Rahm is okay with the elected Democrats who don't stand with Obama.

[madfloridian]

I am not okay with it. But Rahm Emanuel is. He defends them because they are in red districts, red states.

I guess he follows the belief that if you act like a Democrat there you will lose. Many here at DU agree with him. Every time I post anything about the ones who are afraid to endorse our nominee, the attacks are aimed at me for being divisive.

Something is wrong with that picture.

From Huffington Post.

Dems Not Backing Obama? Rahm Will Deal With It

As the man who guided (and pressured and arm-twisted) Democrats to historic congressional gains in 2006, what is Rep. Rahm Emanuel doing now about party members like Rep. Dan Boren who have balked at publicly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama? Emanuel interjected before I could get my question out.

"Look, I talked to Dan, and I talked to all those guys," he said. "I'm not worried. I just think that's all -- it's reporters who, you know, just a little too much..." He trailed off, perhaps cognizant of present company. "If you had a real problem, I would deal with it. But it's not a problem."

As proof, Emanuel references Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth, another Democrat who hasn't yet endorsed Obama. "Brad's got flooding in his district, his people are flooding," he said. "If you ask Brad what he's doing in November, he'll tell you: he's voting for Barack Obama. If you ask Boren, 'I'm voting for Barack Obama.' I mean, it's what they're doing in November, for those guys, that matters. Not what they're doing today, when they're working on their districts. And they'll support their candidate."

The tactics of encouraging Dems in red states to act like Republicans have gotten us Democrats like the ones who won't stand with Obama...like Tim Mahoney, Dan Boren, Allen Boyd, Lincoln Davis, and others.

It is one of the biggest problems with the way congress votes now....so many candidates were handpicked and kept more progressive ones out. Rahm came to Florida and handpicked Tim Mahoney, who recently has been under great pressure here from both sides. He is so afraid he will not take a stand with Obama. He distances himself from the party.

Tim Mahoney, FL Democrat : "I don't owe the party anything"

"I don't owe the party anything,'' said Mahoney, whose election helped the Democrats take control of Congress. ``If anybody owes anybody anything, it's Nancy Pelosi who owes a debt to me."

Mahoney partly blames the dispute over Florida's convention delegates for his commitment problem, but it's clear the real reason he's distancing himself from a liberal Democrat is concern for his own survival. The GOP spent roughly $2 million against him in 2006; he faces three Republican challengers in 2008.

In the Huffington Post article, Rahm also gets his usual Dean dig in.

But for all his optimism about the national trend towards Democrats, he remains skeptical that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy has much to do with it. "Surely it didn't have anything to do" with the three straight Democratic victories in special House elections this year, two of them in overwhelmingly Republican districts.

The philosophy of being politically expedient was also pursued by Rahm when he told the candidates for the House not to talk about Iraq.

I thought so. They have told candidates not to talk about leaving Iraq.

One of the candidates who was forced out of a Florida race so a hand-picked one could run more easily...said that they had been admonished not to speak about the war.

EDGMONT, Pa., Oct. 12 — When Joe Sestak announced he was running for Congress, national Democrats and media consultants told him not to talk about pulling troops out of Iraq, arguing it would only encourage the image of Democrats as weak on national security.

Nine months later, having ignored their advice, Mr. Sestak has put a 20-year Republican incumbent on the run for the first time, turning a bid by a political novice into a real race. Polls show that Mr. Sestak is running even or better with his opponent, Representative Curt Weldon, and that the war more than any other issue is propelling voters toward him.

And from the Baltimore Chronicle:

The internal tension has been building for months. In early clashes with progressive Congressional candidates, Emanuel drew fire for demanding fealty to his support for the Iraq War and obeisance to his stultifying command, “Do not mention the war!” Critics of Emanuel lamented his “obnoxious” style of bullying in interviews with Time magazine.

I disagree with him. I think that Democrats should not be afraid to be Democrats. I think that a war launched so we could occupy a country is not a good issue.

I think that every Democratic elected official should be proud to stand with the Democratic nominee. If they don't support him openly and proudly they are giving the GOP a huge attack weapon. They are already using it, ridiculing the ones who don't endorse Obama as being cowardly. Makes one wonder at the advantage of their distancing.

[ShaneGR]

1. Big Tent

If they don't think they can get elected in very conservative districts by supporting Obama, then its their choice not to. It's not really any different than that recent special election where the Democrat in the race had VERY conservative beliefs.

It's a big tent party, I don't like the idea of browbeating Democrats into supporting anyone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Solidarity.

Hey, so what if a few scabs want to cross the picket line...

:eyes:

[iconicgnom]

91. Some people would say to Lamont, "Leave Lieberman go"

then point to Lieberman's win as proof that he should have. They're peachy-keen to see Lieberman at the right hand of McCain, this election. So OK they have their point of view. But I have mine, and I say :puke:

[bridgit]

143. So you agree it's OK for unions to strike for medical bene's that enhance...

access to compounds that treat ED? I'm just curious, have you ever been a union member?

[madfloridian]

6. Big Tent? Read this about Davis's chief of staff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6357667

[4themind]

10. Symbolically

Obama is the center pole in the big tent,many would argue, during a presidential election year and I'd hope that at the very least,some of these guys could avoid using relatively obsfucating republican talking points without presenting justification (i.e. calling him "most liberal") . He has a right to say what he wants, to make his own line, and we have every right to make our own lines where we deem fit, which will be different for some than for others and I accept that. At some level, we could have just tried to keep appealing the zell millers. To give people a distinct choice, and energize untapped and disillusioned voters back into the system is the current strategy for the leadership of the DNC as I see it,the election results will tell the tale I guess.

[ShaneGR]

11. shrug, I tend to focus on the real enemy, Republicans... nt

[madfloridian]

12. If a congressman's chief of staff isn't sure about the nominee's ties to terror

then, my friend, he IS the enemy.

[tkmorris]

18. And yet, you welcome them into your "big tent"

You are part of the problem.

[Richard Steele]

54. The republicans Rahm prefers to support instead of Democrats?

nm

[proud2BlibKansan]

135. And Democrats who act like Republicans

are also our enemies.

[JVS]

16. You have to be inside the tent for the whole idea of party to work.

Fuck these assholes. I hope the DNC gives them nothing.

[redqueen]

26. ...

:thumbsup:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

40. That does seem to be the point, They will not get into the Democratic Tent.

But are tugging and pulling at our tent's stakes and ropes from without.

[redqueen]

25. You do know that two Dems just got elected in very red districts

and the tactic used to try to beat the Dem was... associating the Dem with Obama?

That "but we're in red districts!" crap ain't gonna fly much longer.

[defendandprotect]

60. You don't mean that the "Big Tent" should include people who want to . . .

let's say, overturn Roe vs Wade ---

That would be like having a Constitution that you ignore ---

Ideals of a party ignored ---

By the way, how are we doing with the platform?


So, while we fight the corporate-Republican party, shouldn't we also be trying to rid our

own party of corporate-control?


Teddy Roosevelt: "Corporations should be barred from any participation in our elections."

[still_one]

89. screw the big tent Example, if a person is a racist and says he is a Democrat

He should be kicked out of the party

How extreme should the conservative beliefs before he is no longer distinguishable as a Democrat?

[RoseMead]

2. West Virginia is seen as a red state by many

although I dispute that. :) But in any case, Senators Rockefeller and Byrd, Congressman Rahall, and our governor have all endorsed Obama (and there may be others, I confess to only paying close attention to my own representatives).

So, I call bullshit on Rahm Emanuel.

[Cha]

8. I second the bullshit call.

Get outta the party if they don't like the Dem Prez and their district is so ready for 4 more years of bushit.

Anyway this isn't over and I'm thinking Obama will win over more than a few holdouts.

[Diamonique]

4. Those Dems have conservative constituencies.

Not Dems are "liberal" like us. I don't have a problem with this. They've said they will be voting for him as super-delegates at the convention and when they cast their votes at the polls in November.

[redqueen]

27. See post #25.

That excuse no longer holds water.

[PATRICK]

5. I have one simple concession

if they want to play the Lieberman role to survive. A vow signed in blood, soul as collateral, that full campaign finance and election reform will be unequivocally supported which would remove a big chunk of the sorry excuses they plead from their Red base. And likely a chunk of their careers along with it.
Convictions stretching party loyalty is one thing. Let's purify it by removing all sources of corruption and DINO money games that are a threat to the national party.

The rest does not involve them at all but the likely threat of having inspired challenges to their seats in the future and some hard-nosed reward and punishment in their Congressional role.

[blondeatlast]

7. Fine--but cut the pursestrings and shut them the hell up.

Tell them they need to tell the press that "they support the party" and leave it at that.

If they can't do at least that much--no more party money or boots on the ground. Period.

[LiberalFighter]

36. Especially Tim Mahoney of FL!!

When Mahoney states "I don't owe the party anything" then let him go it alone.

He is up for re-election every 2 years. Wonder what he will say if he loses an election?

[SwampG8r]

108. mahoney is a turd

[provis99]

119. after the money the DNC gave Mahoney, he "doesn't owe them anything"?

How about your fucking congressional seat, Mahoney you Repuke-lite dumbass?

[suffragette]

9. Rahm and his DLC buddies are losing their grasp on power and control

and he's beginning to flail.

Dean's strategy is clearly succeeding . Obama rejected the DLC labeling they tried to foist on him. And progressive candidates are doing well.

[LiberalFighter]

37. What a shame that will be for Rahm!

[OzarkDem]

42. Rahm is glued to Obama

The DLC isn't going away, its just morphing into the campaign of a new candidate, one who knew better than to show public support for DLC to increase his chances of getting the nomination.

DLC dovetails very well with Obama's political machine. It just has to go into hiding for a while.

[me b zola]

57. Well, that's an interesting take

Here's mine-->> The coupe/revolution has toppled those that cling to illegitimate power, now the old power-brokers have gone into guerrilla mode and are engaged in an insurgency to (attempt to)take back the power from the people.

Screw the old guard. Power to the people.

[TBF]

97. I wonder if Obama will move Rahm to Chicago with the DNC.

Somehow I doubt it. Don't worry, I believe Obama's got this guy's number.

[SwampG8r]

110. still cant put your support behind the nominee?

[suffragette]

112. I think Rahm is very good at PR and is savvy enough to know

what he needs to do to retain some measure of power.

I think Dean is the person who is driving the engine of the strategy as befits his role in the DNC, a role Obama publicly endorsed and supports.

I think there are and will be Democrats from a large spectrum of viewpoints who will need to talk and compromise to succeed in races across the nation. In fact, I agree with Kos's post on that in 2006: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/1766/5834

The shift is that Progressives voices that were muted under DLC leadership are now bursting out and being heard. It's a shift that necessarily diminishes (not takes away, but diminishes) the DLC's influence, including that of Rahm. Like Ford, he's doing an interesting tap dance of support for the party while trying to play down Dean's successful strategy and overstating DLC impact. Rahm's trying to position himself so that he'll still have a leadership role.

I actually agree with you that the DLC isn't going away. They will be part of the coalition. Their fight is now for the amount of power and influence they'll have in it. That's where I see Rahm flailing. He knows this is likely to be reduced.

I disagree with your insinuation that Obama purposefully hid an affiliation with DLC.

[defendandprotect]

61. Let's hope it's moving that way --- I'd love to see the Rahm gone . . .

and the DLC with him --

[suffragette]

115. I think it is moving that way, but I think they'll still be there,

only with a smaller role and that will be a positive shift.

[NorthCarolina]

99. Are we ready to rid the Party of the Conservative DLC influence?

I sure as heck am.

[PassingFair]

113. Me too.

They should be embarrassed.

At the very LEAST.

[BlooInBloo]

13. More and better Democrats is what we need. Start with the former, aim towards the latter.

[defendandprotect]

62. One of the basic problems with that is it's very tough to move upwards politically if you

don't have $$$ -- the party prefers private $ now to help you along ---

And think of the contacts . . . if you don't have friends with money . . . people to give you

fund-raising parties, it's inconvenient for the party!

Much nicer if you have friends who aren't among the unwashed masses ---

friends with huge houses and summer places --- the double-whammy "friends"/contacts --- !!!






:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

14. of course I agree with Rahm. Why piss off your district and lose your seat...

...to appease the progressive netroots in other states? You wouldn't vote for them anyway.

[tkmorris]

19. You also are part of the problem

No one is asking them to "piss off their district". We are asking them to support their fucking candidate, and maybe refrain from calling him a terrorist. That's just asking too much huh?

[wyldwolf]

20. no, people like you are THE problem

Better to lose on your "principles," huh? '48, '60, '68, '80, 2000...

Say - who called him a terrorist?

[kdmorris]

100. Perhaps you were asleep

Gore didn't lose in 2000. He didn't lose on his principles. He isn't the president because Bush had enough friends on the Supreme Court to make him the President instead.

[defendandprotect]

63. We're also asking them to support the ideals of the Democratic Party . . .

the ideals of democracy . . . let's hope!!

Additionally, if they stood against the war, they'd probably bring in even more votes!!

Who in the hell are these people who are willing to be turned off --

willing to be taught to lie to succeed?

They should tell Rahm to go .. eh . . jump in the lake ---

[ieoeja]

21. Right. We want to guarantee those districts remain conservative.

I orginate from an area in southern Indiana that was solidly Democratic with a strong hint of liberalism. Today it is a solidly Republican district where you say we should run as conservatives.

So tell me, wyldwolf, what the hell do you think happened to change that district almost 180 degrees? Do you seriously think the Republicans ran as Liberals, got elected, then somehow swung the electorate to their way of thinking just because they happened to elect a Republican?

I can assure you they did nothing of the kind. What they did was demonize all things liberal while the DNC, under DLC management, encouraged the local Democrats to go along with that demonization to win. So today this former Democratic stronghold is now a Republican stronghold.

THAT is what your strategy does in the long run. You may win an election or two. But your strategy is guaranteeing predominately Republican victories well into the future.

Here's a thought. Maybe we should stop giving up?

[wyldwolf]

22. no, we want to guarantee they stay in the Democratic column

I orginate from an area in southern Indiana that was solidly Democratic with a strong hint of liberalism. Today it is a solidly Republican district where you say we should run as conservatives.

So tell me, wyldwolf, what the hell do you think happened to change that district almost 180 degrees? Do you seriously think the Republicans ran as Liberals, got elected, then somehow swung the electorate to their way of thinking just because they happened to elect a Republican?

The same thing that happened to hundreds of other formerly Democratic districts that went Republican - the national mood changed. I live in what was once a solid Democratic district that is no one of the reddest in the country. Someone perceived as too liberal will not be elected here.

I can assure you they did nothing of the kind. What they did was demonize all things liberal while the DNC, under DLC management, encouraged the local Democrats to go along with that demonization to win. So today this former Democratic stronghold is now a Republican stronghold.

So you believe the minds can be changed back 180 degrees in one or two election cycles?? These Democrats count on REPUBLICANS to vote for them. Otherwise they lose.

THAT is what your strategy does in the long run.

And you're willing to risk it in the SHORT run.

You may win an election or two. But your strategy is guaranteeing predominately Republican victories well into the future.

How is retaining Democratic seats guaranteeing predominately Republican victories well into the future?

Here's a thought. Maybe we be more pragmatic and face the cold hard reality that what plays in some places doesn't in others?

[defendandprotect]

64. You're running on fear rather than courage . . . truth will out --- go with it ---

[wyldwolf]

92. I'm running on pragmatism in red districts instead of blind idealism

[madfloridian]

39. Thank you, well said. Some Dems DO want those areas to stay conservative

and it is time to ask why?

[defendandprotect]

65. Good question . . . and a lot of this is baloney. The whole Southern Strategy is

large part myth --- CARTER won all but one of the Confederate states --- for one thing!

These people are begging to be told some truth ---

to give them some info to help them figure out what the hell is happening to America and why --- !!

[Raineyb]

38. Isn't Rahm the reason these ass clown DINOs are in these districts in the first place?

Because he refused to back a more progressive candidate who could have gotten the nomination instead?

Rahm is part of the problem and he can go with the rest of the DLC dead enders.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

41. no, he's the reason we didn't run ass clown "progressive" DINOS who would have lost

Because he refused to back a more progressive candidate who could have gotten the nomination and lost.

[Raineyb]

46. And now not backing the progressive is coming back to bite the party in the ass

Because you can't count on a DINO when the chips are down. Running as Republican light is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Given a choice between a Republican and Republican Light people will pick the real thing.

2006 was only an anomaly in that the Republican party was so despised that they were bound to lose seats and unless Rahm has some gift of preminition that no one knows about, he couldn't know that the progressive couldn't win. It's entirely likely that they could have but he was too busy triangulating.

While the DINO from Florida (sorry forgot the name) is busy backing away from Obama, the Republicans are running ads accusing him of cowardice. The sad thing in this situation is that they're right; he is a coward. Nice way to make the Republican look slightly less stupid. How exactly does this help keep a Democratic majority? One of the Republican memes has always been that Democrats are cowardly and DINOs play right into their hands. Who wants to vote for someone who doesn't have the cojones to stand up for what they believe in?

That kind of triangulation is exactly what the party doesn't need.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

49. how so?

Because a "progressive" DINO is more concerned with appeasing the nutrots than representing his/her constituents? That's why Dennis Kucinich has an primary challenger this year.

2006 was a trend where Republicans looked at Democrats and decided they could support them in Republican districts. The trend is continuing this year - like Travis Childers in MS who won a special election in the last month. Centrist and conservative Dems are polling ahead of Republican incumbents for house seats across the country. The three Senate seats Dems are most likely to pick up will go to Democrats - all DLCer - and not progressive DINOS.

[Raineyb]

51. Kucinich has a primary challenger this year because the DLC

refuses to admit that the party is moving away from their position (as far as one can pin them down to an actual position) and used his presidential run as an opportunity to try to grab power to build up their dwindling numbers.

Childers won that special election in spite of the Republicans running ads trying to smear him by linking him with Obama. Foster, who won Hastert's seat had Obama campaign for him. Donna Edwards is a progressive and beat the DLC incumbent. DLC types say progressives can't win but they never want to give the progressive a chance to win. It's more a self-fulfilling prophesy rather than actual political wisdom.

DLC DINOs who runs away from Obama are cowards and deserve every bit of scorn heaped on them. They'll get no sympathy from me.

As you seem not to understand this point, it is the DLC who are the DINOs in this party not the progressives. Corporatist, aka the DLC are the DINOs in this party and their ilk are well on their way to becoming a smaller and smaller minority in this party.

Thank God for small favors.

Regards

Edited to run spell-check

[wyldwolf]

53. LOL! So the progressive challenger to Kucinich is the DLC's fault??

you seem not to understand this point, it is progressives who are the DINOs in this party not the DLC. Leftists, aka "progressives" are the DINOs in this party and their ilk are well on their way to becoming a smaller and smaller minority in this party.

[Raineyb]

107. Are you referring to the man who doesn't even live in the district?

Yeah. Nothing fishy about that.

:eyes:

Regards

[wyldwolf]

116. I'm referring to whoever he is.

[defendandprotect]

66. And YOU know that for certain . . . ????

[wyldwolf]

93. As certain as what the poster in post 38 thinks he/she knows

[madrchsod]

44. ask the grassroots progressives

in the illinois 6th what they think of rahm....that primary was almost as bad as hillary-barack . and rahm`s hand picked candidate lost

[Raineyb]

47. I'm sure that that the progressives were kind enough to bake Mr. Rahm a nice humble pie.

But he probably had too much ego to partake.

:P

Regards

[dansolo]

52. Don't fucking remind me

I was a resident of IL-06, and I supported Christine Cegelis in '04 and '06. I was so pissed at Rahm Emmanuel (and Dick Durbin too) for cramming Tammy Duckworth down our throats.

[defendandprotect]

67. Rahm and the DLC are working for corporate interests . . . not the people's ....

[Raineyb]

104. l misread your original statement

I completely misread your post the first time. By any chance would the handpicked candidate in question be Tammy Duckworth?

I need to be more careful when reading at work. :)

Regards

Edited to remove question as to my misreading the post and add Tammy Duckworth question.

[madrchsod]

111. yes and neither of them are running this time

[Hippo_Tron]

122. See post #120

[DefenseLawyer]

15. A majority is important

I certainly think there is a line over which one can not cross, i.e. "He may be a terorist, I don't know". But if gaining a working majority in the house and senate means including a few knuckle draggers in solidly knuckle dragging districts, that's just political reality.

[madfloridian]

23. Did you read the part in the OP about the war?

The war and the death is reality. If we were not so fearful of the other side, we would be getting our butts out of there.

But the Dems in red districts have party leader permission to act like Republicans to impress Republicans...to hell with standing with fellow Democrats.

[DefenseLawyer]

24. But what is the alternative?

Simply concede the districts to Republicans and lose our majority? It is not as if a "progressive" can win there. Seems to me you can stand on principle and lose or accept reality and win. Ultimately having control of the leadership and committees is more important than any single vote.

[madfloridian]

30. The progressives are often pushed out of the races by party leadership..

before they have a chance to let the voters see who they are. Example: Tim Mahoney. Lutrin was shoved out of the race so a Republican chosen by Rahm could run and fund his own campaign. Another, Jan Schneider in central Florida.

You have to stand for something.

[DefenseLawyer]

34. Someone should inform the Green Party

That the voters of rural Mississippi and Oklahoma and Utah are just clamoring for progressive candidates but the corrupt party bosses are keeping them out. No offense, but your analysis is based upon what you wish were the case, not on cold hard reality.

[madfloridian]

35. What do you call this? This is reality.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1427

[DefenseLawyer]

87. The reality is Fort Lauderdale isn't rural Mississippi

or Tennessee or Indiana or anywhere CLOSE to one of the most conservative districts in the country. Using this as example to make your point that "progressives are pushed out" of the most conservative districts in America is ridiculous. There are certainly plenty of examples where progressive candidates are pushed aside by the machine, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with who is going to prevail in the reddest of red districts because it just isn't happening there. It's cool though. We need idealists like yourself. We also need people that know how to win.

[madfloridian]

125. Win what? When you become like the other party, what have you won?

We have do not have to run Republicans as Democrats to win. That is just plain not true.

[defendandprotect]

71. I think they well know that education will create progressive voters ---

Meanwhile, you just totally ignored the reality of what the poster said to you ---
so I'm repeating it for you ....

The progressives are often pushed out of the races by party leadership..
before they have a chance to let the voters see who they are. Example: Tim Mahoney. Lutrin was shoved out of the race so a Republican chosen by Rahm could run and fund his own campaign. Another, Jan Schneider in central Florida.

You have to stand for something.

And this is because we have co-option of the party LEADERSHIP by corporate interests ---
Rahm is CORPORATE ---

Is that what you want?

[defendandprotect]

69. You're buying Rahm's lies . . . he's corporate; not interested in a people's government ---

[defendandprotect]

68. Try to recall that our founders made a compromise with slavery . . . it was a bad idea --- !!!

Better to have said: "NO!" ...

[mohc]

17. If they can vote for Pelosi as Speaker

Then they should be able to endorse Obama. They do not have to endorse any of Obama's policies, goals, or ideas. But just as an elected Democratic Congressman is expected to caucus for the Speaker, they should endorse Obama's candidacy.

[VenusRising]

28. I expect absolutely nothing less from a DLCer.

They have allowed the Republicans every concession while actively working against real progressive issues.

[defendandprotect]

72. ...And this has been happening very QUIETLY . . . we need to make more noise over the DLC ---

and corporate interests in the Democratic party ---

[wvbygod]

29. Maybe if we were all in lockstep with one person it would help?

But then it would not be the party of Democrats.

One person does not the party make.

[madfloridian]

31. Lockstep has nothing to do with it.

[dailykoff]

32. I hear he's angling for Obama's Senate seat

so he made sure he got lots of ink for palling with Obama in front of AIPAC after it was finally obvious that nothing would save his fellow tool. Hope to heaven he doesn't get it. :mad:

[madrchsod]

45. no fucking way is he going to be my senator.

we have better people than that snake in the grass. i`d trust a moderate republican over rahm...

[defendandprotect]

73. Didn't think about that --- Obama will leave a spot open ---

You used to have to resign from the Senate to run for higher office ---

Maybe that was a good idea?

[redqueen]

33. I'm seeing a lot of "but ... red district!" excuses in this thread.

I wonder why linking the Dem candidate with Obama didn't work for the GOP in those two historically very red districts recently.

[madfloridian]

43. Too many. We have to get over that. The Republicans won by standing for something.

Instead we are pussyfooting around not to hurt all the Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

74. Let's not confuse things . . . the GOP lied and propagandized it's head off ---

Propaganda has been big in the GOP -- Nixon's White House was studying old Nazi films ---

They were making tapes every day for their members --- everyone had to tow the line.

Everyone had to study the tapes and deliver the message just as it was given to them.


Evidently, Clinton reports having a conversation with Newt Gingrich after he was out of office
and asked Newt why they lied so much.
Newt said if they had told the truth about any of the issues they would have lost.

If you want to LIE, go be a Republican . . . please!

[madfloridian]

77. What I meant was that wrongheaded as they were, they did it powerfully.

And they were not shy or timid and afraid of each other.

[defendandprotect]

79. Didn't mean to disagree with you . . . .

Wanted to emphasize what they were actually doing and said it poorly ---

Let's not confuse things . . . the GOP lied and propagandized it's head off ---
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 12:33 AM by defendandprotect
Propaganda has been big in the GOP -- Nixon's White House was studying old Nazi films ---

They were making tapes every day for their members --- everyone had to tow the line.

Everyone had to study the tapes and deliver the message just as it was given to them.


Evidently, Clinton reports having a conversation with Newt Gingrich after he was out of office
and asked Newt why they lied so much.
Newt said if they had told the truth about any of the issues they would have lost.

If you want to LIE, go be a Republican . . . please!

Lots of forced lockstep in Republicanism, at least as practiced by these neo-con Repugs.

[baldguy]

48. Rahm Emanuel might be looking for a new job.

Why shouldn't the Democratic Leadership Council provide leadership? It seems to be an alien concept to them.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[stillcool]

55. Is it any wonder the Democrats can't..

get the votes needed to do anything useful in the U.S. Congress?

[LoZoccolo]

56. What do you want him to do about it?

And what will it accomplish?

[madfloridian]

58. Your questions always puzzle me.

I never am sure how you get them from what I write.

I will try to answer.

I like the policy of over all staying out of primaries. There are times the committee needs to step in...but not to handpick..not to prevent progressives from running.

You asked:

"And what will it accomplish?"

Well, I can tell you we would not have invaded Iraq most likely, we would not have had Democrats going along with Bush on such conservative judges, we would not have a bankruptcy bill that allows homes to be lost by elderly and ill because of medical debt.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Yes, I think my question puzzled you.

What do you want Rahm Emanuel to do right now, not in 2003. And that thing that you want him to do now, what do you think it will accomplish.

[madfloridian]

78. He did those things in 2006....and I answered you sufficiently

He is not head of the DCCC anymore. I think Van Hollen does some of this also, but not as often and not as viciously.

[LoZoccolo]

80. So what he did or didn't say in 2006 affected events in 2003.

What this means is that this time machine is probably in my district! I gotta go find that thing!

I think it's strange that he doesn't mention it at all in his flyers.

[madfloridian]

83. Why are you talking about 2003? I don't get your point?

This post was not about 2003?

Please explain in full.

[LoZoccolo]

86. I answered you sufficiently.

[defendandprotect]

75. I want him to stop soliciting and running right-wingers for Democratic slots ---

while he pushes aside progressive Democrats who are ready to go --- sometimes even in office!!!

[wyldwolf]

94. I certainly don't want him to solicit left-wingers for Democratic slots in red districts

...glad he doesn't have that loser "lose on principle" mentality some here do.

[defendandprotect]

128. And what do you imagine that Repugs are doing . . .?

Perhaps you think they are soliciting liberals in blue states --- ???

Try to have some confidence in the ideals of the Democratic Party and fellow citizens ---

Right-wing propaganda is effective and has confused voters ---

[wyldwolf]

130. why would I think Republicans are soliciting Liberals to run for office?

What an odd question.

Let's get to the meat of the matter. What exactly are the ideals of the Democratic party and who decides them?

[Doremus]

59. I seem to remember the DLC candidates actually doing poorly in '06

Oh sure, they congratulated themselves for doing so well and sent the skanky James Carville to publically chastize Howard Dean, but I seem to recall an analysis here on DU that far more progressive candidates had won election than those backed by the DLC.

Anybody else remember that?

I sincerely hope the DLC corporatists strangulate in their triangulation. Democrats --all Democrats-- need to once again be proud to call themselves such.

[defendandprotect]

76. Too few voters even know that the DLC exists and what it does --- !!!

[wyldwolf]

95. nope, the DLC won over half the house seats taken in the Dem column

- Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
- Joe Sestak (PA-07)
- Heath Shuler (NC-11)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Chris Carney (PA-10)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Jason Altmire (PA-04)
- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)
- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)}

[Phred42]

132. Here's a list of DLC members

although it may be a bit dated

http://www.kirkusobscura.com/index.php?view=article&catid=37%3Aamericonia-news-and-information&id=55%3Athe-dlc-party&option=com_content&Itemid=11

[saracat]

81. Some folks have elections to worry about and we have more than the presidential to worry about.

Everything it not about Obama and some candidates have to distance themselves from the top of the ticket to be elected and being elected is what counts. if they aren't elected they can't do squat.

[madfloridian]

82. Why do they have to distance from the top of the ticket? Who are they trying to please?

[saracat]

84. If you are in a red district you need Indies and the GOP. if every Dem votes for you you won't win.

And many dems don't vote. It is just the way it is.

[madfloridian]

85. You need gop and indies in all states.

My problem is that some states put the GOP right wing types before the Dem folks.

There are other schools of thought on this now. Some believe you stand up for things and fire up your base, and the rest will follow. That is why the Republicans won for so long....they fired up their base.

We tend to play to their base instead of ours.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. As I said below, I agree in certain circumstances

Tim Mahoney, Nancy Boyda, Travis Childers, and MAYBE Jim Marshall are all people that I don't blame if they wouldn't endorse Obama just because they are so vulnerable in their districts. Mahoney has a slim chance of remaining in Congress for very long anyway.

But people like Dan Boren who have no real opposition and are shoe-ins for re-election have no fucking excuse to not endorse the party's nominee for President and then to add insult to injury by parroting right wing talking points about "most liberal senator".

[still_one]

88. The queston is what do Democrats stand for? A person who calls him or herself a Democrat

and is a racist should be thrown out of the party

Personally there are some issues for which there is no compromise in my book, and if they won't endorse the Democratic nominee they should get the hell out of the party, or we should vote them out

[The Wizard]

90. Rahm and his buddy Lieberman

are really Likud, Israel's conservative party that's pushing for war with Iran.
The DLC strategy of being more like Republicans to attract fence sitters only works when the candidate is Bill Clinton, arguably the most talented politician of our time. Bill could attract the fence sitters and the party's base.
Emanuel fails to understand the American political landscape from the perspective of the netroots/grassroots movement. For him and the DLC it's all about raising large sums of corporate money and use it to buy TV time. With each passing day more people turn to resources other than TV for their political information and news. Rahm and the DLC are using a 1990s election model in 2008, as is John McCain.
Failing to operate in the 21st Century is a strategy for losing. There are isolated areas where the old model works, but in a broader sense it fails.
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

"The only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
(Jim Hightower)

Rahm Emanuel and his fence sitting minions have to be used where most effective. It will take all elements of the Democratic Party to bring success. There are some pockets of bigotry that will never vote for anyone other than a WASP old male. This doesn't mean we should abandon all hope for taking the Congressional district. Rahm and the DLC can help work the fringes, but that's about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. Even the conservative Dems are usually more liberal than the liberal Republicans.

And, crucially, the caucus with the liberal Democrats.

The left wing of the Democratic party can't win elections on its own. Just because that's conventional wisdom doesn't mean it isn't true.

"Democrat" doesn't mean "liberal Democrat" - a hundred and fifty years ago, Democrats were the party of slavery. It just means "supporter of the Democratic party".

[madfloridian]

102. Where did you get "left wing" from what I wrote?

That is a DLC talking point long debunked.

Yes, we need everyone to win elections....but we also need to stand with our nominee.

[Arkana]

98. Never liked Rahm myself.

I hope Blago doesn't make him Senator after Obama ascends to the Presidency.

[Elspeth]

101. You have to ask yourself why...and then wonder what the party is actually doing.

Perhaps the infighting among power players in the party is worse than we know.

[madfloridian]

105. I think it probably is.

From what I see in Florida things are far from pretty.

[Elspeth]

106. The next question, is what's at stake? What are the spoils?

What are the infighters fighting for? It seems unlikely that it's just the presidency. There's more going on than that.

[mudesi]

103. He is typical DLC SCUM

I swear the end of the DLC can't come soon enough.

[MasonJar]

109. Rahm makes me sick!

[tritsofme]

114. This is the consequence of large Democratic majorities, it always has been.

Large numbers of conservative Democrats emerge that have little in common with the national party.

[Phred42]

117. Rahm is DLC down to his socks! Maybe this tells us what the future holds

Heads-up

The DLC may not want a Democrat in the White House

[PretzelWarrior]

118. Rahm. You will lose your power. You are counterproductive

enjoy your house seat, but with friends like you....we don't need enemies.

[Hippo_Tron]

120. Tim Mahoney, Nancy Boyda, Travis Childers, maybe Jim Marshall have an excuse...

In fairness to Mahoney, he's a congressman by fluke. He only won because Mark Foley's name had to remain on the ballot instead of the Republican who replaced him. If he's not tossed out this election cycle he will be soon. His district is just too red to keep electing a Democrat for very long. But when you get beyond that half dozen or so VERY vulnerable members of Congress you're grasping at straws. Dan Boren has no fucking excuse whatsoever since his seat is safe. Not only that but he's attending the convention yet not endorsing Obama. He's trying to have it both ways so he can run for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010.

[madfloridian]

124. Boyda endorsed Obama.

A day or so ago.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. And I commend her for doing so

But she was an example of one of those very few members that I think would have an excuse not to. Which makes Dan Boren look like even more of a spineless wimp IMO.

[sampsonblk]

123. Rahm is the antithesis of what our party needs to be about

One one hand, there's the Dean/Obama view of the world: we should take our beliefs to every corner of the nation, every time. As long as we are right, people will eventually come to us.

Then there's the Rahm/Clinton view: go where you can win. Leave the rest alone. Say what you have to say in order to win wherever you are.

I am firmly in the Deam/Obama camp. Can't expand our party by ignoring anyone, and we can't expand our party by acting like Bush Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. I agree with the Dean/Obama view but there's some limits imposed by reality

See post #120

[defendandprotect]

129. Let's be clear . . . the corporate-sponsored DLC exists to move the party to the right --- !!!

[wyldwolf]

131. If you're going to be clear, you might as well provide a few examples, eh?

[Phred42]

133. You're kidding right?

:banghead:

Just a few examples:

Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, GAT, WTO, Telecommunications Act

These are not Democratic policies - they are Republicans policies

as in DLC = Republican-lite.

And take the Blue Dogs with you when you go.

[wyldwolf]

136. nope

Democrats have always been for free trade. FDR ran on it against the protectionist Hoover. GATT was created in 1947. NAFTA was signed and fast-tracked by GHW Bush and Bill Clinton complimented it with NAAEC and NAALC. It was passed by 102 Democrats in the House. The DLC has never had those numbers in the House and the Blue Dogs weren't in existence then.

This opposition to Free Trade agreements is relatively new in the "progressive" lexicon and certainly doesn't qualify as a Democratic "principle."

Next?

[Phred42]

134. Agree, And create Newt's "permanent republican majority"

Right under our noses.

Hiding in plain view

[wyldwolf]

137. netroot myth

[Phred42]

138. As I mentioned before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6357530&mesg_id=6364824

[wyldwolf]

139. So when did FDR, Truman, and Carter become Republicans?

[Phred42]

140. Those are all Bill Clinton working with Newt and the DLC

[wyldwolf]

141. FDR ran on Free Trade, Truman signed GATT, Carter supported NAFTA... all Bill Clinton? LOL!

[bridgit]

142. It's not "the ones who are afraid to endorse our nominee", Dems, I know I do, have a disinclination

for the wearing of (however blue) lock-stepping jack-boots up and down the street. If the nominee isn't transferable into a larger picture it may not be fault of voting Democrats. The points are being made already; that Obama even after having...won, the primary, hasn't received the bounce many had received in the past at this point in time. Why? Obama should be 15-20pts ahead of McCain, and not within a perilously razor thin 7pts of a unseen gaff. It shouldn't have to be all about the management of gaffs ala Jim Johnson

If a nominee is only appealing to his/her base then there is much work, and lifting to do. And I do not refer to the lifting of that nominee into a unquestioned, unassailable glass case on a marble pedestal...while 18mil Dems are made to stand there without question then get in line after having been discounted and marginalized themselves.

There is much work to do. And demanding that people walk in lock-step is imo counterproductive.