Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the support for Brown says something GOOD about the Democratic leaders

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:31 AM
Original message
Why the support for Brown says something GOOD about the Democratic leaders
Edited on Tue Feb-14-06 12:33 AM by Armstead
I have to admit, in theory, I think the national democratic Party should have let the primaries play out and supported the winner between Brown and hackett.

However, the fact that the Democratic leadership has thrown their suppport to brown is a GOOD THING for liberals and progressives, in terms of actual issues and standing up for those principles.

Brown is very much a progressive. He is one of the House Progressives who have fought the good fight, along with people like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, John Conyers etc. The fact that the Democratic leadership is supporting someone as liberal as Brown, is a good sign, and NOT a symptom of DLC centrism. In fact it is the opposite of centrism.

Visit his website.

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/issues.htm

Here's Brown's position on trade, for example:

----

"In 1999, thousands gathered to protest the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle. In September 2003, thousands more will gather in Cancun, Mexico, as international leaders meet for the fifth WTO ministerial.

These demonstrators will be demanding comprehensive reforms to an international trade system that has failed to improve the social and economic conditions for millions around the globe. The WTO model - forcing poor countries to open markets to wealthy nations - is not working. The failures of the WTO are nowhere clearer than in agriculture policy. In the United States and across the globe, rural economies and farmers have been devastated by artificially low prices in almost every major commodity. Large, multinational corporations now control trade in major commodities by selling below the cost of production on the global market.

WTO policies have led to economic insecurity, instability and an increase in illegal crops and crime throughout the developing world. Increased migration from rural to urban centers has exacerbated poverty and joblessness. In the 10 years since NAFTA was signed, 1.7 million jobs have been lost in the Mexican countryside. Not only do WTO practices destroy lives, they destroy cultures....Etc."

---

Now tell me, would a DLCer say that? Not even Kerry or most liberal Democratic Senators are willing to call the bluff of the globalization con job.

Here's his take on Wal Mart. Heard any DLCers talking like this or doing this lately?

----

Are Americans Shopping Themselves Out of a Job?
A Closer Look at the Wal-Mart Business Model

Wal-Mart has a knack for inspiring strong opinions.

A leading business publication called the retail giant "a champion of global supply-chain management." And a multinational supplier said "they have raised the bar, and raised the bar for everybody." But a domestic clothing manufacturer said "Wal-Mart chewed us up and spit us out." And a university researcher said "Wal-Mart is one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing – off-shoring of U.S. jobs."

And the consequences of Wal-Mart's business model for taxpayers and communities have also proven controversial. As the Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) wrote, Wal-Mart "continues to raid the state treasury by steering thousands of its uninsured employees into the state's taxpayer-funded BadgerCare program, which provides access to health care for low-income workers and their families."

Congressman Sherrod Brown sponsored a field hearing to examine these issues. National experts and Ohio citizens joined Congressman Brown in exploring the consequences of the Wal-Mart business model American workers, small businesses and communities.

Like traditional congressional hearings, this hearing offered expert testimony. Unlike traditional hearings, this hearing offered American workers and small businesses a chance to participate, by using this Website to share their stories and suggest questions for witnesses.

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









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. They still should've let the PEOPLE decide
Edited on Tue Feb-14-06 12:33 AM by FreedomAngel82
Isn't that what an election is? And Hackett should've stud up and said no to their demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Maybe, but this is the silver lining in the big picture
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Let the people decide? Are you kidding? Where did you ever
come up with an idea like that?

If you don't realise that the Beltway Dems know much more about everything than those "huddled masses" do there isn't much hope for you whatsoever.

Thank God we have the DLC to keep things doing properly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. The people could have decided....
If Hackett stayed in the race...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Nothing against Brown
but one who represents the "radical middle" would have a better chance against a Repug than an obvious lefty in Ohio.

Can't imagine why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. If he can't stand up to schumer?
How can he stand up to the President? With that said the primary should have played out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:38 AM
Original message
Are you referring to Hackett?
Standing up to Chuck is one thing. Having Democratic leaders go behind your back to ask your supporters not to give you money is something entirely different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hope Brown can stand up to the swift boating
he's gonna get. I know Hackett would have and shoved it right back up their ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Good Point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. He could't stand up to his own party.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. Its not for DINOS to decide, it is for voters to decide their candidate.
The same hijacking is going on in Pennsylvania with the Pennacchio/Casey run where the Democrats-in-name-only are doing everything to derail Pennacchio's run who is the only true Democrat running.

The DINOS have Bob Casey running as a Democrat, but hes just a kinder, gentler Republican than Santorum. He's accepted contributions from Halliburton, has been supportive and non-commital on the occupation of Iraq, and seems supportive of placing women back in the kitchen, certainly wishes to remove our power as governors of our own bodies.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Brown is NOT a DINO
In terms of substance on issues, he's a liberal Democrat in the best tradition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. My disappointment in Hackett's possible withdrawl
Edited on Tue Feb-14-06 01:31 AM by proud patriot
from politics , should in no way be construed as a diss
on Brown . He looks like a wonderful candidate .

I sure wish the party would have allowed the primary
to play out without the "pressure" on Hackett to bow
out .



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. I kind of feel like Hackett got "Deaned"
Am I wrong?

ALL politics aside, Hackett ignited a fire much like Dean. Did that scare the beltway boys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Probably did scare some
Though I'd say what happened to Hackett was even worse, and I'm a Dean supporter from way back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. I doubt it...I think it was more a matter of cold calculation
I think in another circumstance, where there was not an epwrienced Democrat looking at the same seat, they would not have minded Hackett's fire.

Frankly, Hackett doesn;t have a lot of substance behind his fighting spirit. I'm no9t dissing the guy, but other than being an anti-Bush candidate I don't think he staked out clear positions.

Dean, on the other hand, did represent a movement that made a lot of Democrats nervous, because he represented a revolt of liberals and anti-war types (even though Dean is not a wild-eyted radical.) I think dean made them scared of Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. I've liked Brown on his own too
he's no shrinking violet either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. He was among the House Democrats who were working against Iraq War
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. Would Brown have any obligations to the DSCC and the cabal
who decided that a primary wasn't worth doing?

Brown seems exceedlingly liberal, honorable and truly progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Everyone in politics has obligations
But I think Brown would fight for what he believes in....Which is basically what most of us beloieve in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. That's basically the point. What was the entrance fee
because we know there is one. I love Hackett for his style, passion and lack of ties inside the fossilized party super-structure. Once you are obligated to the princes, well Shakespeare has it pretty much covered.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Brown is a member of the House Progressive Club
He's an insider, but the House Progressives are exactly the antidote to the fossilized power structure you referred to. If more of them can be in the Senate, that's a good thing IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
13. Well Yeah... Except For The Lying, Manipulating, And Back-Stabbing...
it says all sorts of wonderful things about our Democratic "Leaders"!

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
14. Brown is a good man.
I only hope they put as much effort into getting Mr. Brown in office as they did in throwing Mr. Hackett under the bus.

Stopping Hackett does not necessarily mean they are backing Brown, It only means they are exerting control.


I do have a ton of respect for Brown. I also gave money to Hackett?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Perhaps, but it isn't very good for democratic principles
The voters should have been able to make this choice, and then the winner should have received the full support, funding, etc. of the party. But not before the primary ever took place.

Yes, I know that some people think that primaries are bad because it bloodies up our candidate and costs money. Democracy isn't always pretty, kind of like that sausage that Sinclair wrote about. There is also the contrary opinion, that a primary challenge actually makes our winner battle hardened and general election ready. And since we haven't tried the latter route in so long and control nothing at this point, what could it have hurt to let the people actually make the decision for once in this pseudo democracy? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I would tend to agree with that
But given that this is the perennial nature of party politics, if they're going to do it, I'd rather see them do it for a solid progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
26. Here's why Brown "gets it" on the issues
Edited on Tue Feb-14-06 10:36 AM by Armstead

Here's a key point that Shrood Brown made in this article. It is EXACTLY what the Democrats need to understand and embrace, if it is to become both politically potent again and make a positive diference for the nation.


http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2406/

...Brown believes his long progressive record will help rather than hinder. “For 10 years I won in a congressional district that was slightly Republican,” Brown says. “I think that voters that don’t agree with me on some issues will still say, ‘Brown’s on my side.’ On economic issues I’m clearly not just in the mainstream, but in the great majority. The overwhelming number of people think the drug companies, the oil companies and the insurance companies rip Americans off. They don’t like the Medicare bill, they want a minimum wage increase and they think our trade agreements hurt our country. On every one of those issues, I beat DeWine.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. And more - Fighting the good fight in 1999
From a speech in 1999. (Mods, since it's a speech on his website, I'm assuming it's public domain and so am including more than four paragraphs).

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/oldsite/cityclub.htm


Privatization: Undoing America's Sense of Community
Friday, February 12, 1999, The City Club of Cleveland
U.S. Congressman Sherrod Brown

"... Four years ago this very conservative class of Republicans wanted a revolution of sorts. Turn all power back to the states. Privatize. Government can't do anything right. Privatize. You can spend your money better than the government can. There was never any talk of community. Nor hardly ever any debate or discussion starting with the word "we."

They didn't look like America. Or think much like America. Of the 73, only seven were female. Only one was African-American. None was Hispanic. They wanted to privatize almost everything. They started with the National Park System. About 50 of them proposed privatizing the national park system by selling our parks to corporations. We could have the Phillip Morris Smokey Mountains and the Liberty Taco Bell. A far right Washington think tank, to the cheers of many in the GOP freshman class in 1994, suggested charging admission to government buildings such as the Capitol. "Think," one GOP supporter chortled, "think of the wear on the marble steps when you count the number of feet that have walked on it, and the brushing up against the walls. Others, like their counterparts in the Ohio legislature, advocated privatizing prisons. Private prisons all over the country, often skimping on security, have seen more violence and prison escapes than ever before....

These Republican revolutionaries saved the best for last. Urged on by conservative newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Washington Times, Republicans moved to privatize perhaps the best government program in this nation's history, Medicare. Privatize it, they said, in order to save it.

Look, private industry is good. It's the dynamic engine of job growth in our state and across our country. There are many things the market does very well, but putting the public's welfare first is not one of them.....Profits drive the private sector. Profits are the primary motivating force in our economic system and shareholders rightly demand profitability. And the best way to increase profits is to minimize costs and maximize prices. HMOs understand that providing health insurance to Medicare beneficiaries who need little health care is far more profitable than providing it to those who need expensive care. Drug companies have figured out that charging seniors, who are on fixed incomes and who lack a drug benefit, the highest prescription drug prices in the world is hugely profitable. ....

.... Clearly the market deserves its very important place in our society. It's the dynamic engine of job growth in our state and across the country. The market creates wealth and raises our standard of living. There are many things the market does very well.

But when the market doesn't work and its failure harms individuals and diminishes the nation's successes, the government has a role. Sometimes markets -- and I think the prescription drug market provides an excellent example -- must be regulated and sometimes marketplace dynamics aren't the answer.

There is risk in creating an economy and a society that is devoid of any public conscience. A market economy that operates without public safeguards will create a vast gulf between those who reap the rewards and those who are left outside. The purpose of publicly owned national parks is to protect open space and preserve our nation's natural heritage. The purpose of privatized national parks is to maximize profit -- through development and commercialization. The purpose of public prisons is to protect the public, to punish, and to rehabilitate. The purpose of privatized prisons is to maximize profit -- by reducing staff and possibly cutting back on security. The purpose of public medical systems is to provide the best health care possible to help people, especially children and the elderly, live longer, healthier lives. The purpose of privatized medical systems is to maximize profit -- through private insurance companies denying benefits and instituting incentives to withhold care.

Our nation has a compelling interest to maintain a steady, mutually beneficial balance between the public and private sectors. Private companies are important. Public programs are important. Government regulations are important.

Over the last few years, we've seen the U.S. economy expand. We've balanced the federal budget and are on our way to begin paying down the national debt.....We all talk about our strong economy, and it is taking us in the right direction. But the surge in wealth across the country has not reached everyone yet. While the stock market expands, median wealth -- not the average -- was ten percent lower in 1995 than in 1983. The richest one percent held half of all outstanding stock and trust equity, according to a Federal Reserve survey.

To put this in some perspective, Bill Gates's net worth, some $46 billion, is larger than the combined net worth of the bottom 40 percent of American households. Or think of it this way. Take Bill Gates's $46 billion. Divide it by his work hours during the last 24 years since he founded Microsoft. His time is so valuable that if he dropped a $500 bill, it would only be worth his time to bend over and pick it up if he could do it in fewer than four seconds.

While these may be times of relative peace and prosperity, there is another reality. In Ohio, nearly 22 percent of our state's children live in poverty. More than one-third of the nation's elderly can't afford the cost of the medicine their doctors prescribe for them. We're increasingly enclosing ourselves in gated communities with private security forces while we abandon the core of our cities. Incredibly, the number of private security guards now exceeds the number of publicly employed policemen.

We are in danger of becoming a land of two societies. One society for the more affluent and another for the less well-off. They don't talk to each other. They don't know each other. They don't understand each other. That's why our public institutions, like Medicare and Social Security, are so important. Their charge is to leave no one behind....

MORE











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC