Al From: Dont nominate somebody like Kerry

[Mass]

For future reference when somebody will say that Kerry was the darling of the DLC.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060219-105049-6385r.htm

DLC chief raps party's liberals

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 20, 2006
...
Mr. From said the 2004 election turned on several questions in the minds of the voters, one of which was, did Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry understand that America has enemies in the world who are out to kill us?" Enough voters didn't think so, and they gave President Bush the margin he needed to win re-election, he said.
Mr. From, the architect of the centrist-leaning agenda, which led to Bill Clinton's election in 1992 and re-election in 1996, fears that what happened last year could happen again if the party nominates another liberal like Mr. Kerry.
"A quarter-century ago, Democrats were in the political wilderness, largely because their liberal leadership worried more about American power than America's enemies in the world. To listen to the congressional and party leaders today, it's evident they haven't learned a thing," he said.
"t would be tragic if national security costs Democrats yet another national election. But it could," Mr. From said.

[ProSense]

1. Yes, this proves

Al From is an idiot.

[rox63]

2. This should be posted in GD:P

As a smack-down to those who keep insisting that Kerry is a DLC Dino.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Arrrgh

Funny how he forgets to mention that John Kerry got 10 million more votes than Clinton.

[wisteria]

4. What a joke, Kerry has more military experience and foreign

relations background than say, Hillary, Warner or Bayh, but From doesn't think people thought Kerry knew we had an enemy? And this is why he lost? Did From add-nothing personal when he bashed Kerry?

From's statement just reinforces the notion that the DLC wants to be Repub lites. I am so tired of this out of touch group getting so much recognition simply because they elected one President. Maybe if they would have been more supportive of Kerry that would have made the difference. They left Kerry out there all by himself with no real support.And don't even get me started on the sleazy repub tricks that weren't addressed by our side.

On edit,This is the second comment I have heard from a DLC'er about what Kerry did wrong and why he lost the election. Remember the Rendell smear about two weeks ago? Rendell mentioned Kerry didn't focus on social issues enough or get his message out-if I recall. Is it me, or is a pattern beginning to form here? They didn't discredit him enough right after the election, so he still has support so now they are trying to take him down now. I wonder who will be singing along with the chorus next?

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Ding ding ding

And don't forget the DSCC didn't release that poll they did lately which is very telling.

[whometense]

5. Nice find.

Party "insiders" should take note that their words are being quoted in the Moonie Times. Lets give the repukes all the help they need to divide and conquer. Well done, From.

[TayTay]

6. Yeah, From is an idiot. (It's official.)

At the exact time that polls show Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and that it isn't worth the cost, Al From decides that Democrats should run on support of the war and the Republican notion that showing fangs to the rest of the world wins us influence and friends in the world.

Next up: From decides that the US doesn't need Social Security because it really is Communist in nature and Democrats shouldn't be standing for anything that middle income and poor people actually need. What Democrats should be pushing is more tax cuts for the rich. (Al From is a Republican Wanna-Be.)

[FreedomAngel82]

7. I hope you don't mind I posted this in GD

I'm tired of people thinking the DLC loves Kerry.

[MH1]

10. That's great

I even got to use it right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2470813&mesg_id=2471021

Came in very handy. ;-)

[Blaukraut]

9. why does the DLC insist

That a repub lite nominee is a ticket to success? Exactly how successful is the moderate strategy? It only produced one democratic president who got an extraordinarily small amount of votes - a sign that liberal voters were not feeling included and were staying home. Plus, we lost congressional majority during Clinton's time.
Fast forward to 2000, where Nader managed to pick off a good number of those liberal voters, because the DLC was running the show again. Yes, Gore won, but we all know what happened.
Kerry had the most votes of any Democrat, ever. People saw hope, felt heard, and felt that they were being represented by this man. Whether JK won or not is subject to debate, but just the fact that this debate is going on (and that Bush had the advantage of 9/11 and Iraq warmongering and still was convinced that he was defeated until a little birdie whispered in his ear at 10 PM on election night) speaks volumes about the wisdom of nominating a liberal candidate.
If the DLC get their way again in '08, we will lose the election and it will even happen the honest way - no need for the repugs to commit fraud that time. The Dems will do themselves in just nicely on their own.

[jenndar]

11. From's characterization of JK on national security is

completely off, though. He's making a liberal vs. moderate issue out of something that is really not that at all.

[TayTay]

12. I agree with that.

The topic of whether or not Bush and Rove called off the search for OBL at Tora Bora is not a 'liberal' discussion, per se. (On the other hand, neither is it conservative. I think Sen. Kerry is correct when he says that labels break down at certain points.) Anyway, Kerry was much tougher on this actual fight against actual terrorists than Bush was. Bush just let OBL go and then afterward, downplayed it. Kerry knows more about global networks of terrorists, how they move money and ideas around the globe and has much more of a clue about how to fight it. That, to me, is much tougher than Bush's 'hide and seek' game that he seems to be playing.

[sandnsea]

13. To be oh so right and oh so wrong

Yes we do have to be strong on security and yes we do have to avoid against kneejerk anti-Americanism and some on the left certainly do that.

But the solution isn't to support every war and expansion of power the right wing wants to make. Or keep pretending Reagan won the cold war when what he really did is light the match of terrorism we have today.

Or ignore the piles of anti-war rhetoric the right piled on Clinton.

They're good at identifying party weaknesses, they're horrible at constructing policies and strategies to run on.

[TayTay]

14. I agree with that Sandy

Wholeheartedly. The demise of a strong Communist bloc in Russia and Eastern Europe led to the rise of all these fractionalized states. (The former Yugoslavia for one.) Reagan outspent the Soviets into oblivion and we are still paying the price for that. (America is a much more militarized state now than it was 60 years ago. We have to support so much of the defense industry budget because it supports jobs in Cong districts and in the various states.) Sigh!

The 'New War', to ahm, coin a phrase, is about fighting the factions that have been there all along but hidden by stronger hands. The Middle East did not become a problem on 9/11, it has been a problem for decades. And so forth. (Sigh, this is also true in Southeast Asia as well.) We need a Prez who understands that and understands that we can't invade every nation on earth that has terrorists in it. We have to be smarter and more focused than that. (And it will bankrupt the United States and produce no discernable effect on the terrorists.)

[ProSense]

15. Here's what From's supporting

Commentary: Rumsfeld's complaint
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
Editor at large

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (UPI) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cannot believe how a biased media has made the job of fighting the bad guys harder than it's ever been. It was the media that broke the stories of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison; of the U.S. military paying for favorable articles in the Iraqi media; of competing with America's extremist detractors in poisoning Muslim minds about the United States; of criticizing the liberation of an Iraq enslaved by Saddam Hussein. U.S. public affairs officers and their operations, said the Defense Secretary, had fallen down on these non-career enhancing jobs. Wish it were that simple. It could fixed in a jiffy.

The problem appears to be one of failure to connect the dots; in some cases, failure even to see them. Here are a few that are still disconnected. Rumsfeld himself supplied the first dots when he insulted the European allies by dividing them between new Europe (good) and old Europe (bad).

Now even staunch Bush supporters come back from trips abroad appalled at the depth of entrenched anti-U.S. feelings in private conversations with kindred European souls...

In a Pew Foundation survey, 14 of 16 countries have a higher opinion of China than of the U.S...even among traditional U.S. allies in Europe...

President Bush remains extraordinarily unpopular abroad, with very low approval ratings except in Poland and India.

Snip…

The Iraq war generated more, not less support for pro-al-Qaida political formations in the Muslim world.

The unanticipated Iraqi insurgency acted as a force multiplier for al-Qaida recruits from Indonesia to sub-Sahara Africa.

A U.S.-hating, pro-Iran cleric emerges as kingmaker in post-Saddam Iraq...after the U.S. spends $400 billion to liberate and democratize the country.

Bush's crusade for democracy in the Middle East gives a powerful assist to anti-American political groupings in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Snip...

Connecting all the dots in the defense department is no mean feat for a secretary of Defense. But connecting the Pentagon to all the other dots that have displaced America as the shining citadel on the hill is apparently beyond Mr. Rumsfeld's purview. But he should realize that blaming MSM (mainstream media) and public affairs officers is tantamount to disinformation.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060220-090851-2157r

[JI7]

16. Kerry got a higher percentage of votes than Clinton did in 1992

From is an ignorant asshole. he has his views and biases. he refuses to see or accept anything that goes against those views.
just like the "what's the matter with kansas" guy.

the fact is that Bush did not easily win. and Kerry got all the shit including lack of support from assholes like From and yet still came close. it was when people saw Kerry in the debates that his numbers started going up. too bad the assholes spend all the campaign time complaining rather than just saying Kerry would make a great Pres.

[elshiva]

17. Democrats: Don't listen to Al From.

:( Saves time and money...

[karynnj]

18. One good question is ... Why is From speaking to the press

If he genuinely believed everything that he is saying here, he would not be taking this to the press. He would be selling this internally to the party to use as their strategy. The first thing we would hear of it are comments that would re-frame the Democrats' national seurity position -in apositive way, mentioning Kerry only if they could use him and his ideas in a positive way.

How does it ever help the Democrats to trash a high profile Democrat. This is not party strategy to win, but clearly intraparty fighting designed to eliminate less preferred candidates. That they feel the need to do this after more than a year where Kerry has gotten far less press than similar status Democrats indicates they see him as a possible force.

[TayTay]

19. This is part of the jockeying for position

and the silent civil war in the Dem Party. (Silent only in that it has not erupted into open bloody warfare. Yet. That's for next year.) From wants to project himself as the savior of the Democratic Party. In order to do that he has to discredit anyone who disagrees with him and the truth be damned if it gets in the way.

From is going after Kerry for the same reason a lot of other Dems are: they want to define post-2004 Kerry as a Liberal and thus unelectable, and they want to take credit for any positive gains that happen for the Dems in the fall. They want the power and prestige and glory. (I don't think it's going to happen, but there you go.)

[karynnj]

20. Good point - but Kerry has done a great job just being Kerry

since the election. His positions seem to absolutely ignore ideology and simpley reflect what Kerry thinks. The problem for From is that he has to get too far to the right to be significantly away from Kerry on everthing. The other thing is that Kerry did keep his dignity and was not defeated by the most intense smear campaign I ever saw.

It would be wonderful if the reason From and others can't move perception of Kerry is because ultimately people get Kerry's integrity and genuine purpose and see that his positions are not where he thinks people are but where he thinks they should be. You can't lead when you are following people (as quantified by polls).

[ProSense]

21. And Kerry is one of the few Democrats

who isn't out there needlessly criticizing other Democrats. Even during the Alito hearings, he tactfully alluded to the shortcomings of the hearings and effectively convinced 25 democrats to join the filibuster. Yes, convinced. If Kerry hadn't demonstrated the conviction he had, some would have found an excuse to not support it.

[TayTay]

22. Plus, as GV's recent post showed

there is a residual good will toward Kerry in 'beyond the beltway' land. (I truly do think this is leftover from the debates. Kerry cleaned Bush's clock in those debates, and despite the 'loss' in '04, that impression of JK being a bright and reasonable man remains.)

[whometense]

23. I agree.

He's only reinforced that impression since the election. Wingnuts and the Clinton wing of the dem party may try to paint JK as a "far left liberal" but too many people have seen him for themselves to buy into that frame. He never raises his voice, and is always reasoned and mature and intelligent in his few permitted media appearances. Until and unless they get some red-in-the-face video of him, it won't sell.

Plus, maybe this is only my little pipe dream, but I'm sensing a pendulum swing on the "liberal" label. As usual, the Froms of this world are staking out the wrong piece of turf for the times. I posted last night about this amazing Digby quote:

The grassroots of the Democratic Party see something that all the establishment politicians have not yet realized: bipartisanship is dead for the moment and there is no margin in making deals. The rules have changed. When you capitulate to the Republicans for promises of something down the road you are being a fool. When you make a deal with them for personal reasons, you are selling out your party. When you use Republican talking points to make your argument you are helping the other side. When you kiss the president on the lips at the state of the union you are telling the Democratic base that we are of no interest or concern to you. This hyper-partisanship is ugly and it's brutal, but it is the way it is...

Only a few dems in DC have realized this - JK foremost among them. And isn't it the conventional wisdom that the party activists tend to choose the nominee?

[TayTay]

24. Really agree on this.

Ideology matters this time. (And I think it's going to be nasty.)

[whometense]

25. I wish I had a better sense of what is going on

in the heads of, say, Iowa party activists. How much support is there actually for the Clintonian wing? How much residual goodwill for JK?

I know you personally don't have the answers to those questions, but they are things I think about. A lot.

[beachmom]

26. I can speak for what goes on in my head on bad days, and that's

probably the way Dem activists who are not engaged on the blogs are probably thinking:

They love Kerry, think the world of him, but just think he can't win next time.

So it is important that Kerry continue to make the arguments defending his numbers in '04, and all of us continue to keep the faith that the best person for the job IS the most electable. For someone to say that Hillary or Warner are better than Kerry on the merits are dead wrong. No, what most people are saying is that he can't win. That's really his one and only significant sin among the activists -- he didn't win. Look at the way many Kossaks went all ga ga on that Swifty enabler Webb running for senate in VA. The guy is basically a Republican, but they're all excited because they think that he can win. Given how badly Dems have been doing in this century, I think this reaction is understandable. But people vote for leaders with principles. As BLM has stated umpteen times, NO ONE has fought government corruption more than John Kerry. In light of all the slime that has come out of D.C., it is up to Kerry to clean things up. (And unlike Carter, who many have labelled naive, Kerry is not. He suffers no illusions as to the corruption of D.C. nor the extreme danger of our enemies abroad.)

[TayTay]

27. It's still too early.

None of this really matters yet. I still think the '06 race and how that does or does not shake up the Congress matters a lot. The various assumed 08 candidates are still not a real issue for real people yet out in the country. (It's a real issue for the junkie types who post to DU and Kos and such, but it's not a real issue yet out in the country. And besides, it will all change anyway, several times.)

[IA_Seth]

31. dang double posts... n/t

[IA_Seth]

32. Iowa Politics

Come on over the Iowa Forum...we are fairly active and can help you with any Iowa questions you have.

As for this specific question, I would say that there isn't a whole lot of support for Hillary right now with party activists, but there does seem to be some amount of measurable support from Iowans (the regular people, not political junkies).

My guess right now would be Edwards as a major player, but a lot could change. There seems to be a lot of residual good will for both Kerry and Edwards, but Edwards seems to have more. Maybe it's because he isn't looked at as the "loser" of an election? Who knows.

There are smatterings of supporters for Bayh, Clark (seems to be growing a lot, even without him visiting much), and Feingold.

[karynnj]

33. Thanks -

Your comments are interesting. The Edwards comments are interesting - he scares me as he seems to be a chameleon who changes with time and place - and like Clinton, doesn't get called on it.

I would guess that actually seeing them side by side might lead to the same result as 2004. I think people liked Edwards, but saw him as a bit too lightweight -and that is unlikely to change.

[wisteria]

34. I hope you are correct. We need more than just a nice guy running

the country.

[karynnj]

28. I tried to imagine a re-in -the -face video of Kerry

and I just can't picture it. He was calm in the 60s when no one else was! I like your pipe dream.

[TayTay]

29. The only place I can think of was with the Globe reporters

but they deserved it. LOL!

In all seriousness, I bet Mr. K. gets good and worked up about some of this stuff, but he wisely keeps it away from public consumption. He's human, just smart enough not to pop off in public.

[beachmom]

30. More than smarts, it's self discipline

Interestingly, * is always talking about self discipline. He's totally into it, in regards to exercise and other things. It's a BIG effort for him and what got him to stop drinking. But with Kerry, self discipline isn't an effort; it's just how he has always lived. It doesn't require self exertion. Clinton lacked self discipline (talk about morals all you want, he simply could not resist Monica), but with Kerry (despite all the dreamy posts in here :)), I know he will always stay true to Teresa because he took a vow. It's hardwired into him. I guess you can call it integrity, and it's his finest quality.

[politicasista]

35. The way everything is now, I don't think I care about 2008

I know that's a strong statement, but after all that's going on and the incompetence of this criminal, evil administration, somebody is going to have to clean it up for many years to come.

The future is now. We have midterms to focus on. I still think many are making a big mistake in positioning themselves and badmouthing the last nominee, only playing into the hands of Blinky, Doughboy, Dickhead, and the GOP controlled Congress and media.

I never believe in disrupting 2008 threads, but people are continuing to miss the big picture. I have always believed that 2006 is so important, but does anyone care anymore? Blinky is destroying our country and its image overbroad, and we (not us) are worrying about who should be nominated in the next two years, shouldn't we worry about getting through this year and 2007 alone? No, Dems are too busy dreaming about the "perfect" candidate and time and again, the more they put their personal ambitions ahead of the country, the more they will continue to lose.

Are we going to have a free and fair election in 2008? I guess From and others never think about this but whoever runs, and is nominated in 2008 (and hopefully wins) is going to have a huge, massive, mess to clean up once Blinky leaves office. No candidate is smear-free and that's the bottom line.


:rant:

[TayTay]

36. Amen!

You nailed it. We have to get through 2006 first and then see what happens.

Visual a Democratic Congress and John Conyers as head of the House Judiciary Committee. How can anyone see father than that on the left?

[politicasista]

39. Thanks n/t

[Inuca]

37. Absolutely!

The time to fight the 2008 battles will come. Later.

[karynnj]

38. Totally right

This type of nonsense now is totally counter productive.