Winning in 2006 requires that we quit savaging each other in 2004.

[Cuban_Liberal]

I'm utterly amazed at the acrimony within our party. Sure, a certain amount is to be expected after a loss like we just suffered, but the number of 'my way or the highway'/'kamikaze' posts here is truly frightening. Anyone else willing to bury the hatchet someplace other than in each other?

Peace.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. I certainly agree. We should take that philosophy to heart n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Yeah.

:hi:

[xultar]

3. Don't EVEN TRY IT. I did on Friday and got beat down like a runaway slave

So now I just kinda hang cuz, I'm afraid I'll get swept up in the purge-o-matic.

[Cuban_Liberal]

Yeah, I've been waiting for the gulags myself.

I feel like a heretic for saying that Kerry was a decent candidate who did the best he knew how.

:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

10. I feel like a hertic for actually liking Kerry sometimes

gasp I liked our nominee, people should be lucky I dont really get upset as I could, because people who say Kerry was just an ABB candidiate piss me off, I believed in the man, maybe you didn't but don't say that to me when its not what I believed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. He wasn't my first choice, but he was a DAMNED GOOD choice!

The 20/20 hindsight around here is amazing...

[JohnKleeb]

18. Some of the same people who wanted just to do away with the primaries

and coronate candidiates just because they were appearing to be the popular ones at the time are the same ones who complain about the primary process, now I am not saying the process is flawless, it ain't but its rather hypocritical of them to me. He was a damned good candidiate and dare I say the best candidiate of my lifetime, one really should study Kerry's record before saying hes bushlite, in fact, many of my teachers who are trained in politics have said they unlike 2000 actually felt like there was a difference between the two candidiates. I am not criticizing Gore but I really do feel the difference between Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004, Kerry was more stark in contrast, thats not because Gore was conservative in my view but because Bush in 2000 ran as a more moderate and Gore did as well. Good men the both of them. I just wish we would use our energy to going after the republicans, these bastards want to privatize social security, plan more wars, and here some of us are dissing democrats because they won't vote our way on everything.

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. There was a marked contrast in candidates in November.

Some people here would bitch if we nominated Christ himself...

:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

25. of course they would

To some Christianity is one of the most horrible things ever. Even though those people will and I myself will never come close to doing what people like Fr Ralph Benning, the founder of the Christian Applachian Project have done to help their fellow man. Would Christ/Peter be a good ticket btw ;), I dont want Paul on the ticket.

[Ardee]

34. John, I do respect your opinions

and have read your posts with much head nodding in the past. However this one is not one with which I concur,sorry. Gore was certainly a potentially better candidate than Kerry , one who was betrayed
by his advisors and by his desire to be a team player and follow the advice of the conservative leadership.

Kerry agreed with Bush on the Iraq invasion, agreed with Bush on Homeland Security and mentioned plans but gave no meat to that bone. He failed utterly,imo (and apparently in the minds of enough voters) to differentiate himself from his opponant on too many critical issues.

I criticies in this fashion, not to be divisive but to emphasize that the same damn thing simply will not do again.

[podnoi]

42. Actually, many supported Kerry by default

Can anyone imagine where he would have been if Dean support had not lined up behind him? We did not want to but became convinced he would take on the torch and represent us. But he did not finish the job. Last time I take that chance. And I think I speak for many.

And believe me. This is a BIG change in my thinking. I totally was in the "anybody but bush" or nothing happens camp. But I saw... that nothing happens anyway with the democratic leadership... in fact they want to turn and run tail in fear instead of fight.

Are the Democratic leadership reading these posts? THEY SHOULD BE!!!!

[wyldwolf]

56. Actually, that happens in EVERY election

We support the nominee (it he wasn't who we wanted) by default.

[ThorsHammer]

72. "ABBers" did have a great point

I don't see how people could vote for someone who led us into an unnecessary war (though I did support the Afghanistan war), spend recklessly, give unnecessary tax cuts, break international alliances, and break away from bipartisanship at home. Kerry was definitely a qualified man. He spoke well, destroyed Bush in the debates, and actually had a plan of what he wanted to do. Yeah, some are upset he didn't fight harder for a recount, but the margins (w/o getting into BBV, which is another 50 pages worth of posts) weren't as close as 2000. I do think he would have fought it if it was a miniscule margin like FL, but can't really blame him for conceding with a 100,000+ margin.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. Amen

The guy worked his ass off, traveled non-stop, and WON ALL 3 DEBATES!! Hands down. Remember after the Repug convention how it was looking like a Dumya landslide - and I mean a real one - not a (possibly fraudulent) 2 percent 'mandate'? JK turned that shit around after the 1st debate. Granted, Dimson did act like an agitated monkey on the podium but still. Kerry looked awesomely presidential and turned a lot of people around. Really, all things considered, I don't know how much better we could have done with anyone else.

[janx]

xultar, I apologized to you for a comment I made in that thread,

but I don't think you saw it since I did it a day or two later. In case you did not see it, I want to tell you again that I'm sorry.

I misinterpreted something you said, I think.

I hope you accept my apology. :hi:

[xultar]

14. I do, thanks No Problem, I'm a pretty laid back typ-o-gal...

Nice to see that despite the intense discussions and disagreements we come together in the end.

:toast:

[janx]

15. Thank you!

:hug:

[greenohio]

80. I know xultar, I was there. Some people are determined

to blame someone in the party. It doesn't help the party. They don't care.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. I totally agree.

And for those who would attack me: There is nothing you can do or say to me that hasn't been done or said to me before, better and more viciously than you ever can.

Time to get our heads out of our asses.

[Lefty48197]

5. Life goes on bra. La la how the life goes on...

yeah, I've moved on. I'm getting a kick out of it too.

[Lefty48197]

6. Oh yeah, 2006? Let's kick some ass.

:kick:

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. I wanna take names and kick Repub ass in 2006!

And I need ALL of you, my progressive brothers and sisters, to do that! Are ya with me?

:D

[JohnKleeb]

8. Reid is worse than Daschle even though he hasnt started yet

Sarcasm on my part. This guy hasn't even started yet and people in my eyes are looking to make him out to be Daschle was, now IMO Daschle wasn't a great party leader because of him representing a bright red state which made him have to back Bush often, I of course was sorry to see him go, and appreciated that he found ways to win in that state.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Byron Dorgan also represents a bright red state similar to Daschle's

And I'd put him amongst the top 7 or 8 most liberal senators. Definately to the left of Kerry, that's for sure. Byron Dorgan was re-elected with 60% of the vote. Tom Daschle lost his seat to a Republican partisan hack.

[JohnKleeb]

24. are you sure about that?

I thought Dorgan was more moderate, or am I confusing him with Conrad? Either way, I am happy that we get people like that in there. Daschle really wasnt a conservative democrat, not a liberal either but Ive seen some of his votes, not as DINOish is hes made out to be.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. That's Conrad, who is moderate and a DLC member...

My point with Daschle is that while his voting record isn't bad, his trying to pander to the right to win votes in South Dakota and his being dem leader were a conflict of interest. My other point was that perhaps he could've stayed in his seat by taking more liberal positions like Dorgan does.

[JohnKleeb]

38. oh right I confused them

Yeah, I agree with what youre saying, I dont think he should have ever been our leader in the senate though.

[eridani]

120. Exactly!

And a bunch of others could have taken a leaf from Dorgan's book as well.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20702/
The Democrats' Da Vinci Code

Northern Wisconsin and the plains of North Dakota are not naturally friendly territories for progressives. Both areas are culturally conservative, yet their voters keep sending progressive Democrats like Rep. David Obey and Sen. Byron Dorgan, respectively, back to Congress.

Dorgan and Obey also opposed the Republican-backed "Freedom to Farm Act," which President Clinton signed into law. Instead of pretending the subsidies in the bill were good for the little guy, Obey told the truth and called it the "freedom-to-lose-your-shirt" bill. He noted that the new subsidies would primarily go to large corporations, encourage overproduction that depresses prices, and reward big farms over small ones.

[Doomsayer13]

39. Well, Minority leader is under a lot of scrutiny

I'm sure if Daschle stayed rank and file, he would've won with 60% of the vote. His being minority leader tied his prospects with the Democrats nationally, and we got whipped.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Define "Rank and File"

If by that do you mean voting along party lines, or voting for every issue that is popular within your state.

[Doomsayer13]

44. Dorgan and Conrad strike me as pretty rank and file

they are partisans who usually follow the party line, have their pet projects (Dorgan deals with perscription drugs, Conrad with the deficit) secure pork for their home state but maintain close ties to their homestate over the National party.

North Dakota isn't a liberal state - it's pretty deep red, but they will elect these two becuase they are seen as staunch advocates for state interests, even if they are more liberal than the state.

Daschle, when he ran for re-election 6 years ago, won with 60% of the vote. He wasn't a national party figure at that time, and was pretty popular in South Dakota. Once you become party leader, your re-election prospects are directly tied to the prospects of the party in general becuase you become the face of the party.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Daschle has been dem leader since 1995

And admittedly part of the reason that he lost his seat this time is because Republicans decided to pour resources into Thune's campaign. And again Dorgan is a liberal, Conrad is more moderate. Drogan even voted NAY on the Iraq War Resolution, which is why I find it remarkable that he got re-elected by huge margins in a dark red state. I'm told that North Dakota is economically populist though. Also, democratic presidential candidates don't spend any time or money in the Dakotas because they only have three electoral votes.

[Doomsayer13]

47. I stand corrected

but I still maintain that the leader, more than anybody, has to depend on the national prospect for the Dems to stay alive. 1998 was a Democratic year and a lot of people were sick of Republican bitching. Can't say the same for 2004.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. It was a marginally democratic year, we really win much of anything

Things stayed the way they were in the senate, we picked up some seats in the house. 1994, on the other hand, was very much a Republican year and that had much to do with their bitching.

[Johnny Noshoes]

9. Too true

I was a volunteer for Dean in NH the weekend before the primary. I'm 50 and a majority of the volunteers were college students. I loved their energy. I was working with another guy my age delivering video tapes, of the Diane Sawyer interview of Howard and his wife Judy, to different homes in Salem NH. This guy and I talked about how these young folks were so commited to Dean that we wondered if he lost would they stay involved. The thing is during a primary process you pick your man/woman and support them all the way. When the process is done you figure you gave it your best shot and if your candidate didn't make it well hell your still a Democrat so you work to win the election in November. There is nothing wrong with HEALTHY discussion and disagreement but man the "kamikaze" stuff has got to stop or we will NEVER get anywhere. No we aren't droids marching in lock step but we can't be lemmings kicking and biting each other as we sail over the cliff into oblivion.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

[Ardee]

12. So where are the suggestions?

I've read the posts condemning the leadership of the party, even written a few myself. Are you arguing that we should not criticize the losing efforts in three campaigns now? Do you prepare to face the '06 elections without a change in leadership and direction?

Of course there is acrimony. We have seen the progressive voices within the democratic party shunted aside and silenced, would you expect those folks to say thank you may I have another?

We have, here at DU, several factions represented. There are those who applaud the rightward swing and believe it to be the way to recapture the legislature and the WH. We see those who believe that this swing has led to the disasters suffered by democrats speak out and receive short shrift from the former, and, frankly, give as well.

The party is being torn asunder, in my opinion, and may very well become something none of us will recognize, or, possibly, it may result in a return to old fashioned democratic values, I do not know or care to speculate. But until this turmoil is resolved , until the party achieves some successes at the polls there will be acrimonious debates, human nature being what it is. There will also be level heads refusing to alter their calm and fair posting styles and setting an example that all might follow.

I am not as concerned, frankly, as are some, and I believe it will all resolve itself in time...much ado about not much at all, sorry Will.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Three losses? By MY count, it's ONE.

Al Gore WON in 2000, and John Kerry got more votes than any Democratic candidate in history in 2004. Where EXACTLY is there any evidence whatsoever that America is clamoring for someone even MORE to the left than Kerry?

:wtf:

[Crunchy Frog]

26. By my count it's three losses.

Gore won the popular vote, but he never went to the White House, therefore I must regard it as a loss. John Kerry may have won more votes than any other Democratic candidate in history, but that is a meaningless point. Whether fair and square, or through fraud, his Republican opponent, Bush, the worst president in our nation's history, got more votes than Kerry did and will be returning to the White House. That is a devastating loss in my book.

I'm not sure where your question about someone to the left of Kerry comes from. I think most of the criticisms of him have more to do with backbone and strength of conviction than location on the left/right spectrum.

:wtf: right atcha! :)

[Ardee]

33. Can you count with me:

1. Gore lost, he is not seated in the WH so its a loss. Semantics, polemics and hyperbole aside
2. The 02 races were not triumphs for the dems, were they now?
3. This last election lost even more ground in the legislature you might understand....

one,two,three.

Calling Kerry's politics left of anything is stunningly out of touch,imo, and leaves me speechless. Just keep on being satisfied with your neoconservatibe leadership and more and more of us will desert the party for greener pastures....

[wyldwolf]

51. interesting, isn't it?

... that we all agree 2000 was stolen and that 2004 might very well have been stolen yet some still call them losses when it comes to discussing "factions" of the Dem party.

Where EXACTLY is there any evidence whatsoever that America is clamoring for someone even MORE to the left than Kerry?

There is none. If there were, Nader would have won in 2000 and Kucinich would have walked in in 2004.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[janx]

17. Start locally.

DFA or any other organization that is serious about reform would be a good place to start.

County chairs and organizations are also good.

There is acrimony because the Dem party is going through growing pains. This should have happened sooner.

[xultar]

20. Absolutely not, we're not saying, don't criticize, BUT...there's always a

(big butt..)

Sometimes we don't sound any different than the opposition. To me, that is frightening because we are supposed to be different.

Honestly, if you hate the DLC fine hate'm. Just realize that the more time we spend fighting each other the less time we spend dealing with the enemy.

So, if ya'll wanna duke it out. Duke it out. Just beaware that what you gain may not be enough to cover what you lose.

Just know that I'm on the sidelines on this DLC/DNC issue and I'm not alone. Why, well I'm still smarting from 11/02/04. So, watching us purge and implode is not a pretty thing to see right now. I bet you anything the opposition loves watching us fight each other. How do I know? Because we are all waiting for the Right to purge and implode for the exact same reason. We want their moderates to speak out against * and come over to our side so we can win.

So, will we treat the moderate Republicans who vote with us in 2006 and 2008 the same horrible way we treat the conservative Democrats amongst us?

Just tell'em, "Yeah, we want your vote to win, but we hate your conservative rethuglican pro-choice ass." Is that a way to gain and keep votes people?

[Ardee]

37. I count moderate republicans as allies, some anyway

Ron Paul comes to mind and there are others as well, hell even some conservative Repugs are losing patience with Bush.....

The disputes among democrats must be placed in perspective, we keep freaking losing you know. It just blows my mind that people accept these losses and demand we stay the course. Internal bickering here at DU is a far cry from public statements by the party and its members you know.

Besides, Bush is a lame duck and its time to focus on other challenges.

[wyldwolf]

58. Interesting that you mentioned Ron Paul... isn't he a actually...

..a libertarian?

And lately I've noticed a thawing of relations between Dems and liberatarian (Neal Boortz not included) since the Dems became the party of fiscal responsibility and the libertarians are against the war.

A few libertarian friends of mine have admitted they have more in common with US than with the GOP.

So maybe this will translate into votes in future elections.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[xultar]

64. So how can we say the nasty things we do about conservative Dems

and not about moderate Republicans? Basically Conservative Dems and Mod Rethugs are the same.

I would think that Moderate Rethugs don't like Moore the same can be said about some in the DLC apparently.

So if we have people who are thinking about coming over to our side and we are burining our own then why would they come to our side when they can be burned by their own just as easy?

That's all I'm saying. That is why we need to be careful.

[Ardee]

76. Nasty things? Me?

Subjectivity at work...actually moderate GOP'ers have more in common with moderate Dems not conservative dems who have more in common with Bush,well, thats nasty, so more in common with conservative republicans ,SOME OF WHOM DONT LIKE BUSH ALL THAT MUCH......

Conservative dems supported things like the war, Homeland Security, et al......now thats not insulting just factual.

[sangh0]

91. Yes, you

You called one poster a "neocon" and you said another poster was helping the right-wing.

Pretty nasty in my book, and against the rules in DU's.

[Ardee]

117. Oh arbiter of good taste

Perhaps in your role as Miss Manners you might point out the specific post in which I did those "heinous" things...

Are you saying that there is something wrong with being a neoconservative? I'll bet those who are see no wrong there.

Helping the right wing of the Democratic Party, which is what we were discussing here (please keep up), would also be taken as an insult...Man o man you seem more than a bit biased against right wingers ........take a breath, hold it, now slowly exhale.

[xultar]

119. So Dem or Rethug you are against anyone who supported the war

in Iraq?

What about pro-life are you against pro-life dems and pro-life rethugs??

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Our common goal for 2006: unseat SANTORUM

This insane bible thumper MUST be unseated before he becomes a serious prospect for national office.

[janx]

21. You're right. I cannot abide the prospect of Man-On-Dog

in national office. What can we do to help Pennsylvania?

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. Gimme an AAAAAAA-men!

:thumbsup:

[Ardee]

35. Gee and here I thought

a better goal might be gaining a majority in both houses, silly me.....

[JVS]

27. We might as well just fight it out.

A lot of people wanted to put a lid on fighting in hopes of getting Bush out. First we get rid of him, then we rebuild the party. Well it didn't work and this is the longest amount of time we have before another election, so we might as well get it done with now so that we'll be on the same page next election.

[xultar]

28. What 2 years is a long enough time? We got 2006 and we are sooo

behind the 8ball. We are so behind they can change the rules and make us irrelevant.

[JVS]

29. 2 years isn't long enough if nothing gets resolved

[Leilani]

30. I like to think that I'm fair....

I believe in giving people a chance..ex: Harry Reid.

During the primaries, I advocated strongly for Wes Clark; when he was defeated, I completely backed the ticket, & bit my tongue many times.

But now that the election is behind us, I feel free to make comments, suggestions & give opinions on what went wrong, why, & how we might fix it.

I think we could have good discussions, & respect differing opinions, if people didn't get so nasty. We don't need to name-call, insult, curse at people we disagree with. Let's listen to each other respectfully, with an open mind. Hell, we might learn something.

We're supposed to be about respecting people, & not trying to become the Taliban of the Dems. There's nothing wrong with debating, disagreeing, as long as we all realize we're trying to get to the same place. You can question someone's stance on an issue, without attacking their integrity on how they arrived at that place.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. To do list for 2006

1) As mentioned above... UNSEAT SANTORUM UNSEAT SANTORUM UNSEAT SANTORUM

2) Keep these guys right where they are...

Mark Dayton Minnesota
Bill Nelson Florida
Debbie Stabenow Michigan
Hillary Clinton New York
Ben Nelson Nebraska
Maria Cantwell Washington
Jon Corzine New Jersey (may run for governor, in which case, make sure we get a good dem replacement)
Kent Conrad North Dakota
Paul Sarbanes Maryland
Lincoln Chafee Rhode Island - Probably controversial for saying this but I think that Lincoln Chafee is the ONE Republican seat that we shouldn't seriously challenge. He's considering switching parties anyay.
Jim Jeffords Vermont - But I don't think that he'll have much trouble being re-elected.

3) Possible vacated Dem seats...

Diane Feinstein California
Ted Kennedy Massachusetts
Robert Byrd West Virginia
Herbert Kohl Wisconsin
Jeff Bingaman New Mexico

Keep these in dem hands, especially West Virginia and New Mexico

4) Possible vacated Repuke seats (Key)...

Bill Frist Tennessee - If Harold Ford Jr. runs this could definately be a pickup.

Richard Lugar Indiana - Evan Bayh just got re-elected with an overwhelming majority in a leaning red state. Maybe we could find somebody else to do that.

Trent Lott Mississippi - Former state Attorney General Mike Moore (no releation to Michael Moore) might have a good shot if Lott retires, which I would think is a possibility after loosing his Majority Leader job.

Orrin Hatch Utah - Likely to remain repuke no matter what. When will Utah ever learn?

Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas - We'll see how this plays out.

5) Assholes that need to be kicked out

Mike DeWine Ohio - If the Ohio dems can actually field a candidate this could get interesting.

George Allen Virginia - If Mark Warner doesn't have 2008 presidential ambitions he might run for this, will be a very close race.

Olympia Snowe Maine - I don't care if the votes with dems on some issues she's still a Republican in a liberal state. We should try to pick up her seat.

Jim Talent Missouri - We lost this one in 2002 but we have a shot at it again.

Rick Santorum Pennsylvania - See #1

Conrad Burns Montana - Montana isn't actually as Republican as one might think. It went to Bill Clinton in 1992 and was close in 1996. Let's just see if we can give Burns a run for his money.

[The Flaming Red Head]

36. NO vote, No justice, and NO peace, nt

[chaska]

40. Hopefully things will get a lot more divisive.

I hate it, but I think it's a necessary step to start the process of purging the conservative elements from the leadership of the party and regaining our working class base from the pugs.

It's not enough to be socially liberal anymore. If you won't stand with the poor and the working class then I don't want you in my party. I want this to be a much less comfortable place for yuppies.

And let me be clear, I bear these people no particular grudge, I just want my party to represent me and mine ... oh, and to win again. And I'm in it for the long haul. I don't count on making great strides even by '08, let alone '06. This is going to take a while, and it won't be easy. But the sooner we get to it, the sooner we can turn things around.

[podnoi]

41. Going to get MUCH rockier if Dem leaders don't STAND UP!

The got a lot of support this year simply because everyone fell in line to defeat Bush. I was reluctant but was won over by Kerry's harder line later in the race. (I was independent)

The "You have to vote for the Dem" WILL NOT WORK in the future. Too many people feel it is in vain. I am not sure anymore if it will work to support someone who is caught in washington. It may be more effective to vote for a third party and hope the world holds up through the several elections it may take to get it formed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Yeah, third parties have such notoriously successful track records..

Gee, why didn't I think of splintering that part of the electorate that hasn't already locked arms with the Republicans?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

52. I predict that no third party will make any waves in the future...

... at least not nationally. I base that prediction on prior elections.

What do you base your predictions on?

[Ardee]

75. and your track record is so good after all

right here on this thread alone.....Third Party growth will be based upon hopw far to the right the dems move....more right more Green party growth.

[wyldwolf]

109. Am I a political party?

[Q]

49. I believe that many people misunderstand the cause of the division...

...in the party. Progressives and 'centrists' in the party have always been able to work together...until the 90s when the DLCers began assuming control of the party.

Taking control of the party wasn't the major problem. It was their giving away chunks of the party's principles and becoming Bush* enablers that was the main cause of the division.

Kerry made several mistakes that pissed off many progressives...though they voted ABB anyway. He espoused the DLC's agenda...which rejects the 'New Deal' and told the base of the party that he expected their vote and had no intention of trying to earn it.

The 'acrimony' will remain until the leadership accepts responsibility for being BUSH* ENABLERS and allows progressives to have a say in the direction of the party.

[wyldwolf]

50. Cuban_Liberal, your intentions are noble, but don't worry...

...the sentiments on DU are in NO WAY representative of what is happening in the real world of the democratic party - at least not on the local and state levels.

Many of the folks here who post such vitriol are giving you a glimpse of their lives, mainly, a life moaning on the message boards.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

54. I do

I'm involved in politics on the state and local levels.

I do media for an Atlanta democratic group.

I'm a poll manager.

I come into contact with hundreds of citizens in the democratic party monthly.

I'm on a first name basis with many state office holders.

..most have never heard of DU, and they are all yellow dog democrats, completely unconcerned and unaware of your self declared message board war on the moderates of the party.

And, hey! See what I mean about "a life of moaning on the message boards?"

People like Q have been making the same empty threats for years. If there were any money, organization or action behind the empty threats, they might achieve something.

[Q]

57. I see the same close-mindedness of the DLC...

...expecting progressives to keep voting for their policies of appeasement and GOP-lite agenda.

You know damn well that Progressives had no choice in 2004 but to vote for the Dem candidate and against Bush*. There was simply no other option.

But 2008 will be quite different. I'm not alone when I say the we will not vote for the cookie cutter DLC vetted nominee IF they have a record of enabling the Bushies and continue on their course of trashing progressives and keeping them from leadership roles.

This isn't about 'money or organizations'...which is all the DLC seems to worry about. It's about ordinary Democrats tired of voting against their own interests.

[wyldwolf]

59. The same as... what?

I see the same close-mindedness of the DLC expecting progressives to keep voting for their policies of appeasement and GOP-lite agenda.

The same as .... what? More opinions and attacks from Q!

You know damn well that Progressives had no choice in 2004 but to vote for the Dem candidate and against Bush*. There was simply no other option.

1. In every election, we vote for the nominee even if it wasn't who we wanted.

2. No other option? If there is soooo many like you, Q, you could have all got behind Nader or David Cobb and maybe even won! After all, there are so many of you.

What about Kucinich? Your vast organization could have convinced him to run third party.

[Q]

60. No...everyone was behind getting rid of Bush*...

...and I've never voted anything BUT Democratic my entire life.

But you've nicely demonstrated how out of touch the DLC mindset is with the base of the party. (And don't pretend you don't know who is in the base.)

What the DLCers don't seem to understand is that they're concentrating so much on compromising to the Right in the hope of 'winning' swing voters...that they're losing the respect and votes of the traditional base.

The Neocons took control of the GOP and the DLC took control of the Dem party. Neither has a concensus of support or a 'mandate' from the rank and file. They simply assumed power. Just as the real conservatives want the Neocons out of THEIR party...progressives want nothing to do with the DLC or their corporate-friendly, 'trickle-down' agenda.

[wyldwolf]

61. ok, then...

... and I'll just start in 1976...

...we didn't really want Carter, we just wanted to get rid of Ford...

...we didn't really want Carter, we just didn't want Reagan...

...we didn't really want Mondale, we just didn't want Reagan...

...we didn't really want Dukakis, we just didn't want Bush...

...we didn't really want Clinton, we just wanted to get rid of Bush...

etc. etc.

Tell us who the base is, Q, with reputable sources and reference materials.

The rest of your post reads like cut and paste jobs from all of your other posts.

Respond to my last points, Q: If there is soooo many like you, Q, you could have all got behind Nader or David Cobb and maybe even won! After all, there are so many of you.

What about Kucinich? Your vast organization could have convinced him to run third party.

Sounds like YOU are the ones out of touch.

[Q]

65. Is it the position of DLCers that Bush* doesn't present a greater danger..

...than any of the other Republican presidents you listed? Are you really that naive? And indeed that's part of the problem: the DLC is percieved to be in partnership with Bush*...a 'president' that's seen by most of the world as insane. Is it denial? Or are you actually saying that 'anyone but Bush*' didn't pull all factions of the Democratic party together to vote AGAINST HIM?

I can always tell when a DLCer doesn't want to face reality...they ask for 'sources and references' to distract from the facts that they already should know. The best way to describe the base of the party is: those being taken for granted or outright ignored by the DLCers.

And once again...you're trying to redirect the discussion by pointing to other, more progressive candidates. They've never been part of the equation. The party bosses aren't going to back someone like Kucinich or Dean because THEY can't past the corporate/Bush* enabler litmus test of the DLC. Thus...no progressive candidate will be funded by the party machine.

The DLC wants to hide the truth about the Bush* government and their cooperation with them...which is why they've helped the right discredit Gore and Dean...and all other enemies of the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

106. naive?

You're pulling made up facts out of your ass and then repeating the same cut and paste DLC attack rhetoric while completely avoiding proving any of your assertions.

[Ardee]

118. It must be hard

to be so perceptive and knowing. I personally couldnt deal with the burden of knowing that everyone whose point of view differs from your own is so very misguided.

Oh, and those voices that stop talking when you pass by,you shouldnt worry, really....

In truth, considering that the democrats have a mounting history of failures under its current and conservative leadership those whose voices are raised in protest of the direction of that leadership mayu be better friends of the party than are you.

[Walt Starr]

55. Tell it to the DLC

They're the ones causing a division within the party.

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. It takes two to tango, Walt.

"They're the ones causing a division within the party."

Really? It couldn't possibly be that their P.O.V. is closer to that of the majority of self-identified Democrats and progressives, and that others are contributing equally, if not more so, to the 'division within the party'?

:think:

[Walt Starr]

66. If the DLC POV is the majority opinion of the Democratic Party

It's time for me to find a new party.

Seriously.

[Cuban_Liberal]

68. That's a personal decision only you can make, of course.

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

69. Well, I'm waiting to see how the DNC Chairmanship goes

That, to me, is the deciding factor on how my political actions proceed. I've voted straight Democratic tickets my entire voting life and even sought public office twice as a democratic candidate.

If the DLC takes the DNC chairmanship, I'm done with the party.

I suspect there will be a large number of Democrats who go the same way as I.

[Cuban_Liberal]

70. I'll be pissed, if it's not Dean.

I won't be pissed enough to leave the party, however.

[Walt Starr]

84. I figure why bother if the DLC sinks their hooks into the ultimate power

:shrug:

Not worth fighting them any more, but I could never again support a democrat in good conscience either.

[greenohio]

81. If I had a dime for every threat to leave the party since the election

I could afford to run for president.

[Walt Starr]

85. No threat

And my mind is not made up.

I'm waiting to see which way the party goes. If the party no longer represents my interests, the natural reaction is to leave the party in favor of one that does.

[m berst]

62. I think it is long, long overdue

I think that this vigorous debate that is going on is long overdue among Democrats, and is already opening up new possibilities and new ways to think about the party. I think that it is only beginning, and it is the best thing that has happened in over 30 years. It is the only positive result, in my view, to come out of the recent election.

The party has been locked in to reactionary positions by the Republican party, and has become ossified and stale.

One group of DUers is questioning, and yes attacking, the leadership for its performance and its ideas. Another group of DUers is attacking those critics. So it isn't really a fight between members.

If the hatchet is to be buried, then people need to stop attacking the members who are criticizing the leadership IMHO. That is where the acrimony comes from.

So I say keep going, grass roots Democrats, and keep dreaming and keep thinking and keep talking. For those who are uncomfortable with this and want to defend the leadership and promote the status quo, I think that you are causing friction when you try to put a lid on the other members, or bring them "back to reality."

Many Democrats do not want to come back to "reality", thank you, and I am gratified and inspired by that every day.

[sadiesworld]

67. I had radically reduced my time on DU following the election...

partially due to disappointment, but also b/c of a growing belief that the party was utterly hopeless.

However, in the past few days I have been heartened by some of the discussion I am seeing here. There (finally) seems to be a real debate about who we are, how we got to this point, and how we move forward.

Thank-you for your wonderful contributions to "The Great Debate". :hi:

[silver10]

71. Winning requires being different

If Dems are not that much different than the elitist-agenda Repubs, then you might as well vote Republican.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with our message and making it stronger, which consists of (to name several of the important ones, not in any particular order):

Protecting the environment for the sake of our living standards and health, and for those of generations to come. Look at global-warming, air and water pollution, deforestation, increased levels of cancer, etc. Of course, we can't burden companies who make the pollution - it would hurt their profits, God-forbid!

Stop murdering innocent people, including Iraqi's and U.S. soldiers, because it is causing more hatred, leading to more terrorism, not alleviating it, not to mention, of course, the astronomical loss of life. For what? So that a few corporations can get real rich. A distant second problem is the huge deficit bush as created at the expense of most of America, and American generations to come.

What would have happened if we used the money we wasted in the war, and instead paid a lot of out-of-work Americans to rebuild our nation's highways, bridges, and other infrastructure, which many now are dismally old, dilapidated, outdated, and too small and constricted? Of the first-world countries, our infrastructure is the worst, and as the world's only remaining "superpower," we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. In my scenario, all those workers would have stimulated the economy by spending money, and the companies they spent it on would spend more, and on and on until we pulled ourselves out of economic turmoil. This is what is known as "trickle-up" and EVERYONE benefits. With trickle-down, the rich pocket the majority of the money, and only they and their family benefit - the very few.

Allow more freedom in the media - stop the unhindered control of big corporations owning the majority of newspapers, TV and radio stations - if it were not for the Internet, I would be mostly in the dark. If repubs have it their way, they will also control computers and the Internet as well. For that matter, why was the bill to allow paper trails from the electronic voting machines stopped by Republicans? Is that democracy?

Stop good-paying jobs from going overseas. Family values? I know so many families that are so desperate and hurting due to the economic strain of not being able to find a good job to support their families. Under the Bush administration, both the number of people without health care as well as the number of people below the poverty line have increased by well over one million. And in one year, the number of millionaires in America increased by over 30% (from over six million of them to over eight million of them now).

Instead of all our money going to tax breaks for the rich and big corporate contracts, allow more money to go to education, health care, Social Security and other programs that will benefit the greater good. I just read that the cost of college has increased by 35% from over a year ago. THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT! Repubs don't want the majority educated - only themselves. They want the rest of us to work for their companies dirt cheap, or be janitors, maids, etc. Sure, the repubs can dictate standardized-tests and threaten financial penalties for schools who don't "measure-up," but it is easy to tell others what they should do - what about helping them through showing them how, and funding them with more money? That would be communism, they propagandize. But don't forget the private-school vouchers they are still pushing for.

Promote women's rights - a woman should have the choice to do what she wants with her own body. I am not "pro-abortion," but I again find it hard, not knowing another person's circumstances, to judge them and dictate to them. Since Bush has been president, the rate of abortions has significantly INCREASED - what has he or most other repubs done about it? Not much. Again, it is easy to dictate to other people, but not help them. For that matter, do repubs try to make a women's salary more comparable to a man's for the same type of work - women still earn around 70 cents on the man's dollar for the same work? I guess women are not really people, they must all find husbands who somehow earn a great living and support them so that they can make more babies to increase the labor pool, work for cheap, or be sent to be slaughtered in some corporate money-making venture - but at the rate he is killing men off in Iraq, and the rate we are losing good-paying manufacturing and tech jobs, what's a girl to do? She might have to support her husband. But Bush and his buds are fast conniving to allow women into combat now. How ironic.

I don't find that any of these issues could or should be compromised so that we can placate to the right wing, who definitely don't placate to us.

The dems problem is a marketing problem - creating a unified and strong message, and continually hammering it home, over, and over and over. That is what the repubs did, and for many, many people, if you keep repeating something, a message, a label, or a name, people eventually believe it and are sold. I don't propose that we lie like them - we don't have to.

If most people truly understood the Bush agenda, I don't think they would have voted for him - the majority just don't really know who and what they voted for. And by the dems watering-down their message, like they did during the 2004 presidential campaign, by trying to please everybody, they pleased nobody. Again - it is marketing - if you are in the market for a good computer, you buy a Dell, not an HP - I don't really know what an HP computer stands for - even though I recognize the name. So I buy a Dell - they are known for computers. But if I want to buy a great printer - I buy an HP - I know what an HP printer stands for.

[greenohio]

77. There are some who just hate the DLC....

and will not listen. There have been a few threads where people have been trying to say the big tent thing....but alas no, the DLC is just Satan on these boards. There are many good Dems in the DLC. The DLC haters don't care.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. Yes, we have our share of 'holier than thou' Democrats here at DU...

It's rather sad, frankly, seeing some of the supposed adults pitch what amount to written tamper tantrums...

[greenohio]

79. Yes. And nothing reaches them. I guess they have to hate something...

might as well be the DLC. Rendell, Fienstien, Dodd, Cantwell, and Landrieu are all DLC. Yet the DLC'ers are considered Satan here. It is a sad state of affairs.

[Walt Starr]

87. The DLC is not Satan

It's Beelzebub.

[Q]

86. Geez...nice shot. Feel better?

Do you really expect liberals and progressives to agree with the corporate-friendly agenda of the DLC? Do you really think that's what it takes to win a national election?

Perhaps you need to study a bit more about where this 'animosity' originated? It wasn't the left side of the party that refused to work with moderates...but the other way around. The moderates...through the DLC...simply assumed control of the party through the Clinton third way machine. Then they made the proclamation that the days of the New Deal and social contract were over. No discussion or compromise with the progressives. No middle ground from the moderates. How ironic.

Calling a disagreement a 'temper tantrum' shows a mindset that reflects the type of animosity that you accuse others of holding.

[Cuban_Liberal]

88. Does it, now?

Seems the question is whether the glass is half full, or half empty? Did the DLC 'assume control' legitimately, or illegitimately? What I hear from the far left sounds VERY MUCH like sour grapes and a temper tantrum combined. Perhaps YOU would do well to consider the source of the animosity, too.

For reference, check the results in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1416928

[Q]

89. I'll ask you: did the DLC assume control legitimately?

They just sprang out of nowhere...on the backs and cash of lobbyists courting both GOPers and Dems at the same time.

Democrats certainly had no say in their creation. There was no vote. No mandate. No consensus of opinion.

The Democratic party wasn't good enough for them...so they called themselves 'NEW DEMOCRATS'. (NeoDemocrats) Why the need to distinquish themselves from other Democrats? Being a 'new' Democrat is a signal to corporations that they're ready and willing to trade favors and legislation for cash.

But I think you'll find that to many Democrats...their corporate friendly agenda is secondary in stinkiness to their appeasement and enabling of the Bush* junta. Tax cuts for the rich. Aggressive wars (Bush* doctrine) Patriot Act(s). Homeland security/war profiteering. Weakening of workers and women's rights. The DLCers were there supporting Bush* all the way on these issues and more.

So please don't say that we have no right to be pissed at the DLC. They're responsible...at least in part...for weakening and degrading a party that was once proud to be the party of the people.

[Cuban_Liberal]

90. I didn't say no one didn't have a right to be pissed at them.

Why is it necessary to set up straw men, by putting words into my mouth that I didn't say?

[sangh0]

92. It's hard to make an unreasonable argument

if you don't put words in other people's mouth

[Q]

It's also hard to make an argument...

...if you don't have one.

[sangh0]

95. Right

that's why some prefer the unreasonable arguments

[Q]

102. Unreasonable is in the mind of the beholder

...Is it not?

There is a clash between factions in the Democratic party. Is it unreasonable to discuss how one side feels in this scenario? I realize that some would prefer a one-sided argument where those who disagree can't express an opinion. But we really do need to do something about this division...and it begins with airing our differences and grievances.

[sangh0]

105. no

it's not in the mind of the beholder. That's how unreasonable people justify their unreasonable arguments

and it begins with airing our differences and grievances.

Unfortunately, your beginning has no end

[Q]

110. I realize that you would like to be the one...

...to define that 'end'. But that's not going to happen.

[sangh0]

111. I know

that's why I said there's no end.

[Cuban_Liberal]

96. E.g.?

Care to offer an example, using words I actually wrote, rather than making some up out of whole cloth, or straw, as the case may be?

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. True.

:thumbsup:

[Q]

97. Didn't your premise raise the issue of acrimony?

You spoke of 'burying the hatchet'. I was trying to explain a position where it's impossible to play hide the hatchet with the DLC as long as they presume to set the Democratic agenda.

Have you lost track of what YOUR thread is all about?

[Cuban_Liberal]

99. No, I've simply refused to cooperate with the hijacking of it.

Much to the obvious frustration of certain people here...

[sangh0]

104. Notice how "bury the hatchet" becomes "hide the hatchet"

some rely on small shifts in language to distort another's meaning.

Al Gore "invented" the Internet

[Cuban_Liberal]

107. Exactly, and I'm not gonna play along.

It frustrates the living shit out of people when you ask them to cite where you said whatever it is that they're claiming you said, and they can't do it.

[Q]

Now you're avoiding your own topic...

...Did you really WANT to have a discussion about hatchets and acrimony? Are you even interested in how and where the acrimony originated?

[Cuban_Liberal]

114. No, I'm not going to cooperate in hijacking my own thread.

Sorry.

[Q]

112. It's a play on words...

...in which the meaning is the same.

Now who is shifting language? Isn't this thread about acrimony and burying (hiding) the hatchet?

Nice tag team you have going.

[sangh0]

113. no, its not

.

[Q]

115. Another unresolved issue...

...but then we both know that you accuse others of mincing words when the discussion isn't going your way.

My retort: Yes, it is.

[KoKo]

82. You think we will win in 2006 without the Voting system being repaired???

Three times we've been through this....We won't ever win again unless the voting system is repaired and until our DNC/DLC leadership works to repair it and stands with us.....

Very few here will even stay in the party if the DNC/DLC don't address this and support us. So far, it's not looking good for their Leadership and Campaign abilities. They will lose everyone who would work for them in the Grassroots...without us they wouldn't have even had this squeaker where Kerry won by a bare majority and even then he wasn't allowed to win. He should have won by a Landslide.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. Does my opening post say that?

Well, does it?

[sangh0]

93. It's hard to make an unreasonable argument

if you're not alloweed to put words in other people's mouth

[mattclearing]

98. Wrong.

Winning in 2006 means fixing the vote problems. People who play nice with Republicans or accept the premises of their arguments are incapable of fixing the system. Inaction is preferable to cooperation. If I had my say, I would obstruct everything until the voting issues are addressed Constitutionally.

Weak-kneed moderate Dems can't help with that? Then please, get them out of our way. They are part of the problem.

[Cuban_Liberal]

101. Does my O/P say we don't need to fix the BBV problem?

If it does, I'd be absolutely fascinated to see the words copied and pasted in a reply...

[blm]

100. Amen. We need ALL Dem voices to be strengthened, not weakened.

.

[Cuban_Liberal]

103. Thank you.

:hi: