Will the DLC support/endorse McCain's presidential bid in '08?

[Aaaargh]

Lest anyone sneer, this is a very serious question. The most prominent, oft-quoted spokesman for the DLC currently is the non-Democrat Marshall Wittmann, former Christian Coalition and rightwing think-tank shill, who worked for the McCain campaign in 2000, and still speaks of his hero in terms reminiscent of contemporary Italian fascists' esteem for Mussolini:

"...In September 2002 -- a year when he was quoted 640 times, according to Nexis -- Wittmann quit quotemeistering to take a job as press secretary to McCain, a job that required that he no longer be quoted by name.

McCain is the only pol on Earth who could have unplugged the Wittmann quote machine. Wittmann is absolutely gaga over McCain. "My great belief is that John McCain is the living embodiment of Teddy Roosevelt," he says.

He also says this: "I would crawl over a field of broken glass for him."

- from a January 2006 Washington Post article about Wittmann
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301870_pf.html

Checking the DLC website and doing a search on 'McCain,' I get many hits, and from what I've looked through, I find nothing that's really negative at all about the Arizona senator.

Yet McCain, as Paul Krugman explained today in a fine column in the New York Times (available online only through subscription, unfortunately), McCain's actual positions on issues show that, despite his faked-up image, he's a very rightwing Republican. It's much worth remembering, as Krugman points out in today's column, that McCain was the first pick of the central neocon clique in the presidential race in 2000, and in that year's campaign advocated a program of military intervention which accords fully with the PNAC agenda of his key insider supporters. McCain also advocates the same program of 'reforming' (that is, undermining and eliminating) Social Security as Bush.

But judging from what's posted prominently on the DLC's website, they think McCain's an absolutely great and wonderful guy; and their most prominent spokesman, as of January of this year, worships him as his Duce.

It's clear that McCain's gang is putting together a very serious, supercharged-with-money campaign for a presidential run in '08, with plenty of support from the corporate media, which absurdly pitches the old liar as 'Senator Straight-Talk,' and a moderate and a maverick.

So, if Democratic primary voters pick, say, neocon-imperialism opponent Russ Feingold to be their nominee, what position will the DLC take? And if they endorse or support McCain, will DLC standard-bearers on this forum follow after them? What do you say, standard-bearers?

As for non-Democrat DLC spokesman Wittmann, we don't have to wonder what he'll do. "MEIN FUEHRER! I CAN CRAWL!"

[cali]

1. No.

Don't forget, the Clinton's ties to the DLC are very strong. It's much more likely that the DLC will endorse Hillary.

[Aaaargh]

8. What if Hillary doesn't get the nomination

and the contest is between Russ Feingold and John McCain?

There's no question that DLC spokesman Marshall Wittmann will go with his beefcake pinup McCain no matter who the opposition is. What the rest of the DLC leadership will do is harder to call. I think they may limit themselves to carping criticisms of Feingold, as they did with Howard Dean in the earlier stages of the 2004 campaign, and settle for a tacit endorsement of McCain rather than an explicit one. After all, they do need to keep up some pretense of being Democrats.

Of course, if the contest turns out to be between Hillary Clinton and McCain (forbid it, Lord), they'll be quite content with either outcome, having, in that instance, seen the fulfillment of their mission of limiting voters' choices to corporatist-imperialist candidates from each major party.

[Clark2008]

14. Even better: what if it's against Wes Clark and John McCain

What would the DLC do?

The DLC keeps trying to claim Clark (mainly because they see that people think of him as a moderate, even though he's a liberal) and both are war heroes.

That would be VERY intersting, from the DLC standpoint.

[cmkramer]

43. No

They won't endorse him because he's a Republican and the DLC -- unlike their leftist counterparts -- are loyal to the party.

That's not to say that members of the DLC won't endorse McCain, but it will never be DLC policy to do so.

[AtomicKitten]

2. That's nonsense.

Democratic Leadership Council.

They're not going to support a non-Democrat.

[Aaaargh]

7. Then why is their key spokesman a non-Democrat?

...and one who says he would "crawl across a field of broken glass" for Republican presidential candidate (and prime neocon stooge) McCain?

[xultar]

3. Why not. Sounds to me like they are just the ones to support his

2k8 aspirations.

When you look @ the DLC and McCain the similarities are just too apparent to ignore.

[leftstreet]

4. DLC fantasy ticket: Clinton/McCain 2008

Or McCain/Clinton. Wouldn't matter.

The ultimate Corporate Party.

[Minnesota Libra]

5. It won't happen nt

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. My great belief is that

Marshall Wittmann is one of many idiots over at the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

9. why would they?

Six of the nine (10 if you count Al Gore who hasn't really made any noise on the topic) current leaders for the nomination are DLC: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsak, and Mark Warner.

And #7 would be Al Al Gore, who some will contend is at the very least still DLC-like on many matters.

One is cut from the New Democrat cloth: Joe Biden

One is connected with Bill Clinton and spoken of favorably by the DLC (and thought by some on the left to be DLC): Wes Clark.

The only non-DLC affiliated/connected candidate is Feingold.

The DLC will have plenty of candidates to back.

The REAL question is, will non-Democrat far lefties support the Democratic nominee or stomp their feet and cry again?

[wndycty]

10. "stomp their feet and cry again"

Exactly!

[Aaaargh]

13. This doesn't respond to the points I raise

I'm not speaking merely about the primary stage of the campaign, in which the mostly-hopeless wannabes you list may participate. I'm talking about the real contest after the nominations have been made.

It's very likely that the DLC, during that primary phase, will not explicitly endorse any candidate, but will make their support for Hillary Clinton's bid very clear. Marshall Wittmann, however, will have to choose between staying with the DLC and going with the McCain campaign. Judging from the thralldom displayed in Wittmann's comments about McCain, I think it's clear what choice he'll make. It wouldn't surprise me if Wittmann left and then later returned to the DLC, depending on the outcome of the primaries and, perhaps, the general election.

But if Russ Feingold or some other traditional Democrat, who refuses to follow the neoconservative agenda of the DLC, should get the nomination, and McCain gets the Republican nomination, I think we'll probably see the DLC make a tacit endorsement of McCain. We'll probably also see rightwing contributors to this forum follow suit. Time will tell, eh?

This course will stand in great contrast to what we saw happen in 2004, in which a whole lot of traditional Democrats, including many on the left, worked very hard through organizations like MoveOn for Sen. John Kerry after the primary stage of the campaign. Kerry, after all, was a nominee whose positions were largely in keeping with the DLC agenda. Of course, this was done mostly out of opposition to Bush rather than support for Kerry's positions.

As for your "non-Democrat far lefties," I think you're talking about a very small group of people indeed -- how many votes did Nader get in 2004?

Of course, it doesn't help us today that Sen. Kerry, after winning the nomination in 2004, tried publicly to woo McCain onto the Democratic ticket, and even said that McCain wouldn't have to change his party affliation, only to have McCain turn around and strongly support Bush. Though it's seldom spoken of, this was surely one of Kerry's biggest blunders during the campaign, maybe THE biggest -- and it stands as yet another reason for Democrats to see that their nominee in 2008 is NOT another DLC-liner like Kerry, but a principled and loyal traditional Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

26. you've made no real points

Marshall Wittmann, however, will have to choose between staying with the DLC and going with the McCain campaign.

This "point" is predicated on a false assumptions.

1. In the OP, you state that Whittman is the most prominant spokesperson for the DLC and use a Nexis quote to "prove" it. But how many times have other DLC personnel been quoted? And does being quoted the most make you the most prominent? Even if the stat being used pertains to quotes made before Whittman was attached to the DLC? What does Nexis say about his quote count now as compared to From, Marshall, Kilgore, etc.?

2. Whittman is by no means the policy guru and mouthpiece of the DLC. Yet, your OP's title says "Will the DLC support/endorse McCain." Whether Whittman does or not in no way implies an official position of the DLC as an organization.

[Aaaargh]

31. This is not a response to what I said

As to the points you make (see how generous I am?): I didn't use any Nexus quote to "prove" that Wittmann is the most prominent DLC spokesman. I'm not sure how such a thing could be "proven." I say that Wittmann is the most prominent DLC spokesman being that's what I perceive him to be, because he seems to be the DLC spokesman I hear quoted the most these days. A year or so ago, it seemed that you usually heard of PNACer Will Marshall as the DLC spokesman, but more recently it's usually Marshall Wittmann.

Whether Wittmann is judged by you to be the most prominent spokesman, it can't be denied that he is an leading figure of the DLC whose writings are frequently featured on their website, and that he's frequently quoted in the press as speaking for the DLC. And yet he's not a Democrat, but a former insider Republican who's now an independent, and he likes to describe himself as a 'Bull Moose,' in reference to a Republican faction associated with Teddy Roosevelt, and he's "gaga" about rightwing Republican presidential candidate John McCain. So what does that tell us about the DLC, that this guy is speaking for them much of the time?

No, Wittmann's position does not necessarily represent an "OFFICIAL" position of the DLC as an organization. But in my previous posts, I spoke specifically of the DLC's positions, independently of Wittmann's -- though Wittmann obviously CANNOT be disassociated from the DLC when he's a part of the organization's leadership, and frequently serves as their spokesman.

I don't believe that the DLC will "OFFICIALLY" endorse any candidate in the primary phase of the campaign, but will pointedly promote their own pick, which for starters will almost certainly be Hillary Clinton. But, as I've said again and again here, I think that IF John McCain scores the Republican nomination, and the Democratic nominee is someone who's at odds with the DLC agenda, that they will at least TACITLY support McCain -- and that Wittmann can be expected to support McCain no matter what.

After all, what would the DLC have done in '04 had Howard Dean become the nominee? Could have happened, you know, Dean was 'way ahead in the polls for ahwile there. I think they would have sat on their hands and carped, but with Bush as the opponent, it would have been very hard for them to officially endorse Bush, and they probably would not have. In the 'McCain vs. Feingold-or-someone-like-him' scenario, I think they probably would still not make an official endorsement of McCain, but would make it clear that he represented their preference.

Not that it's out of the question that they wouldn't officially endorse McCain, but that would be going out on a limb. It's a part of their mission, after all, to present themselves as Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

33. It's a reply to your OP

As to the points you make (see how generous I am?): I didn't use any Nexus quote to "prove" that Wittmann is the most prominent DLC spokesman.

You stated that Whittman is he most prominent, oft-quoted spokesman for the DLC . You then immediately quoted a WP story saying ""...In September 2002 -- a year when he was quoted 640 times, according to Nexis."

Sounds like you were using that stat to prove your statement to me.

I say that Wittmann is the most prominent DLC spokesman being that's what I perceive him to be.

oh...kay...

So your entire post is predicated on your perception and your threw than Nexis quote in for no reason.

and that he's frequently quoted in the press as speaking for the DLC.

really? How often? When and where?

in my previous posts, I spoke specifically of the DLC's positions, independently of Wittmann's -- though Wittmann obviously CANNOT be disassociated from the DLC when he's a part of the organization's leadership, and frequently serves as their spokesman.

So? We're discussing THIS post of yours, not previous ones.

[Aaaargh]

35. "oh...kay..."

Wyldwolf, don't you have faith in your own viewpoints and your own arguments? Why do you do all this bullshitting? You can make a pretty articulate argument when you want to, for a DLC-liner who's also probably still in college.

Why don't you just address the gist of what I'm actually saying if you disagree with it? Has someone taught you that the way to defeat an opponent in 'debate' is to always look for ways to amplify small details to misrepresent what they say? That's just fucked-up, son.

The issue is not whether Marshall Wittmann is, according to some unidentified but presumably scientifically-verifiable criterion, "the most prominent DLC spokesman." The article I sampled from is, in part, a puff piece about how often Wittmann is quoted in the press, but that's not why I sampled from it. I think it's clear enough that I did that to display Wittmann's hard-on for McCain.

Marshall Wittmann really is very frequently quoted in the major media as a spokesman for the DLC. That's my contention. Is that untrue?

Also, Marshall Wittmann is described on the DLC's website as a "SENIOR FELLOW" in the organization. Yet he's not even a Democrat. As someone else here pointed out, the group is known as 'the DEMOCRATIC Leadership Council.' Why is a non-Democrat, who's feverish over a rightwing Republican presidential candidate, a "SENIOR FELLOW" in this organization? Furthermore, why does that same rightwing Republican presidential candidate receive so many warm-and-fuzzy references on the organization's website, and NOT only from Mr. Wittmann's pen?

Finally, when I say 'previous posts,' I am indeed talking about the post which you're allegedly responding to.

May I ask you one more question, and get a straightforward answer, Wyldwolf? Why, given your neoconservative views, are you (presumably) a member of the Democratic Party and not of the Republican Party?

[wyldwolf]

36. oh...kay

Wyldwolf, don't you have faith in your own viewpoints and your own arguments? Why do you do all this bullshitting?

The Bullshitting is yours. You set up a false premise, then build a case on it.

You ask if the DLC would support McCain, then say Whittman is the most prominent spokesman for the DLC, implying that a Whittman endorsement would mean a DLC endorsement, then state that claim is "unidentified but presumably scientifically-verifiable criterion, when that "unidentified but presumably scientifically-verifiable" criterion is your perception!

Has someone taught you that the way to defeat an opponent in 'debate' is to always look for ways to amplify small details to misrepresent what they say?

This is no debate. It's a pointing out of a post of yours where your eventual conclusions are built upon your perception and false premises.

Your fixation on the DLC is reminiscent of a grade schooler's fixation on "boobies."

To answer your question, I must ask one of you: What do you believe are "neoconservative" views and wherever have you gotten the impression that I hold them?

[Aaaargh]

39. "implying that a Whittman endorsement would mean a DLC endorsement"

Wlydwolf: I didn't imply any such thing. I spoke about both Wittmann's position and the DLC's "offical" position, in terms of statements about McCain which are posted on the DLC's own website. Anyone who reviews the posts in this thread can see this.

Again: WHY is Marshall Wittmann a spokesman for the DLC when he isn't a Democrat? Why can't you answer this straightforward question?

If you have an honest argument to make in contradiction to mine, why do you keep trying to blatantly distort what I've said? Why not address what I actually say? Do you feel that you can't refute my arguments? Is it because you're personally insecure?

Anyone who wishes to make a objective survey of the argument here can easily see that you're weaseling around. Why can't you simply make an honest argument, if this matters enough to you to keep posting about it?

What do you think you're accomplishing here? Are you impressing your friends by bullshitting this way? Are you getting some sort of credit for it?

Is Marshall Wittmann a "senior fellow" of the DLC, wyldwolf? If so -- WHY is a non-Democrat who strongly and even neurotically supports a rightwing Republican presidential candidate a "senior fellow" at a supposedly Democratic Party political organization?

Again: why are you personally a Democrat and not a Republican? And why do you avoid answering such a basic question? I think most DU posters can explain readily why they're Democrats -- why can't you?

[wyldwolf]

41. yes you did

I didn't imply any such thing.

Yes you did. The title of your post wasn't indicative of your post. Whittman is NOT the DLC and an endorsement by him is NOT an endorsement by the DLC.

Again: WHY is Marshall Wittmann a spokesman for the DLC when he isn't a Democrat?

I wasn't aware he was. Why do you feel he is? I've asked you to produce evidence that he is a spokesman or speaks for the DLC. Why can't you produce such?

What do you think you're accomplishing here? Are you impressing your friends by bullshitting this way? Are you getting some sort of credit for it?

Other than calling bullshit on obsessive DLC-phobia, nothing.

Is Marshall Wittmann a "senior fellow" of the DLC

Yes. Does he speak for the DLC, Aaaargh? Show me an instance where an official DLC memo says, "whatever Whittman says..."

Again: why are you personally a Democrat and not a Republican?

That isn't the question you asked, so why are you saying, "again?"

You asked, "Why, given your neoconservative views, are you (presumably) a member of the Democratic Party and not of the Republican Party?"

I asked for simple clarification, and I'll ask again, "What do you believe are "neoconservative" views and wherever have you gotten the impression that I hold them?

[OzarkDem]

15. Dems will support a winning ticket

given past history, its not very likely that would be a DLC ticket. Dems are tired of losing in mushy, wishy washy, middle of the road DLC Dem races.

As Harry Truman used to say, give voters a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican and they'll choose the real one every time.

[wyldwolf]

25. really? Past history?

Let's see...

Non-DLC candidates in recent past elections:

Humphrey - lost
McGovern - lost
Carter - won
Carter - lost
Mondale - lost

DLC is created...

Dukakis (last non-DLC candidate to run) - lost

Clinton - won
Clinton - won
Gore - won (right?)
Kerry - won?

Given past history, and given the fact that rank and file Democrats want the party to be more moderate, and given the fact that most of the current candidates are DLC, I'd say the chances are very likely the winning ticket in '08 will be DLC.

As Harry Truman used to say, give voters a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican and they'll choose the real one every time.

Quiz: Who do you think he was talking about then?

[Clark2008]

24. Clark, as I said above, is more liberal and less corporately

connected than any DLCer.

But, for some reason they like him.

Therefore, it looks like it should be my dream ticket of Clark/Feingold - a ticket non-DLCers and some DLCers can support.

Hillary won't win, btw.

[MaineDem]

11. That's silly n/t

[Aaaargh]

17. As silly as Kerry's offer of the VP spot to McCain in '04? nt

[MaineDem]

18. That offer was never made

Don't believe everything you read.

[Aaaargh]

20. Get real, Kerry did make the offer

'McCain's Resistance Doesn't Stop Talk of Kerry Dream Ticket'

By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 12, 2004; Page A01

"Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry has discussed the vice presidency with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on several occasions, the most recent in the past two weeks, informed sources said yesterday. But the conversations have gone nowhere because McCain believes such a bipartisan ticket would not work and could weaken the presidency, they said.

Although Kerry has made no formal offer to McCain to join the Democratic ticket, according to these sources, the purpose of the discussions appears to have been to gauge McCain's interest. McCain's resistance has not wavered, despite his close friendship with the Massachusetts senator, a fellow Vietnam War veteran."

-snip-

"A knowledgeable Democrat said he was told that Kerry and McCain had talked by telephone on several occasions, but that there had been no formal meetings between the two men for the purpose of exploring the vice presidency. "Kerry offered it in an informal way," said this official, who declined to be identified because of sensitivities about keeping the vice presidential selection process private. This official also said that Kerry and McCain were the only parties to the discussions and that Kerry's vice presidential search director, James Johnson, was not directly involved."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34742-2004Jun11.html

Don't tell me this didn't happen, I'm capable of remembering stuff from 2004. The idea of McCain as Kerry's running mate was spoken of, obliquely perhaps, by Kerry himself in televised interviews. The distinction between a "formal" offer and an informal one is a matter of splitting hairs. Obviously, if McCain had gone for the informal offer, it would have become a formal offer.

Putting McCain on the ticket was a bad idea, and allowing the idea to be publicized when McCain wasn't even on board for it was a much worse idea.

[MaineDem]

22. I repeat...don't believe everything you read n/t

[paulk]

28. you don't get out much, do you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/vice-president-john-mccai_b_16678.html

[Aaaargh]

29. Come off it -- what a lame article

It just makes an utterly unsupported assertion that the McCain camp started the "rumors." Why should anyone take that seriously?

Now look, boys: I and surely many other contributors here REMEMBER John Kerry talking about this matter HIMSELF in televised interviews in '04. If the McCain camp had just MADE IT UP, I expect Kerry would have said so. He didn't. Kerry DID want McCain to be his running mate, and clearly did offer him the spot, however 'informally.' What's the percentage in denying it at this point?

[paulk]

30. it's a conservative source

making the allegation that McCain was behind the rumor. Why would they lie?

If you have a link to Kerry talking about this (other than denying it, which is what he did) please post it.

[Aaaargh]

34. Can't find one in a Google search

Too much stuff to look through, really.

So, the ball is in your court. Can you find some text in which Kerry convincingly DENIES that he ever considered McCain as a running mate, as you claim he did?

Recall that I didn't say that Kerry ever said "I WANT JOHN MCCAIN AS MY RUNNING MATE!" on television. Of course he's not going to speak as explicitly as that. But he certainly was asked about it in interviews, in the summer of 2004, and gave evasive but non-dismissive replies. Meanwhile, several prominent Democrats, including former Sen. Bob Kerrey and Sen. Bill Nelson, talked about how wonderful it would be to have a "unity government" or "unity ticket" with Kerry and McCain. It was also widely reported that Kerry's own staff were jockeying to put this team together. I've already posted some text in this thread from a news article to that effect, from the Washington Post, and let's stop jiving, it's well-known to many here on this forum.

If the Kerry camp really was NOT involved in any such pursuit, they would have said so very explicitly, and Kerry would have said so as well. So, if you can find something that fits the bill, I'll be glad to say I'm wrong and I apparently hallucinated the whole thing.

[paulk]

37. doesn't work that way,

you made the claim, you prove it.

[MaineDem]

32. umm, we're not all boys n/t

[mrgorth]

12. The answer is yes

but not likely. If Feingold or someone else who really stands up for us somehow manages to win the nomination they would support McCain. However, as much as I will work for him, and I will, there is no chance in the world that Feingold (or Kucinich, Dean, etc) will actually get the nod. I suspect we will wind up with someone like Bill Richardson.

[Aaaargh]

16. I don't think Feingold is in the same category as Kucinich

Not when it comes to his prospects, anyway. Kucinich is only a congressman, and not very well known nationally, and in a world of stupid media-driven politics, is hampered by his "unpresidential" appearance. Kucinich is also easier to categorize as 'left' than the genuine maverick Feingold would be (though it's laughable that some pundits like that sap at 'Slate,' can't recall his name, try to frame Kucinich as a hippie-leftist type -- anyone who's followed his career knows that he's always been super-straight).

Beyond that matter, though, I do know what you mean, I just hope it's not as bleak as all that, mrgorth.

As for Dean, I think one big problem he had is that the corporate media was in a position to DEFINE him for most Americans, and they endeavored to make that definition as negative as possible, making use of, and amplifying, Dean's own gaffes and ill-advised retreats on controversial comments he'd make. Feingold isn't exactly a household name for Americans who aren't fairly close followers of politics, but he isn't a 'dark horse' on the level of Dean in 2003. He's also much less inclined to speak off-the-cuff, and always, I think, comes across as very sharp and serious.

There are going to be more candidates emerging as time goes on, and if Feingold does well in polls as things develop, that will encourage more candidates whose positions are somewhat similar to his. I'm not committed to Feingold at this early stage, but he certainly looks like the best of the current bunch, most of whom are would-be understudies for Hillary Clinton. One of those may take off, though -- the easiest prediction to make about the '08 campaign is that Hillary, because of the overhyping of her prospects, will bleed a great deal if she suffers early primary defeats, and some other wannabe may become the DLC-ilk pick. Which doesn't mean they'll be a truly popular candidate. Establishing 'inevitability' at a key point in the schedule, as with Kerry on '04, is the DLC-ilk's favorite tactic, precisely because their picks' positions tend not to have much appeal for Democratic primary voters.

As for Richardson in particular, well, maybe, but I don't really see what national constituency he has.

[mrgorth]

19. I hope you're right

I plan to work for Russ. I mention Richardson because he is a moderate governor from an area we need to start taking, the south/mt west. He would also be acceptable to the DLC and not anethema to the left since he has no war/patriot act vote to defend and we will certainly need unity for 08. I would also like to see Brian Schweitzer through his hat in the ring. I agree that Russ will get farther than Kucinich, I just think that corporate america/DLC will torpedo anyone who wants to really change things they way they did Dean in 04 and that's really who did it. You don't think they're going to give up the straglehold on wealth/power that easily do you?

[mattclearing]

21. Nothing the DLC does surprises me.

I vote that it's possible.

[orleans]

38. i don't put much past the dlc either

but, amazingly enough, so much of this political blabla surprises me (you'd really think i'd learn and stop being surprised by now. i guess, in my heart, i always think that the outcome will be honest, that motivation will be true and genuine, that people will do the right thing. and so often it doesn't happen that way--and every time i am surprised and deeply disappointed.)

[lojasmo]

23. Why not? He's the most electable

And his votes arent far from Clinton/Kerry/Lieberman and the rest of the DLC set. I wouldn't vote for him, but I wouldn't vote for any of the others either.

[AtomicKitten]

27. not with his lips so firmly attached to Bush's ass at 36%

[lojasmo]

42. Dunno about that....

He COMES OFF as much more reasonable and moderate than shrub (even though he's a rightwing dipshit)

Love your sig pic by the way!

[oasis]

40. No.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. 60 % of DUers support the DLC philosophy and political views

That is IF ( a big if I suppose) my recent poll was answered correctly:

Poll question: Of the last 8 Democratic nominees which one comes closest to reflecting your own personal political views and philosophy?

60% voted for one of 3 DLC candidates

32% for Gore - DLC

16% for Kerry DLC

12% for Clinton DLC

Then 8% voted for Carter who was a centrist but before the DLC came into existence

Only 30% voted for an out and out liberal who ran promoting a clear liberal agenda

here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2508897

________________

But then again maybe most DUers are to the right of most Americans?

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm