David Sirota: DLC helps spread claim that 'progressives destroyed America"

[Wetzelbill]

8.24.05
DLC helps spread claim that 'progressives destroyed America'
There is a case to be made that Democrats should go on Fox News, even if it is a right-wing network, because the network blasts its content to the general public. But there is no case to be made that any non-right-wing lunatic should take part in an event at the fringe-conservative Heritage Foundation entitled "Did the Progressives Destroy America?" Unlike a Fox News show where you are speaking to potentially swing voters, there is no "general public" audience at this event - it is an event designed to perpetuate among the Washington, D.C. insider establishment the worst right-wing dishonesty. Any participation by our side helps legitimize this nonsense. Yet, incredibly, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is headlining the event.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EAF73B35-'903-A67D-D4CD06995808AC7D

[Mass]

1. Marshall again. When will he shut up?

[Cha]

2. NO, PROGRESSIVES

didn't Destroy AMerica.. THE bUSHWA IS DESTROYING AMERICA..AND YOU'RE HELPING IT.

Now Go Fuck Off!

The only good to come out of this Country was enacted by Liberalism.

The dlc can Bite its own Collective ass.

[Fovea]

3. Yes

We destroyed America with the forty hour work week, social security, organized labor, headstart, unemployment insurance, title 9, and Americans would be far better off like they were in 1929.

[RedCloud]

73. Plus...

ending the killing of native Americans, public education, saving the forest for those ingrate hunters, saving the air for those ingrate breath of life worshipers, ending slavery, giving a woman a chance to work for a living, etc.

[Fovea]

74. Yeah, we suck

don't we?

I sometimes wonder what sort of inner monologue lets people deny the shape of our history, even within their lifetimes?

It puzzles me how they can do this without becoming delusional.
Come to think of it, I guess they can't.

[LoZoccolo]

4. I like how people are responding to this...

...and the link doesn't even work, so I know they didn't read the article.

[K-W]

5. If you click on the link 'main' it brings you to his blog

So I imagine they all read it. It took me a few seconds to find it.

[Wetzelbill]

11. yeah, I should've mentioned that sometimes you have to click

on "main" to read the blog. But, you know, DUers are typically smart enough to figure that out. This isn't Freepville you know? :)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

10. Don't talk to me like that. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

7. oh for christ sake..it isn't hard to figure out how to find the article.

is that the best you can do? geesh.. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

9. I found the article from the front page, and now I think it's bullshit.

There's no mention of Marshall's actual role other than through the use of weasel words like "lend his name", and then without even quoting or linking to an official press release or anything about the event, tells us what Marshall is "really" doing there.

This is entirely spin. This editorial uses more right-wing tactics than the DLC. This anti-DLC movement has progressed from rational criticism to by-any-means-necessary...like the Republicans.

[Wetzelbill]

14. He sends his sources with his e-mails I don't know why they didn't pop up.

here.

Sources:
DLC participates in event about asking "Did the Progressives Destroy America?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/154043/959
DLC's Will Marshall calls Iraq War critics "anti-American":
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

[LoZoccolo]

16. The Kos article is not the original source.

It is possibly abridged. Kos is not an unbiased source, seeing as he wants to start the Kos Liberal Liberation Army.

[Wetzelbill]

20. Source for what?

that Will Marshall is going to appear at that event? Couldn't take you too long to look it up yourself I guess. There isn't anything biased about stating a fact, whether Kos or Sirota say it.

[LoZoccolo]

24. No one doubts the fact that Will Marshall is going to be at the event.

The bias is establishing Marshall's "real" intention without any evidence.

[K-W]

32. It doesnt matter what his intention is.

That is not the issue. The issue is that the organization called the DLC is participating in this event and must know full well that they are legitimizing a clearly bogus debate.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I've said all I want to about whether or not it legitimizes.

Like I said elsewhere, you don't wanna go down that road of everyone interpreting everything you do endlessly. It'll make your head hurt. It's total Maoist junk.

[K-W]

41. Maoist? Are you serious?

I dont know what road you are talking about. Do you have anything other than wild exagerations?

[LoZoccolo]

51. Hang out with a bunch of radicals sometime...

...or just read the stuff they hand out at the protests they try to co-opt. You'll find them endlessly interpreting just about everyone's actions except their own and whoever they've chosen to admire as nefarious and counterrevolutionary. You do not want this sort of environment in the Democratic Party. We've already seen it in action against Dean, with Al Sharpton's attacks on him. We all know that Dean didn't have any African-Americans in his cabinet because he's deliberately being racist, right?

[K-W]

52. Huh?

So this isnt about the topic of this thread at all, this is about your personal crusade against 'radicals'

[LoZoccolo]

54. It's related.

I'm saying you don't want to adopt radical tactics, and the Sirota article is a step in that direction.

[K-W]

56. I suppose when scientists refused to debate ID,

they were just adopting radical tactics.

[LoZoccolo]

37. "deliberately helping to legitimize the worst right-wing lies"

He used that word "deliberately". My original point was that the article was bullshit, and spin.

[K-W]

40. Are you suggesting the DLC acts randomly? EOM

[LoZoccolo]

45. No. (Lame.)

Do you think you do the anti-DLC movement any favors using such a transparently incredulous tactic?

Should I have more or less confidence in it after I see it's adherents engaged in this kind of nonsense?

[K-W]

47. Tactic? What on earth are you talking about.

I made a perfectly valid point which apparently flew right over your head.

Please explain to me exactly how the DLC could unintentionally agree to participate in an event.

[LoZoccolo]

48. That's not where I disagree with Sirota. n/t

[K-W]

50. Thats funny, you did in post 37. EOM

[LoZoccolo]

53. No.

There's a difference between what you're saying, and what he's saying. I think most people see it, so it doesn't really matter if I get the one guy who's not going to agree with me no matter what, and who's shown himself to engage in a lame bag of tricks, to try to admit it. At this point, I'm just trying to show other people what kind of lame stuff the anti-DLC movement will resort to.

[K-W]

57. Again instead of supporting your argument, you attack me.

You accuse me of using tricks and rhetoric, which is itself simply an example of your tricks and rhetoric.

What part of this are you not understanding. Sirota said deliberate because obviously DLC decisions are deliberate. If you have a problem with that, you need to explain how this could have been done accidentally.

[LoZoccolo]

60. My argument relates to tactics.

From my first post about Sirota it has. And as long as you continue to use lame tactics, it will also be about those.

[K-W]

64. That really doesnt explain why you dont support them. EOM

[LoZoccolo]

66. Because they're pretty transparent.

I think a lot of people will just look at them and know what I'm talking about. If someone wants to ask some questions about why, maybe I'll answer, but I don't think it's necessary. There are too many important things.

[K-W]

69. Too busy to back up your arguments.

How convienent.

[LoZoccolo]

71. Yep. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

62. Also, you seem remarkably incurious...

...about what I think the difference is between what Sirota said and what you say he said. Wouldn't you at least want to know what that is, if you think it's wrong?

[K-W]

65. So I am supposed to beg you to tell me what you think?

If you want to be coy and not explain yourself, that is your problem. And the arrogance it takes to think that only incurious people wouldnt inquire about your every opinion is impressive.

[LoZoccolo]

67. You don't have to beg.

But maybe later on in this philosophy course you're taking, you'll learn about class one and class two disagreements - though the concept is pretty rare, so I kind-of doubt it. A class one disagreement is one in which one side cannot explain the other's position to the other's satisfaction. A great amount of suffering in this world has to do with class one disagreements, and knowing that, you'll want to avoid consciously getting into them.

[K-W]

72. I see your english class never covered hyperbole.

Two can play at the silly patronizing.

[K-W]

17. There is no spin.

The factual nature of the claim does indeed rest on Sirota's credibility which you are free to doubt, but there is no spin to this.

It is like a biologist agreeing to debate an Intelligent designer in front of a biology class. It suggests there is some credence to the issue. Or do you think that perhaps progressives destroyed America?

[LoZoccolo]

19. All he says is that the real reason he's going is...

...some reason he made up, giving no evidence that would lead us to believe his explanation rather than Marshall's, other than Sirota says it's the "real" one...according to the inclinations of his own mind.

I am ashamed that DUer's do not know spin when they see it.

It is like a biologist agreeing to debate an Intelligent designer in front of a biology class. It suggests there is some credence to the issue.

To you, maybe, if you want something to complain about.

Or do you think that perhaps progressives destroyed America?

Why do you hate America? :eyes:

[Eloriel]

27. I'm ashamed a DUer is defending his appearing at a Heritage Fdn

event to start with AND can't seem to get Sirota's absolutely sterling point: his very presence lends validity to the lie.

[LoZoccolo]

28. I'm ashamed that Cindy Sheehan is legitimizing Iraq War II.

Of course, I'm not, but that's pretty close to the same logic.

[K-W]

30. Pretty close to the same logic doesnt count for much of anything.

If you can find the same logic, let me know.

[LoZoccolo]

36. I think my point is made. n/t

[K-W]

42. Yes, that your argument is similar to valid. EOM

[K-W]

29. You are the only one spinning here.

He has made a logical argument that attending this event lends credibility to a question that is highly offensive to progressives, and that it was an intentional choice because anyone in washington would know this.

To you, maybe, if you want something to complain about.

No, I dont want something to complain about. I see you unlike Sirota do enjoy attributing unsupported motivations to my claims in an attempt discredit them.

I would prefer if nobody calling themselves democrats would take part in a heritage foundation propaganda honing exercise. But unfortunately I got something to complain about.

Why do you hate America? :eyes:

Why do you think that retort makes any sense? I didnt ask you why you thought progressives were destroying America, in fact I assumed you didnt think that, which you can see in the context of my post. I was suggesting that someone who doesnt think that question has any validity should understand why such an event should not be attended by Democrats who claim not to be ideologically opposed to progressives.

[LoZoccolo]

34. Nah, that's not logical.

To believe that is to basically say that any time you confront someone, you make them look important enough to confront, but in a good way...you don't wanna go there. You will likely get accused of the same thing someday, and you'll regret it. You don't want that kind of criticism/self-criticism session coming at you someday...trust me, you don't want to legitimize these kinds of tactics, these types of accusations. They'll come right back at you if you're not careful.

Like I said elsewhere, you could make the same argument against Cindy Sheehan, saying that because she intends to ask Bush* that one question, that she's saying that there might be a good answer to it.

Anyways, maybe Sirota's somewhat right - I'd agree it is futile to argue with some people, so that's as far as I'm going to go with this "yes he is"/"no he isn't". I just think it's stupid and right now I'm basically letting people know that it's alright if they think it's stupid too.

Why do you think that retort makes any sense?

Exactly. It was there to make as much sense as yours.

[K-W]

43. Whether or not you agree, it is a valid argument.

And you are wrong, I do want to go there, because no, I will never be accused of such a thing because I would never take such a stupid action. I dont know about you, but I can garuntee I will never participate in an event that asks such an offensive propagandistic question.

Exactly. It was there to make as much sense as yours.

That is the lamest excuse I have ever read.

[LoZoccolo]

46. It doesn't matter if it's valid. (Lame.)

I went to college too, you know. That's a lame trick, along with the other one about whether or not I think progressives are destroying America (later in your intro philosophy course, they'll teach you that that is a "false dichotomy").

Why would anyone listen to you, if you're just going to rely on tricks like this these. Republicans do this junk all the time...do you fall for that?

To everyone else: are these the kind of people you want taking over the party? Do you think they'll do the best thing to help us get what we want when their rhetoric is peppered with lame tricks and (wannabe) coercive tactics used against people in their own party? Do you think if you were a Democratic strategist trying to plan with a few others, that you'd like someone in the room pulling this kind of junk?

[K-W]

49. You dont think it matters if arguments are valid or not?

I guess that tells me all I need to know.

As far as your rediculous rhetoric, Ill let that speak for itself.

[LoZoccolo]

55. No, of course not.

It's not enough for them to be valid. They have to be sound.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm

[K-W]

58. You should read that link sometime, it proves you wrong.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.

If your argument is not valid, it cant be sound.

[LoZoccolo]

59. *yawn*

Yes I know that when I said that. That's why I said it has to be sound, because it encompassed that as well.

Anyways, I think my point is proven, both in reference to Sirota, and thanks to you, the anti-DLC movement in general.

[K-W]

61. So you knew it proved you wrong when you posted it

to support your claim.

Well thats special.

You have yet to prove a single point.

You have however proven that you have a great deal of confidence in your very poor attempts to smear me and any critics of the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

63. Wrong.

I have yet to get you to admit I've proven my point, which I don't care if I do. I just think it'll be funny if anybody actually goes and reads this thread.

[K-W]

68. Wrong? How so?

You claimed that you did not care about the validity of your arguments and then posted a link that explained that validity is neccessary for an argument to be sound.

I think the funniest thing here is that you are so attached to your silly rhetoric about other people reading my posts and seeing they are stupid that you are using it in an exchange that is probably not going to be read by many people other than us.

[LoZoccolo]

70. It does not matter if arguments are valid alone.

Happy?

[fighttheevilempire]

39. Refusing to acknowledge the problems

and refusing to deal with them head-on only makes things worse.

I agree the DLC will totally screw up, and they shouldn't be there. We do, however, need real liberals to start standing up and confronting the pretzeldent and his cronies. Silence is validation. Silence makes it easy for people to believe that everyone supports the 5 years of insanity.

[K-W]

44. We arent talking about confronting the Bush administration.

We are talking about whether the DLC should be the Colmes to the Heritage Foundation's Hannity at an event that is clearly designed to smear progressives.

[Eloriel]

18. Entirely spin? What COULD he be doing there that's positive?

It's not like the DLC has been so eager to embrace leftists, ya know? Not a big leap of logic there.

[LoZoccolo]

23. It depends on what you mean by progress.

I think this more progressive than anything you'd find coming out of the Heritage Foundation. Emphasis mine, of course.

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none. We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy.

We believe that government programs should be grounded in the values most Americans share: work, family, personal responsibility, individual liberty, faith, tolerance, and inclusion.

We believe in community; that we can achieve our individual destinies only if we share a commitment to our national destiny. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the commonwealth.

We believe America has a responsibility to lead the world toward greater political and economic freedom.

We believe that as advocates of activist government, we need to reinvent government so that it is both more responsive and more accountable to those it serves and to the taxpayers who pay for it.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Sorry, I forgot to link.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

[Eloriel]

26. VERY pretty words

Too bad about (a) their other, contradictory rhetoric and (b) their contradictory actions.

Talk is cheap. They make it cheaper still.

[bpilgrim]

75. insistence is their whole problem

they don't play nice with others and refuse to evolve... and we know what nature & history thinks of those kinds.

LOSERS

:evilgrin:

peace

[Eloriel]

12. You got a better way to respond to it? Also -- corrected link

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EAF73B35-9903-A67D-D4CD06995808AC7D


What's there to say about it that can POSSIBLY make it right? Hmmm? (This should be good.)

[LoZoccolo]

15. See #9. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

21. thanks for the link, Eloriel

[K-W]

8. The DLC is going to play Colmes to the Heritage Foundation's Hannity

For a rousing bout of liberal bashing.

[merkins]

13. Working Link Here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EAF73B35-9903-A67D-D4CD06995808AC7D

... POX on the DLC ...

[wli]

22. proof positive the DLC are neocon moles n/t

[KoKo]

31. And here's a link to an article that describes the DLC Moles

in case anyone has questions about what we are faced with, The Strategy Class:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x149926

and here's the link to the full article:


{b]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/berman

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. Thank you for posting the article--Here is a link for Sirota's E-mail list

Be sure to sign-up at this link:

http://www.davidsirota.com/

[Wetzelbill]

38. yeah it is worth it

I've received his stuff for a while now.