So it begins: THE DLC PLANS TO OBLITERATE DEM PRIMARIES.

[yodermon]

I read this in another thread, but thought it deserved its own.
This is from Mark Crispin Miller (quoting "Roxanne") at http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_markcrispinmiller_archive.html

I was at a private house party on August 2nd in Georgia with Senators Reid, Schumer and Pryor.

And the grand DLC plan is simple for 2006 - no DEM primaries. They plan to choose the DLC candidate and force all others out of the race. Just like they did in PA with Casey.

The exact Schumer (DSCC Chair) quote is:
"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ......this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable. "

So, bye bye primaries, folks. The good DLC will be choosing our candidates from here on out.

Hackett is another casualty.
The name of the Democratic Party has become a self-mocking oxymoron.

edited to indicate that Hackett was not actually the 1st casualty

[neverevergivein]

1. No more primaries means

no more choices. and that is how Democracy dies.

[Nikki Stone 1]

2. Is this about making sure Democrats win or lose? :irony:

Or maybe it's about making sure that no anti-war types get to run.

[wtbymark]

6. or anti-corperate

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. Sherrod Brown voted against the war and is as far from DLC as you can get

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Schumer and Reid will have to prove to us that they will back

true Liberals. I'm not sure why people here don't think that Sherrod is a true Liberal. I've seen the record and he doesn't appear DLC. But, I'm new to the political side of the game, so maybe there is something I'm missing.

One thing that will not sell is another DINO in the bunch. Or, if Sherrod loses, then Reid and Schumer's gamble was not worth the cost.

[LizW]

4. Well, it worked great in the 2004 Presidential race, didn't it?

Uh....wait. Never mind.

:sarcasm:

[FreedomAngel82]

49. So how do you explain Dean being a DLCer himself?

:eyes: Reid and Schumer are not DLCERS.

[radio4progressives]

68. You have that backwards! Dean is NOT DLC and Never was!

Schumer is a DLC to the bone, and Reid takes is their appointed General.

[derby378]

91. If Dean was a member of the DLC...

...then why did Al From work so hard to shoot down his 2004 run, pray tell me?

[blm]

94. Because Dean was going to run as a centrist in 2002 and then he decided to

run left after the Iraq war became an issue.

Remember, Dean was FOR the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR which was not substantively different than the IWR that passed. But media let that one slip by them when he started speaking as an anti-war candidate.

When Dean started adapting a more leftist rhetoric for the primaries he turned on those who used to praise him for his third way governance.

Al From was a big asshole about it, but Dean wasn't the most honest person in that whole battle, either.

I think that's how he lost some of his footing in the long run - you can't govern on centrist principles for so long and then shift left so suddenly without putting yourself off-balance a bit.

To be clear, I am one who supports Dean's move to the left and I thank his supporters for the legitimate change in his positions. He is WAY LESS of a centrist now.

[NoPasaran]

105. Dean was a DLCer until realized

Dean was a DLCer until realized that would make him personna non grata at DU. He was dipped in the River Styx to wash away the awful taint of triangulation. Sadly, his heel was unprotected and in Iowa Dennis Kucinich, acting on information given him by John Edwards, shot him with a poisoned arrow. And the rest, as they say, is history.

[blm]

60. Dean governed as a centrist. Kerry had the most left voting record of ANY

the candidates including Kucinich.

People should check the historic record before they make demonstrably false statements.

[Yollam]

89. If you go back to the 80s maybe.

His IWR vote was not "left" and was in fact either craven or ignorant - either one is unacceptable.

[blm]

90. Kerry was in office for 19yrs at that point and it's hard to come up with

a rating that's closest to Wellstone's of any of the 2004 candidates over a 19 yr period without having a CONSISTENTLY progressive record.

Many he was running against had fewer years and STILL had voting records to Kerry's right.

IWR would have PREVENTED War if it had been implemented honestly. You let Bush off the hook every time you blame war on IWR.

And the point I replied to was about Dean and Kerry - Dean governed as a centrist for 11yrs and his record was current as of 2002-3. He didn't move left until then and AFTER he left office.

[Yollam]

92. That is a total copout RE the IWR...

The consensus among people of all ideologies (other than the diehard Kerry defenders) was and is that the IWR was a blank check to go to war. It was presented that way at the time, which is why anti-war folks tried so desperately to change the minds of corrupted democrats like Hillary and Kerry so that the party could have a united front against what was from the beginning an obviously fraudulent war.

There were MILLIONS of people in the streets, all kinds of accusations about the intel being cherry-picked and agents being pressured from people in the CIA, Bush was telling the most obvious lies on TV on a daily basis "Saddam has not disarmed" (he was destroying his few proscribed missiles and had given inspectors full access - the had found NOTHING) When Iraq presented the UN with 10,000 pages of documents detailing their weapons programs, as Bush had demanded, Bush IMMEDIATELY dismissed it, when it was obvious nobody could read all that in less than 24 hours.

Bush had issued all kinds of ultimata to Iraq, ALL OF WHICH Iraq attempted to comply with, and it did not matter. Bush was going to have his war.

In that kind of atmosphere, why would ANY decent human being EVER vote to give a lying madman the authority to murder thousands? How the hell can you make excuses like that? Weren't you paying attention back then?

[blm]

93. I paid attention to the negotiations at the time - did YOU? It was those

Dems stuck negotiating who forced weapons inspectors into Iraq and prevented the IWR from being used to extend military action into Iran and Syria as Bush wanted.

The poor saps stuck doing the negotiating certainly get knocked around alot by those refusing to see the big picture.

And i REJECT what the iWR was spun into - the whole "blank check" meme served BushInc's purpose and allowed the press to be lazy and not scrutinize how Bush was in VIOLATION of the IWR when he refused to consider the reports from the weapons inspectors and invaded Iraq despite their findings.

And the point was STILL about the voting records of Dean and Kerry and how they were misrepresented by so many who never bothered to do their homework.

[Yollam]

95. The IWR vote was a major turn-off to MANY people.

Dems stuck negotiating who forced weapons inspectors into Iraq and prevented the IWR from being used to extend military action into Iran and Syria as Bush wanted.

So we're supposed to be glad that they voted for a slightly less murderous fraudulent blank war check? Look, I'm happy for you that you're a party faithful type. Great. But I put human lives ahead of partisan crap, and we murdered 30K~100K HUMAN BEINGS in that invasion for no reason whatsoever. There is no way any person could in good conscience vote to allow Bush to slaughter little babies and kids JUST LIKE MINE just to get his rocks off.

And whether you reject the blank check concept, it is a fact. Not only is it the consensus of most people, the IWR provided Bush's war the legitimacy he wanted, since formal war declarations are no longer done.

At this point, I don't really care if Kerry voted to fund AFDC back in 1986, or that he investigated Iran-Contra, or whatever other ancient history you want to bring up. As far as I'm concerned, every member of congress should have been fully educated about the Iraq situation when they made that vote. That is their job. Ignorance of what was obvious to anyone who was paying attention is no excuse. As far as I'm concerned, if we lived in a sane world, every single member of congress, dem or republican who voted for the War Resolution should be rotting in the same prison as Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, because they KNOWINGLY aided and abetted a mass murder.

There is no changing my mind on this point.

[blm]

96. No - you're supposed to respect that they NEGOTIATED FOR A BETTER BILL.

You would prefer that Bush attack Syria right after the fall of Baghdad as he wanted?

You would prefer that NO inspectors went in for the two months before? That would have given Bush the opportunity to PLANT WMDs and there would be NOTHING one could argue against him with then.

I just think you're taking the most narrow point because it's the EASIEST. You don't have to think.

How convenient.

And this was STILL about a man's 19 yr. voting record that was definitively progressive yet who was portrayed falsely as a corporatist against a demonstrably centrist and pro-business governing record that was ignored by those claiming be against the DLC and what it stands for.

[Yollam]

97. No. Voting for ANY murderous bill is unacceptable.

This was not an appropriations bill where you agree to vote for it because you got a clause put in guaranteeing that vets would get a new hospital or whatever. It was an unacceptable piece of legislation in any form. There were a lot of good, decent democrats who voted against it. The ones that voted for it will have to live with their consciences, since we don't punish our own war criminals in this country.


What you are doing is no different than the nonsensical rationalizations that Bushco thugs do about this war "Saddam was a threat" "We're bringing them democracy" "An Al Qaeda operative visited Baghdad once".

Fomenting a fraudulent war is wrong, no matter how you slice it. And so is aiding and abetting it, whether out of ignorance, political expediency, or the chance to make a few bucks (Dianne Feinstein).

[blm]

98. You prefer no Dem negotiated for a better bill. You prefer that Bush have

his war HIS WAY and no weapons inspectors went in to give AN HONEST appraisal first and that Bush get his desire to extend military action into Syria.

Because THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, but the narrowthinkers will never see it because they DON'T WANT TO. Some Dems were stuck negotiating and had no choice, though it would certainly have been easier on them to let negotiations pass and vote against whatever Bush wanted. Bush already had the votes for war his way.

But - YOU prefer it be all or nothing as if the world really works like that. Thankfully some Dems stepped up and changed things for the better.

[Yollam]

107. Oh brother.

How you manage to spin political expediency and cowardice in the face of post-9-11 hysteria into some sort of heroic act is beyond me. The fact is that dems voting for that piece of filth put their stamp on it and gave it a bipartisan legitimacy it did not deserve. Your assumption that Bush would have steamrolled into Syria is based on pure conjecture, esp. given the overstretched condition of our military.

The weapons inspectors went in under UN auspices and reported that there were probably no significant WMD stockpiles, if any. A lot of good that did to the thousands who are dead. You are looking at this as though it was some kind of political game, but it is not. Those people were real flesh and blood and they were blown into so many chunks of meat because of Bush's lies and ini part because of the cowardice of some dems -a and our whored-out corporate media deserves a huge share of the blame for deliberately not reporting any relevant news about the buildup to war.

So I suppose at the time of the War resolution, you were calling and faxing your dem representatives and Senators to vote FOR that monstrosity?

:puke:


I am not a "narrow thinker" I am opposed to VOTING FOR MASS MURDER EVER. Got it?

[blm]

108. Then you obviously were NOT paying attention at the time. What a waste of

time.

You didn't even KNOW that Syria and Iran were on the table. What a waste of time.

And any HONEST president, hell, even Reagan, would have adhered to the guidelines of a resolution and allowed the weapons inspectors to perform their duties.

You just LOVE letting Bush off the hook by repeating the Rove-driven meme that it ws a blank check - that way Bush doesn't need to be examined for violating the guidelines - he RUSHED TO WAR without letting the inspectors finish.

[Yollam]

110. Even if he had followed the guidelines to the letter...

...he would have been able to attack and murder Iraq for no reason whatsoever. And can the Rove shit already. I'm not questioning your motives in SUPPORTING BUSH'S WAR BILL, so give me a break, 'mkay?

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR A WAR RESOLUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. IRAQ HAD DONE NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING - FOR 12 GODDAMN YEARS.

How do you get off defending the utterly indefensible with tangents like theoretical side invasions? Gimme a break.

And I noticed you didn't answer the question. Did you appeal to your congresspeople to vote FOR the IWR, seeing as how it was such a wonderful piece of legislation? HMM?

[blm]

111. I didn't want ANY Dem to vote for it, but understood the ones doing the

negotiating didn't have the luxury of voting against a resolution once they received concessions, and THAT is what you just don't WANT to factor in to the bottom line.

[Yollam]

112. Thank you for answering.

As you well know, the frustration with ever-compromising dems is not just from me. It's what's killing the party. I don't expect every dem to be a "Mr. Smith" every single day, but there are occasionally issues like this one where the unconscionable results of the act simply are too horrific to rationalize in any way. Iraq was one of them. If you are capable of reducing an innocent Iraqi man, woman or child to an unfortunate, faraway, exotic statistic in your mind, the arguments you use may actually work for you. But if you see those kids as your own, as I do, there is no possible way of doing that.

You would not be making these arguments for the IWR if it had been a resolution to carpet-bomb a day-care center full of kids here in the US that happened to have a "suspected al qaeda cell safe house" next door to it, would you? Well that's exactly what the IWR did - murdered thousands of people for a mostly fabricated excuse. We would never murder thousands of our own people to catch a few criminals - even if they were McVeigh-type terrorists, but we condone it when it's brown people on the other side of the world who have done absolutely nothing to the US, EVER.

Good luck selling your DNC talking points elsewhere. I may may be a democrat, but I'm a human being first. Sorry.

I completely disagree with your take on this and I think you're as guilty of writing these dems a blank check as they are of writing one to Bush, but I don't really see any point to continue haranguing you about it. Feel free to have the last word, as I'm done with this one.

[Punkingal]

5. Who says they know who the best candidates are?

They can't even handle a moran like Bush when he commits an impeachable offense. Who the hell needs them to decide who we should have as our cadidates?

[Rex_Goodheart]

7. We need term limits.

We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.
We need term limits.

[converted_democrat]

16. We need to figure out a way to put a stop to, or minimize

corporate donors, and put term limits in place.. Both are needed desperately to bring about real change..

[Greyhound]

25. Can't agree with your solution, but do agree something needs to

be done. The problem with term limits is that it tips the balance of power in favor of the lobbyists, as we have seen in the last 15 years or so.
Something must be, I'm not sure what it should be.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. Even for Kennedy and other good democrats?

[converted_democrat]

8. I don't like this at all.. Not one bit.. This is a BIG problem in my

opinion.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. If no primaries, then caucuses. That would be a good thing.

Personally, I prefer caucuses. After the Dems, Repugs and Libs destroyed Washington State's blanket primary, there has been a fair sized grassroots movement to eliminate primaries altogether, forcing the parties to pay for their own damned "members-only selection of candidates" rather than letting them feed from the public trough.

[mod mom]

15. I don't believe that is their intention. I think they want leadership to

choose w/o input from the masses.

[HereSince1628]

10. Not sure this the DLC's, it's surely about insiders vs. an outsider

One of the reasons that the DLC was successful was that it created a "good old boys insiders' club" to compete with the one that previously existed.

Insiders vs. outsiders is common. Hackett has not been in a position to build up any "chits" and had none to call in to help himself.

[eyesroll]

11. He heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it...

Is this actually credible?

Democrats shouldn't be "attacking" Democrats, in any case. (Note I AM NOT advocating doing away with primaries; quite the contrary). But Democrats should hammer away at their Democratic opponents by pointing out contrasts in issues, philosophy, governing style, and not ad hominem attacks. (If Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman accuse each other of eating babies, guess what happens in the general election?) Reagan did have a point with his 11th Commandment for Republicans.

[mod mom]

17. Dem Party should let their base voters decide who they want to represent

them. It shouldn't be a top-down decision.

[eyesroll]

44. I didn't say anything to the contrary.

:shrug:

I did say or imply:
1. That I was unsure whether the original blog post (i.e. the rumor of the DLC weeding out others) was reliable.
2. That I believed in primaries.
3. That Dems shouldn't be using personal or ad hominem attacks against other Dems.
4. That Dems SHOULD point out their legitimate differences in primary contests.

[wtbymark]

12. Sounds like Reid and Schumer don't belong in our party anymore

let's fire a shot across the bow, and say if they don't back down from that statement we're gonna run someone against them who is really VOCAL about their betrayal.

[Yavin4]

13. More Evidence that Liberals and Progressives Are Not Welcomed

Yet, we will be blamed constantly when they lose.

[emulatorloo]

40. except apparently Brown is to the left of Hackett? EOM

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. he is--Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA/member Progressive Caucus

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[Twist_U_Up]

14. This sounds criminal. n/t

[Kukesa]

18. Yep, they handed Ohio to DeWine. nt

[bullimiami]

19. i dont read it that way necessarily.

they have the notion to try to settle primaries without a bloodbath and with minimal expense, that idea is probably valid, what I dont like is that they think they have the right to tell us who the candidates are and arent.
the reality of it probably is that they will try to solidify the position of whomever they think the strongest candidates are.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. ***Please stop posting lies about Democrats!***

They plan to choose the DLC candidate and force all others out of the race. Just like they did in PA with Casey.

Bob Casey is not affiliated with the DLC. He is an economic liberal and a social conservative. DLCers tend to be economic moderates and social liberals (like Bill Clinton, one of the DLC's founders).

Furthermore, 'they' did not force out all others out to the race. Casey has at least two opponents in the primary (Al Sandals and Chuck Pennachio).

[FreedomAngel82]

52. And Brown is way more liberal than Hackett apparently

Reid and Schumer are NOT DLCers either. Howard Dean was one as well as Kerry who both were no longer affiliated with the DLC in 2003. (Dean because he was no longer an elected official and Kerry just because I guess)

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. DLC is more like, Economic Conservatives and Social Liberals

And it doesn't matter with Casey because apparently he's been riding high in the polls against Santorum for a long time, giving him a huge "electability" edge. The situation with Hackett is more cut and dried since Hackett obviously had a better chance in Ohio. It boils down to this: DLC AND DCC DO NOT WANT ANTI-WAR CANDIDATES IN OFFICE.

[mzmolly]

100. Thanks for the fact based post Freddie.

:hi:

[LynneSin]

117. Freddie, STOP MAKING SENSE

People can't handle it here.

Next thing we know you and I will be labeled DLC simply because we use our brains when posting here

[PATRICK]

21. Fear fear fear

Fear of having less money, fear of having any noise detract from the automatic default margin that will be given to Dems supposedly because more people are generally against the GOP. That really will generate genuine enthusiasm won't it? Enough to overcome GOP fraud? THAT should be the real fear it any.

Fear of mavericks coming in to ideologically and greenly upset the professional electioneering OR the ways of Congress. They hide this fear by considering progressives, populists, greenhorns not likely to win. This again concedes to the fear of a shallow GOP ideology unchallenged in media propaganda.

Fear that at the point of getting back to the point of being a weak "bi-partisan" majority that rarely votes together the nature of the party is changing. They once feared they couldn't raise money from the little guy. That is the same kind of error fear that creates its own problem.

All fear creates the problem it focuses upon and especially creates the problem it refuses to see properly.

Shooting candidates quietly in dark alleys is an overreaction of a never ready for prime time generation of status quo, parity and deadliest compromises. They would like to stage the primaries like the winter Olympics maybe. Certainly the GOP makes it a joyless farce beset with the worst personal attacks. Yet we have a genuine big tent with a real chance of drawing in huge majorities. it doesn't have to be a boy scout pup tent while the circus waits out in the rain for "another day, another cautious engineering, another inexplicable defeat".

When you fear your enemy, your become that enemy. This is no way to build democracy. Worse it hides the rivalry of failed pros beating up on raw populists behind elitist doors. Like hidden vote counts, it will not promote more victories, better margins, or the truth.

[NoPasaran]

22. No, Hackett was not the first casualty

Barbara Hafer was persuaded to drop out of the Pennsylvania senate race, clearing the way for Bob Casey. But Chuck Pennachio is still in that race.

And Hackett could have stayed in the Ohio race if he wanted to. Honestly, some people on this site act as if the DLC was the Mafia, Legion of Doom, and British Dental Association all rolled up into one.

[yodermon]

34. have edited the OP

to indicate that Hackett was not the 1st casualty.

And yes, I wish Hackett had stayed in the race, issuing a big FU to Schumer et. al. But he was clearly declared persona-non-grata by the party elites (noting that Schumer is not, in fact, DLC).

[FreedomAngel82]

53. Hear hear

Why didn't Hackett tell them "hell no"? In October he told a local Ohio paper he wasn't going anywhere and now he does? Gee, if he can't handle members within the own party how is he going to handle the big boys?

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. They ARE the British Dental Association and I have recordings to prove it

;-)

[Catrina]

86. How many people have the Mafia killed as opposed to the war-mongers

in this government and their supporters, and how many more will they kill if they continue, on both sides, neocons and neolibs, to shove all those who oppose their warmongering, out of congressional races, or enough of them, to ensure they will win on every war-related issue?

I thought about that comparison for a while, and it seems to me the DLC is contributing to a death machine that the mafia could only dream about.

[LynneSin]

118. I'm hoping that Barbara Hafer runs for Lt. Gov

If anyone should be forced out of office it should be current Lt. Gov Catherine Baker Knoll. She's a nice lady but she's too old to be able to run for Governor in 2010 (I think she'll be near 80) and really hasn't done much as Lt. Gov. I think if we could get Hafer in that race we could set her up as the prime candidate for governor in 2010

[PhilipShore]

23. I tend to agree with the DLC on this

I disagree with 90% of the DLC platform, especially its destructive ant-liberalism message, but I agree with them about this. The Dems need good candidates to rally around soon, such as Howard Dean whom is like Gandhi for America in the 21st century.

The people of India had one person -- named Gandhi -- whom they rallied around to kick the British out of India. The Dems need just single candidates running, so the Dems can successfully win.

But, this is where I know the DLC and I disagree, in that I think that -- liberal Democrats have the best chance of winning, because they are the most experienced as the grassroots level at fighting and "winning" against Repukes.

JFK was one of the most successful liberal democrats ever.

[FlaGranny]

69. Of course we need good candidates,

but why take the choice of the best candidate from the people who are going to do the voting, and put it in the hands of party bosses?

This has nothing to do with which candidate is the best candidate. It has everthing to do with the freedom to BE a candidate. Hackett dropped out because his funding was dried up by the big boys, thus insuring that only the big boys can pick the candidate. Hackett may not have been the best candidate, but that is not the point.

Many people on this board always complain about the money it costs to run for office and use Arizona as an example of a better campaign fund raising method. A candidate has to get a certain amount of donations of a small dollar amount (don't remember the actual figures) and then gets state funds to run the campaign. This would allow anyone to run who can get the required preliminary financial backing. This would allow people without a lot of corporate and party backing to run and would make our elections democratic.

Allowing party bosses to decide who gets to run and even if there is going to be a primary at all - undemocratic and un-American if you ask me, no matter how good their intentions.

[Avalux]

24. This story ran it's course on this board months ago.

It's nothing that's been substantiated, so I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[yodermon]

27. Except for the circumstantial evidence

that the goal of the statement that was attributed to Schumer in the OP.. actually happened to Hackett...

... by Schumer. You know, the guy quoted in the OP.

It is not proof of the OP, but certainly it is evidence supporting its veracity, and hence perhaps it should be further investigated.

[EFerrari]

28. Except, didn't Schumer and buds just illustrate this with

Hackett? If this was a fabrication or a rumor, it was a prescient one.

Pillar of salt vs. Paul Hackett. :(

[mod mom]

33. exactly.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. The Democratic Party has become...

...the inconsequential weak sister, compliant subsidiary of the GOP...just the way the DLC likes it. God help us.

[Innocent Smith]

29. Both major parties do this

This is really nothing new except for maybe how agressive they are getting about it. The higher-ups in both parties have always tried to hand pick candidates. It stinks, but it really isn't something new.

[EFerrari]

32. You're right about that. Maybe what's new is how openly it's

done. And since we have much better access to information, the amount of dissonance it creates in the electorate to know about these machinations and then get syrupy emails addressed to us personally that speak in vague idealistic terms and ask for money at the end of each paragraph.

[Innocent Smith]

58. Smokey Back Room

With the internet it is quickly becoming the "Not-so-Smokey Front Porch"

[SaveElmer]

30. Not one person you mentioned is DLC...

Bring up the old strawman. Casey has two primary opponents. Hackett did not have to bow out.

The misconception is that choosing candidates by the party is subject to any constitutional guarantee. It is not. It is by definition a party matter, and not subject to any guarantees of one man one vote or anything else. The parties choose for themselves how to pick their candidates. If you want to change that process you need to either work within the rules the party has set up, or start your own.

Also, there is nothing in Schumer's statement that says they are going to get rid of primaries. First of all, neither the DSCC nor the DNC can even do that. It is a decision for the state parties to make. The DSCC's job is to recruit and support the strongest candidates for these seats. They are not obligated to support every Democrat who runs. If you take a look at the crop of excellent candidates running throughout the country, and compare that to the lame job Libby Dole has done, it looks to me like the DSCC and DCCC are doing a very good job.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. "Hackett didn't have to bow out"-BROWN EVISCERATED HIS STAFF ON THE GROUND

Brown endorsed Hackett's candidacy and provided Hackett (who was not a career politician or a local power broker -- er, I mean, party "activist") with staff needed to run. He then witheld that staff from Hackett for months, delaying Hackett's announcement. Then when Hackett did announce, Brown announced two days later. Just because someone is a "liberal" doesn't prevent them from being a lily-livered, monkeywrenching bastard.

[emulatorloo]

31. 1. EXCEPT SCHUMER AND REID ARENT DLC 2. BROWN IS A LIBERAL

so this is nonsense.

PS HACKETT IS GREAT AND IS A GOOD SOLID DEMOCRAT

ON edit - link to Hackett statements thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x428154

[Hobarticus]

35. Shhhh....don't let facts get in the way n/t

[Catrina]

87. Schumer IS DLC ~ a war supporting, neolib ~ that's who supports and

majorly funds him ~

[mzmolly]

36. That's a very misleading title.

The statement in question is not about eliminating the primaries, it's about not letting Dems bloody one another to the point Dean and Gephardt did in Iowa.

"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ~ We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vulnerable. "

Sounds to me like they don't want Dems to damage one another? Sorry, but - BFD. This is what we praise Ronald Reagan for (Reagan's "11th Commandment "was" speak ill of no other Republican.")

If "intervene" means not assisting Democrats in making one another un-electable, I'm all for it. If it means playing dirty pool - as some feel was done with Paul Hackett, I'm not on board.

Flame away if you must.

[emulatorloo]

41. kicking for your post -- n/t

[mzmolly]

42. Thanks. Check this out and recommend this sucka!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=428154&mesg_id=428154

:hi:

[emulatorloo]

45. I've been linking to it in my posts here -- heard Hackett on Schultz

yesterday -- it was a heck on an interview

[mzmolly]

46. Too bad I missed it.

I'm glad HE'S a grown up. ;)

[emulatorloo]

82. Schultz puts up MP3s of his shows -- dig around at

http://www.bigeddieradio.com

Server appears to be down right this minute, though ---

[yodermon]

47. A friendly reinsertion

of the part of the quote that you snipped:

"this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more."

In fact, here is the entire quote again, so as to reassert the context that you so eloquently removed.

The exact Schumer (DSCC Chair) quote is:
"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ......this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable. "

So to reitereate, it appears that the decision making process in determining Democratic candidates has been removed from the rank and file and placed in the hands of .. just the rank.

I'm sure it's for the best.

[mzmolly]

99. People this is nothing new. It's "politics" even Hackett has said HE

understands that.

I agree with Schumer that we need to be more strategic. Your reinsertion does not change my point at all. The point is that democrats should not help Republicans by being so divisive in the primaries that a candidate becomes "unelectable" before making it out of the gate.

The fact is the premise of primaries being "eliminated" (as your link suggests) is total BS/divisive/Nader-esque spin. MONEY has always been a factor in politics - and if "progressives" want change WE better be ready/willing contribute some "change" to the candidates we support.

:hi:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

38. *gulp*

:popcorn:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Yeah, I know...

...but an ivory tower extremist that doesn't even have a political science background in the first place should hardly be worshipped the way he is.

[mzmolly]

56. I agree.

He tends to "stretch" things a bit IMHO. I'm not talking about the election issue, I'm talking about his characterization of events/statements.

[yodermon]

43. Good to know.

I'll file that one away for future reference.
I'm sure you're right.
:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. You do realize he has ZERO background in politics, right?

:hi: http://education.nyu.edu/dcc/people/bio.php?id=1216

Not to mention, he's done nothing but study his entire life, meaning, he's an ivory tower dweller that has no real clue what's going on in the real world.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. Slander?

Please, cite the factual incorrectness in my statement. Considering I cited his own CV, I'm pretty certain that you won't be able to.

And apologize immediately for your personal attacks.

There was no "debate", just a quote from Miller. So far as I see, Miller's comments are the purpose for debate, and if he holds no water, there is no debate.

[Boredtodeath]

84. Your agenda

And, once again, you try to divert from the issue - it's not Mark Miller's words, but those of Chuck Schumer on that audio tape.

Slandering MCM because you don't like what Chuck Schumer said, and can't defend it, is the biggest strawman ever created on this forum.

I hope MCM sees your slander and sues you for it. In fact, I'm going to send it to him to be SURE he sees it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

88. LMAO

Go ahead, moron.

Hey, guess what? Not only can I say anything I want to about a public figure, which Mr. Miller has made himself, but I still haven't said anything factually incorrect.

Please, go fuck yourself. I insist.

[Stephanie]

78. His field is media criticism and propaganda

And you're an idiot.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. Okay, and how is this issue either media criticism or propaganda?

That's right - it's neither, except that HE is the one putting out propaganda.

You still can't show me how he has a background in POLITICS and you can't show me that he's done anything except be part of the ivory tower society. I may or may not be an idiot, but I'm smart enough to see that your comments aren't worth jack shit until you can prove my comments factually incorrect.

[Boredtodeath]

85. He'll recognize YOUR propaganda

And, once again, you try to divert from the issue - it's not Mark Miller's words, but those of Chuck Schumer on that audio tape.

Slandering MCM because you don't like what Chuck Schumer said, and can't defend it, is the biggest strawman ever created on this forum.

I hope MCM sees your slander and sues you for it.

[Stephanie]

114. Why does he have to have a background in POLITICS to write about it?

How many journalists have a background in POLITICS? Do YOU have a background in POLITICS? That's like saying someon can't write a movie review unless they've been to film school. Honestly, how many POLITICIANS have a degree in POLITICS? And what is your agenda here? Don't like all this talk about the compromised voting machines?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

115. Yeah, actually, I do.

I work in politics and have degrees in Political Science. :hi:

And most POLITICAL journalists do have a background in politics because they've built one. They've been focusing their entire careers on politics. Mr. Miller has not.

And most politicians have law, business, or political backgrounds.

And finally, my point is not to say one can't write about politics without a political background, but it certainly doesn't make me want to worship this guy's opinion as divine providence.

My agenda is stomping out bullshit and ignorance wherever I find it, and this thread is rife with it.

[Stephanie]

120. Mr. Miller has focussed on the media and how they enable bush

Which is within his expertise. What's your gripe? Do you work for Kerry? Mark is a close friend of mine and I find your comments rude and pointless.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. My gripe is...

that he's usually either flat out wrong, unnecessarily inflammatory, or both, and he has neither the insider knowledge, nor the political background to make him qualified to be worshipped as a source. Quite frankly, I don't care whether or not you take offense to make comments. He is a public figure and if he doesn't have a thick enough skin to take criticism, then perhaps he should stop maintaining a blog and writing books and start leading a private life. That was his choice and he has to deal with those consequences.

In this case, neither the media, nor Bush is at issue, so he seems ill qualified to make such preposterous comments.

[bloom]

61. I'm not so sure they are right at all

Mark Crispin Miller has done a lot to bring information out about BushCo as well as voting problems.

Sounds to me like some DLC apologists are shooting buckshot.

[Boredtodeath]

75. Not buckshot - SLANDER

These comments about MCM are slanderous.

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Yep

Every time his name enters the conversation, I stop taking it seriously. Sort of like Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and Ralph Nader. Out of touch dangerous bloviators, all.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

70. If he's made specific claims...

...you wish to take issue with, let's hear it---enlighten us.

[mattclearing]

77. Word. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. So, the bosses get to decide what's good for the common herd.

Who are to bow down, kiss their rings, and follow orders.

How very "democratic" of them.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Reid and Schumer are NOT DLC

But Howard Dean was one.

[Lorien]

51. No democracy in the Democratic party?

So they reject the entire notion of being the "party of the people"?

This is really bad. If the leadership of both parties decides who can run and who can't, then we really are living in a fascist nation.

[gasperc]

55. the primaries give energy and attention

to otherwise a dull, limp process and also help the candidates become better candidates in the fall. If not for Bradely Gore might have been trounced by Bush, as unlikely or shocking as it seems. Gore learned alot from the experience but not enough to overcome his play it safe stuffiness meanwhile Bush was touting education reforms and social security changes, Democratic strongsuits intentionally to weaken Gore's advantage in those areas.

Bradely helped Gore and primaries help Democrats, Dean has it right Schumer needs to have his head examined. But the New York primary is in September so I could see his gripe but Schumer should work to move the primary earlier in the year in New York than fuck up the system nationally

[blm]

59. The BULLSHIT in this - Brown is NOT DLC and IS a Kucinich type Democrat

Hackett was way more of a centrist than Brown, yet once again the DIVIDERS of the left are working AGAINST the left by LYING about the circumstances.

[Clark2008]

104. But that's not the point, as I read it.

The point is that the bosses are making the decisions and not the people.

Brown might have won the primary, for all I know. Even though, on the outside looking into Ohio, I think Hackett would have been a better challenger in the general election.

Just my two cents.

[blm]

106. The subject line is pretty clear, imo.

.

[Clark2008]

109. Yeah - the subject line says DLC, but I still think the beef

is about Dem insiders picking candidates instead of letting the people do it.

I'd be pretty pissed if I lived in Ohio - even if I was a Brown supporter.

[dflprincess]

65. It's happened in Minnesota

Patty Wetterling dropped out in favor of the better financed, never take a clear stand on anything candidate, Amy Klobuchar.

Luckily, there is another candidate in the race, Ford Bell, who is a) more liberal than Klobuchar and b) not afraid to tell you where he stands and c) made it quite clear at the last State Central Committee meeting that he isn't going to play this game. Minnesota's primary is not until September though the party endorses at the State Convention in early June. Bell has not made it clear if he'll challenge the endorsed candidate (assuming it's not him) in the primary but he's not dropping out before the caucuses are even held.

[Stephanie]

66. Roxanne is a voting rights advocate that some of you may know

She has been active in Georgia with my friend Denis.

[Boredtodeath]

73. They'll begin attacking her next

Anything to avoid the real issue - Schumer's OWN WORDS.

[rucky]

71. As we move to a One-Party system ruled by the Elite.

Guess you've gotta keep the labels (D&R) so just enough people still think we're a Democracy.

pretty slick.

When are we going to raise the Minimum RAGE?

[Kazak]

72. Gee, thanks for representing us...

:puke:

[mattclearing]

76. Y'all need to learn the difference between party organizations.

The DNC does not equal the DLC does not equal the DSCC does not equal the DCCC.

The Hackett thing has zero to do with the DLC.

Nice clue.

[applegrove]

81. There is usually a favourite candidate. That is why it is called a

"Party". Because there is some structure, organization, & planning.

[iconoclastNYC]

83. Brown is a DLC nightmare.

Brown is not DLC, he's just about the polar opposite. Look at his record.

I don't doubt that the DLC wants to eliminate the primaries, but they can't. Anybody who collects the signatures can get on the ballot. We can take back our party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. Brown is a member - Progressive Caucus / backed by PDA

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[Radical Activist]

113. If the DLC can do it, then so can MoveOn.org

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[LynneSin]

116. That would really be keen if....

.....ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY A PART OF THE DLC!!!

:grr:

Please do not label people you don't like with the DLC label.

Reid is not DLC
Schumer is not DLC
Casey is not DLC
Brown is not DLC

So, tell me, how is the DLC deciding on these things WHEN NOBODY FROM THE DLC IS INVOLVED

[robcon]

119. The DLC is just a knee-jerk for some posters, IMO.

Whenever some posters don't like a decision, speech or position, they blame it on the DLC without a scrap of evidence. The DLC had NOTHING to do with the Hackett case, for example.

The guilt-by-association smearing that is going on is reprehensible. Reid is Reid; Schumer is Schumer, Rahm is Rahm. They stand on their own two feet, and are responsible for their actions/words. Not some organization they may/may not belong to, or may or may not be associated with.

Schumer is responsible for Democratic Party Senatorial money. Rahm for Democratic Party House of Representatives money. They can spend it where they want, after consultation: that is their responsibility. Pulling the rug out on Hackett by Schumer is done every day by both parties - an evaluation of the chances of winning is a strong component of spending strategy by both of them. Suggesting Hackett run for a House seat is Rahm's role.