Watching Ford and Kos reveals the

[Subdivisions]

rift that continues to exist within in the Democratic Party between Liberals and "Centrists".

If Democrats are going to establish a new paradigm of leadership in this country, that rift is going to have to close...and FAST!

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "Centrists"?

Please don't accept their framing. They are not centrists, they are rightwingers.

[Subdivisions]

2. Noted. I have "quotated" the term in my OP. So,

seeing "Centrists" as RWers, do you think the rift can be closed or is this going to continue to be a steadfast wedge between the two factions and, if so, what does that mean for Party unity in not only the next election but thereafter?

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Good questions.

So this rift has been there in many forms for quite a while. Back in the late 80's early 90's when the rightwing corporatist wing took over complete control of the party, the progressive wing either stayed home or went along for the ride. (Some went to the Green Party for presidential elections, but not really all that many.) If in fact the progressive wing of the party became dominant I would expect the corporatist wing to walk away. They will not play with us if they cannot make the rules and set the agenda. From the sorry history of that brief moment in 72 when we captured control of the party organization, I'd say they will do everything and anything to sabotage and destroy a progressive Democratic Party.

[leftchick]

3. exactly

they are more extreme than my fundie mother.

[H2O Man]

6. I agree.

And it is very important to note that distinction. Thank you.

[creeksneakers2]

4. The DLC is too interested in global military supremacy

America can't afford to keep up the rest of a Democratic agenda with such a large chunk of tax dollars being wasted on the military.

The DLC perpetuates the myth the failure to submit to the military industrial complex will make Democrats look weak. Concurrently, the DLC advocates a world policeman foreign policy.

Eventually, the DLC has to go. Meanwhile, I'd be glad to see both sides work together on whatever they have in common.

[HereSince1628]

5. The DLC espouse an arrogant elitism that's very pre-internet.

The only gaps I'm gonna close with them are the ones between my front door and its jamb, and weaknesses in my spam filter.

Their shit aint' welcome around me.

[mmonk]

7. Speaking as one designated by others now as "liberal",

there is no chance. They have to choose democracy or else, I'm through voting.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. I will never abandon voting

but I would consider abandoning a political party that does not represent my interests.

[mmonk]

24. That's good

but at some point, I will understand the thinking of those that say it doesn't matter. I will continue to be an activist until I'm too old (which is coming) or I'm able to leave and land somewhere where I won't have to worry so much. I'm reaching the point where I'll say fine, live under rightwing dictatorships pretending to be democratic and where information is suppressed, but I'm leaving. The recent capitulation on absolute rule the congress gave the executive branch has shaken me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Yes FISA shook me up too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1565999&mesg_id=1565999

[billyoc]

8. Let the DLC join the republican party where they belong.

"Rift" closed.

[Me.]

9. The Gap Doesn't Exist

The way it's shaping up, there is the DLC, Blue Dog, Republicon branch of the Democratic Party and then there is the democratic wing of the Democratic party. The party and the country are moving left, that's the majority. The DLC version of how things should be is being winnowed out. There isn't enough there to be a gap. Margaret Carlson just said on MTP that the views of the democratic base are the views of the American majority.

[OzarkDem]

11. Agree, its imaginary

DLC has no support among voters, no identity even. Their positions on issues are out of synch.

If they disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't cause a ripple on the political scene, esp. at the grassroots voting level.

[Doremus]

10. Marco was brilliant by the way.

That is all.

:)

[MissWaverly]

12. yes, they don't like him, he says he won't pick a candidate

they don't like his asking the candidate to address the people, what they want is to continue the old boys club of
picking the candidate, the last thing they want is to upset the beltway machine.

[antigop]

16. deleted -- posted in wrong spot -sorry n/t

deleted

[BlooInBloo]

15. Who's Marco?

[MissWaverly]

20. Markos is the webmaster of Daily Kos

you might go over there if you haven't done so, most DUers go over there as well as here, I prefer here for actual discussion.

:-)

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yes, I know that. I was wondering who Marco was.

[FredScuttle]

38. Polo

n/t

[Doremus]

39. Thanks for pointing out that typo.

Not once, but twice. I'll assume, from your insistent correction, that you've never made any.

I bow to your superior typing skills. :hi:

[antigop]

13. The Nation: Debunking Centrism:

Please see this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x300517

[MissWaverly]

23. agree, their centrism is sellout to corporate interests

we certainly have had enough of that over the last 30 years by the GOP under the guise of "ownership" society.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Um, that rift has been "revealed" for YEARS.

EDIT: We had a across-the-board winning election a year ago. There's no problem, despite what fear-mongers say.

[antigop]

17. David Sirota: WAPOST: Find your true center

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

From June 11, 2006 Washington Post
>>
If Democrats ever want to regain their status as a majority party, they must move to the center. But that means moving to the real center -- one very different from Washington's definition of the term.

Inside the Beltway, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) is called a "centrist" because he still supports President Bush's misguided policies in Iraq; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) proved his centrist credentials when he helped gut consumer bankruptcy protections; Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is a centrist because he votes for corporate-written, wage-destroying trade deals. And former senator John Breaux (D-La.), now a corporate lobbyist, was labeled the ultimate centrist after working to stop Congress from cracking down on the drug and health industry profiteers who backed his campaigns.

These are just a few examples of how many high-profile Democrats promote the Beltway's idea of centrism -- focused on perpetuating the status quo and abetting the influence of corporate interests that finance political campaigns. But with a centrism like this, so far outside the real center of public opinion, no wonder the Democratic Party keeps losing congressional elections.
>>

[annabanana]

21. Exellent article. .

Glad to see it at WaPo. .

[rurallib]

26. What I have been saying for years

I used to be considered a moderate. Now according to current standards as voiced by the media I am a wild eyed radical lefty. My views have hardly changed. I have always felt my views will be back in the middle soon. I just hope there is a country left.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Centrists?

More like DINOs.

[EFerrari]

33. The Left?! More like Centrists.

lol

[marions ghost]

27. It's getting so

Dem "centrists" just seems like such an anachronism.

I don't pay any attention anymore. Does anyone?

It's not about these labels now IMO. You're either on the bus or off the bus.

I'm not wasting time worrying about how to bridge the "rift."

[Subdivisions]

28. Addendum to OP: I seem to have made an unfortunate parsing

of words, as I am apt to do when trying to create a post while jumping around several websites and watching TV and listening to streams all at the same time.

What I meant by "closing the rift" between the DLC and the rest of us was that to be unified, the DLC has to come off their war-mongering, corporate pandering, and handing Bush absolution for his deadly agenda. I am in no way suggesting that progressive Dems should join with DLCers in order to unify the party. Afterall, DLCers are the exception, rather than the rule.

There was also some degree of concern in my thought process for the fact that if Clinton becomes the nominee, then what will Progressive Dems do? I feel that, as a Democrat, I'll have to support her nomination despite her DLC affiliation. Some of you in this thread have stated unequivocally your disdain for the DLC. Who will you support if a DLCer becomes the nominee?

I also want to take this opportunity to qualify my postition with respect to activist politics. I have always voted Democrat because I have always believed more in Democratic philosophy than with conservative philosophies. However, I am relatively new to activist politics. The impeachment of Bill Clinton is what spurred me into a more active roll in the political process. Before that, I was like most Americans that bother to vote. I voted not based on an intimate knowledge of the mechanics of the Democratic Party but on which candidate made more music in my ears. The bush years have served to exacerbate my displeasure with conservative politics and that's how I ended up on DU. Having said that, if I seem at times naive on certain aspects of the politics game, it's because I'm a relative noob to its complex mechanics. But I promise you, I'm trying REAL hard to learn more!

[madfloridian]

29. Heh heh

Nice post. But don't forget something about DU...no matter how much you learn people here know better know more and sure let you know it. Just when you think you have it all down pat, they change the playing field here.



:evilgrin:

:hi:

[creeksneakers2]

31. Welcome to DU

You started an interesting thread. Lots of opinion creation comes from gut level instinct. You know what you are talking about in regards to facts and information. Certainly enough to participate as an equal. Few in the world even know what the DLC is.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. If one of the annointed three become our candidate

I will once again reluctantly work for and vote for his or her election. I will feign enthusiasm as best I can. I will give money and time. I will lie. I will expect more of the same with a slight left tilt come 1-20-09. This is the current reality. Sad, isn't it?

[bridgit]

30. it reminded me somewhat of the disparity between rubber v. road folks...

i.e. Ford just went through a rather ugly exchange himself/personally in his campaign, and the point & click silicon tower folks :shrug:

[SharonAnn]

32. Where the rubber meets the sky? Or where the rubber meets the road?

I'm a "where the rubber meets the road."

It's how policies affect me and my family that I care about most.

If they're not helpful to us, they're not helpful to most of the country.

[bridgit]

35. one thing is abundantly clear; republicans have to go

[BlooInBloo]

34. Kos has been waiting for YEARS for exactly this platform to rip the establishment a new one.

[cmkramer]

40. It might help

if people like Markos would stop lying about the DLC. He claimed that the DLC was responsible for the bridge collapse in Minnesota because of the Bush tax cuts. I hate to break it to that lying weasel but the DLC opposed the Bush tax cuts and recommended that the Democrats not vote for it.

http://www.newdemocratmagazine.net/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3368&kaid=131&subid=192">DLC on Bush tax cuts

"The tax cut bill that Senate Finance Committee has now sent to the Senate floor reflects the efforts of the Committee's "centrist coalition," led by Senator John Breaux (D-LA), to take a bad bill and make it better. It cuts millions of low-income families in on the tax cut bonanza, and reduces the windfall of top earners from a cataract to a mere fountain. We fully understand why some New Democrats felt obliged to cut a deal with the Republicans in order to secure these concessions, and why others may hold their noses and vote for the final product as the best available given GOP control of the White House and both Houses of Congress.

But in the end, the cumulative effect of the Senate's changes in the Bush tax plan, from the reduction of its size to the marginal changes in its composition, has been to put earrings on a warthog. Sure, it looks better, but it's still a warthog. It's too big to be consistent with long-term fiscal discipline and economic growth; too incoherent to support any rational economic policy for the country; and far too loaded with goodies for people who are doing extremely well under current tax policies. . .

In the end, we hope as many New Democrats as possible vote "no," for all the reasons we have enumerated above and in our many comments on the budget and tax debate. Yes, a big tax cut is inevitable now, and yes, we're glad New Democrats worked to put earrings on that warthog. But as we suggested in the latest issue of Blueprint magazine, this is a debate that's about more than taxes: it represents a "big choice" between building on the successful economic policies of the 1990s, or returning to the failed economic policies of the 1980s, at a time when a New Economy demands fiscal discipline, higher living standards, and a vastly better-trained and educated population. The Senate Finance Committee bill, for all its relative merits, still takes the wrong fork at that crossroads, and moves our country towards the past, not the future."

[Marr]

41. If they want to join the Democratic Party, that's fine.

We're over <--- here.

They're welcome to get in the boat-- but they can't steer it anymore. They can't even get near the wheel.

[cboy4]

42. I obviously wanted Ford to win in Tennessee. But boy oh boy,

I'm no big fan.

And I'm absolutely not losing any sleep over his loss -- especially since we were able to win in '06.