Will Marshall, defender of progressive thought

[LittleClarkie]

Looking over at the Heritage Foundation's website (bleck, gonna have to clean the hard drive now, but I'm all about objective investigation, so I went. Hope tis appreciated) I found the event that everyone's been talking about re: Did the Progressives Destroy America.

So it looks like this West person will be defending his new book, and a couple of, cough, progressives have been invited for comment and criticism. That would be Mr. Marshall apparently and also someone from the Hudson Institute. Not familiar with them, are they any good?

From the site:

"A new book of essays, The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, argues that the thinkers and political leaders of the early twentieth century Progressive Era launched a successful revolt against the principles of the American Founding, debunking natural rights, limited government, the separation of powers and constitutionalism in favor of historical development, centralized power and unlimited government. The book posits that this shift marks the beginnings of modern liberalism and was, according to contributor Thomas West, "as radical as was the American Revolution in 1776," vastly transforming American government, and America, for the worse. West will defend this thesis, with comments and criticisms provided by two experts on the history and politics of progressive thought."

Is it really such a stretch to think that maybe Marshall will be there in the position of defense of progressive thought?

I guess we'll find out in 6 days. I wonder if a transcript will be available.

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. The Hudson Institute is another neocon treasonous front.

Richard Perle goes back a long ways with that group, and they are associated with a number of the usual right wing suspects.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute

[LittleClarkie]

3. Then where is the "criticism" part of the evening supposed to come in

Kinda leaves ol' Will. But then I imagine the Heritage Foundation isn't really all that interested in real rebuttal.

But then, hey, maybe Will will surprise us... maybe...

It could happen.

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Will Marshall is a TREASONOUS PNAC WAR CRIMINAL

He's not going to say anything good about progressives.

[fujiyama]

21. Don't keep your hopes up

Considering he's basically repeated every other RW talking point about the left in the last several weeks, I wouldn't expect anything.

[punpirate]

2. The Hudson Institute is...

... corporate and right-wing, and Marshall is pro-corporate. I can guess how this "debate" will turn out. General consensus that "liberalism" is terrible and bad.

This sounds to me to be a non-event.

[Eloriel]

5. I rather agree with what this guy said about it

The DLC's Will Marshall is attending, I'll assume, to push back on the book's thesis and its author. Yet the audience will be a Heritage audience, and the framing of the event is really -- "Progressives screwed up America". By showing up, Marshall is giving the event the appearance of a "debate", when the title of the event itself has already cast progressives in a bad light.

So my instinct is to say, "he screwed up by attending the event. Why legitimize it?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/154043/959

[LoZoccolo]

6. Not to people looking for any means to bash the DLC.

Credibility? Bah!

[LittleClarkie]

7. I'll look for a transcript later and see how he did

I just think this whole uproar over the DLC is energy better spent aiming at Repubs.

Ya don't like the DLC candidate? Go vote for somebody else. All done.

[LoZoccolo]

8. We can try to look at that, but it likely won't matter.

If they finagle "DLC says progressives destroyed America" out of this, they'll finagle all sorts of stuff out of the transcript.

Man, if these people get their way...what will 2008 look like...

Republicans: Get your ass lied to.
Democrats: Get your ass yelled at.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

13. The farther left I look, the more I get the cold shivers

The same kind of cold shivers I get if I look too far to the right. I guess extremism in any form makes me nuts.

I could actually slap the lot of ye some days. One side is blaming the progressives and trying to kick them out of the party. The other side is blaming the conservatives and trying to kick THEM out of the party. Way too much finger pointing for me.

I want to go after Republicans damn it. But my party doesn't know what to do with itself. They don't know who they are. I do wish you guys would just have one big street fight and get it over with so we can go get the damn Republicans.

I hate this. I really hate this. I suspect the big DLC vs Progressive fight will happen whether some of us want it to or not. And maybe one side will leave and the other will be stronger for it. I hope so. Meanwhile I'll just soldier on, proofreading newsletters, manning booths, writing letters and making phonecalls, occasionally looking up and wondering what the fuck, but then I'll just go back to work.

Let me know when you guys have it worked out, okay. Otherwise I've got a big crybaby Representative to pry out of his entrenched little seat.

I'm not here to fight Democrats. End of story.

[LoZoccolo]

16. sangh0 said something very wise about extremists on both sides...

...that they tend to rely heavily on authority figures, not doing much thinking for themselves...and I've found this notion to stand the test of observation for a long time. I think I would add that they virtually don't think as much for themselves...they may do it inside, but the suspicion of loyalty they subject each other to erases that on the outside.

But yeah, I'm scared. If we as a party cannot think straight because we are devising attacks on each other any which way we think we can get away with, we're in trouble.

[fujiyama]

22. Please don't quote tombstoned DUers (especially such nasty and rude ones)

But anyways, I was actually one that defended the DLC a lot in the past. While I have often disagreed with them I always believed and still believe that centrists and moderates, and even conservatives, have a place in the party.

But I think this scapegoating on the part of From and Marshall has become especially nasty in recent weeks. He's basically used every RW talking point out there in talking about liberals. If either From or Marshall started using those here at DU, he or she would be tombstoned, and deservedly so.

Now, I'm not accusing you of using those same talking points, but you must realize how frustrating it must be to not only have the right calling you anti-American and unpatriotic, but those in your own party as well.

[LittleClarkie]

23. I've been accused of being DLC for defending their right to be here

But I'm not. I'm just a Unity Girl who wants to see her party remain whole. I've seen progressives blaming our losses on the DLC. I've see the DLC blaming our losses on the progressives. I wish they'd both knock it the fuck off.

But I'm probably not going to get my wish. I guess they need to have this fight. I just hope they can finish up before we need the party in some kind of order for the 2006 elections.

In some ways I don't feel like I have a dog in this hunt (is that the right phrase?) I'm just a Democrat. I feel like Rodney King in a way.

"Can't we all just get along?"

That's probably naive of me. But that's how I feel.

[fujiyama]

25. I don't blame ya

I felt the same way for a while, but ultimately I feel pushed over the edge by certain issues in the last few months (like bankruptcy "reform", CAFTA - Pelosi wasn't too happy either with those Dems that defected in the end), and the comments by From and Marshal.

I agree at times, the left uses the DLC too as a bit of boogeyman and a scapegoat as well and it's annoying, but in their case, I feel it's a reaction. Most liberals and leftists did all could to get Kerry elected. That's why Nader, Cobb, and other left leaning third and fourth parties
recieved no more than 2% of the vote last year. The left was unified.

That's why the attacks on liberals by From and Marshal is especially unecessary and unwaranted.

[sunnystarr]

64. I don't believe it's a coincidence that this rhetoric has reached

the level of outright attacks against progressives. With plummeting poll numbers the Rs are freaking out since the '06 elections aren't far away. Time to bring out the imbedded bed partners ergo the DLC talking heads to create a rift in the party to make Dems look weaker.

I believe it's time to call them out on it. Personally I believe that the party's umbrella is big enough to unite those Dems in the center and even a bit to the right. But noone will continue to allow them under the umbrella when they're stabbing their fellow Dems in the back with major party betrayal.

So in the words of a famous Queen ... "Off with their heads" (the heads that are fucking us in the proverbial arse)

[LoZoccolo]

69. What outright attacks against progressives?

Are you talking about that Heritage Foundation thing? That's been roundly debunked.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[jonnyblitz]

18. wanting an opposition party to bush is hardly far left littleclarkie

these clowns in the DLC support his invasion.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Two separate rants

Sorry, they kinda bled together. I just don't trust everything I read here because I sense the same kind of smear tactics I've seen on Free Republic. So gleening information isn't always easy. I've been sort of waking up to that fact lately, that I was sheepling again. I'm starting to question everything. If you go too far to the left, you'll find lefty freepers, with accompanying rhetoric. I've been finding that perhaps I've been swallowing too much red meat whole.

Problem is, I don't have alot of time, nor am I much of a finisher of what I start, so much the research I want to do is likely to go undone. I want to know for myself far more than I can possibly find out. So DU remains my shortcut to information. But more and more I'm waking up to the fact that it's imperfect.
-------end first part

Opposition Party is fine. And yeah, if Clinton is the epitomy of DLCishness, then I have to say that his chumminess with Bush does get on my nerves. Hell, I'm no big fan of the missus either.

But there's something counterproductive about the near constant demonization of the DLC. I don't agree with them alot. But I don't dwell on that fact. I'm not even convinced they're to blame for all our woes. That would be too easy.

I just want the Democratic Party get itself together. That's it.
--------end second part

[fujiyama]

24. Certainly question everything

and I agree about extremism. In fact, it's strange how much farther to the left I feel in the last several years. I suppose that's how far it's shifted though.

Anyways I would urge you to read Marshall and From's own document which primarilly attacks liberals.

Here's the link:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

I'm tired of being told that I'm unpatriotic or anti-American if I oppose a stupid war, that had nothing to do with national security. His comments are as dumb as those RWers that called Kerry "Hanoi John" because he protested. From and Marshall are using the same tactics and there is a line at which I think we can draw the line. After all, I'm sure most of us can agree we wouldn't want Zell Miller in the party still. I don't hate the DLC nearly as much as some others (and I like some members like Kerry) and I'm not interested in purges, but the organization should do itself and the party a huge favor and dump Marshall, From, and others that have had ties to RW think tanks and organizations (like Heritage, Christian Coalition, etc). Most of those aren't necessarily even elected officials. These are the so called "policy makers".

[LittleClarkie]

34. Here's a question: Would the DLC be a better organization

and more acceptable without those people you mentioned? Without Marshall and From, would the DLC be a more palatable organization? Was there a time when those two didn't have a role at that organziation?

I can't picture Bill Clinton going after "liberals" in the same terms as those two. I imagine the DLC was a better organization under him. Then again, I don't entirely trust Bill anymore either.

I've just decided I need to question my sources alittle. Problem is that leads to entirely more navel gazing than I generally have patience for or consider healthy. But still there's gotta be a good book or two out there for a person who's only been at this in earnest for a year or so.

[Zhade]

41. Would it be a WORSE organization if those pricks weren't in it?

Is it a bad thing to not want people with ties to and funded by founders of rightwing think tanks bent of destroying liberals and liberalism in the party?

At the very least, from a strategic standpoint, does it make sense to have an organization like the DLC, which accepts money from people who would prefer to see the traditional interests Dems fought for (equal rights, affordable health care for all, only attacking countries that actually attacked us) vanish, anywhere in the Dem party?

Left, right, liberal, conservative - these things are meaningless when you consider that the DLC takes money from those who oppose the principles and beliefs of most Dems. You don't willingly ally yourself with those who want your party destroyed, not if you care about the party's livelihood.

YMMV, but I'm guessing not by much.

[NMDemDist2]

36. LittleClarkie, I couldn't have said it better myself. but since I

signed on to TRY to keep some civility in GDP, guess I'll just keep plugging away at it.

But I (and my fellow GDP mods) are severly outnumbered LOL

:yoiks:

[Eloriel]

37. LittleClarkie

Several things.

First, you aren't seeing any extremists on the Left. What you may THINK of as "extreme" on the Left most assuredly is not. More extreme than what you see here at DU would be full-out socialists (and there are, or have been, a few here), and communists (ditto). But the vast, vast, vast majority of DUers are mainstream liberals, so YOUR characterization of finding extremists on the Left is damn scary to me, plus inaccurate, plus further indication of how far right the GOP has dragged us, with the HELP and complicity of so-called moderate and conservative Dems, and how far we will have to go to get to some balance.

Second:

One side is blaming the progressives and trying to kick them out of the party. The other side is blaming the conservatives and trying to kick THEM out of the party.

PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: there wasn't a lot of love lost, but there wasn't all that much "blaming conservatives" until the DLC started making all the ugly noise about the progressives and liberals.

Finally, and most important: It's wonderful to all get along, but that requires everyone to be acting on good faith. That means that all parties want to negotiate fairly, want to play by the rules and be fair, want to give everyone a chance and a seat at the table, etc., etc. You know: good sportsmanship (does anyone even know what that means anymore??).

The problem is: THE DLC ISN'T ACTING ON GOOD FAITH. It's NOT interested in any of that. It wants to evict progressives and liberals (and in response we progressives and liberals want these troublemakers GONE), and take over ALL influence of the party -- and hand it to corporations (and themselves, of course).

If the party is to survive as anything other than a limp satellite or shadow of the GOP, then the DLC must go. Period.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Eloriel, thank you for your post

I'll clarify one thing. When I say I see extremism on the left, I don't necessarily mean to the left of the party. I have to remember that even though we're called the Democratic Underground that not everyone here is a Dem. We have socialists, anarchists, socialist anarchists (?!), some who are this close to leaving the party if not for Dean or Kucinich or Conyers (Dean or Green type folks), etc.

I'm painting with too broad a brush, now that your post has me thinking about it. And now that you mention it, I suspect the folks who make my teeth itch most often are NOT Democrats. But I would wonder at your assertion that we have no extremists. Surely there's an odd duck here and there.

Nevertheless, the lines blur and you don't always know if you're talking to a Democrat around here. I think there might be extremes outside of the party hoping the party will go their way and perhaps working for that, and perhaps I've mistaken them for the leftmost wing of the party at times.

I think lately I've been letting you guys see a bit more of me. I'm only a year away from having been pretty much a sheeple. I think I've learned quite alot in a year, but perhaps the history of what's going on is lacking in my education. You see, I jumped into all of this last year without much analysis because Bush scared me enough to wake me the fuck up out of my stupor. After a year of activity, joining the Party and trying to get involved, I've only just recently decided it's time to look around and stop swallowing things whole without thinking about it. Too much red meat isn't healthy. I probably seem damned naive with the questions I'm asking. But that's where I'm at.

(Crud, I'm rambling. It's Friday, and my brain has decided to go for the weekend. I hope some of that was coherent.)

[Zhade]

52. Please remember: it's just as easy to swallow "red meat" from the Dems...

...as it is to swallow it from anyone else.

My point is that one should never take anything for granted. I looked into the DLC's funding and the policies, and that's why I will not support them. It has zero to do with leftism, extremism, or any political labels.

[Eloriel]

61. I appreciate your rambling

It was very self-revelatory and therefore helpful. Endearing too. You've come a long way in a year, and no one knows more than I how hard some of that journey must have been: there's a LOT to not just "learn" but internalize and assimilate. Hell, I haven't yet gotten over learning that the CIA weren't necessarily nice guys back in the 1960s. :evilgrin: And, unfortunately, it's downhill from there. So I salute you.

But I would wonder at your assertion that we have no extremists. Surely there's an odd duck here and there.

No, at DU I really don't think you're seeing "leftist extremists," not as the term is conventionally understood. (See Zhade's superb post below.)

And, btw, I don't think you sound naive at all. I'll repeat: I think you've come a LONG way in a year if you were on the verge of being a "sheeple" back then. I'm impressed. Very.

Thanks for your rambling.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Here's one sign of extremism.

People posting knee-jerk two-minutes-hate-style reactions to posts which they didn't even read. I've seen it happen! And hopefully, so have you.

Also, another sign, is what would be referred to as "pounding on the table". People trying to hammer you with assertions they are loathe to establish compellingly over and over, even using all caps, and acting arrogant.

[Eloriel]

55. I'm sorry, the topic is POLITICAL extremism on the left and right

You can call what you've described "extremism," but it's not political extremism.

[LoZoccolo]

59. Well yeah yeah yeah yeah...

...that's very bad, what I've called "extremism".

[Zhade]

46. Every time I hear "far left", I start looking for the Maoists.

Funny, haven't seen them post on DU once. No Stalinists or Trotskyites, either.

I must have missed all those "far left" (in this case, an accurate description) posts advocating forced redistribution of wealth and the wonders of collectivization!

To some people, CLINTON was "far left". Those people, IMHO, are idiots with no sense of history or grasp of vocabulary.

And of course, all those ranting about the "far loony left fringe radical extremist McGovernites" criticizing the DLC fail to recognize the very real fact that corruption, infiltration, and co-optation wears no particular political label.

[Eloriel]

56. Yes, excellent post -- do see this one, LittleClarkie

Putting a little meat on what I was trying to say (with my own pitiful sense of history and grasp of political vocabulary).

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. So real Democrats are "obnoxious", but war criminals are fine with you?

Thanks for clarifying. :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

50. No. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

12. P.S. to everyone else

That was an example of "get your ass yelled at".

[LittleClarkie]

10. Well, there's gotta be a reason why this guy was one of Kerry's advisors

He would seem to be too conservative for Kerry, but then I think Kerry liked to have the whole spectrum to listen to before he made decisions.

And I don't know how much of a role or how much sway.

I'm just trying to find these things out for myself, you know? I'm finding that the rhetoric I run into isn't really telling me much.

I'd like to find a fairly objective source to find out more, neither enamored of the DLC nor demonizing it, you know?

[Zhade]

53. Marshall is one of the things that really bothered me about Kerry.

I actually had far less against Kerry and more so against some of his advisors, like Marshall.

I just don't trust a guy who goes out of his way to endorse multiple PNAC statements. It always bothered me, his being anywhere near Kerry.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

32. Sure it will.

Got this thread kicked, 'idn't it?

[Zhade]

39. Yeah, why shouldn't we give people who endorse PNAC a chance?

:eyes:

I'm all for not being kneejerk, but COME ON already.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. So, one wonders just how...

much better the greatest economic and military power in history, with one of the highest standards of living and technological achievment would have been without those nasty progressives screwing it up a hundred years ago.

I suppose we'd have everything we have now, plus everyone would have affordable health care and housing, a decent job and pension, and we wouldn't owe half the country to the Chinese. The environment would, of course, be squeaky clean, and all wars would be just.

This whole circus is just another propaganda dog and pony show for the neocons-- the book and transcripts will be sent out to the usual suspects, and it will be believed as Gospel by the few true believers and derided or ignored by the rest of the few who even know it exists.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I could agree that all Marshall is really doing is lending this thing

credibility. But I'm not ready to demonize an organization I know little about (DLC or PPI, I mean -- I have no problem demonizing the Heritage Foundation.) I mean, are they misguided? In cahoots? Do they have a point on some things. Are they like Kennedy, who was pretty conservative in his day? Or are they like FDR, who was too conservative for many people here as well? What?

[jonnyblitz]

17. don't you ever click on the links that people post ad nauseum

straight from the DLC website where they trash liberals and call anti war activists un-american among other things? there is nothing remotely liberal sounding about them. I can't believe you feign cluelessness about them when there is all this information out there. yes, there is lots of angry rhetoric in these discussions that don't tell you much if you are uninformed but there is also good info provided often straight from the horses mouth via links to their writings. you should consider reading them sometime. i have to conclude you just don't want to hear it.

[LittleClarkie]

19. My attention has been elsewhere

Only recently has war apparently broken out again. It was quiet while the Senate was in session. Fighting Bolton doesn't have much to do with fighting the DLC. Paying attention to Social Security, the war, Bush's latest bullshit, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, the Bankruptcy bill, CAFTA, ANWR and a myriad of other issues has little to do with fighting the DLC, is true.

Hey, man, I've only been aware for a year and a half. Before that it was sheeple time. All I know is Clinton was a decent enough President compared to Chimp boy.

So its not that I didn't want to know. It's just that it's kinda low on the list. And there has been more than one progressive publication that has set off my bullshit meter so I'm not completely sure who to trust there either, except maybe Rawstory and Truthout -- good, Common Dreams and CounterPunch -- bad.

If the current level of strife persists, I will probably be motivated to go and research and take a side. But mostly I just want the party to get its shit together and take it on the road.

[Q]

27. Are we to understand that...

...you're 'defending' the DLC without ever having studied their position on the issues?

Perhaps you've taken on a project too big for your knowledge base?

[LittleClarkie]

28. Not defending them per se

Just their right to be here.

I know what I've gleened from here, and what little a quick surf of their site could tell me. They appear to be too conservative for me, and a bit suspect, but my feelings aren't strong enough to scream "SATAN" at them yet. If wyldwolf or somebody sent me something to read from the other side, my mind is still open enough to at least read it.

And I've been called apologist enough times around here to know it's a damned annoying form of name-calling that seeks to downgrade the other side to mindless bots, regardless of what they may have to say for themselves.

Considering I've met folks who will swallow stories whole as long as their from a progressive site without much thought, there's enough bot to go around.

What I'm defending is the Democratic Party. I gave the spackel out, and I'm trying to fill in the cracks.

As an outsider all I see is both sides blaming each other. It was wrong for From to blame the left. It wasn't Michael Moore's fault. But there were plenty here blaming the centrists for running a "Republican lite" candidate, saying that's why we lost.

So you guys are blaming each other near as I can tell. Both sides piss me off to some extent. It appears non-productive to me. Both sides need to find common ground with the other.

I care more about making the organization I just joined healthy enough to face the next election. That's it. I'm a Democrat. End of story.

[Q]

29. But the DLC isn't PART of the Democratic party...

...as is the DNC. They are an INDEPENDENT 'THINK TANK' working from the outside to rewrite the platform and 'change the philosophy' of the party into something so 'conservative' that many lifelong Democrats don't recognize it anymore.

What evidence do you have that running 'Republican-lite' candidates ISN'T why we lost? It's just as probable that many Democrats have become disgusted with candidates that mimic RWing talking points and policies. This could be the logical outcome of the 'new' Democratic leadership taking the party's base for granted as they run after the phantom 'swing voter'.

If you actually took the time to research this subject...you'd find that the DLC started this war against the Liberals as they were taking control of the party. It's NEVER been the position of liberals that moderates or true centrists shouldn't have a 'seat at the table'. We had always assumed that all Democrats had a voice in the party until we learned that the DLC thought otherwise about liberals.

Simply 'being a Democrat' is not the end of the story. How nice if that were true. The DLC refuses to work with us and that is unacceptable for a party that pretends to have a big tent.

And please stop the naive act. Your threads berate liberals and progressives and defend the DLC. Once again...please take the time to inform yourself before you presume to lecture others about the DLC and unity.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I edited a bit just as you were writing, FYI

Well, for one thing, I didn't consider Kerry Republican-lite. So that's my first piece of evidence. That phrase is bandied about a bit to much for my tastes.

Re: centrists and moderates having a place at the table, I'm glad you feel that way. Not everyone does. I remember the "kick the moderates out!" threads after the election. Here, I'm probably considered a moderate. So I wasn't pleased. Out in the world, I'm a raging liberal (I live in Freeperville). Depends on who's looking at me, apparently.

On edit: I'll ask you. What do you consider a good source to read more about the DLC as you've suggested. Send me there and I'll go.

I'm just sick of the strife and I see it as counterproductive because I don't think either movement is going away anytime soon. The DLC will have to learn that progressives are here to stay as well.

Think what you will. If you think I'm putting on some kind of act, that's your problem. Comes very near calling me a liar, which I must say, I really don't appreciate.

[Q]

58. The best place to read about the DLC...

...is at their main website:

http://www.dlc.org/

This is a group that doesn't even bother to hide it anymore. They outright admit that...as an outside organization...have 'changed the philosophy' of the Democratic party and 'expect everyone' to be 'New Democrats' in the future. This is exactly why they won't accept any kind of input from liberals and progressives. They now smugly intimate that they 'OWN' the party and they're not about to share power with those who orchestrated the New Deal, fought for civil, worker's and women's rights and public education.

The problem WE face is that the DLC really does believe they now control the party and can call the shots. Does anyone really believe it's a coincidence that the last three presidential candidates/nominees were backed/sponsored by the DLC? Clinton. Gore. Kerry. And unless something 'drastic' happens...another DLC candidate will pull off a miracle and become the nominee in 2008 (while character assassinating liberals and progressives). I'll be taking bets in 2007.

What you can't yet seem to comprehend is that the DLC is CAUSING the 'strife' by pushing an agenda that is the antithesis of traditional Democratic values. The 'strife' comes from the fact that they're shoving the agenda down our throats without first seeking a consensus from the rank and file and by working OUTSIDE the party structure. When all is said and done...the rank and file are simply EXPECTED to vote for the New Democratic Agenda because they have 'no where else to go'.

My apologies for implying that you were 'acting'. But as someone that has been voting Democratic for over 30 years...I'm sick and tired of being told by the 'new' Democrats that I want the Republicans to win if I challenge the party to do what's right for people instead of corporations.

If the DLC really wants 'unity' with the left...they should stop pretending that they're the (unelected) party leadership and work with progressives on a platform and agenda that a majority of Democrats can support with pride.

[LoZoccolo]

33. "It's just as probable that many Democrats have become disgusted..."

Not really. Not if you knew two Nader voters who voted for Democrats this time, and people who would normally vote Democratic staying home. Besides, people had a chance to vote for Kucinich or Dean or whoever during the primary. All these discussions where we place blame on the Democratic Party or DLC for who people picked during primaries and caucuses are useless. And blaming the media for making people pick one primary candidate over the other is useless too - if someone couldn't weather the media during the primaries, they wouldn't be able to during the general.

[LittleClarkie]

35. This sentence

"And blaming the media for making people pick one primary candidate over the other is useless too - if someone couldn't weather the media during the primaries, they wouldn't be able to during the general."

I've said that too. Bush wasn't going to be suddenly wearing kid gloves during the general election. Rove wasn't going to shut his brain off. They were likely ready regardless.

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. If being a PNAC signator isn't close enough to "Satan" for you....

....then where exactly would someone cross the river Styx, so to speak, in your opinion? :evilgrin:

[Zhade]

38. Uh, Will Marshall ENDORSED PNAC.

He's about as progressive as I am the pope.

[Supersedeas]

42. Apparently, the war of ideas begins at home...then, Neo-Cons worry will

worry about National Security

[ulysses]

54. yes.

Is it really such a stretch to think that maybe Marshall will be there in the position of defense of progressive thought?

[jonnyblitz]

60. no kidding. if they really wanted the progressive point of view

represented,you would think they would choose an actual progressive. :shrug:

[ulysses]

65. but why would they do that

when they have a stooge who's given himself the "progressive" label waiting in the wings?

Political dialogue in America takes another hit...