No, I'm not quitting; i'm kicking the right-wing hawks out of OUR Party

[welshTerrier2]

is our Party totally fucked up? do the pretty people sitting in key positions of power give a damn about anything but their own political careers?? do they give a damn about what's going on in the country??? why won't they listen to what the majority of us is saying???? how can they seriously ask for our help when THEY DON'T REPRESENT US????? perhaps they have had too much power for too many years; one thing's for sure, it's time we found some real Democrats who remember that they are there to serve our interests and not the other way around ...

Americans are deeply troubled by America's role in the world ... their faith in their own government has been destroyed ... they know we are seen as the ugly Americans all over the world and they no longer feel the image is unjustified ... and yet, our Party's "leaders", regardless of their nuanced differences, continue to support bush and his neo-cons in Iraq ... they refuse to accept that bush is there for immoral purposes ... they continue to play politics with an issue of life and death; with an issue that has destroyed America's moral authority to lead ... the consequences of US policy in Iraq go beyond the loss of more than 1800 good and noble Americans; the consequences go beyond a stable Iraq; the consequences of remaining in Iraq FOR ANY REASON means that the US government accepts the premise that the US has a right to wage war and occupy other nations even if there is no threat to our country and even if there is no evidence (especially after 2 and a half years) that we are bettering the lives of the Iraqis ... clearly we are NOT ... i will never support any right-wing hawk who advocates otherwise ...

so i will not be supporting the Bill and Hillary's, the Kerry's, the Biden's, the Bayh's or any of the other so called "liberal hawks" ... i will not send money or work for the DSCC ... we have to throw out those who are "oh so smart that they need not respond to the vast majority of Democrats who have had enough of this fucking occupation and appeasement of neo-con imperialism" ...

explain to me, you who disagree, why it is OK to allow those ENDORSING THE NEO-CON OCCUPATION to clog our Party's apparatus? if you support them, you allow them to continue to vote for more war ... or worse ... you have Kerry, Clinton and others who not only don't want to get out and call a failure a failure, they want to EXPAND THE FUCKING WAR ... they want to muscle their way to a "win" in Iraq to prove to Americans how tough they are... NOT how right they are; NOT that they represent the majority of us; just that they are oh so tough ... that is NOT what the American people want and it is certainly NOT what Democrats want ... the Democratic hawks would know this if they held regular public forums in their states to give their constituents a say ... but they are apparently far too important to busy themselves with the trivialities of democracy and good representative government ...

anyway, that's more than enough from me ... please read this:

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/beltway-dems-regurgitate-_b_5990.html

First the very bad news. The article notes that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is once again undermining the Democratic Party. This time, it has "accused war critics of 'anti-American bias'" (wonder if that includes Vietnam War hero and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?). This is a pristine example of self-proclaimed Democrats literally regurgitating the most offensive and dishonest right-wing spin out there. <skip>

More bad news: the Democratic Party's Senate and House campaign apparatus is telling Democrats to keep their mouths shut on Iraq, for fear they will look weak on national security. Most recently, these pathetic souls desperately tried to divert attention from how the Iraq War played an instrumental role in Iraq War Veteran Paul Hackett's congressional race in Ohio. Apparently, the class of professional election losers in Washington, D.C. thinks Democrats can win by saying almost nothing on Iraq (like the party often says nothing on lots of issues, thus perpetuating the perception that Democrats stand for nothing). As one "Democratic strategist" told the Inquirer, "Let's not refight the origins of the war, who was right or wrong. That discussion has run its course." The strategist then said "Let's keep hitting Bush when he's not being straight with the people."

That's all well and good - except, it assumes that Americans are stupid. The fact is, doing what these strategists suggest will reinforce the idea that Democrats stand for nothing, because refusing to address the Iraq war is the equivalent of Democrats "not being straight with people" in the same way Bush isn't being straight with people. It's the reason why we can drive up Bush and the GOP's negatives all we want - but that doesn't mean it is going to help us. The fact is, Democrats will not capitalize on any of this until they start speaking clearly about where they actually stand on the war, and whether they actually have the guts to say what polls show most Americans believe: that the Bush administration deliberately lied to us about why we were going to war, that the war has made our country less safe/secure, and that it's time for a serious exit strategy.

Finally, there is some good news: the Inquirer story reminds us that there is a growing outrage outside the class of professional election losers in Washington who are starting to flex their political muscle. That is, the millions of ordinary, hard-working citizens who actually make up the ranks of the Democratic Party are getting sick and tired of the split-the-difference politics that has led Democrats to loss after loss after loss. People like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Hackett are showing that there are talented and effective champions who are listening to us, and are ready to take up the fight. And others like top-tier Senate candidate Bob Casey (D-PA) are rejecting the Iraq advice from the all-too-comfortable consultants in Washington.

[kentuck]

1. I agree with your sentiments...

Let's find an opponent for each one of them. We don't need career people in Congress. How much more proof do you need than the unanimous vote when they vote themselves a $4000 pay raise. They are all Duke Cunninghams.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. I respect your opinion, but Kerry does NOT want to "expand" the war

He's consistently outlined a plan to get out; he just won't set a timeline because that is unrealistic (witness the failure of trying to set a timeline for the Iraqi constitution). Feingold isn't saying anything much different than Kerry's been saying all along, and at the end of the day, if you think under a Democratic president that we'd be in Iraq now, then you're wrong.

The Democratic party is not historically a party of pacifism; look at Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. McGovern won one state on an anti-war platform, and that was a dramatic reversal from the Democratic party stance (and McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which goes to show you that people can evolve in their opinion and see that something is justified or that the previous information was wrong).

I respectfully disagree with you here.

[welshTerrier2]

4. respect appreciated but please tell me this ....

is it not true that Kerry has called for a substantial increase in troop strength in Iraq? we currently have about 150,000 troops there ... General Shinseki (spelling?) once said it would take around 300,000 to "succeed" ... if Kerry is indeed calling for a substantial increase in troop strength, wouldn't it be fair to call that "expanding" the war?

if i've misstated his position, i apologize and request that you provide some additional information ...

as to the Party being a "party of pacifism", i just want to be clear that i made no such statement or implication ... what i'm talking about are current polls of Americans ABOUT THIS WAR ... nor did i make any comment in my post about those who previously voted for the invasion ... i have plenty to say on that subject but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this post ... this post is about a failed policy in Iraq ... this post is about appeasement of neo-con imperialism ... this post is about the arrogance of power and elitist government that has grown out of touch with the will of Americans and more specifically Democrats ... and this post is about understanding that continued support for the occupation of Iraq condones a very dangerous, very wrong principle of warfare ... and that principle is that war in Iraq IS JUSTIFIED even though Iraq is not a threat to this country and even though we are NOT helping the Iraqi people by remaining there ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. I'm searching for some links about Kerry's Iraq position

I'll post them in a bit when I find what I'm looking for; once I read stuff I forget where I found the link and need to look for it again.

I totally agree with your second paragraph, by the way... Hillary for example saying how reducing troop levels would "make us look weak" is disgusting and no Democrat should be saying things like that. Again, let me get back with you about those Kerry links - I've got to look around for them. thanks

[Mr Rabble]

8. Kerry specifically recommended following Shenseki's(sp) advice

in the debates. That is clearly an expansion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Not true

He said that the military initally recommended that 300,000 troops were needed for Iraq, which is what Shinseki said, and that Bush did not listen, hence disaster in Iraq. He did not say during the debates that he would bring 300,000 troops into Iraq. What he did say was that he wanted to increase the general size of the US military by 40,000 - NOT increase troop strength in Iraq by 40,000, but the general military, because too much burden is falling on the National Guard and Reseves. You are wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

14. i agree with this ...

during the debates, Kerry criticized bush for getting rid of Shinseki after Shinseki, not Kerry, had called for a troop strength of 300,000 ...

while Kerry did not exactly state he disagreed with Shinseki, he also did NOT explicitly endorse Shinseki's ideas ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. Yep.

He criticized Bush for sacking Shinseki because Shinseki's advice went against Rumsfeld's. Basically all of Kerry's speeches consist of saying that Bush fucked everything up from pretty much the intelligence (he should never have invaded) and the planning (invaded with not enough troops, even though invasion was a mistake anyway) and the invasion (expecting that they would greet us with roses) and the occupation and so on. Argh. I do feel like we'd begin withdrawing now or soon if he were our president.

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. Here's a link I found

What I found is that Kerry has supported increasing military strength by 40,000 - NOT to send all those troops to Iraq, but to relieve the burden on the National Guard and Reserves. Here is a speech he gave in which he mentions his plan to begin withdrawal: http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1174

He advocates training the Iraqi army and security forces and completing reconstruction before withdrawal, which is why he won't set a timeline. He believes Bush must unequivocally announce that there will not be a permanent US prescence in Iraq, and that there will not be bases. You are of course free to disagree with his plan, but there it is, or the best link I could find anyway. He does not support adding 300,000 troops now or staying for the long haul - he did mention that Shinseki originally called for 300,000 before the invasion and that Bush was wrong to ignore Shinseki, which is where I think you're getting the Shinseki thing. But he does not advocate increasing number of troops there now, and wants to begin a process to bring them home. Hope the link is useful. Peace.

[welshTerrier2]

16. i agree with all you wrote except ...

i don't think that proves Kerry did NOT call for increasing the troop strength in Iraq ... i'm confident he called for doing so, at least in part, by providing certain assurances that would lead to more troops being sent by US allies ... i think the jury is still out until we get some better documentation ...

i want to emphasize that i am NOT saying Kerry ever endorsed the 300,000 number ...

btw, fwiw, Max Cleland just called for either increasing the troop strength or getting out ...

[kerrygoddess]

17. Just curious...

Is your Google searcher broken?

Before you make accusations, can you look this up yourself and show us where Kerry said this stuff you claim?

[welshTerrier2]

19. ah, i thought best recollections were permitted ...

sorry, didn't know the rules ... i thought i either heard Kerry or some other Democrat talking about Kerry's position say that ... from now on i will rely more on Google than my memory ...

i've already clearly apologized above if i am incorrect ... is your point that i am NOT correct?

and while you're at it, does Kerry's view that we can still succeed in Iraq (i google that) represent the majority view? does it represent your view?

[kerrygoddess]

24. I've heard that he is planning a trip to Iraq

Off the record source brought that up the other day. I wouldn't doubt it knowing JK, he must want to take a looksee given recent developments there.

In succeeding in Iraq, I believe that Kerry feels we broke it, we fix, but never has he said it should be all on us. It's always been about building a coalition so we can get the F out of there ASAP.

Also the view of the majority of Americans has rapidly changed in recent weeks. No doubt his has too... I'd certainly like to hear what he is thinking.

I'm looking through the debate transcripts right now. Vote-Smart.org has everything Kerry has said, speeches etc for the last 3 years or so, in chronological order. It's a great reference.

[welshTerrier2]

30. i remembered one of my sources re: troop strength

i've read many of his VOTE SMART transcripts tonight as well ...

two weeks ago, i went to hear my Congressman, Jim McGovern, speak about Iraq ... he said, and i paraphrase, that Kerry is a dear, dear friend of his but he can't imagine how Kerry could possibly call for more troops in Iraq ...

just to be clear, do you believe that statement to be inaccurate? i haven't found anything definitive so far but that doesn't mean it isn't out there ... i had a fairly strong recollection this was Kerry's position ...

trust me, you will be hearing one very large, very loud WAHOOOOOO !!! from me if Kerry reassesses after his visit and calls for some form of "near-term" withdrawal ...

[kerrygoddess]

34. Kerry talked about increasing troop strength

in terms of winning the war on terrorism. He also called for building a coalition to get our troops out. Of course what he said in the past is redundant now, given current cliamte of things there, until of course he says he would now increase troops, we can only look at what he said say 6 - 8 - 10 months ago as being based on what was happening then.

In the speech WEL linked to he did call for getting out ASAP.

[welshTerrier2]

40. ASAP

well, i support the exact same thing ... getting out ASAP ...

of course, the devil is in the details ...

[kerrygoddess]

41. I hear that...

It's a real friggin mess! I read your statement about below (#39), my views are very similar.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. I know his plan did call for getting help from allies

So whether that would have consisted of other nations sending soldiers to help train the Iraqi military I am not sure. I mean it'd be nice to say that we could set a timeline, like, train the Iraqi security and begin withdrawal in six months, but I'm not sure that's realistic. And, sadly, all of this is a moot point as is, because it's abundantly clear that Bush will not listen to Kerry or Feingold or whoever, and is clearly planning on maintaining an imperial presence in Iraq. It makes me sad for what might have been, in a Kerry presidency we might already be in phase one of a withdrawal by now. That's the part that's the worst for me, thinking about the what-might've-beens.

[AuntieM1957]

7. Well, if they ever want anymore of my money

they should stop pandering to the right.

My wallet has snapped shut to the DLC.

[mitchtv]

3. You know, You're right

Until they say "Out Now!". they can forget it. What I say is, this crowd is buying into a war their constituency doesn't want, out of fear. Paul Hackett seems like he would not betray us.Dr Dean will come around from the "pottery barn" strategy approach, to an out now approach, with an ally or two to smooth things. But money? Plain and simple they're not saying what I want to hear,not leadership I want right now.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Mark E. Smith]

6. Q) How many anti-DLC posts does it take to change a lightbulb?

A) None. They don't change anything.

[welshTerrier2]

11. interesting ... did the BP even mention the DLC ???

not in what i wrote it didn't ... the only reference to the DLC, which was not the point of my post, was in an article quoting them ... my post focussed on poor representation of the majority view and a murderous, bush appeasing policy ??????????

someone seems to be feeling just a little bit guilty, it seems ...

[orleans]

23. love that kennedy quote.

do you know or remember where it is from? or can i just google?

[welshTerrier2]

32. from his speech on Social Security ...

here's a link to an article in the hideous Washington Times (clean your monitor and keyboard after reading): http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050112-113246-4790r.htm

[orleans]

56. thanks, i just googled it and

commondreams has the entire quote.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-37.htm

thanks for bringing it to our attention--it's a great quote.

[Totally Committed]

62. Self-delete

Sorry, posted in the wrong place.

[Mark E. Smith]

67. Hey, don't worry about it.

I always assume that at least half of those working so hard to divide my party are Republicans.

But you didn't say that, either.

[welshTerrier2]

72. moral authority

ah, we finally agree ... that's exactly the point of this post ... perhaps those failing to represent the majority of us don't belong here ...

"Speaking only for myself, I will find it very difficult to support any Democratic "leader" who remains silent at this critical moment but who wants to be president in 2008. There are defining moments in political careers and in national life where true character is revealed, where moral authority is achieved, or forfeited. Recall Dante's well-known warning that a special place is reserved in hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality."

[tx_dem41]

74. "the majority of us"

Who are "us"?

[endarkenment]

80. Self identified Democrats.

I think the polling shows that the majority of us are solidly against the war.

[Q]

60. Please read this:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

[ieoeja]

86. Read it:

You know, that article BY the DLC just might be the best argument AGAINST the DLC that I have ever read.


"Clinton signed a welfare reform bill and a free-trade agreement over the opposition of most of the Democratic congressional delegation. In 1997, his effort to secure an extension of fast-track negotiating authority was killed by his fellow Democrats as well."

So Clinton's primary opposition in Congress was ... those darn Democrats.


"The DLC and the New Democrats are vulnerable to such a defeat, since they are attempting to change a public philosophy without the benefit of a realigning event and without a mass or activist base. From the makeup of the delegates to the nominating conventions to the main sources of campaign volunteers and funds, it is clear that the liberal faction and its constituent groups continue to predominate within the party. The liberals are still an important, if not vital, component in winning the party's nomination for office from congressman to president. And with their dominance of the congressional party, they are also critical actors in constructing a governing coalition. Lacking this base within the party itself, New Democrats -- or a faction in either party attempting to change their party's philosophy -- require a sustained period of political success in order to truly remake their party and wed new groups to their coalition."

At least the DLC recognizes the fact they do not really represent the Democratic base. And interesting choice of pro-nouns describing anything liberal as they, them and their. Not we, us and our.


"Indeed, a group of Republican elected officials and benefactors has established the Republican Leadership Council to recapture the GOP's agenda from its right wing and replace it with a more mainstream platform in order to better the Republicans' odds in 2000 and beyond. ... They hope that a New Republican-- or a 'compassionate conservative' -- wins the GOP presidential nomination soon and saves a party that has lost the presidency twice and has seen its newly won hold on Congress weaken."

They got their man with his "compassionate conservative" message elected. But if the RLC is the Republican version of the DLC as this article suggests, then how come their man took his part FURTHER to the Right instead of the Center? Or do the two LCs really have the same goal: move this country to the Right? The D version just has further to move.


"Ultimately, it is success in winning such offices, plus a continuing hold on the presidency, that will institutionalize the New Democrat philosophy further. And with each victory, it will be harder and harder to return to the liberalism that preceded it."

And in conclusion ... this DLC article fully admits what everyone here already believes. The DLC wishes to destroy liberalism. So we can finally get down to the debate we should be having in this country:

Fascism (is it enough that we make the trains in this country run on time)
versus Nazism (or must we conquer the remainder of the world to ensure no outside force threatens those trains).

[KoKo]

95. An interesting read, and here's a few snips about Clinton/DLC Legacy.

and what it meant:

Preparing for Life After Clinton

The personal scandal that engulfed Clinton in 1998 especially affected the DLC and the New Democrats. On one level, it directly threatened the viability of their most powerful supporter and of the DLC's strategy of remaking the party top-down through the presidency. On another level, it indirectly risked overshadowing Clinton's efforts to recast the Democratic Party in his New Democrat image. This was not only a matter of survival for the DLC. It also was a concern of the President's, as the changes he had undertaken in the party stood to the most substantive alternative to his legacy of impeachment. As Clinton told the DLC at its annual conference in 1998, "the real test of our ideas is whether they outlive this presidency; whether they are bigger than any candidate, any speech, any campaign, and debate."

In 1998, New Democrats began to look beyond the impeachment scandal -- and even the Clinton presidency. They focused on ensuring that their philosophy, and the politics and policies implicit in it, outlasted Clinton's second term. For instance, the New Democrat Network (a political action committee independent of the DLC) and the New Democrat Coalition (the DLC-allied bloc in the House) intensified their activities to elect New Democrats to Congress. Looking toward the 2000 elections, the DLC in September 1998 launched Blueprint, a quarterly journal designed to elucidate core New Democratic beliefs, new policy prescriptions, and political approaches for the next election. The DLC even looked beyond the country's shores to add meaning and gravity to the New Democrat philosophy. Beginning in earnest with the election of Tony Blair and his New Labour government in Great Britain in May 1997, the DLC began advancing its philosophy as the core of a worldwide "Third Way" revolution in center-left politics.

Liberals, as expected, dismissed the Third Way as an empty phrase used to describe an electoral tactic. "New Labour's third way is opportunism with a human face," argued New York University's Tony Judt in The New York Times. Nevertheless, the DLC's Third Way activities boosted its profile and importance as the success of Third Way politicians -- especially Blair -- validated the DLC's approach to politics and policy. Also, by casting itself as the pioneer of a worldwide movement, the DLC helped ensure its own legacy. Said differently, the organization was no longer exclusively tied to the fortunes of a president or a party; it was part of something much larger and more durable.

Success at the Polls

Of course, the plaudits of European policy wonks and intellectuals meant little to the practical success of the New Democrats. The real test of the efficacy of their philosophy was simple: Could it win elections?

more...refer to original post from "Q."

[wli]

10. Yep, it's time to kick the DLC out of the Democratic Party. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

15. Where do you propose

The moderate Democrats go? Just curious? Because there are more moderates then anything in both parties actually.

If we get rid of the DLC what happens to the concerns of people who may not be so vehemently opposed to the war, but support abortion, fiscal responsibilty, etc.

Mind you I'm no DLC fan but aren't we the big tent party? Can't we continue to be the big tent party? Why does the war have to be the litmus for everything?

[welshTerrier2]

18. do "moderate" Dems support continuing the occupation in Iraq?

i realize your post was to another poster, kerrygoddess ...

i just wanted to clarify that the BP made no mention (nor did you suggest it did) of kicking moderate Dems out of the Party ... my focus was to talk about the damage i believe is being done by those who continue to go along, however critical they may be, with bush's mission in Iraq ...

and i also wanted to emphasize that i believe those of us in the majority, be we left, right or moderate, who believe the mission in Iraq is wrong and will never succeed, are not being represented by most of our elected leaders ...

[kerrygoddess]

22. Not all Dems are out protesting

Some are still conflicted I fear and feel there voices are threatened by the cries of the left to move further left. We can't afford to alienate anyone, can we?

All hell seems as though it has broken loose on the Iraq situation in recent weeks, and there's Cindy Sheehan out there making a stand for the anti-war movement (or was - any word on her mother?) and now we have a voice and I hear these calls for instant action from some Dems.

Wouldn't it be grand if everything in DC happened instantly? But we have a problem, you know, Congress is on vacation, so is W for that matter. We got a whole group of Senators preparing for the Roberts hearings... what to do? I know Kennedy is usually outspoken about Iraq, he's buried in Roberts files right now.

I just think we need to stop blaming and put the pressure on differently. We also need to be the big tent party that we are. There is room enough for everyone isn't there? Even some wildly conservative Dems if need be - LOL!

[welshTerrier2]

29. a few points ...

first, you stated: "I hear these calls for instant action from some Dems." ... to be clear, i am not calling for "instant action" ... i am calling for elected Democrats to hold open forums, public forums, in their districts ... a Congressional recess is a great opportunity to do just that ... i do not believe most of our "representatives" are representing the majority view on the war ... if it takes a "bit" of time to structure a reasonable withdrawal, let's discuss it ... right now, the "Party" line is that we can still succeed in Iraq ... i don't think that's what most Americans believe and i also don't think that's what most Democrats believe ...

what you call "blaming" i call fighting for a belief I have in a Party that doesn't seem to want to listen ... it is horrific to know what is happening in Iraq and find some Party leaders calling us "un-American" ... i deeply believe the "Party" line is doing nothing but playing politics with what they tell the American people about Iraq ... it's unconscionable given what is going on over there ...

for too long, the idea that being opposed to the death of children from disease in Iraq, the murdering of innocent Iraqis, the starvation, the threats of no water unless they disclose the location of the insurgents, the corruption around the billions for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, the special deals to Cheney's corporate friends, the deaths of more than 1800 Americans with no end in sight, the possibility of war with Iran and Syria, the PNAC agenda of global hegemony is a view only held by "THE LEFT" ...

why is it LEFT to believe such things? this is NOT a political spectrum issue at all ... even if i were to agree that nation-building and fighting for democracy and stability in Iraq is a noble cause, am i "THE LEFT" because i believe the policy has clearly failed? are moderates or even very, very conservative Democrats not allowed to assess the situation and conclude that it is hopeless?? if they did, would that make them "THE LEFT"???

i really see these labels as incredibly inaccurate ... i don't accept them; at least not as they relate to an assessment of how to proceed in Iraq ... what would be your standard for withdrawal? if we were still there in 2 years? 5 years? 500 years? suppose Iraq remains "unstable" for another year? or two? or three? is there ever a point that would lead a "moderate" or "conservative" Democrat to conclude that we cannot, or should not, continue?

and even given differences of opinion about the war, what do you say to those of us who see that bush has tragically mishandled the war? we say "bring the troops, OUR troops, home" ... we do not believe, regardless of what advice anyone offers, that bush and rumsfeld and the others will suddenly "get it right" in Iraq ... in fact, we believe he is not there for the reasons he keeps trying to sell ... does it make us "THE LEFT" because we believe the neo-cons are evil imperialists? would we be more "moderate" or more "conservative" if we believed bush really wants to help the Iraqis and does not seek to establish a puppet regime?

you are often critical of "THE LEFT" because you see many of us as destructive to the efforts of the Democratic Party (at least that's my interpretation - please correct if i've misunderstood) ... but i want you to understand, and frankly i see no way past this, that i see those you refer to as "moderate" or "conservative" as accepting bush's justification (i.e. his current justification) for being in Iraq ... i see those who criticize "THE LEFT" as asking me to "believe what bush is telling America about his reasons for continuing the occupation" ... and then i'm asked to accept the diversity of views in the Party ... BUT THESE ARE BUSH'S VIEWS ...

anyway, i know we strongly disagree ... i thought it was worth trying to do the best i could to explain where i'm coming from ... ultimately, i agree with you that we are all going to hang if we can't achieve some kind of unity ... but i am just no longer willing to "just go along" if it means the majority view on Iraq is not going to be represented ...

[kerrygoddess]

44. Hello...

Actually we don't really disagree, but I was playing devil's advocate because I feel as though we need to remember that we are the big tent party and not everyone feels the way we do.

I think next time I'll say "devils advocate post" to make sure that everyone gets where I am coming from. I hate this war, I hate W, I'm disgusted with the mess we are in, the economy, schools, all of it!

[welshTerrier2]

47. what do you think the Democrats should do regarding Iraq?

i want to be very clear on this point ... i truly believe that, for those who are sincere and not just exploiting the situation, calling for stability and democracy and "all that other good stuff" is a NOBLE goal ... NOBLE ...

if i didn't believe American foreign policy, and not JUST under bush or just under republicans, has been totally driven for the sole benefit of corporate profits and greed, i might trust some of those, if they had control, with pursuing such objectives "once we were already STUCK IN IRAQ" ... i would never have condoned the invasion or the IWR given what was known AND what was NOT known at the time ...

but none of these people does have control ... and that, ignoring other values or beliefs, has to be the bottom line NOW ... bush and the neo-cons have control ... their objectives for Iraq are, and have always been, immoral ... they are, and have always been, driven by greed ...

what sense does it make to allow bush to continue to try to achieve his objectives ??? if he fails and is forced to withdraw, the American people and the Iraqi people lose; if he "succeeds", the American people and the Iraqi people lose ... it makes no sense to invest more blood, sweat and tears (and money) in a policy who stated goals are false goals ... it's time to end the madness ...

any stability or democracy, unlikely though both are, that would be achieved in Iraq would result, with bush and the neo-cons in control of the government, in another puppet state ... such a government would never be tolerated by the Muslim world ... terrorism and more war would be the only future we would see ... our country has lost its moral authority to wage this war no matter what noble cause is used for its justification ... if the solution in Iraq includes anything brought about with US support, "the solution" will collapse by definition ... anything US cannot be a solution in Iraq ...

and so i say to those, be they political swine, greedy corporatists or noble democracy seekers, we cannot "succeed" in Iraq no matter what happens there ... the US must not be the driving force for progress ... painful days lie ahead for the Iraqis whether the US stays or goes but NO PROGRESS is possible with continued US interference ... WE ARE THE FIRST OBSTACLE ON THE ROAD TO PROGRESS ...

[kerrygoddess]

53. I think

Kerry has been right for sometime now. We need to build a strong coalition and clean up what we can and get out. He knows how utterly amoral and immoral Bush and the Cabal are. Don't you think he is just sick over this like we are. I think so.

We need to take back the Senate and the House, we need to start at the bottom taking back seats in the state legislatures too. He talked about that Friday.

[Copperred]

21. THEY WILL STILL VOTE DEMOCRAT

Those people are not going to change their vote for a neocon "christian" theocracy....

[kerrygoddess]

42. But they didn't all vote democrat...

Some moderate independents voted Bush, some moderate Dems voted Bush... they didn't consider they were voting for "a neocon "christian" theocracy" either. They voted for "security" or maybe because they are pro-life but not theocrats.

See that's the problem we have. We can't chase people away.

[welshTerrier2]

43. "We can't chase people away"

EXACTLY my point !!! and that's exactly what the Party is doing ...

from the BP: "the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is once again undermining the Democratic Party. This time, it has "accused war critics of 'anti-American bias'""

[wli]

25. They're not moderate Democrats, and it's not just the war.

There is no sign of their being moderate Democrats. They come across very much as Republicans, and the voting records and stated opinions bear this out, as do the corporate contributions, participation in PNAC and other right-wing thinktanks, and so on.

Also, it's not a complete 100% Republican party-line vote, but they're something like twice as likely to vote with Republicans as non-DLC'ers, as evinced by CAFTA.

[kerrygoddess]

31. Well here's where this argument falls flat

About DLC'ers voting for certain things that are republican backed all the time...

CAFTA - Harkin new head of the DLC voted against CAFTA. Go figure.

Clinton, Hillary, voted against CAFTA.

Reid, Harry voted against CAFTA.

Stabenow voted against CAFTA.

Bayh and Landrieu voted against CAFTA.

Lieberman didn't vote - not sure why.

And then ask why Bingaman, Murray and Wyden who are not DLC voted for it?

Here's the Roll Call Vote link - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170

Here's the DLC membership list - http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

I counted 10 Dems who voted for CAFTA of those 10, 3 were not even DLC.

Looks like atleast 8 DLC'ers voted against CAFTA. Now isn't it confusing when we blanketly accuse people of somethings and find out we are wrong?

[wli]

33. your refutation is actually what falls flat

I made a statistical argument, that the DLC voted along Republican party lines twice as often as other Democrats. This particular vote is evidence for my point, not evidence against it.

This isn't "moderation," it's stochastic betrayal.

[kerrygoddess]

36. Not really

because more DLC'ers voted against CAFTA then for it.

Seems that about 1/3 of our Dem Senators are DLC and out of that the majority voted against CAFTA.

Of course let's forget the fact that they are often pressured to vote for their constituents. Sad but true.

[wli]

48. the comparison is wrong

Check the proportion of DLC'ers that voted for CAFTA.

Check the proportion of non-DLC'ers that voted for CAFTA.

Something like twice the proportion of DLC'ers voted for CAFTA as non-DLC'ers (from memory; if I'm wrong for an unforeseen reason I'll announce a retraction of everything I've asserted in this thread).

So long as that holds, my assertion is borne out. In fact, it was originally derived from the specific observation of the CAFTA vote, and assessed to be true more generally by others in threads from around the time of the CAFTA vote (again, from memory; my search-fu is lacking and I am not properly able to dredge up those follow-up posts).

[bvar22]

78. "just enough"

"Just Enough" DLC voted FOR CAFTA to ensure that the Corporate Owners got what they paid for! This is a vote that would be hard to explain to the people back home.

"JUST ENOUGH" is all that was required of the members of the DLC if they wanted to keep getting their check from their Coirporate Owners. After CAFTA was ensured, the rest were free to Cover their ASS!

The DLC does NOT required that EVERY member vote FOR Pro-Corporate legislation EVERY time. Their Corporate Owners only require that "JUST ENOUGH" vote for their bills that they PASS every time! Afer that, they don't care. The Corporate Owners get what they want, and the Corporate Propagandists are able to say: "SEE. They aren't so bad! They voted against CAFTA!"

Does anyone here NOT believe that if CAFTA needed two more Democratic votes to PASS the DLC would have found them?

[Raksha]

97. Exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post...JUST ENOUGH!

That seems to be how the game is played.

[welshTerrier2]

37. sheesh, if you're going to use big words ...

at least do it like this:

This isn't "moderation," it's stochastic betrayal. :hi:

[kerrygoddess]

38. LOL!

Thanks WT2!

[wli]

45. what on earth? "stochastic" is not an obscure word n/t

[kerrygoddess]

46. Oh I just used it the other day...

obscure... sorry, just a tad, WT2 beat me to looking it up and I'm a writer, I didn't know it. Cool word, thanks.

[wli]

49. maybe my occupation skews my perception of commonly-used words

Sorry if I gave any impression of elitism.

Thanks for following up.

[welshTerrier2]

50. nahhhhhhhhhhh ...

it's fine ...

just trying to lighten the mood a little ...

[Raksha]

96. Sure, some DLC members voted against CAFTA....

...in order to limit exposure, but CAFTA got JUST enough Democratic votes to pass anyway. There seems to be a pattern there. It's not necessary that the corporate agenda wins by a landslide, just as long as it WINS. The DLC seems to do a good job of making sure it wins every time.

[SeanQ]

82. Who wants to kick out moderate Democrats?!?!

Who says the DLC _really_ represents moderate Democrats!?! They don't, they just SAY they do. I want a party that includes a wide range of opinions, from Dean and Clark to Hackett to Boxer through Kucinich and on. What I DO NOT want are people who pretend to be party 'leaders' but who only seem to be able to critisize people within their own party and aren't able to stand up to the pack of liars currently in charge.

Let me repeat. I _want_ a Democratic party which has no problem finding centrist solutions to most policy, while fighting hard for traditional Democratic values (civil rights, labor, diplomacy, public works, etc.). The DLC will NOT help us achieve this goal. They will continue to back down to the GOP, and I do not believe the majority of Americans will vote for Democrats that offer nothing beyond a watered down version of what they are already getting from the GOP. They want a real, viable alternative!!!

The DLC offers no real alternative. They are also not 'big tent' people. I didn't really know who the DLC was beyond some beltway Dem organization, untill THEY started to insult ME and tell me my traditional Democratic values were not in the party's interest, and now are anti-American!

[Copperred]

20. 100% Agreement FROM OHIO

Someone should email this to Howard...

Everyone has to get behind him like the Ice Cutter he is....

[Greyhound]

26. It occurs to me that the situation we are currently in is exactly what

the founders tried so hard to keep us out of. They were all too familiar with the morass of 'foreign entanglements' and tried to make a system that would negate the possibility. Of course, even then there were those that were trying to undo this even before the Constitution was written, and just as today, they were doing it for their own selfish goals. We have forgotten, or never learned, those valuable lessons.
They put severe limits on governmental powers. The ink on the Constitution wasn't even dry before they started maneuvering and plotting to expand it for their own purposes.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[welshTerrier2]

39. just for the record ...

i do not consider myself a pacifist (meaning opposed to all wars) ...

there are situations (e.g. imminent threat) where i think warfare is justified and necessary ... we need not be isolationists ...

i also believe that in certain very limited circumstances, a "community of nations" (i.e. not bush's fake "coalition of the willing") should participate in using war to battle state-sponsored suffering and oppression ...

[Greyhound]

51. No pacifist here either, but

what's wrong with a little isolationism?
Except for WWII, we've made things worse when we get involved in other country's problems.
If somebody attacks us, the response should be immediate and overwhelming, otherwise we should mind our own business.

[welshTerrier2]

54. are you talking only about the use of the military?

would your call for more isolationism include restricting humanitarian aid? would you have "kept the dollars at home" instead of aiding the tsunami victims? how about helping out with massive starvation problems in Niger or elsewhere throughout Africa?

as for military isolation, i find the "ideal" of a "community of nations" (perhaps the UN itself) functioning with a military to "make life better on the planet" a very appealing idea ... if you have a dictator slaughtering ethnic groups in his country or enforcing inhumane conditions on his people, i'd like to think that "nations of conscience" would be willing to particpate in "shared force" to change the situation for the better ...

this should NEVER be undertaken unilaterally (or with fake coalitions) because of the risk of exploitation ... perhaps this is little more than an idealized, naive fantasy of how the world should be ... but if we don't envision it, and we look cynically upon it, there is surely no hope we will ever help bring it about ...

[Greyhound]

57. Primarily the use of the military

but you've blended disaster relief with foreign aid. The Africans have been starving and killing one another for how many generations? Most of their problems were originally caused by foreign nations stealing their resources and imposing their rule. The entire continent is a disaster due to over-breeding and foreign intervention. How has our government's aid helped? In fact, where is there an example of our intervention helping anyone except our corporate interests. Again, not the government's job.
As for disaster relief, by all means for that is truly humanitarian aid and there is no reason we couldn't fund independent efforts like doctors without borders. Think of how much more they could do if they were getting a percentage of what we currently spend stationing military forces all over the planet. Government aid only ends up creating billionaire dictators out of corporate thugs and criminals. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, etc, etc, on and on.
The Community of nations ideal is great, but it doesn't work, because each nation will, inevitably, attempt to use it to further it's own agenda regardless of the consequences to anyone else. There is no such thing as a nation of conscience, only people of conscience.

[Emendator]

35. Hagel

will be the only credible antiwar candidate in 2008 if this keeps going. Whoever first wears the antiwar label will have a huge advantage. Because of the perceptions that the Democrats are weak on defense, they are afraid of coming out overtly as antiwar. The Republicans don't have that problem. It will be an amazing irony if the antiwar Republican Hagel goes up against a prowar Democrat.

[Mass]

70. Hagel is not antiwar. You did not listen to him yesterday.

He said that he still believed in Bush.

[omega minimo]

52. This is key

"....the consequences of remaining in Iraq FOR ANY REASON means that the US government accepts the premise that the US has a right to wage war and occupy other nations even if there is no threat to our country and even if there is no evidence (especially after 2 and a half years) that we are bettering the lives of the Iraqis."

SINCE WHEN ARE WE THE COUNTRY OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR AND WHERE/WHEN WAS THE DISCUSSION (EVER)?

Really. I would like to know.

Some heroes in a basement on the Hill held a hearing on DSM and delivered half a million signatures to the WH. Otherwise, IS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP LETTING THE POLICY OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR STAND?

Now that Paul Wolfowitz is head of the World Bank, it brings to mind another question:

Does anyone ever ask "WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?"

Thank you for your outrage, WT2. It's time for this to happen.

"That is, the millions of ordinary, hard-working citizens who actually make up the ranks of the Democratic Party are getting sick and tired of the split-the-difference politics that has led Democrats to loss after loss after loss."

A predominance of "ordinary, hard-working citizens" of both parties are concerned that corporations run the world and the game is rigged-- they need to see movement from the Democrats that they are not lackeys to the corporations, that we don't have 2 Repug parties as Sen. Kennedy said.

People know what's goin' on. IT AIN'T RADICAL NO MORE.

[welshTerrier2]

55. the phases of the Iraq war

there are several differenct arguments, in my view, to be made against the war in Iraq ... each is dependent on a different point of time and a different set of events ...

you made a forceful case about the issue of "pre-emptive" war ... for me, that issue, which still has been inadequately addressed by the Democratic Party, was born BEFORE the war began ... and the reasons to oppose pre-emptive war back then still live on today ... there IS STILL no imminent threat to this country from Iraq ...

but many of those who continue to support the occupation, some of them well-meaning, might actually agree with us that pre-emptive war, especially absent any imminent threat, is NOT justified ... still, some of these people continue to argue that "now that we broke it, we can't just leave" ... that's a DIFFERENT argument under different circumstances ...

it's important to address these arguments also ... and to that, i raise the "imminent threat" standard again (i.e. it is STILL WRONG to engage in a war when we have not been attacked AND i argue that the US IS THE PROBLEM in Iraq ... as i stated in another post in this thread, the US is the first obstacle on the road to progress in Iraq ... we have to leave before the Iraqis can turn the page to whatever must come next ... and finally, to those who may be sincere in citing such noble goals for Iraq as stability and democracy, i point out that these are NOT bush's real goals ...

bush and the neo-cons have gone through justification after justification ... stability and democracy ARE NOT WHY THEY ARE THERE ... i ask them whether they really believe george w. bush gives a damn about the Iraqis ... if we help him achieve HIS objective, we help him build a puppet regime that he and his greedy corporate friends can exploit ... what's the point in helping him do that ???

so, for me, this is about more than just saying "NO" to pre-emptive war ... we also have to respond to those who think "we're stuck there" whether they agreed with the initial invasion or not ... it is at least a little comforting amidst all this death and suffering, that a majority of Americans have at least come to understand that we cannot succeed ... now, if we could only get Democrats to lead the charge, we'd really be a force, a movement and a party to reckon with ...

[loudsue]

58. RECOMMENDED!!! Great Post!

Thanks, WelshTerrier! You said it all, and said it well!

:yourock:

:kick::kick::kick:

[Tinoire]

59. Recommended.

:yourock:

[Q]

61. The very people and politicians...

...that you're complaining about now CONTROL the Democratic party. They do so WITHOUT the consent of the majority of the party. Even THEY admitted this in this article:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

The answer though is simple: a grassroots campaign to replace the DLC's Chosen Ones with Liberal and Progressive candidates. DO NOT contribute campaign cash to those who want to perpetuate this war for any reason.

We must also get out the message that there is a difference between the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the 'war on terrorism'. One has nothing to do with the other. This is the Big Lie brought to you by both the Neocons and Neodems.

And let's not forget that these same factions in the Democratic party support the Patriot Acts and everything that goes with it. They are allies of the Neocons...not a force of opposition.

The activist, liberal base of the party must rise up and take their party away from the 'right wing hawks' that have infiltrated it.

[Totally Committed]

63. Excellent post.

Heart-breaking, though. We must not allow this influence (DLC) to remain unchallenged. It is more important an issue for the future of our Party than any other I can think of.

Thank you for posting, wT2. You've given me a lot to think about so early in the morning.

TC

[TayTay]

64. Okay, fine, We all want Iraq resolved

Who are you trying to bring to your side?

Are you preaching to the choir, and only the choir, or do you have a plan for expanding the Democratic base in oppositon to the present war?

Who is this anger aimed at, what is it's goal, it's chance of success and how does this desire to clense the Democratic Party of those who don't agree with you going to result in the change that you want?

Exactly who is left, what are the numbers and how does it help in the fight against the Rethugs? How many do you purge before you have no one left? Then, who fights with you?

[endarkenment]

66. I think the plan is pretty clear.

We need to organize our 'funding stream' so that it only goes to candidates that oppose the War Party. The same way that the DLC has used its control over the corporate cash stream to control the Party, we need to present a competitive funding source that liberates good progressive Democrats from corporate control.

[TayTay]

85. Does that include people of liberal conscience who

plan on voting for and funding people that the left doesn't like? What is your position on dissent within the ranks and disagreements on who actually represent change and who doesn't.

[endarkenment]

87. Good questions.

Look the DLC has internal disagreements, but they have a set of Big Issues that they basically all support and that they use as determining support for candidates. All I am saying is that if the progressive wing of the Democratic Party had a similar focused funding program - a program that identified our Big Issues and used that criteria to counter-balance the DLC we could hopefully start to reverse the rightward slide of the last 20 years.

of course if you like the fact that for the most part we have two republican parties then you will not like this idea and you will continue to sandbag it and other constructive suggestions.

[Why Syzygy]

65. Yes we have no leaders

They are us.

[Lerkfish]

68. well, its clear to me when one Gold Star Mom outdoes our leaders

in pointing out the emperor has no clothes, then sometime is mightily wrong.
That doesn't mean we necessarily have to repudiate and expell the DLC, but it DOES mean the DLC needs to wake up and smell the country.

[Mass]

69. Have you really listened to Feingold

His position and Hackett's one are extremely similar to Kerry's: Get Iraq in a situation where we can leave. Sure, Feingold voted against the IWR and Kerry voted for the IWR, but if you think a minute that Kerry would have invaded Iraq: 1/ you did not read his speech, 2/ you should never have voted for him last year.

[endarkenment]

71. Kerry's position on the war

is so freaking nuanced that nobody knows where he really stands. He is however, as far as I know, solidly in the 'stay the course, can't afford to fail camp' and during the campaign he famously refused to state that the war was a mistake.

[Mass]

76. Well, Feingold is on the stay the course way as well

No leaving Iraq before end of 06. And so is Hackett.

And he has stated again and again the war was a mistake: " the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place".

[endarkenment]

79. Hacket said on Bill Maher that

we lost the war we should just get out now.

I disagree with Feingold's timetable. 90 days ought to be sufficient to get out. I'm sure we have contingency plans that would get us out in two weeks or less.

Like I said about kerry, he had so many statements on the war, including the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place" AND that the war was not a mistake, that all of us can put him anywhere we want by simply picking one statement of his or another.

But here we are at a defining moment with the momentum on the side of the Peace Party. So where is John? I'm willing to forgive him his dreadful campaign and his pro-war stance if he were to stand up now and say something, anything, for example: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

[Mass]

88. For Hackett, it is a serious move from his position last month

http://hackettforcongress.com/index.php?page=display&id...


No matter what your position on the war, if we pull out now the entire region will spiral into chaos and present our nation and military with a far more difficult challenge than we currently face. I don’t relish the prospect of my two sons going over there in twenty years. We need to get it right, and we need to do it now.

The Iraqi people and government are grateful that we eliminated their brutal dictator. They are capable of running their own government and building a democracy. It won’t look like ours; nor should it. But in order for them to succeed, we must not withdraw our troops before the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own.

[endarkenment]

101. "the entire region will spiral into chaos"

No it won't. Iraq is already in chaos, thanks to our stupid misguided criminal imperialist adventure. Iran Jordan Syria and Turkey are not going to fall apart because we pull out. Saudi Arabia might fall apart regardless of what we do. The Iraqis will settle their own affairs, as they should, without an occupying army of foreign heathens making the settling impossible.

You have bought into the 'white man's burden' theory of why we have to kill brownish third world types.

Our invasion was a crime and the criminal does not get to decide when it is ok to stop breaking the law. The burglar doesn't get to tidy up and destroy the evidence. We don't get to stick around until we have a friendly government installed.

Out now. Get used to it: peace is breaking out.

[Noisy Democrat]

98. He did say

that it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[endarkenment]

102. yes he did and he also said that it was not a mistake.

The criticism of Kerry that he had every position possible was not incorrect.

[tx_dem41]

73. While YOU are taking it upon yourself to define the criteria for the

Party's membership, are YOU also taking it upon yourself to find primary opponents that meet your criteria? It seems like the only responsible thing to do.

[Burried News]

75. Great topic - great discussion.

It isn't just the soul of the party that is at stake here. If we cannot sustain the concept that political parties exist to facilitate the democratic process then all is lost.

If the present GOP shows us nothing, it shows us how easily party supercedes country as a 'ruling party' paradigm is accepted.

The Kennedy statement is political genius because it expresses a truth without being confrontational and alienating. I am not a politician so I don't feel similarly constrained. There can be no America with two Republican Parties.

[SeanQ]

84. "There can be no America with two Republican Parties."

Nice!!!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

77. Real democrats support only total opposition to the idiot's lies.

[SeanQ]

81. And I'll keep supporting candidate like Paul

wherever they appear. And I'll support the DNC only so long as it continues to push toward organizing locally in all 50 states. And the more the DNC supports candidates like Paul, the more it (and Dean) speak out and stand firm against the pack of liars in DC, the more I will support it. The second the DNC starts to agree with the DLC is the moment I cut all support, both in $ and time.

Thanks for the post!

[LittleClarkie]

83. One of these things is not like the others...

One of these things just doesn't belong

Bill and Hillary
Biden
Kerry
Bayh

This post is brought to you by the letter I - for Iraq.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[NMDemDist2]

90. after discussion, this thread is being unlocked.

sorry for any inconvenience.

[welshTerrier2]

91. thanks, AZDemDist6

i'm always curious about how decisions like this are made ... is it possible to discuss some of the thoughts that were raised in your discussions or is this "secret mod stuff"? it would be helpful to understand this better for future posts ...

i know i can always go read the rules, which i've done many times, but these things are more about judgment than they are about the black-and-white of the rules ...

i'm really glad the decision to unlock the thread was made ... i deeply believe "we have to have it out" if we are to resolve the frictions that clearly exist within the Party ... some posts on this subject are more "constructive" than others ...

frankly, i'm not sure how many here will reconcile some of their views about fighting against certain conservative, DLC Democrats and voting for progressives regardless of party affiliation ... during campaign season, this philosophy, that i believe is fairly widespread on DU and in the Party in real life, is clearly outside my understanding of the rules ...

[NMDemDist2]

92. you're welcome WT2

and the discussion is just that. We alerted the admins, they talk it over (sometimes with LOTS of mod input, sometimes not so much LOL)

they decided that this is a discussion about the direction of the party and what could be a better use for DU?

"having it out" gives me shivers as a mod in this forum, but either we'll learn tolerance of others viewpoints or we won't. :shrug:

I just pray we can do it with a modicum of civility, as those rules still apply, no matter what. Egregious attacks against other Dems may be removed as well, depending on the severity of the attack.

Never hesitate to PM one of us if you have questions, you can link to us directly from the lobby view, all the mods are listed there for each forum.

[welshTerrier2]

94. really appreciate that, AZ ...

the core issue in this post and my view of where we're at is that there are those in the Party, especially many of those who have held the most power and influence, who do NOT have "tolerance of others viewpoints" ...

that is essentially what i believe all the dissension is all about ...

it's not clear to me, after watching "the left" be pushed further and further away, that anything but direct attacks on "the exclusionists" makes any sense ... i think Party unity is critical ... i think if the current state remains for much longer, we will fall far short of what we could achieve next year, even if we make some gains ... but for those of us who believe we are not heard and are not really wanted, at least by some in the Party, what else is there for us to do but fight for control ...

does unity make sense if the only option is "just going along"? to those who are preaching peace, which ultimately is needed if the Party is to get anywhere, what sense does peace make when we are not being represented?

anyway, thanks again to you, the other mods and the admins ... i know these issues are not easy ... we're all struggling with them and struggling to find the right path to progress ...

[NMDemDist2]

100. agreed

I am very anti-war and have been since the 60's

I do feel sometimes that I'm being pushed out even though my general leanings are mostly centrist, the war is one of the most important issues on my list.

I will have a hard time supporting a centrist with a hawkish agenda.

It's not just a party fight, but an internal one for me personally. Can I "just go along" with a candidate who I agree with on economic and social issues but who supports the "war on terror" At this point I can't answer, but it will be a soul searching time if it comes to that.

I pray it doesn't. but the longer the "centrists" support our Imperialism the "left-er" I get.

I fear we have been cursed to "live in interesting times"

One thing that will happen, no matter what. Moderating GDP will educate me to a depth I rarely find time to do on my own. :evilgrin:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

93. Circle snap.

[mmonk]

99. They have to go