pick a weekend out of every month and walk door to door soliciting citizen feedback...

[MuseRider]

135. Ahh but some of us don't have another choice.

I dropped the Dems after a life long belief in them and became unaffiliated because there IS no other choice here. Dem, Rep, Lib, Reform and those were the choices so I am unaffiliated. I would have joined a 3rd party if they had had the party I was interested in joining or hell probably any one of them if they even hinted at being liberal. I am guessing I am not alone being without a 3rd party choice so your numbers really do not mean as much as you seem to think.

[wyldwolf]

138. but some of you could join the peace corp or eat fig newtons...

:shrug:

You've yet to prove anything even approaching what you claimed.

[MuseRider]

139. What on earth do I have to prove?

In my state you don't have those choices. You state that most go to unaffiliated rather than join 3rd parties. I posited that that may also be the reason rather than people not willing to join a 3rd party. I can't prove numbers and was not trying to I was just stating my experience and I know that in this state there are more than just me who are unaffiliated because of that. I don't know but feel it is entirely possible that there are other states that have the same limited number of parties to join but even if not the few in my state would skew your reason that they did not join 3rd parties because they did not want to.

Jesus, I was not trying to state a fact just making a case that there were other reasons for being unaffiliated.

As far as the peace corp/fig newton comment...bite me. You can be as big an asshole as you want but it sure does not make anyone really anxious to dialog with you but then that would make you the king and winner of all right? I get it now.

[wyldwolf]

140. you don't HAVE to prove anything... you can just let those dubious claims hang out there forever.

It's the corporations that the DLC works for that do the rigging and influencing.
The Democratic Party is going to continue to hemmorhage voters to 3rd parties.

[MuseRider]

141. WTF are you talking about?

I never said those things. I may believe them but I don't recall stating them. All I was doing was pointing out that some who leave the Democratic party and don't join 3rd parties don't have that choice at all. They are unaffiliated because there is not another choice. I have no clue what you are talking about as far as dubious claims I am making. That is fact, it is my fact living where I do and there is nothing at all dubious about it.

[wyldwolf]

142. ah. You know what? I mistook you for the person I was actually having this conversation with.

[MuseRider]

143. Cute

just really cute. I hope you really don't aspire to be a nice guy because you have a long road to travel to even get close.

[wyldwolf]

144. Why muserider. Whatever do you mean?

I do know truth squadding is offensive to those who make their reputation selling revolutionary leftist bile, but I wouldn't exactly call correcting dubious claims mean.

[MuseRider]

148. You continue to miss the point

I suspect intentionally so that you can keep spewing your centrist bile. Now for just about everyone else on the planet I would never say anything like that to them because they have a right to their opinion but they most often state that with respect to those who disagree. You do not speak to anyone with a difference of opinion with anything even close to respect for their right to disagree.

What I meant was the snide way you attempted to brush me off in your post before.

I see now it was meant to keep me on the line so you could deliver your leftist bile line. Again, cute.

I am out of here except to talk about the OP, this is a disgusting conversation that I no longer wish to be involved in. You may have the last word, I am certain it will be respectful of our differences.

[wyldwolf]

150. viva Chavez! Or something...

[Clark2008]

203. I would position that the DLC is NOT centrist - not at all.

They're corporatists. Centrists, I can live with, as long as they're fighting for the middle class and not kissing the ass of corporations.

[Totally Committed]

206. You go, girlfriend!

((((((((((((((MWAH!))))))))))))))

TC

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

82. PROVE the DLC has " total hegemonic power" over the party.

I know it's your plan to interrupt us from having that discussion, but the tactics you emply belong over at FreeRepublic, not on DU.

I know it's your plan to post things that aren't true, but "truthiness" belongs at FreeRepublic, not DU.

[Totally Committed]

90. They don't have it YET.

And if I have my way, they never will. But, you want it.... you and all the DLC want total and complete hegemonic control over this Party and it's issues and candidates and YOU KNOW IT.

You can try to steamroller us all you want, but some of us will not simply step out of the way and allow it to happen.

TC

[wyldwolf]

103. But you just said they do have it. So, what are the doing to try to attain it?

[welshTerrier2]

114. they are trying to kick other candidates out of the debates n/t

[wyldwolf]

116. Really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?

[Totally Committed]

121. That's RICH! I didn't think you believed in links...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3389753

TC

[wyldwolf]

122. No, as is often stated by people here, I ALWAYS ask for links.

..and what exactly does THAT link have to do with your proving the DLC are trying to limit participation in debates?

[Totally Committed]

124. I think what you did to that poster in the seperate thread was DIRTY.

Providing the most inflammatory quote OUT OF CONTEXT, even when you were asked for the context, in order to hold that poster up to ridicule and derision is just a lousy think to do.

Think about it. It was nasty.

TC

[wyldwolf]

129. why don't you provide the context, then?

[Totally Committed]

131. So you can start ANOTHER flame-war with me?

I've had enough of your cynicism and derision for today, thanks.

You've ruined this thread with your combative and agressive posts that have not had much to do with anything that COULD have been discussed in a meaningful way.

TC

[wyldwolf]

132. oops! Somone already provided the link.

[welshTerrier2]

127. yes, i do.

lots of links in fact. you're good at googling. i have confidence in you.

here's the thing wyldwolf. i am not going to get dragged into these juvenile exchanges. if you would like to discuss the issues, i'm glad to do it. you used to take these exchanges seriously; you clearly no longer do. you clearly have no respect for DU or DU'ers and that's your right. i take the issues seriously and I don't appreciate what I've been seeing.

you'll have to go play with someone else.

[wyldwolf]

130. apparently you don't

:shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

164. You know what else belongs over there?

Vapid smears like "revolutionary leftist bile."

[MuseRider]

89. Stated the facts

as they are for many many people.

Thank you for a well written post that puts it out there. They won't listen because they don't want to and so far they don't have to. Hopefully the time will come when they find out that their willful ignoring of the people who are trying to tell them that they do not feel well treated by the party has cost them everything. Hopefully we will still have something left to save. Hopefully by that movement we can again have at least a two party system instead of the one party and the wanna be like the one party system we have today.

It is my guess that it will still take a while for this to happen. Things have gotten bad enough that some are just now recognizing that they do need to pay attention, others have been further driven away. The time will come when people see just who is benefiting and who is not and they will finally begin to see why we have been holding out for this long. Our basic human rights principles will win out eventually but we have to be able to break through the slick media machine and the little sound bites to satisfy without any depth. Look how many more of us there are now? Nothing will make people engage more than being taken for fools and left behind to rot while others play with their fortunes.

[LWolf]

107. The time will come,

for the very reason that you state. They don't want to hear from people who aren't happy with the direction they are taking the party.

That grieves me. We could avoid "hitting bottom," and have a better chance to move forward, if more were listening.

[Totally Committed]

109. It isn't going to happen, my friend...

Not in this atmosphere.

I grieve for what this Party has lost.

TC

[MuseRider]

134. It grieves me as well

but I have to admit I fell for the line ABB as hard as anyone. That kind of thinking allows them to continue but it is nothing more than a little meme made to make people feel a part of the challenge. Hardly a challenge when there is little difference between the two parties. I need to clarify that a bit I think, there is still a difference but the DLC leaders are all about giving the tiniest bit to prove that they care, not enough to really help anyone but it suckers us again and again. "Well, they just can't do much more in this environment but they still care" **swoon** pull that Democratic lever. They are being found out, too bad so many of us fell for it for so long that it has gotten this bad. ABB? No more ham sandwiches for me, not until they actually stand for something besides the "me too" they stand for now. That is not leadership, it is lazy and not beneficial to most of us but it certainly helps them. Throw me another dog bone and I will bite this time but not the bone.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

93. bingo

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

94. Newsweek has even gone so far as to run an Op-Ed urging Mrs. Clinton to take on Obama

as her running-mate... Like the election is already over and done-with!

The Corporate-run MSM wants this ticket, and they want no one else to have a shot.

TC

ETA:

For Hillary: A Proposal
By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762038/site/newsweek/

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

97. the 4th branch of the government

[Totally Committed]

102. Not while I still have a breath left in my body.

We must resist the DLC and the MSM when they try and convince us that this election is already over... "inevitable", in fact.

No way.

TC

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

200. ur not alone..

born free and will die free

[MuseRider]

128. LOL my god you crack me up!

"You will not be catered to, courted, or coddled."

Quite frankly I would have thought that you would have understood by now that we really want nothing at all from you especially your catering, courting or coddling. How interesting that you would perceive us "elitists" as wanting that.

[penguin7]

192. What about early primary packing?

This gives the candidate with the most money and the backing by the MSM a big advantage.

[dmallind]

13. well most of that is conjecture

much of the rest is screed "AIPAC dominates foreign policy" Oh boy....

The nuggets that have some probability of being true (yep for example inner city schools will probably still crumble - since most school funding comes from local authorities and the electorate as a whole does not want to lose local control which makes this likely) are either intractable social problems that NO government other than a tyrant who believes exactly as you do could fix or ones where a majority does not agree with you (and in some cases, doesn't agree with me either), and like it or not the government is of the people, not of the far left people only.

But even if every single word of it were true, not supporting that "Democrat" will get you a REAL Republican not a "Republican" and if the last six plus years haven't taught you the difference I doubt I can, but I'll give it a shot.

The "Republican" won't pack the courts and the US Attorneys offices with right wing political ideologues who will chip away at the Bill of Rights and do the dirty work for the White House.

The "Republican" won't issue hundreds of signing statements that allow for illegal domestic spying

The "Republican" won't let Exxon write energy policy

The "Republican" won't gut social security by spending trillions to put it into the hands of Wall Street traders

The "Republican" may at least pay some attention to reducing the number of uninsured, and if we don't get to Utopia, is it better to get closer or move further away?

The "Republican", no matter how small the apostrophes, will remove troops more quickly and spend less debt funded billions on crusades. I refer you to the Utopia question above.

The "Republican" will not drive science-based federal agencies on the basis of bronze age mythology. We may even have a surgeon general who can talk about contraception again.

The "Republican" will not piss off every single diplomatic partner in the world, making us a laughing stock who is not openly derided only because we have more nukes than anyone else. It may of course take this "Republican" some time to start repairing the damage done.

The "Republican" will not drive us into a worthless currency and our kids into economic bondage by turning record surpluses into record deficits. We might even start getting closer towards the former if we're lucky.

The "Republican" may at least let us TRY to get slightly cheaper drug prices by....well asking for them maybe. That utopia thing again?

The "Republican" may not be able to spontaneously conjure gay marriage from 60%+ opposition, but the chances are they won't push for laws that make it easier to discriminate agsinst gays. It's that word beginning with U again.


And above all the "Republican" may not be able to make us into a socialist paradise (where is that again?) but won;t go out of their way to turn us into a fascist hell either. Who was the last DLC president again? How well did we do then? What happened to our economy and standard of oving again? Damn I hated all that......

[Totally Committed]

14. Welcome to DU!

I see you got here just in time for the party.

TC

[wyldwolf]

54. can you dispute his post?

[Totally Committed]

69. Why should I? It's his opinion. He didn't come here and call me names, or

spam my thread in an effort to hijack it and shut me up. He said his piece and left it at that. I respect that.

The problem with the authoritarian bullies on this board is they think no one can disagree with them without it being a challenge to a pissing contest. I respect his/her right to state an opinion contrary to mine. That's what we "progressive" bullies do.

TC

[wyldwolf]

74. hey.. look...

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Totally Committed]

83. I didn't take you up on your "challenge" so THAT'S your reply?

:rofl:

Like I said -- you guys kill me!

TC

[wyldwolf]

86. yep

I have no pity for whiners.

[dmallind]

120. Thanks but...

...(and please don't think I direct this specifically at you - just the most recent example) one thing I don't like too much about DU is post-count snobbery, especially when many people's post counts are inflated by countless "yeah bush is a moron" me too posts. I try not to post much unless I have anything to add, but that does not make me a newcomer (nor should it matter if I were - political acumen is not measured by DU post count).

But, sincerely, thanks for the belated welcome!

[wyldwolf]

18. I wish I could recommend your reply

[SaveElmer]

35. Great reply...nt

[welshTerrier2]

95. no, it's NOT conjecture and it's not Utopia

and the policies being advocated are not "far left" ... in fact, the DLC alternatives, since you like to toss around labels, is FAR RIGHT. oh, and here's another: what is being called for is not a "socialist paradise"; what you're advocating is a corporatist hell. OK, had enough labels for now? Good.

BTW, I would not argue there is no difference between DLC Democrats and republicans. Your laundry list of republican evils is quite legitimate. what is NOT legitimate is the premise that we should accept the DLC corporate status quo to avoid things being even worse under republicans. it's not about UTOPIA; it's about restoring democracy to the American people. it's about taking big money and big corporations out of the electoral and legislative processes. your sad attempt to label these objectives UTOPIA would have you making the exact same arguments about honoring the Constitution. did the framers intend for mega-multi-national corporations to dictate foreign policy? did they support "corporate personhood"? did they envision a world where the monied classes would have wildly disproportionate influence in Washington. don't hand me UTOPIA. that's a bunch of crap.

and you dismissed the key policy points raised in the OP just a little too quickly. in fairness, you at least acknowledged that some of the points had some probability of being true. well, here's a hint: they have a very high probability of being true. and before we go through some of the points, you also made the tragic error of failing to understand what leadership is all about. you said:

since most school funding comes from local authorities and the electorate as a whole does not want to lose local control which makes this likely) are either intractable social problems that NO government other than a tyrant who believes exactly as you do could fix or ones where a majority does not agree with you (and in some cases, doesn't agree with me either), and like it or not the government is of the people, not of the far left people only.

there's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to begin. let's start with your "local control" argument. if federal policies were changed, let's say for example by cutting the defense budget and returning more federal dollars to the states to support local governments, do you think local school boards would object to receiving more funds? I'll answer for you: NO, of course they wouldn't. implicit in your argument about "local control" is the absurd point that the federal government would enact policies to hurt local communities. yeah, sure. if they did that, there would be objections. you completely omit the possibility that good federal policy could do something to help local communities. cut the defense budget and use the states as a conduit to feed more money directly to cities and towns. no, i don't think "local control" would be of much concern.

and then you made your really mega-faux pas. you made an excellent point about needing the will of the people to make major changes (unless you have a tyrant) but then you completely screwed it up. and how did you do this? you completely failed to go beyond your point about needing the support of the American people to include the actual possibility that visionary leaders might actually give the American people more information and lead them down a path to real solutions. are the American people, who are busy surviving and leading their lives, expected to think up solutions on their own? do you expect the American people to hear alternative views on key national policies from the corporate-owned MSM? you were so right to understand that we need the American people behind us if we want to bring about substantial changes; you were so wrong when you didn't recognize that that's what campaigns should be all about. instead, we get Hillary Clinton planning to "appear more Mid-Western" to help her get votes.

Here's a very fundamental example. Can you tell me what Hillary's view of single payer health care is? I doubt you can. I can assure you I can't. She says all sorts of things about studying the issue and wanting to get coverage for everyone and putting more emphasis on prevention. The issue of single payer has become much more prominent since Moore's movie was released. Wouldn't it be kind of good for democracy if people running for office were kind enough to honor the voters with their opinion on the subject? so, what does Hillary say about it? you know, after she stuffs some of those insurance industry bucks into her bloated pockets?

But, OK, that's just one issue. Some believe bush went to war in Iraq for oil. We need not argue the merits of that view here. But it is nevertheless a prominent view. So tell me, what is Hillary's view on the Iraqi Oil Law. The issue is tearing Iraq apart. There have been street demonstrations in Iraq against the US imposed Oil Law that would rape the Iraqi people and give hundreds of billions in profits to Big Oil. Another fundamental question: what is Hillary's position on the Iraqi Oil Law? Here's a hint: I'm pretty sure she's ducking the issue.

The point is that we as voters are being given pseudo-candidates who are running on pseudo-issues. If you want to make changes in the country, you don't do it with candidates like these. They will change nothing. They are campaigning on nothing. Go look at the pro-Hillary posts in GDP. Take a really big sample. What will you see? You'll see polls and endorsements and fundraising stats. What won't you see? Leadership on the issues.

So, let's look at what you called "conjecture", shall we? let's just pick out a few key issues from the OP and discuss their "probability."

1. There will still be no universal (i.e. single-payer, not-for-profit) healthcare. Well, given that Hillary hasn't said a word about it, it seems unlikely she's going to demonstrate any leadership pushing for it.

2. We will still be entrenched in the Middle East, with permanent bases in Iraq. The War for Oil will continue. Well, given that Hillary has said we need to keep some troops in Iraq and given that she hasn't criticized the criminal oil grab, the point has a ton of merit.

3. The fight against Global Warming will remain piecemeal, and up to what the corporations feel they can do without damaging their bottom lines. The Energy Bill the Democrats just passed will reduce "barrels per day" by a whopping 2.5% by the year 2020. We need to make a 90% reduction to protect ourselves from the ravages of global warming. Drop in the bucket politics might "sound good" when properly marketed; global warming is science; it doesn't fall for slick marketing gimmicks.

4. There will still be no meaningful Election Reform. Show me where Clinton has made this a central core of her campaign. She's probably the worst offender of sucking in those corporate K Street dollars. What could be more critical to the best interests of the American people than making changes to empower them at a time where corporations rule the roost? Is it "conjecture" to say that nothing will change with Hillary? It's pretty damned good conjecture. Has she even mentioned the issue?

That's enough issues to make the point for now.

And, finally, good old Bill Clinton. Well, you asked "who was the last DLC president" and you asked "how well did we do then?" interesting questions but they may not be the best questions. when you ask "how well did WE do then?", you probably weren't thinking of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children Clinton's sanctions on Iraq caused to die. No point focusing on the negative I suppose. The UN Director in Baghdad of the Oil for Food program called the sanctions genocide. We can argue about the definition of the term; Clinton's policies killed hundreds of thousands of children. But then, you only asked how well WE did. No sense worrying about America's impact on other countries I suppose.

And, of course, we had the glorious Clinton economy. I did really well in the nineties. My job's in India now. It's not at all clear how much credit Clinton deserves for the economic boom in the 90's. First, we had an explosion of high tech. A new industry was born. Bill Clinton did not invent the internet. Second, Clinton, through most of his time in the WH, had a republican Congress. They pushed some strong budget cutting measures through the legislative process. And most importantly, Clinton was a free trader. We got GAAT; we got NAFTA and we got support for the WTO. Well, to point to a roaring economy that ultimately leaks it's wealth to India and China due, in part, to poorly planned trade policies is not much of an accomplishment.

Anyway, I give you some credit for at least addressing an array of issues. Unlike the usual drivel from Hillary's marketing squad, you raised a number of legitimate differences between republicans and Democrats. In the end though, you unfairly labeled the policy considerations in the OP as UTOPIAN and falsely argued the likelihood of their occurrence was only conjecture. Ultimately, a real response to the OP would have required a point by point discussion of the issues that were raised. The truth is, after reading your post, I have NO IDEA where you stand on any of those issues. How then could I possibly see your post as responsive?

[dmallind]

117. Projection projection

I am not on Hillary's marketing squad. She's about my 3rd choice now and any of the big name possible entrants would probably drop her down further.

The DLC position is not "far right" or "corporatist". It may seem this is the normal opinion from the DU echo chamber, but there's a whole big world to the right of Hillary. Trying to paint her as far right automatically invalidates any opinion following it. Far right to you? Posiibly. Far right to most of DU? Quite probably. Far right in the overall political spectrum of the nation (you know, those folks who actually get to decide elections)? So laughable it deserves no response.

We did better under Bill than the alternative or his successor by ANY measure of "we". The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids were victims of sanctions imposed by the whole UN, and could have been spared any time their own leader wished for it. Of course it's a bad thing, but is at as bad as killing 650,000 of them outright and displacing millions more? Because that's what we got after Bill and that's what we'll keep having if we don;t stop this ridiculous charade of pretending there is no difference between HRC and Republicans.

The whole crux of all your and the OP's rationale is that (to you) "bad" policies from HRC are indistinguishable from "truly horrendous" policies from the only electable alternatives. You can rant and rave all you want that we should have inspiring left wing populists who can run and win but we don't. That does not mean you can bend reality so far out of shape to say that there is no difference between Hillary and Republicans.

[welshTerrier2]

125. well, here's my non-response to your non-response

it's too bad you didn't take me up on my challenge to go through the issues ... but you chose not to ... so be it ... i'll return the favor and only pick out the points i feel like responding too ... fair enough?

a strong majority of the American people, not the "DU echo chamber", but the American people overall, believe that our government is controlled by the special interests. i call those candidates who don't clearly demonstrate they are trying to empower the American people and rid the halls of our government of big money and corporate power FAR RIGHT.

Ah, and you're going to let Bill Clinton off the hook for the sanctions by arguing they were imposed by the UN. I assume you can demonstrate what a humanitarian he was by fighting to block the UN from taking this genocidal action. You can, can't you?

And, there's just no pleasant way to put this, so I won't put it at all. You said that "That does not mean you can bend reality so far out of shape to say that there is no difference between Hillary and Republicans." Let me just politely respond that I said just the opposite.

So, who are you supporting and why?

[creeksneakers2]

161. Whew!

There's plenty here I disagree with but first I'd like to say that people can complain about money and politics intermingling until the cows come home but its going to stay that way until judgment day, no matter what anybody tries to do about it, unless they cut off free speech.

I can tell you Hillary's position on single payer health care. She's against it. Proponents like to point to polls that show overwhelming public support for everybody being covered. That's how it was when Hillary began trying to improve health care in 1993. It didn't take long for the companies to pick Hillary's initiative to bits. I think there was an initiative in Oregon that started out with around 80% support and ended up getting 11% at the polls. A new crack at single payer would run into the same obstacles.

Here's why I don't see single payer happening right away. Most Americans get health care for free or nearly for free from their employers. While many Americans are dissatisfied with their health care packages,they are used to having them. If Hillary proposed single payer, all those people would have to give up free health care, exchange the insurance they know for a package from the government that that hasn't earned their trust, and pay in taxes the cost of their health care. That will never sell.

The only alternative is an incremental approach. Broaden public health care, then earn the trust of Americans, then ask them to switch. That's Hillary's approach, and its a very reasonable approach. I don't see the DLC having anything to do with it.

Public responsibility for health care would get our large corporations off the hook for providing it for for free for their employees. From my point of view, that's trading a corporate benefit for a public hardship. It sounds "DLC."

One thing I don't get is that the same proponents of single payer seem to also hold the opinion that everybody in Congress is corrupt. If everybody in Congress is corrupt, why would you want them running health care?

[welshTerrier2]

166. well, lots of interesting points to discuss here

first, thanks. i don't agree with most of what you wrote but at least you kept your response civil and focused on the issues. I'll do the same.

Let's start here:

... people can complain about money and politics intermingling until the cows come home but its going to stay that way until judgment day, no matter what anybody tries to do about it, unless they cut off free speech.

First, as a citizen, how do you feel about what you see the inevitable co-mingling of big money and politics? Is this state of affairs "good democracy" to you? Do you believe that, at least as an ideal, each and every citizen should have equal access to and equal influence on their government? Would you like to see us work toward that ideal? Does it bother you in any way that campaign contributions might very well result in a quid pro quo? Does the revolving door between business and government concern you (think Cheney; think Halliburton; think Iraq)? Do you worry that many government policies cater to special interests? Do you think Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial-Congressional complex is still valid? Do you think the US is an imperialist country whose foreign policy is directed by and for mega-corporations or does it serve the American people?

Do any of these issues concern you? The truly very sad point you raised was that mega-corporations (although in fairness you said "money" but my lobbying concerns and electoral concerns have to do with corporations and not individuals) are entitled to "free speech." Are corporations people? Are they citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens? Can we require them to go into combat if there is a draft? Can we make them serve jury duty? Do they have a right to attend the public schools? When you talk about free speech, I think you're talking about rights reserved for American citizens. Corporations are not people and they are not citizens and they should not have free speech rights.

The next point you raised was:

I can tell you Hillary's position on single payer health care. She's against it.

Can you provide some documentation of Clinton's position? I've never heard her speak about single payer. I've read a number of her speeches on health care but I haven't seen any reference to this. You seem to be familiar with her position. Can you provide a link or some kind of reference so we can "hear it in her own words?"

You also said, referring to an Oregon single payer initiative:

A new crack at single payer would run into the same obstacles.

There's no way, given the facts you presented, for me to agree or disagree with this. When was this tried in Oregon? Recently? There's no question that the American people are increasingly fed up with the health care system. Whenever that law was brought before the people of Oregon, it certainly was before Moore's best seller movie hit the theatres. Al Gore's movie won all kinds of awards. It raised global consciousness. Sicko might do the same. One thing's for sure, if our candidates don't show leadership on the issue, how can it gain ground with the American people. And it's a complicated issue at that. How can we know what the actual Oregon law was? Was it the same as single payer? Could it have worked on a "one state basis?" Was a smear campaign run against it? Did the supporters have adequate funding to fight back? Were there other issues or candidates on the ballot that brought out a massive conservative tide? Taken in a vacuum, there's not much we can do with the information we have so far.

The only alternative is an incremental approach. Broaden public health care, then earn the trust of Americans, then ask them to switch. That's Hillary's approach ...

Well, the question is, is that indeed Hillary's approach? Are you stating that Hillary is for incremental progress now but that she believes we should migrate towards single payer over time once the American people get comfortable with the incremental changes? I haven't heard her talk about an eventual migration to single payer. Can you provide any support for this point of view?

One thing I don't get is that the same proponents of single payer seem to also hold the opinion that everybody in Congress is corrupt. If everybody in Congress is corrupt, why would you want them running health care?

It is my understanding that under a single payer system, Congress will not be "running health care." Allow me to provide you with the following link which, among other topics, includes the following excerpt:

source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.

The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

Let me close this post with a very important observation I made about your post: The only mention you made of changing anything to cover the 47 million with no health care is that we shouldn't do it too fast. 18,000 people a year die because they can't afford health care. 18,000. To me, that's unconscionable. I don't think the American people would reject a call to make helping those people a top priority no matter what it takes. Anything else, in my view is inhumane and I don't think what we're doing now reflects the values and spirit of the American people. We can talk all you want about what "would pass" or what is politically feasible. It seems to me that 18,000 people dying because they can't afford medical care transcends politics and demands leadership. In my view, the American people would be very quick to respond to such calls. And it goes beyond those who die; we cannot and should not allow others to go without health coverage and access to medical care. Just because they don't die doesn't mean they are are receiving quality medical treatment.

I make no demands on any candidate who defines a clear path to health care for all. I don't expect these changes to happen overnight. Those who shy away from leading the way, however, are part of the status quo that put the almighty dollar ahead of our humanity and values. That, I will never support. Good talking to you.

[creeksneakers2]

173. Lots of questions

How do I feel about the co-mingling of big money and politics?

We can't all have equal access. You have Internet access. Some people don't. Do we buy them all computers, or tell you that you can't use yours? Who decides what is equal? I think there is a benefit for letting some people speak loudly. One person feels very strongly in favor. The next person is against, but doesn't really care that much. Wouldn't it be better to give to the guy who feels strongly?

Campaign contributions for quid pro quo are bribes. Its illegal and it should be.

The revolving door between business and government concerns me.

I don't however think that its the end of the world that some people can afford better access. The rich have money as an advantage. The poor have votes as an advantage, because there war far far more poor people than rich people. The two sides fight with the advantages they have. If the rich didn't have money in the political game, they'd be wiped out by poor people wanting the rich to pay for everything. I'm all for rich people shouldering the largest burden of what needs to be done, but only for essential needs. Its not right to take their money otherwise. Between the money on one side and the votes on the other side I think it all evens out pretty well, when Democrats are in office.

I'm not sure what a special interest is. Any group petitioning the government could be called a special interest. People have a right get together for change. I think its one of the wonderful things about America. I'm sorry that this means that sometimes the few will get their way and the many will lose.

I'm deeply disturbed about Eisenhower's warning. The military industrial complex is planning 100 years of war. They are building a science-fiction-style-zap-anything-on-the-planet-in-a-second military machine. It will cost trillions of dollars and will drain large sums of money away from retiring the baby boomers. The defense contractors are already getting rich off this. The most freaky part is that when I ask the people who want this world domination system who out there in the world might actually militarily attack us, they can't name one country. Its all a galaxy sized rip off and I wish the left was more concerned about it.

I think mega-corporations have a great deal of influence on foreign policy but I don't think they completely control it. A foreign policy initiative that looks insane to me might be taken because it looks like a great idea to somebody else. Every person I disagree with is not corrupt.

Imperialist seems like a strong word to me but it's not an inaccurate description. The US has committed crimes. Sometimes we do good things too, like the embargo against South Africa that helped end minority rule there.

Corporate person hood is a legal fiction created for convenience. Corporations have constitutional rights, but not the same ones as individuals. A corporation is just a group of people, and groups have rights. Taking free speech rights away from one group imperils the free speech rights of all the others. Corporations can't make direct political donations and I agree with that.

Hillary is against single payer:

Steve Eckstat: Sen. Clinton, I was part of your 1993 Health Care Task Force. Obviously we weren't very successful at that time, so as president would you try to create a plan for universal health coverage again?

Clinton: I certainly would. It's one of the reasons I'm running for president. … I think we're in a better position to do that today than we were in '93 or '94. … It's hard to ignore the fact that nearly 47 million people don't have insurance. But also because the people who have insurance find that insurance companies deny what you need.
It's really hard for small businesses to compete in the economy … if they have to compete with the cost of health care.

We spend more money than anyone in the world by a very big number. … For all those reasons I believe the American people will make this an issue in the campaign. … I'm very excited about this, and I know that we can do this.

Many of the features that any of our health-care plans will have are going to be the same because there are only a couple ways that we can get to universal health coverage. … We can build on the current employment situation. … The other big way of doing it … is to move towards a system that would have Medicare for everybody. … A kind of single-payer system.

I think we have to have a uniquely American solution to health care because we're a different kind of country than anybody else.

I think we will move toward requiring employers to participate the way Massachusetts does or the way California is considering. … And if you don't insure your employees you're going to have to pay some kind of per-employee amount so that everybody can be given insurance.

We're going to have universal health care when I'm president. There's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done.

END INSERT - This was on Good Morning America. I'm having a hard time getting the link to post but I'll get it if you want me to.
I don't have proof that Hillary would substitute single payer at a later date. Its just my hunch.

OREGON HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10802

I agree with you that 18,000 people dying is unconscionable. Large majorities want universal health care. However, leadership isn't a one way street. Leader can lead if they listen to people below and the people below listen to the leader. Its important to sell a package that the public will accept. What's seems obvious to you may seem ridiculous to somebody else.

If the only real world choices come down 18,000 people dying or 9,000 dying or making a futile gesture, I'd go with the 9,000 people dying. To me, anything else is unconscionable.

[welshTerrier2]

174. a link worth reading

sorry, no time to really respond right now. leaving for the weekend.

you might be interested in reading this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

i found the polling section near the end especially informative. it's important when looking at the polls to make note of the actual poll question. Some of the questions were misleading like "would you prefer: replacing the current health care system with a new government run health care system, or maintaining the current system". Single payer is government health insurance and NOT a government run health care system. Under single payer, doctors and hospitals would remain independent business operations and would not be on the government payroll. Most of the polls seemed very supportive of single payer and that's without a major push from Moore's movie or from a supportive group of Democratic candidates.

last quick point then I have to take off: Wouldn't it be better to give to the guy who feels strongly? Strongly? Perhaps? Wealthier? Not so much.

OK ... last one for real: I'm not sure what a special interest is. Any group petitioning the government could be called a special interest.

if a group of people petition the government for disaster relief, I suppose we could call them a special interest group. Most of us would not criticize a legitimate purpose like that. I think what is commonly meant by a "special interest" is a less legitimate motive. For example, if Big Oil pressured Cheney and bush to invade Iraq because they knew they would make hundreds of billions (and they did), that is what is meant by a special interest. the problem is clearly worsened when these mega-industries pump money into the political parties and into political PACS to "politely influence" policy or legislation. Another classic example was last year's Medicare bill (was it two years ago?) that blocked the US government from negotiating better prices on prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. Special interest means a small group is catered too against the best interests of the American people and against their values and beliefs.

As long as we allow the poisoning of democracy by big money and powerful corporations, our government will not serve the American people; it will serve those who fund the campaigns. even though you might say a quid pro quo is bribery, that is the system we have today. Fight to change this through campaign finance reform. Fight to empower the American people and lessen the stranglehold of K Street and the mega-money boys. Money does not equal free speech. Maybe we can't ever achieve citizen parity but it is the essential spirit of democracy and should be held high as an ideal. Fight to get there; don't accept the status quo.

OK. That's it. gotta travel. Have a good one.

[Perry Logan]

25. Sirota is always good for a bring-down. Thanks, big guy!

[Totally Committed]

38. Sirota is outstanding...

especially on this subject.

Thanks for your reply.

TC

[L0oniX]

51. Executive privilege forbids a democratic president

[Totally Committed]

68. That would be funny if it wasn't so....

plausible. :scared:

TC

[RFKJrNews]

84. What about RFK Jr.?

I'm with TC, who says: "And, that's no matter WHO wins now, UNLESS someone who has not already declared tosses his hat into the ring."

Exactly right. And maybe that someone is the man pictured in your avatar, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.???

There is an online draft petition to try and convince him to run.

Check it out at http://RFKin2008.com

[Totally Committed]

88. Welcome to DU...

As you can see by my avatar and my sig line, I am a HUGE FAN. So, what chance do we have to lure him into this race? I would give every moment of ny time, and ounce of ny effort to his campaign!

WHERE DO I SIGN UP???????

TC

[RFKJrNews]

175. How to show RFK Jr. your support

Hey, TC - thought you might be an RFK Jr. fan. Can we clone a few million more of you?

Seriously, we need all the help folks can give right now. Time is running out, and I suspect Bobby is very close to making a decision whether or not to get in the race.

The first thing you can do to help is SIGN THE DRAFT PETITION:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RFKin2008/

The second thing you can do is email everybody you know and ask them to sign the petition, link it on their blogs and MySpace pages, and help spread the word.

The third thing you can do is visit our website http://RFKin2008.com, which is updated daily, to stay informed on everything Bobby is doing and saying out there. He's working his tail off for us, so it's about time we started working our tails off for him!

Thanks for your support of RFK Jr. He's the MAN!:)

See you at the Barricades.

[MuseRider]

176. I saw him and heard him speak

a few months ago. He was amazing. I did not know about the petition, I certainly will sign it because we need more like him speaking out. Love the guy and got his autograph and I rarely get or keep autographs.

I will have to really check him out, I had no idea he was considering. Thanks.

[Totally Committed]

177. Considering how he feels about the corruption of corporatism in both Parties,

this is VERY exciting news to me!

TC

[MuseRider]

178. He is also

a captivating speaker. I am narcoleptic and we rushed out of the house since we had to drive 35 miles to see him and I forgot my Ritalin. Now sometimes it does not matter at all what I am doing I can't stay awake even if I am on my feet and interested but for some reason I was so spellbound, and I mean he really laid it out, that if I felt like I was going to nod off I never even noticed it. I guess the biofeedback helped a little! He certainly understands the issues as well as anyone I know of. We need his voice being heard loudly and I don't care one little bit if it crowds the "upper tier" :eyes:. I have to admit I know little about his policies so I will have to look those over carefully but I do believe he has a strong progressive grasp on a direction we need to be heading. I look forward to learning about them.

[RFKJrNews]

181. A resource for info on RFK Jr.

MuseRider, thanks for your insightful comments. You're not alone - a lot of people didn't know much about RFK Jr.'s work before LIVE EARTH.

Then, they heard that amazing speech and started asking, "wow, who IS this guy? And why isn't he running for President?"

RFK Jr. has not only been a leader in the environmental movement these past 25 years, he is also a prolific writer and an engaging public speaker. Refreshing is the fact that he's been saying the same thing for over two decades now. He doesn't change his tune or jump a bandwagon every time the wind blows. Rare for a politician, eh?

We have links to his many articles, interviews, and books on our website, as well as audio and video resources. The news is updated DAILY, so you can follow what he's up to.

And be sure to check out the "WHERE HE STANDS" page of our site to learn more about his position on the issues.

http://RFKin2008.com

[MuseRider]

182. Thank you

I will certainly bookmark this and read it at my leisure when I can think. I am headed out of town for the week so it will be awhile but you certainly peeked my curiosity, I really had no idea this was going on.

[AtomicKitten]

133. As usual, Sirota frames historical fact with nasty bias

resulting in a screed that is so over-the-top it is embraced without question by some hardwired to buy into their own already well-entrenched negative view of the Democratic Party.

The dichotomy of DLC = evil and progressives = the way and the light is simply absurd and leaves out the vast majority of Democrats that fall somewhere in the middle. And those of us who fall in between are not moved by the framing of fact to manipulate and persuade and will be damn glad to see the end of this administration.

My dog could run the government better than this crew and any of our candidates would be a vast improvement. That is not to say we should abandon all efforts to improve our lot, but the fact remains it is the epitome of arrogant stupidity to purposefully attempt to throw a monkeywrench in the works by declaring in yet another critical election that the Democratic Party, the vehicle that will deliver us to the other side of this nightmare, sucks.

It is Ralph Nader 2000 redux when he declared Democrats are no different than Republicans, and I'm calling bullshit on it right out of the gate.

[Totally Committed]

201. Al Gore quote from the jacket of Sirota's "Hostile Takeover":

I'm reading Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" (again) at the moment, and this is what Al Gore had to say about it on the back cover:

"'Hostile Takeover' makes a strong case that American democracy is under attack. Every politically engaged citizen who wants to know what challenges we face and how we can rebuild our country's democracy should read this book."

This is only one review of the book, but I quoted it, because I know how much you admire and respect Al Gore. Others that are quoted on the cover are Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?"; George Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant!"; Arianna Huffington; William Greider, author of "Who Will Tell the People?", and national affairs correspondent for "The Nation"; and the great Jim Hightower, author of "Thieves in High Places".

Sirota, to me, is an anti-DLC/anti-Corporatist voice -- yes. But, more to the point, he's a voice that seems out to try and set this Party back on the road to what we on the left see as its heart and soul. He is as disappointed in the triangulated-Right direction of this Party as we are. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I agree with most of what he writes and says.

TC

[ProudDad]

136. K&R for the ORIGINAL POST

The rest of the thread contains a dick fight started by the DLC mafia...step carefully around their flames...

[MuseRider]

137. LOL

there are some good points made if you can stomach the rest of the thread. It certainly highlights why there are so many problems but then again, we all knew it before. You can't have a discussion without the **** fights unfortunately.

[LordJFT]

145. This is absurd

Criticizing DLCers is one thing, but calling them republicans is outrageous. Yes the DLCers are too centrist, we get it, but enough with stupid exaggerations.

[Totally Committed]

146. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for your input. :)

TC

[ProudDad]

183. Ok, when it comes to

sucking up to corporate-capitalist amerika, what is the difference???

No one in recent memory has done more to screw the average working person as Clinton's embrace of NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. No republican could have done more...not even the current shrub...

[LordJFT]

193. they could and they did

You conveniently left out CAFTA which Clinton opposed and most republicans supported. Clinton also voted to raise the minimum wage; most republicans didn't. CATO gave her a pitifully low rating of 17% in 2001-2002. I too, am a supporter of fair trade and I'm often frustrated when Clinton and other DLCers are not supportive enough of labor, but pretending they are no different than republicans is inaccurate and doesn't help are cause.

[Jed Dilligan]

153. To the greatest page.

I opened this expecting a "Don't blame the candidates, blame yourself!" tirade--but it's quite the opposite.

[Totally Committed]

155. I'll take that as a compliment!

Thank you, Jed!

TC

[Jed Dilligan]

156. I'm just afraid we could talk ourselves into

eight more years with a President who sees no end to the deployment of US troops in Iraq and will pursue anti-labor and anti-environmental economic growth policies while destroying what's left of the welfare safety net.

[Totally Committed]

157. I'm just as afraid as you are of that.

Just as afraid.

Thanks for your very thoughtful posts.

TC

[Jed Dilligan]

158. They're better than my thoughtless posts,

I'll give you that! :hi:

[Totally Committed]

159. After the day I've had, your posts were very thoughtFUL, and much appreciated.

:hi: <==== right back atcha!

TC

[paulk]

168. Mitt Romney?

Fred Thompson???????????

[Jed Dilligan]

169. That's a given,

and it's exactly why we need to be vigilant of our own candidates.

[paulk]

171. well, since the OP and a number of other posters

in this thread have stated many times over the last several months that they will not vote for one or more of "our own candidates" come election time.... I was just curious, I guess.

[Jed Dilligan]

172. For my part, voting is purely symbolic

I live in California and cannot affect a Presidential election in the slightest.

For me to add my itty-bitty bit of weight to the inevitable Democratic victory here, I insist on being campaigned to positively, rather than just scared by the other side. I may donate but write in a protest vote. Weird, but that's how I am.

[NotGivingUp]

165. There's only ONE democrat that I'm voting for to put in the white house...Kucinich.

The rest can go jump.

[Heath Hatcher]

167. Then I guess you won't show up to the polls come next

Notgiving up, because your candidate dosen't have too much of a chance of winning and I just don't believe what Sirota is saying on this, this is coming from the same guy that said that on the Iraq supplemental bill that was voted on in the House a couple of months ago that the final vote on the bill was really the vote to adopt the rules of the debate, it's bullshit. But don't get me wrong I don't trust Rahm Emanuel at all but i'll believe this what it actually comes down.

[Heath Hatcher]

170. I just don't believe this

Because I know Congress a few months ago were going for very strict guidelines for the free trade agreements that would limit companies outsourceing jobs(i got that news from The Hill)So unless someome else writes on this or I hear it from a actual news source. It's not that I don't believe the OP on this but i've been burned by Sirota before. I mean I just read a article written by him two years ago saying that Democrats on the campaign trail were silent on Iraq and were just regirutateing "Right-Wing BS" what a load of shit, when during the campaign trail leading up to the '06 elections the Democrats(candidate and incumbent) were very vocal on Iraq, demanding policy changes and withdrawals not to mention critizing GOP incumbents for being too close to Bush on the war.Yeah they were fucking silent as church mouses that's why they won back Congress because of it and now demanding withdrawal(something the GOP have been blocking for months). Get a realiy check David. God I can't stand when people constanly bash the party.

Sorry about the 2nd post but like any decent american there is one thing i'm corcerned for is lobbying and trade.

[ProudDad]

184. Last I looked

two years ago was 2005 and, as I remember, in 2005 the Dems WERE "silent on Iraq and were just regurgitating "Right-Wing BS""

Finally in early '06 the polling indicated that Iraq was going to be a loser at the polls.

A majority of Dems won by being sincere about opposing the war and running on that issue.

The minority of DLC, right-wing Dems who took over seats in repuke leaning districts won in spite of their republican-lite leanings by also campaigning against the war...finally...and soft pedaling their pro-corporate bullshit...

So much for the DLC line being a "winner"...


As for trade and worker's rights, I still haven't seen ONE damn bill come out of the Congress. I am aware that anything they pass that would be good for workers would be vetoed but it appears that they haven't even tried yet.

Can you point to anything they've passed (other than minimum wage up to 1979 levels) that they've done? I'd love to see it... :hi:

[Heath Hatcher]

186. Yeah the Dems were wrong about the public opinion

(Atleast thats what Sirota said about them)Regarding the war in '05 so they campaigned on it and won so whats your point? they finally realized that GOP ethics violations, the president being a cancer to the party and the war were on the minds of voters, Democrats started to campaign on those issues and won Congress and are now trying to end the war, good for them. And last I read from the hill on trade is that there still working on bills, there trying to work out bills that would reduce the risk of outsourceing jobs. I rather see Congress pass no trade legislation at all if it's going to be bad. Plus I like to point out for the record that I am a centrist Democrat and I don't like the abuse they get from "Democrats" on this board that there ruining the party. So what are you all trying to say that it's only the progressives and far left liberals that should have a say in the party and not centrist Dems like myself? That isn't right because believe it or not not every Democrat in the United States is far to the left or a progressive views. Some of us centrist Dems have conservatives views: some of us are pro-life, anti-gun control, anti same sex marriage, pro free trade etc. and I don't believe these types of Democrats deserve to be trashed left and right here. The Democratic Party is the big tent party and welcomes all types of political idologies and we all should respect.

Now after reading this post you all think that i'm the offical spokesperson for the DLC, i'm not, I don't condone the DLC because of there pro-corporate views but I do believe that centrist Democrats don't deserve to be trashed all the time(sometimes they do) but were not all spawn of the GOP devil, we deserve a place in the party.

[ProudDad]

188. WTF?

"pro-life, anti-gun control, anti same sex marriage, pro free trade"

Anti-choice
Anti-safety in our cities
Anti-gay civil rights
Anti-FAIR trade

These are NOT Democratic Values...

These are repuke "values"...

These are LOSER values...

These are NOT the sentiment of the majority of American Citizens.

Will the Progressive Majority Emerge?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein


And that shit will ALWAYS get trashed here at DU...

You are welcome to try to convince us to hold anti-democratic values but you won't succeed...

[Heath Hatcher]

190. Relax man, i'm just stating my opinion

I am pro choice and pro-fair trade i'm just simply stating that centrist Democrats are part of this party do and don't deserve to get trash on a regular basis that all.

Calm down will ya, theres nothing wrong with being a centrist Dem, i'm one and I like it. Just because me and alot of other people in this country dosen't embrace all of the progressive goals of the Democratic Party dosen't mean I don't get to be written off in this party as trash and

Since you won't respect my opinions I surely won't respect yours neither, your going on ignore got a problem with it send me a PM. Bye-bye.

[ProudDad]

194. Ah, ignore

the last refuge of the cowardly...

and I'm quite relaxed, thank you... :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

189. just so you know

I am and have always been a liberal Democrat and I embrace the big tent notion because it is the essence of democracy. It is the give and take on ideas that has the best chance of meting out good policy.

... I don't believe these types of Democrats deserve to be trashed left and right here. The Democratic Party is the big tent party and welcomes all types of political ideologies and we all should respect.

Now after reading this post you all think that i'm the official spokesperson for the DLC, i'm not, I don't condone the DLC because of there pro-corporate views but I do believe that centrist Democrats don't deserve to be trashed all the time(sometimes they do) but were not all spawn of the GOP devil, we deserve a place in the party.

On edit: You did, however, pick up on the trend here at DU to label all those that don't foam at the mouth at the very mention of the word DLC as "DLC-lovers." I don't get it either; I guess some people don't do nuance.

[Heath Hatcher]

191. I'll tell you the main reason why DU hates the DLC

And it is a good reason: they embrace the corporations(not to mention there conservative views), thats why. Like I said in one of my previous posts I may be a centrist Dem but I don't them because of that, because of the corporations.

[Heath Hatcher]

197. Self deleted

It was about David Sirota but I harped about him in two other post so enough is enough right? just time to move on about the dude, he's entitled to own opinions he writes on his blog. Just ignore this post and keep talking about the poliical factions of the Democratic Party, sorry for creating this post I was angry when doing it.

Continue.

[AtomicKitten]

199. no worries

Sirota has written some pretty toxic pieces that have rendered him suspect to the point of not having credibility as anything other than an opinion blogger, but people believe what they want and in doing so often perhaps conveniently confuse opinion for fact.

[AtomicKitten]

198. oh, I know why

I don't like them for that reason any more than you do, I just don't think calling for a purge of the party to include only like-minded individuals is a particularly democratic thing to do.

[ProudDad]

196. The modern democratic party

"In the House of Representatives, the Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates, primarily southerners, forms part of the Democratic Party's current faction of Conservative Democrats. They have acted as a unified voting bloc in the past, giving its forty plus members some ability to change legislation and broker compromises with the Republican Party's leadership. Pro-life Democrats are sometimes classified as conservatives on the basis of social conservatism.

"Though centrist Democrats differ on a variety of issues, they typically foster a mix of political views and ideas. Compared to other Democratic factions, they are mostly more supportive of the use of military force, including the war in Iraq, and are more willing to reduce government welfare, as indicated by their support for welfare reform and tax cuts. One of the most influential factions is the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a non-profit organization that advocates centrist positions for the party. The DLC hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and a DLC success story. Former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee is its current chairman.

"Liberal Democrats are to the left of centrist Democrats. The liberal faction was dominant in the party for several decades, although they have been hurt by the rise of centrist forces such as President Bill Clinton. Compared to conservatives and moderates, liberal Democrats generally have advocated fair trade and other less conservative economic policies, and a less militaristic foreign policy, and have a reputation of being more forceful in pushing for civil liberties. Liberals are increasingly identified as being part of the larger progressive wing of the party.

Many progressive Democrats are descendants of the New Left of Democratic Presidential candidate/Senator George McGovern of South Dakota; others were involved in the presidential candidacies of Vermont Governor Howard Dean and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; and still others are disaffected former members of the Green Party. Unifying issues among progressive Democrats have been opposition to the War in Iraq, opposition to economic and social conservatism, opposition to heavy corporate influence in government, support for universal health care, revitalization of the national infrastructure and steering the Democratic Party in the direction of being a more forceful opposition party. Compared to other factions of the party, they've been most critical of the Republican Party, and most supportive of social and economic equality. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the single largest Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives."

I am a PROUD Progressive because, frankly, we have the right ideas and values.

We are closest to the founding principles of Jefferson and Madison and of the Democratic Party;

"The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic matters. The pro-working class, activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, called "liberalism" in the U.S., has shaped much of the party's agenda since 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles."

Thanks to the repukes, blue-dogs and "centrists" we're having to push a rather huge rock up the hill.

But We Shall Overcome...

[Rene]

185. We must work together to get a Democrat in the White House and more Democreats in Congress....

We must get the numbers we need in Congress......AND H O N E S T elections.
We must influence next Supreme Court appointees......and clean out the DOJ of political hacks.
It's a tall order.....but good Democrats are up for it.
I look to ordinary cicizens to volunteer in their own precincts, towns, states....to help oversee honest, accountable elections/counting/reporting.

NO ELECTRONIC VOTING.....without paper trails.
No Diebold or ES&S machines.
No unobserved and unauditable 'central tabulating'.

We need computer experts watching, to make sure State web sites are not hijacked as Ohio's was in 2005 (to the RNC computers in Tennessee for several hours)


Let's work TOGETHER....

Divided we fail.....UNITED WE STAND !!!

[Heath Hatcher]

187. Finally a post with some optimism

Excellent post, thank you.

[ProudDad]

195. You're aiming too low

and it won't succeed...

We need complete public financing of elections and DEMAND THAT OUR AIRWAVES be returned to us during PRIME TIME for substantive candidate statements and real debates on the issues during a decently short campaign period... Publicly financed candidates would pay nothing for air time to air their ads, privately financed candidates would pay full market rates...

Follow the money, it's the corporate money that has ruined any chance at democracy in this country. Until that is removed from the process (which the courts won't allow) or nullified by matching levels of public financing the corporations and our capitalist masters will continue to own this country.

They don't care if the votes are counted if they own both candidates...

[Geek_Girl]

204. How about supporting a Canidate like Kucinich

I like Edwards so I'll throw my support that way until after the primary. If a dem candidate wins that I feel is as bad as a repug (aka Hillary) then I'll throw my vote to a third party canidate.

I'll still be a registered Dem and a contributor to dem candidates that represent my values. But I'm not holding my nose anymore and voting for the lesser evil.

[Totally Committed]

207. If no one else enters the race, I am definitely considering a vote for Kucinich.

But, mostly the candidate has been "nominated" before the primaries get to Mass. anyway.

So, it's kind of moot.

TC