Mike Miles (CO) Senate Candidate - Open Letter to CO DLC - This is Great

[otohara]

Dear Mr. Gibson and the Colorado Democratic Leadership Conference,

I realize that you are struggling to explain our campaign’s victory (52% - 48%) at the State Assembly, but it is inexcusable for you to attack the very Democrats who care most about this Party. I myself am struggling to understand why you would accuse the majority of the Democrats at the Assembly of being out of touch with mainstream values.

Perhaps I can help you put your finger on the pulse of the rank and file: they are tired of politics as usual and want leaders to address their concerns. That’s why Howard Dean garnered so much support, why groups like MoveOn.org grew so quickly, why Dennis Kucinich still has a strong following, and why Democrats attended the State Assembly in record numbers and favored my team.

The DLC’s at-least-we’re-left-of-the-Republicans approach might be considered wise except that that approach is not working! The wages of our silence have been numerous failed policies, a less secure America, and an America that has lost its way.

My team continues to gain momentum for three reasons:

1) Our message resonates. Our supporters believe that if we are to solve the major problems of our time, politicians must fight not only the fights they can win, but also the fights that need fighting. They agree with our effective solutions in health care, education, foreign policy, the environment.

It is our positions that are mainstream. Most Coloradoans are opposed to school vouchers and almost anyone who has to work with NCLB understands that it is bad legislation. Coloradoans of all political persuasions believe health care is the number one domestic issue and that we need a systemic solution. More and more Americans believe we should have been slower to invade Iraq and most Democrats support my steps for reconstructing Iraq. No, Mr. Gibson, the Democrats at the State Assembly knew exactly which positions they wanted to support, and they are more in touch with the rank-and-file than the DLC.

2) Ours is a grassroots effort. Our team has been running a campaign of, by, and for the people – in deeds, not just words. We’re engaging ordinary people and recapturing the true spirit of democracy. Our tag line – be the change – comes from Gandhi’s “be the change you want to see in the world.” Our volunteers have taken this to heart. Every core team member believes the overall success of the campaign is dependent upon her actions – and it does. Indeed, at some point our campaign turned into a movement and people began to work not so much for the candidate, but for a cause.

3) Ours is a campaign of hope and of heart. Ours is a campaign of possibilities and a belief that ordinary people can make a difference. There is a longing among the people for the simplicity and heart of a Seabiscuit; of a campaign that will champion the causes of ordinary people; of a campaign that’s not too calculating or tied to a political machine.

You see, Mr. Gibson, it’s not so much that the Democrats at the assembly are out of touch, it’s that they believe in something larger than themselves.

For my part, I believe in them. I may have to run on your track and under the rules of the establishment, but I’m not running for you or for the people in the boxes – I’m running for the people in the infield. Be the change.

http://www.mikemiles4senate.com/new/

[For PaisAn]

1. wow

that is great.

[WillyT]

2. Excellent !!! - The DLC Needs To Get Its Head Out Of Its Ass !!!

And NOT just in Colorado!!!

Join the base boys, the water's just fine!!!

:kick:

[Senior citizen]

3. Beautiful! A Democratic Party

by the people, for the people, and of the people, would be, uh, dare I say it...... DEMOCRATIC! When the leadership doesn't have the votes, they have to follow or get out of the way. (Which way did they go--I'm their leader.)

Mike Miles rocks!

[ClassWarrior]

58. He plays a mean bass too...

...for REM.

[Kanary]

4. *THIS* is why I'll continue to work for Mike!

The man sees clearly........ just like Dennis, and has the courage to tell it like it is.

If only we had so many more of this caliber!

Kanary

[loudsue]

5. Now THAT'S my kind of Dem!!!

I hadn't heard about him until now, but I sure like what I hear. Anybody that's ready to kick the repukes in the Dem party (the DLC'ers) out on their arses has my support!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Kanary]

26. We can only hope that Mike will get support from other states, too.

[ibegurpard]

30. If he's the candidate, I'll send him some money.

eom

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Thanks for printing that!

Mike Miles is absolutely awsome, and I'm glad that some more people on this board are getting a chance to see that.

I've been absolutely disgusted with the party machine here, and with the media, esp. the Denver Post, which continues to pretend that Miles doesn't exist.

By the way, I get to see him on Wed. He's going to be in Boulder.:bounce:

[punpirate]

7. Good. Give that man...

... a chocolate popsicle, a pat on the back and a few bucks in his campaign.

The DLC works for business, and this says the DLC doesn't work for ordinary people. About time someone made it plain to Al From that the DLC is not working for the Democratic base.

Good luck to Miles, and I hope he carries through.

[Zhade]

8. Indeed. Fuck the corporatist DLC.

Fuck them right in the ear!

[bread_and_roses]

9. An unashamed Democrat?

"It is our positions that are mainstream." Yes! I never heard of this guy but I sure hope he keeps this up.

[Finch]

10. Nominate Miles and Lose...

...he's the Dem version of Pat Toomey... Salazar is your only chance of winning in Co and what is more Salazar is a darn good candidate by himself and will make a fine Senator... Miles is just a belligerent "bomb thrower" who will alienate people, most of them moderate independents or moderate Dems both groups essential to winning in CO and Nationally.

That said the Republicans could be stupid and not nominate Coors... his beer sucks but he has a record as a moderate. Miles vs Coors I would be tempted to back Coors as would many moderate Dems. Salazar however would get my vote in an instant. What i don't understand is why these Liberals seem to think the DLC is this big evil organization controlling the DNC, it isn't! Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton these are not moderates these are liberals people, if the DLC really was in control, Harold Ford would be house leader, Harry Reid would be Senate Leader, Ed Rendell would be the heir apparent in 2008 and Jo Lieberman would be our nominee... I'll say thus again the DLC DOES NOT control the Democratic Party!

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Are you a DLC apologist?

Sure seems like it to me.

My DLC opponent is against paper ballots...she thwarted legislation that would have protected my vote. She raises fat cash from corporations...Who is she beholden to...the people like I am...I would hazard a guess and say not.

[CTLawGuy]

13. Why wasn't the DLC

complaining about Kerry during the primaries as much as they were Dean? Could it be because they back kerry?

And if the DLC is NOT in control, explain these things...

1. Our nominee supports a 5% corp. tax cut (not liberal, in any sense of the word)
2. Our nominee and a lot of his Democratic buddies supported Bush's war.
3. Our nominee would rather keep most of Bush's tax cuts rather than balance the budget or save social security.
4. The Dem party is deathly afraid to stand up for gay marriage.
5. Tom Daschle is our senate leader, and from a red state.
6. Dick Gephardt was our house leader for several years, and is from a red state.
7. The Dem party fell in line to support the Patriot Act.
8. Our nominee is open to appointing anti-choice judges.
9. Our nominee voted with President Bush 72% of the time in 2002, while paradoxically managing to vote with his party leadership 92% of the time. http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=b5d04a4491707c77863481b462c3f8d9
10. In 2002 the Dems were afraid to run against the President, or stand for anything different than the Republicans, and ended up getting slaughtered at the polls. (I'm sure the liberals cooked that idea up :eyes:)

[Finch]

38. explained!... here's my rebuttle...

"Our nominee supports a 5% corp. tax cut (not liberal, in any sense of the word)"

Not Liberal However it does boost Middle and Working Class Spending power and that will help reduce the deficit unlike the Bush tax cuts which favour the Rich. So no it’s not Liberal, will it be popular? Yes, Will it help the economy and the budget deficit? Yes.

"Our nominee and a lot of his Democratic buddies supported Bush's war."

Almost every Dem in the senate supported the Iraq War Resolution Bill. And with the evidence which the Bush administration presented to them I would be worried if someone hadn't given voting for it some serious thought. That Evidence we now know to have been flawed.

"Our nominee would rather keep most of Bush's tax cuts rather than balance the budget or save social security"

See what I said at the top, tax cuts when properly targeted (unlike Bush's) produce revenue and help the economy by boosting spending, saving and investment.

"The Dem party is deathly afraid to stand up for gay marriage"

Personally I think Gay Marriage is a good thing as it promotes stable and loving relationships. But the Federal government does not have the right to impose a specific line on the issue what the Dems have done and what many republicans have done also is oppose the constitutional amendment proposed by Bush. It is a state issue but Civil Unions within one state should have some bearing in all other states. But you just can't legislate either way not Kerry or Bush.

"Tom Daschle is our senate leader, and from a red state."

So what he's from a Republican State. That means nothing. He has a solid Voting record and has done quite well. He should not be Majority Leader he just isn't suited to it... but there is little wrong with Daschle as a Senator from a conservative state.

"Dick Gephardt was our house leader for several years, and is from a red state"

He's one of the most economically leftwing members of congress he's on a par with Tom Harkin. Socially He's also a pretty mainstream Liberal, problem was economically he is little different to Mondale or Humphrey the last to "Big Labour" nominees. Also MO is not a red state it’s a swing state, it leans towards the GOP this time around, but its voted for the winner in every election since 1956 (JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton included).

"The Dem party fell in line to support the Patriot Act."

In the immediate wake of 9/11 you can understand this. And it has helped in part to prevent terrorist action. Much of what has been done as a result of the PA was already used by federal agencies in other actions. However I think a review is in order, but a nee-jerk reaction would be silly. That said I don't trust Ashcroft one bit with the power the PA gives him.

"Our nominee is open to appointing anti-choice judges"

He said so long as they uphold the Roe v Wade ruling. I'm Fine with that; nothing would be altered from how things stand now. I'm pro-life but I think a woman should have the option of aborting the pregnancy in the first trimmest, Even though I would argue against every having an abortion except in exceptional circumstances. Personally While I think a person has a right to end their life (Suicide or Euthanasia) I simply cannot say a person has the right to end a child's life.

"Our nominee voted with President Bush 72% of the time in 2002, while paradoxically managing to vote with his party leadership 92% of the time."

Figures like that are meaningless, just as Bush and Co saying that Kerry voted against something 70 times without explaining it was amendments. This is a non-issue.

"In 2002 the Dems were afraid to run against the President, or stand for anything different than the Republicans, and ended up getting slaughtered at the polls."

Hardly. The Dems ran hard against Bush on the economy and poll indicated that they would do well. However Bush's intervention (at a time when he was a big boost for the GOP amongst moderates) turned the debate to national security something that in the wake of 9/11 and the destruction of the Taliban. It would have seemed silly to as a national party take issue with. Some Democrats did (Wellstone for example, who was in a very tight race right up until he died) but overall and in places like GA, MO, NC etc... The suggestion of opposition to the president’s foreign policy was well exploited by the GOP to assist their candidates. So suggesting that we should have been the "antiwar party" in 2002 is silly and ill-advised. On the Economic and Social issues we lead the GOP all the way through but towards the end Bush got heavily involved and turned the debate to Foreign Policy and Defence, we had not way of dealing this he was attacking us, some turned to the left and attacked Bush and that didn't help some where quite and managed to either lose to claw their way to a win but generally it was not because we failed in out message it was because we had no unified message on that issue, but opposing what? The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? The war on terror? All of this wouldn't have worked and where it was tried in MN and to an extent in MO it didn't work even Cleland got attacked for it. In Conclusion the failures of the Dems in the 2002 midterms where down to a failure to keep the issue the "economy" and allowing Bush (With circumstances greatly favouring him)to move the emphasis of the campaign on to foreign policy and the "war on terror"... being the "anti-war party" would not have helped at all.

So there you go...explained :)

[goodhue]

54. "explanation" regarding item number 2 is belied by facts . . .

Your post states: "Almost every Dem in the senate supported the Iraq War Resolution Bill." In fact 21 US Senators voted against the IWR.

For the record they were:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[ibegurpard]

55. Not to mention the majority of the House Democrats.

eom

[goodhue]

57. good point!

81 House Democrats voted Yea, 126 House Democrats voted Nay.

The 133 house members who voted against the IWR were:

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml#N

[Cheswick2.0]

16. no one said the DLC controls the party

But they are trying awfully hard and they need to be destroyed. They have caused enough damage.

[Finch]

43. I wouldn't...

...call winning the white house in 1992 and 1992 damage. Nor would I say that Gore campaign in 2000, Landrieu's win in 2002, Blanco in 2003, Herseth in South Dakota or Ben Chandler's win a short while ago (all candidate backed by the DLC and the conservative and moderate sections of the Democratic Party)...

If you are looking at the Republican "Gingrich revolution" in 1994. That can largely be attributed to many conservative Dems (Dixiecrats) retiring (check the figures if you like) added to this Clinton's first year in office was not good (the same was true of Reagan) however (like Reagan) the economy recovered and boomed and Clinton cruised to an easy win. But southern support for "Gingrich Republicans" (Right wing Populism really, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism)remain at the "congressional level" and hence you have a very firm base for the GOP in congress. While nationally social issues became important most people being inclined to perhaps traditional views but accepting of homosexuality, limited access to abortion and single parent families, but most people strongly rejected the extremism of both the left and the right. However once again the Republicans managed to be closer to ordinary people their values (while at times tacking extreme forms in the case of the likes of Santorum) in essence where similar to "average Americans" while the more secular, libertarian views extolled by many Democrats alienated these voters.

[HFishbine]

18. "I would be tempted to back Coors"

And people wonder why the DLC is despised.

[Finch]

34. I'm not DLC...

I'm Blue Dog... a conservative Dem, I'm closer to Coors than Miles. Deal, many conservative southern Dem's and moderate independents are the same.

[HFishbine]

36. Great

circular logic. BTW, your avatar?

[Finch]

39. Well...

...The DLC is a pretty broad group with Kerry, Hillary and Feinstein on the Left and Bayh, Lieberman and Breaux on the right and the the likes of Richardson, Dodd, Daschle, Levin etc... in the center... it a group that likes to promote radical and interesting polices that work for the American people and form a electoral perspective rather than being a group representing one specific strand of political thought like the "progressive caucasus" or the "blue dog coalition".

[HFishbine]

45. Hmm

Interesting that you should write that. Several days ago I posted a question asking what agenda the DLC supported. There were no answers. Now you assert that the DLC promotes "radical and interesting polices." Any specifics?

[ibegurpard]

46. Of course not.

Their talking points are meant for consumption by the people who don't have the time or interest to do much digging.

[HFishbine]

50. Funny, isn't it?

I recognize that people are under no obligation to respond to questions here, and maybe Finch had to log off, but it is getting to be a running joke that asking DLC supporters what agenda items or goals of the DLC they support is met with silence. It does appear as if the best that can be offered is the vague and meaningless "moderation."

[Finch]

56. Yes I did have to sign off...

...but to be fair the DLC doesn't have a "line"... unlike say the Progressive Caucus or the Blue Dog Colalition. I'm a Blue Dog if anything;

I believe that Abortion is not a good thing I do not believe that there is a credible argument for it as a form of “contraception”, however I belive that while I personally would only support an Abortion in extraordinary circumstances, I think that a woman should have the option of aborting a pregnancy in the first trimester. Furthermore I believe that while a person does not have the right to end another’s life they do have right to end their life if they are of sound mind and wish to so suicide or euthanasia I believe are a persons right.

I believe that there is a positive role for government in people's lives. In Education all children and young people must be given the chance to excel, background should never be a barrier to personal achievement and the Federal Government must provide the support for State to help achieve this. However in terms of funding etc… I am open to what works, I do not accept “ideological disputes” over how “pure” the sources of funds or management are, so long as they have no radical agenda or any over or hurtful “agenda” if they can provide a good and enriching education then I see no reason why they should not assist Government (at both the State and Federal level) in providing this service.

In Health Care, I Believe that the government should aim to ensure as many people as possible however what must be done now is what is practical, those at risk the old, the young, those with disorders that impinge upon their health should all be given priority in the provision of health coverage.

Welfare is an emotive issue for many within the party but for me welfare can be a terrible waste. Welfare cannot be a “lifestyle” it cannot be provided upon a permanent basis, However those who are unable to work or those who are working but are unable to cover all their costs should be offered financial assistance form the state however this should be viewed as a temporary solution.

In Foreign Policy while the way the Bush Administration has gone about furthering US interests and prompting democracy and free enterprise has been ill-advised, it is not in of its self wrong. The justification we where given for war in Iraq was at best flawed and at worst a down right lie and this I condemn. However I do believe that American has both a duty to promote democracy and free-enterprise around the world and to also further her own national interests. As we enter what the CIA seem to have assessed with its “Global Trends 2020 Project” will be an unstable future we must be able to assure that the standard of living enjoyed within the United States and her allies must be secured while at the same time we must recognise that we do have obligations to other nations as one of the most powerful states on earth. Furthermore aggression against the United States must not be tolerated and unbearable pressure must be quickly brought to bear upon the perpetrators as it was in Afghanistan.

Tax Cuts- I do not believe that this party should be committed to rolling back the taxes for the middle class. What we must instead do is to cut taxes further for both the middle and lower income groups as well as small to medium sized business and provide further tax breaks for those business offering to establish themselves in areas of high unemployment. The present Tax cuts must be decried by the party as highly regressive, we must stress that we wish to extend the tax cuts for the middle and lower classes however we must also move to raises taxes upon the better off who presently enjoy very low taxes and yet do not give a great deal back to this nation through saving, investment or spending within the United States.

Tariffs- I believe that this party must recognise that the imposition of tariffs on foreign goods in an attempt to boost our native manufacturers is almost always a temporary solution, that said this does not mean that they should never be employed however it must be recognised that they are a short term delay rather than a solution in of themselves. There have been calls for tariffs to be imposed in an effort to boost manufacturing, however at this time I do not believe that this party should endorse such a policy (at least for the moment), it should be stressed that we view the introductions of tariffs as a viable tool to assisting industry but not an end in their self and a tool that at this time it would seem unwise to use as with hiring in manufacturing at a 16 year high, the Steel Industry doing well thanks to massive demand from China and with America gaining more and more “white collar” jobs, in short this would not seem to be the time to resort to tariffs.

Spending- We must put aside any plans to spend large amounts in the near future on such critical areas as health or education instead the primary concern of any democratic administration should be to eliminate the budget deficit and restructure the present spending of the government in both Health and Education. This party must call for a repeal of the Prescription-Drug Bill, it must be denounced for its exorbitant cost and the fact that in reality helps few people, a new bill must be proposed to replace this one which allows for a sustainable expansion of medical coverage to include more Americans. In education the “No Child Left Behind” program must be seen to have failed, states must be seen to shoulder the burden for the cost of education however we must advocate that the federal government support the states financially in a significant way, it must not cut and run as has been the case. So to summarise this party must take as its first order of business in economic policy to either massively reduce the budget deficit or eliminate it entirely and as part of this process to radically restructure the wasteful and unsustainable spending plans that are presently the norm.

Gay Marriage- It must not be the Federal Government’s role to legislate about whom may marry whom and any attempt to amended the constitution, in such a way should be opposed by this party. At the same time, once more, this issue should be left up to state governments to decide.

Racial Affirmative Action- Affirmative action is a source of some concern as it presently stands. I believe that this party must accept that there are other more effective and just ways to overcome inequality and widen opportunity and at the same time a new way must be found to tackle prejudice and injustice based on a person’s socio-economic origins.


That’s about as through as I can be at the moment…

[HFishbine]

62. Thanks

I always appreciate when someone takes the time to write such a thorough post. It shows a level of concern and a high respect for other posters that isn't always warranted.

You and I agree on some things, disagree on others (whether or not we fix the health care problem, for example, is a matter of priorities, not something that is in direct opposition to reducing the budget deficit).

While your post was an insightful look at your beliefs, there was no mention of the DLC's agenda. What proposals for change are they offering that would advance any of your causes?

on edit: Oh, btw, how would Coors advance your interests?

[Finch]

74. The DLC is a group that is...

…committed to moving away from the traditional division between left and right, the “third way” as it has been called. I believe that in terms of policy many “sacred cows” of the Democratic Party may need slaughtering, simply because times have changed and the aspirations of the American People and how to meet those aspirations have changed. Generally I’m fiscally conservative, I believe in “balancing the books” however I also have a streak of populism with a belief that things such as Tariffs can help protect American jobs and that low taxes for the middle and lower classes is a good thing and helps the economy. Socially I’m more conservative, I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Family, Do I think that “Family values” (as many like to term them) should be imposed? NO!, But I think they are worth promoting, the same is true of monogamous, loving relationships and that’s why if I where in a position to do so I would vote to allow civil marriages in my state. In Foreign Policy I pretty much on a par with McCain and Lieberman so pretty hawkish in deed.

As I said it is not that I am only committed to the DLC, but as a broad group from Liberal to Conservative Dems committed to pushing forward new and innovative polices that take into account the changing attitudes and aspirations of ordinary working Americans I think it is a worthy and positive force within the Party.

The “Blue Dog Coalition” is ideologically far more rigid, and I am more committed to their, socially conservative and economically moderately populist message than any other group.

As for Coors vs Miles…

Coors is pro-life.

Coors has a fairly responsible attitude toward spending, he does share my belief in that low taxes for middle and lower income families can help the economy and give the government increased revenue.

Coors is also keen to balance the budget, as a priority this comes before any more tax cuts for him.

On Terrorism he’s tough and solid and would keep up spending in that area.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t love Coors! I Just think he would be better than Miles is “push cam to shove” and I think that Salazar would be way better than either.

PS: Glad you appreciated my last post :) I think it is important to explain where you stand, I really encouraged that you respected that... Thanks

[lastliberalintexas]

41. Yep, that was where he lost me too

And to think s/he has taken the name of such an admired LIBERAL literary figure for her/his moniker.

[Dhalgren]

19. If you think that it is ok for

a Democrat to back a Republican FOR ANYTHING OR FOR ANY REASON, you haven't been paying attention! We have to get the fucking Republicans out of power, period. It no longer matters what any individual Republican stands for or what his/her background is! The Republican Party has got to go and that means anyone affiliated with that party! What the hell are we doing here, if we can say with a glaze-eyed expression, "I would vote for the Republican" Fuck!

[slinkerwink]

22. Fuck Salazar

[AntiCoup2K4]

60. And the DLC he rode in on!

neocon traitors that they are.

[Bandit]

24. "DLC DOES NOT control the Democratic Party!"

I sure hope that statement is correct. I believe they think they do though. And even in your post you are presumptuous enough to tell us only a DLCer can win.

[Kanary]

27. Backing Coors

You've certainly made it plain which side of the aisle you are supporting.

Kanary

[ibegurpard]

28. Indeed

I think that a lot of rank and file DLC members have been duped.

[Kanary]

32. Some duped....

If fear some are a bit more sinister.

Kanary

[ibegurpard]

33. That would be the DLC leadership.

eom

[sandnsea]

40. A Dem voting Republican?????

Pretty much discredits your comments. After everything we've been through with Republicans in control, and Democrats like you STILL don't get it. When they go to D.C., they fall in line. If we want Democrats to win, it's pretty simple. Vote for whoever the candidate is. When Dems vote, Dems win. The problem with Democrats is that they're so open-minded they're brains have fallen out when it comes to understanding the way things work in Washington.

[Finch]

49. Hey man I'm a moderate Dem...

...I'm loyal I will vote for Kerry, hell I would vote for Hillary or any other liberal of that cast, because they are democrats. But if my party completely abandoned me and my views and i was faced with Republican who shared more of my views then I'd have to vote for them in this case Coors would be better than Miles while Salazar would be way better than either. Many Liberals who say they will vote green or are considering it are expressing a similar sentiment but opposite to what I have expressed.

Moderates, lets face it either Party needs us to win and both party's have their moderates (much as the Dem's DFA and the GOP's Club for Growth hound them, well DFA less so), I'm a Dem moderate faced with Kucinich vs Snowe, McCain, Dole, Specter, Schwarzenegger, Lugar, Warner etc... I'd vote for the GOP candidate of course faced with Santorum, DeLay or Ashcroft I'd vote for "Kook" :)... its the same for moderate Republicans faced with Buchanan vs Kerry they'd probably vote for Kerry and faced with a moderate Dem like Clinton and a staunch conservative like say Hatch or Helms they'd vote for Clinton, work both ways.

[sandnsea]

52. Hey man, PICK A SIDE

If you're still buying into this "moderate, independent" crap, then you really haven't been paying attention. Those names you listed, OCCASIONALLY, cross over. But when push comes to shove, they're lined up.

Yellow Dog. Either understand it or be prepared to see this country slide more and more to the right with each passing day.

[Kanary]

53. Sounds like a Campbell

Haven't we had enough of those?

Kanary

[Finch]

59. Kick

[Hawkeye-X]

66. Listen and listen carefully.

I have met Mike Miles personally in Janurary Dean meetup, and he has spoken the word, walked the walk, and won the top spot on the ballot for August primaries.

First of all, Mike Miles was a Dean supporter first and foremost, which is EXACTLY the right direction Miles took. Ken Salazar, on the other hand was a Holy Joe supporter. I was totally disgusted by Salazar when I found out about this little fact. I dropped Salazar like a hot potato, however, he has done some very important Democratic work here in Colorado as the lone Democratic member of the state government, and he should stay on or we'd get even worse as a state.

DLC has had severe string of losses dating back to 1994. I want DLC to cease to exist and stop trying to tell the base what the fuck to do. The grassroots are tired of it, as well as I am tired of this crap that has gone through the DLC. It's time to stem the loss, and DLC to fucking back off and let the grassroots take hold again.

Today's DLC is not what Gore and Clinton envisioned when they founded it, it's MUCH worse.

Hawkeye-X

[Hawkeye-X]

68. Then you're in the wrong forum

Freeperville is that away ------------------>

[MGKrebs]

11. Where is the original? I can't find it.

[otohara]

23. I was sent this by e-mail from MM Campaign

I don't know why it's not on his site, I looked for it also

[Finch]

51. Kick

[wndycty]

14. Interesting, I will be paying CLOSE attention. . .

. . .I know very little about Miles or his opponent Salazar but it is obvious that Colorado will nominate either another African American (to join Obama) or a Hispanic and this is exciting. Methinks that the DNC might prefer Salazar for no other reason than to make sure they are in a position to send both an African American and Hispanic Senator to DC.

Again I know nothing about this race and the candidates, but I will be very excited to support either one of them.

[Kanary]

29. The DNC prefers Salazar because

he's controllable. He's in the pocket of the PTB.

Not quite as blatant as Lieberman, but close.

The time has come to get away from race, and vote ISSUES.

Kanary

[Dhalgren]

15. Beautiful, kickass letter!

Now THAT is the Democratic Party that could bring this country back! We need this man/group/campaign on the national scene! Now! Great, great, great letter!

[Q]

17. There is simply no excuse for the DLC to attack other Dems...

- This shit has been going on since the creation of the DLC. They attacked GORE and DEAN and anyone else that opposed their 'hostile-takeover' of the Democratic party.

[sangh0]

42. So what's your excuse

for constantly attacking the Dems?

[AntiCoup2K4]

61. DLC aren't actually Democrats

They are neocons posing as Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

70. Like Howard Dean?

How do you reconcile Dean being former DLC, who didn't split with them over policy differences but rather for political reasons (a pandering move to the left.)

If you are a Dean supporter, and the DLC really are neocons as you continuously assert, then you at least share the same policy beliefs as neocons.

[Hawkeye-X]

72. Well, please...

Realize that Dean left DLC ONCE he realized it was moving to the right!!!! He has since founded Democracy for America and has achieved the goals that was set forth and ACTUALLY promoted the Democrats involved in removing Republicans from power.

Hawkeye-X

[wyldwolf]

73. The DLC's policies have remained virtually unchanged

[dpbrown]

20. Wow, what a great letter

Those are some things that really needed to be said.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Nice letter!

[madfloridian]

25. Good article on Miles from the Rocky Mountain News.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_2946608,00.html
"Candidate says he's among those who 'aren't being heard"

SNIP...""I'm not a Nader candidate," he continues. "I have much more support - but I'm part of the people who feel they aren't being heard."

SNIP..."Couple of things about that. First, Nader isn't the presidential candidate most people compare Miles with. That would be Howard Dean, whose fiery speeches, early opposition to the Iraq war and almost born-again following all echo through the Miles campaign.
Second, Miles beat Ken Salazar, Colorado's attorney general and the presumptive favorite for the Democratic Senate nomination, last month in a contest for top line on the party primary ballot.So if people weren't hearing Miles before, they are now.

The 47-year-old father of three has a lot to say. On a day campaigning from Colorado Springs to Boulder and back, Miles expounds on the divisions in the Democratic Party, the difficulties of running an underfunded campaign and, of course, the performance of the Bush administration.

Everything he says is peppered with a conviction that his supporters adore and political analysts generally dismiss: That a small-town educator, a first-time candidate - a little guy, if you will - can topple two party machines and win a U.S. Senate seat..."

[Hawkeye-X]

69. Yep.

That was the article I was referring to earlier. Saw the printed version. Great to see the online version too!

[denverbill]

31. Miles is great!

I hope he gets the bid. He's been in this thing since before Campbell announced, at a time when all other Democrats were afraid to run. He'd make an excellent Senator.

[MrBadExample]

35. Seconded.

I saw Miles speak at the Denver County assembly and convention a while back. It was the most inspired I'd been since I heard Dean speak.

[goodhue]

37. great letter from a great candidate!

Why centrists and establishment types continue to insist that Miles is not electable is beyond me. He appears very compelling with broad appeal. Perhaps some should take their blinders off and look around.

[Kanary]

44. Yes, goodhue, where have we heard this "unelectable" meme before?

:)

It sounds ever-so-familiar. ~~gigglesnort~~

I fear it's not blinders.........it's that people who gave up on the DEMS are now back in force, and that's frightening TPTB to the max.

Too bad. :)

Kanary

[blindpig]

47. please put Mr Miles in a box and ship him to SC

we sure need him. Is cloning possible?

[Finch]

48. Kick

[thethinker]

63. Question

Would some one please explain to me if the DNC and DLC are elected or how they get their positions.

I have asked this question before and somehow never get an answer.

Thanks.

[goodhue]

64. Regarding the DNC

DNC members are elected/selected by state parties. For example, here in Minnesota at the DFL state convention we elected four representatives to the DNC. They serve two year terms beginning at close of July national convention. The DNC is essentially the governing body of the national party between conventions.

The DLC is a whole different concept and is not an official body of the national party. Membership is probably open to all. Getting on the board likely involves not only a relevant resume but knowing the right people and saying the right things. But I'm just speculating.

[goodhue]

67. Here is DNC charter and bylaws . . .

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf

[goodhue]

71. DLC

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

[Hawkeye-X]

65. BTW, got the same letter

and I loved his word - Miles also has a featurette on today's Rocky Mountain News.. a two-page full ones, including photos, which looks great and great reporting, for a change. I hated the 25 page lovefest on St. Reagan the other day.

Hawkeye-X

[goodhue]

75. kick n/t

[Finch]

76. Kick