Bull Moose says first Democrats must do no harm. He angers me.

[madfloridian]

Marshall Wittmann is the DLC blogger, an independent, former McCain campaign guy, former lobbyist for Pat Robertson at the Christian Coalition.

His advice is being picked up by Eleaner Clift at MSNBC tonight, and I disagree with her as well. He is a huge influence on the party, and he is dead wrong on this one. The doing no harm philosophy has cost us dearly the last few years.

Yesterday's blog said Feingold was a gift to the GOP. Today he says do no harm. He is wrong on both counts.

Bull Moose blog at the DLC link

If Democrats want to express their displeasure over the NSA intercepts and the rest of the Bush Presidency, they have a tremendous opportunity. Unlike the Feingold resolution, this alternative has teeth. It is not merely a symbolic protest, it can change the course of history.

And what, Mr. Moose, is your alternative?

November 7, 2006, election day.

Democrats, remember the Hippocratic Oath, First do no harm.

There is only one force that stands in the way of Democratic control over Congress. That obstacle is known as the Democratic Party.

:banghead: :banghead:

No, Mr. Moose, time to speak out that our president has taken us to war on a lie.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

1. They are so out of touch. I will not vote for anyone who is associated

the DLC!

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[madfloridian]

4. Here you go.

Goes well with popcorn.

They have led us down the "first do no harm" for way too long. Time for that philosophy to go.

[Tom Joad]

2. If Dems do nothing, people won't vote for them.

Can't expect to win cuz the repugs are worse.

[regnaD kciN]

3. I think we saw how well the DLC strategy worked in recent years...

...especially in the 2002 midterms after the DLC-inspired "blank check" on Iraq and "bipartisan compromise" on the Medicare health benefits and DHS, where we were projected to gain a few seats or at least break even, and wound up losing ground...and control of the Senate.

:spank:

[Jim Sagle]

5. It's working as intended. Most Democrats are not just losers, they are

DETERMINED to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to lose. They are the "Democratic" wing of the Republican Party.

[madfloridian]

7. I fear you may be right.

I really do.

[Wetzelbill]

6. the only person the DLC could get elected was Bill Clinton

a man so charismatic that he had approval ratings in the 60s when he was impeached. They didn't really get him elected though, he got himself elected. The guy was an anomaly, though. People with BC's political skills don't exactly fall out of trees. Now, in the big DLC heyday when Clinton was elected twice these guys managed to lose control of the House, which Dems controlled forever, and the Senate. They've managed to lose several elections in a row. Badly. These clowns are professional losers, if they say something it's probably best to do the exact opposite.

[madfloridian]

10. Interesting you said that.

In his book Dean was saying they were using the moving to the middle policy for one reason...Clinton won on it. He refutes that.

""What the Democrats haven't understood is that the strategy they identify with him (Clinton)--of moving toward the center in order to compromise--worked for Clinton not because compromise was itself a successful strategy, but because Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton...a man with magnetism, charisma, and personal appeal...."

[Wetzelbill]

11. yeah, I'd say he has it dead on

Great minds think alike. :)

No, you have to look at it in that light. Does it work? Well, the only time it ever worked was for Bill Clinton, so then you need to look at why. Does BC has certain attributes outside of a political strategy that would make people vote for him? Duh, of course, he does! Magnetism, charisma and personal appeal. Just like Howard says. Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton. You can't strategize that. :)

[AX10]

15. Exactly!

[Ken Burch]

117. What most frustrated me about the Clinton campaigns

was that Clinton, with his incredible charisma and oratorical skills, could have won as a REAL Democrat.
For that matter, Dukakis or possibly even Mondale might have been competitive had they had Clinton's "ready response" team.
Bill didn't HAVE to fly home to Arkansas in mid-campaign to attend the execution of a brain damaged African American man to make it to the Oval Office.

Learn the lessons of reality, my fellow Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

130. he did win as a REAL Democrat

[wyldwolf]

18. the DLC has gotten many people elected

[madfloridian]

24. Then why are we so out of power?

Why are the ones who did win so often voting with the GOP? Why are the Republicans in control of everything if we won?

[wyldwolf]

29. maybe because the more "progressive" among us can't win?

Maybe because the "proooogreeeesssives" have given the party such a bad rep on one of the more important issues of the day that the entire Democratic party gets painted with it?

Hey, I'm of the belief we won the last two presidential elections. 2000 for sure, 2004 quite possibly. Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards. DLC.

[madfloridian]

30. Oh, God...wyldwolf, how sad for you to post such stuff.

I get furious with some who won't compromise on things, but what you are doing is painting anyone who differs with you with a broad brush.

[wyldwolf]

31. uh... that would be you and you're playing the victim again.

But why not speak the points in the conversation instead? Makes thing much more interesting.

[madfloridian]

35. victim, victim, paranoia, paranoia, victim, paranoia

Do you guys get your madfloridian talking points weekly or daily?

[wyldwolf]

37. we get them from you

[AX10]

50. I would ask you the same.

[wyldwolf]

53. I have.

I have spoken to the points in the conversation between me and madfloridian.

[AX10]

32. Paul Wellstone ring a bell?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

34. sure does. But we're still out of power... right?

:eyes:

[AX10]

46. and what the HELL have people such as...

FORMER REPUBLICAN and lobbyist to Pat Robertson Marshall Whitman done to help us???

:eyes:

Answer: NOTHING!

[wyldwolf]

47. is that the point?

What has FORMER REPUBLICAN Arianna Huffington done to help us???

:eyes:

Answer: NOTHING!

[AX10]

49. While Huffington is an advocate, just as Whitman is...

Huffington has made it clear that Democrats need to be DEMOCRATS, not "Republican-Lite". Whitman wants the Democrats to take the back seat. That is the mistake the Democrats took in the last 2 election cycles. Come September, the Democrats better have a plan and ideas that CLEARLY show how Democrats are NOT Republicans and that they are the alternative to the GOP. And part of that plan BETTER be to hold Bush accountable.

[wyldwolf]

54. it is a matter of opinion

...what "Democrats" and "Republican lite" is.

[Wetzelbill]

66. it's a matter of voting record and principle

opinions have nothing to do with it.

[wyldwolf]

69. opinions have everything to do with it. "Principle" is an opinion

[Wetzelbill]

74. not when party tenets are involved

If somebody consistently votes against a party tenet then that weakens their record as a member of that party, whether that is good or bad or whichever party they may be in. Principle isn't necessarily an opinion, it can be. For instance, I, on principle, am not going to go beat up an old lady today. That isn't an opinion. That's just knowing right and wrong.

[wyldwolf]

76. what are "party tenets?"

Who sets them?

[Wetzelbill]

79. if you don't know then it's no use even arguing

Are you serious? You don't understand what party tenets are? Do you know the differences between Republicans and Democrats? Their platforms?

Because if you don't then I'm not sure we should even be having this discussion.

[wyldwolf]

80. Actually, I believe you don't know

But you're right, no point in arguing. Afterall, Democrats keep getting elected that you believe don't adhere to "party tenets." And historically, Democrats have been elected that don't conform to your "party tenets" beliefs.

But you're right, no point in arguing.

[Wetzelbill]

83. yeah, plenty of Dems that don't conform to my party beliefs

have been elected. Like JFK, FDR etc. But, you know, Evan Bayh and Joe Leiberman are pretty much the same thing. Historically speaking.

[wyldwolf]

87. ok

So some of the more popular and successful elected Democrats don't conform to "your' party beliefs.

[Wetzelbill]

90. you didn't understand that

I made a joke in there. If you think Lieberman and Bayh are the same kind of Dems that JFK and FDR are, then you probably aren't going to get much out of looking into this stuff.

[wyldwolf]

91. on the contrary

You apparently have a misguided notion as to the nature of Democrats from Wilson to the present.

[Wetzelbill]

93. not really

My grandfather used to work with JFK. Joe Leiberman is no JFK.

The Leibermans and the Bayhs would have never supported The New Deal or The Great Society. Not going to happen.

[wyldwolf]

96. yes, really

My grandfather used to work on airplanes and I don't have a clue about airplanes.

[Wetzelbill]

99. you don't have a clue about much

then.

[wyldwolf]

100. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack!

[Ken Burch]

121. Largely because we haven't reached out to the people

left out in the cold by the Bush economy. We haven't mobilized the disposessed. There's millions of people, in unemployment lines, in the inner cities, on the streets, that could be brought to the polls if we really put a program out there that spoke to their needs, rather than settling for bloodless centrism and putting uptight suburbanites and corporate donors before everyone else.

[Wetzelbill]

64. name one and name the issue

Not a RW talking point either.

It isn't that progressives give the party a bad rap. It's that Republicans make up labels and attack Dems at every angle, if they dare to question anything. The some DLCer steps up and instead of fighting for what's right, they are so scared stiff of Republicans labeling them, that they help perpetuate the myth. So when somebody dares to say that Iraq was a bad idea that was conducted wrong, like a Feingold or a Dean, well, then some DLCer like Evan Bayh or Joe Leiberman stands up and talks about how great the world is without Saddam Hussein and that Bush is great and we are in a war etc etc etc. It becomes a mutual status quo kiss ass fest. And, if someone dares to state the obvious they get vilified, by both Republicans and the DLC. Neither of which is right about the issue.

So it's not that progressives give our party a bad rep, it's Republicans who have to use divisive tactics who do, and their DLC brethren who lack the spine to stand up for anything. So I have no clue what the hell you are getting at. It's both articulate poorly and a completely false argument.

[wyldwolf]

67. Kucinich and national defense

[Wetzelbill]

71. those don't work

try again.

Most voters don't even know who DK is, national defense is an issue that Republicans made up and that DLCers perpetuate.

[wyldwolf]

73. LOL!

Try again?

Kucinich was a Democratic nominee who crashed and burned.

Tell FDR and JFK that national defense is an issue the Republicans made up.

[Wetzelbill]

77. the way it is currently used it is

yeah. We are talking about an issue that is used against Dems, not the other way around. Both sides have used it yes, but that isn't what we are talking about.

DK is a sitting member of Congress, how is that crashing and burning? He was a largely unknown guy who never got his party's nomination for president. And, how is he weak on security anyway? He's not. But the DLCers are. Almost to every single individual they are.

[wyldwolf]

78. no it isn't

National Defense is national defense.

I didn't say DK was weak on national defense.... now did I?

[Wetzelbill]

81. yes, you did

by saying he give the whole party a bad name on National Defense, you just said that. You implied that progressives are so weak on ND that they give the whole party a bad name. National Defense is national defense? Ok that makes no sense in the context of this. Is that an argument for the use of a political strategy against progressive Dems? So you advocate that for both Republicans and the DLC?

[wyldwolf]

82. I didn't say that. Quote the post

[Wetzelbill]

84. sure, and Bush never said Saddam had anything

to do with 9-11 either.

[wyldwolf]

86. quote the post

[Wetzelbill]

89. you'll wiggle out of it but....

Maybe because the "proooogreeeesssives" have given the party such a bad rep on one of the more important issues of the day that the entire Democratic party gets painted with it?


You said "given such a bad rep on one of the more important issues of the day." When asked you to name one person and one issue, you said "Kucinich and National Security."

The only way that DK could give my party such a bad rep on NS is if he was weak on it. So you didn't come out and say "Dennis Kucinich is weak on national security." But, you definitely asserted it. That's pretty cowardly of you to try to back out of it. There is no other meaning to that. You used a classic RW tactic, by asserting a Dem's weakness on National Security, floating that out there, then saying "quote me on it." You know what you did and you know what you said and meant.

[wyldwolf]

92. nope. It's you trying to twist what I said

I said "maybe because the more "progressive" among us can't win?" and that progressives have given us a bad rep on national defense. You said name one and name the issue. I said Kucinich is an example of a progressive who can't win and national defense is the issue progressives have given us the bad rep on.

Never said DK gave the whole party a bad name on National Defense, as you contend I did.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

118. We can't go back to spending more on defense than Republicans

Or back to "bear any burden, fight any foe".

Going back to that guarantees that, even if we do get elected, we won't have the money to be better than the GOP on domestic issues.
Which is why, for example, Joseph Lieberman is well to the right of Scoop Jackson or LBJ on domestic issues.

[wyldwolf]

129. who says we'd have to?

Which is why, for example, Joseph Lieberman is well to the right of Scoop Jackson or LBJ on domestic issues.

Dubious. Care to do a point by point comparison?

[Ken Burch]

136. We'd end up having to because your wing of the party

Would insist that that was the only way we could prove we weren't "nervous nellies".

And then you'd make us lose again like your wing made us lose in '68. Was it worth getting Nixon to keep the war going?

(As to Lieberman and Jackson, Lieberman has often voted to cut social spending while Jackson usually didn't. Lieberman supported Bush on Social Security privatization, while Scoop would never have done that. Lieberman supported all the "free trade" agreements while Scoop would have defended the labor movement by voting against them. And Scoop supported national health insurance while Lieberman, as far as I can tell, didn't even back Hillary's plan.)

Lieberman is a bit greener, but that's the only area where he isn't to Scoop's right.

[wyldwolf]

139. Again, making bold claims with no sources

And then you'd make us lose again like your wing made us lose in '68. Was it worth getting Nixon to keep the war going?

Actually, YOUR wing did that. The anti-war counter-culture left caused Dems to leave the party in droves. Then, of course, came NcGovern's debacle in '72.

You said Lieberman was to the right of Scoop Jackson and LBJ on domestic issues. Prove that or accept my challenge to do a point by point comparison. Sourced.

[Ken Burch]

141. The polls showed that Humphrey was the weakest candidate in '68

that wasn't the antiwar movement's fault. It was the war's fault and LBJ's ego's fault. Johnson should have done the right thing and not attempted to influence the nomination fight after he withdrew. And Daley should have just let the peaceniks march. Those two, not the "counterculture left" caused the Nixon victory. There is no way the party would have done better renominating LBJ by acclimation.

And I gave you examples of Lieberman's excessive conservatism. He is to the right of Scoop on social spending, on trade, and on health care. Once you're conservative on those three, there isn't much left to be not-conservative on.

[wyldwolf]

143. link on that poll?

And I gave you examples of Lieberman's excessive conservatism. He is to the right of Scoop on social spending, on trade, and on health care.

From you own imagination. Unless you have proof?

[Ken Burch]

149. I am sending enquiries to the Harris and Gallup polling archives.

But I am not making it up about the polls. I wouldn't lie about that. I don't lie in anything I post here.

And Lieberman has voted for the trade deals, for cuts in social spending, for cloture on the right wing Supreme Court nominees and expressed his support(and this is on record all over the net)for Bush's program to kill Social Security by giving it away to Wall Street.

What more do you need?

[wyldwolf]

151. a historical point by point comparison

Joseph Lieberman is well to the right of Scoop Jackson or LBJ on domestic issues.

Let's take every common domestic issue they took part in and compare them.

[Ken Burch]

157. Christ, I'll need a few days.

Why are you being so pedantic about this?

[wyldwolf]

163. Pedantic? I'm seeking the truth.

If dubious claims go unchallenged, people will think they're the truth.

So PROVE what you say.

[Ken Burch]

170. My claims aren't unchallenged.

There were no liberal motivations behind getting into Korea or Vietnam. There was no liberalism in keeping the Pentagon budget bloated. I will prove it.

[wyldwolf]

176. that wasn't what we were discussing

HERE are the claims you've made so far in this thread - claims that so far are unproven by you:

This is some of the dubious claims you have made in this thread alone:


Joseph Lieberman is well to the right of Scoop Jackson or LBJ on domestic issues.

Lieberman supported Bush on Social Security privatization, while Scoop would never have done that. Lieberman supported all the "free trade" agreements while Scoop would have defended the labor movement by voting against them. And Scoop supported national health insurance while Lieberman, as far as I can tell, didn't even back Hillary's plan.

The polls showed that Humphrey was the weakest candidate in '68.

LBJ would have had to completely defund the Great Society in order to keep the war going for another four years. If Johnson had just let Humphrey accept the McCarthy/Kennedy peace plank, as Humphrey wished to do, we'd have been spared Nixon.

Your wing of the party insisted that the only way we could prove we were "strong on national defense" was by giving the Pentagon everything it wanted, no questions asked.

There is no way to use U.S. military force for anything the Democratic Party believes in. That hasn't been possible since 1945. All the wars after that were wars of corporate interest.

The DLC has repudiated LBJ's domestic agenda.

[Ken Burch]

169. I'm working on it. Why are you being so rigid about this?

I've already given you plenty of proof in Lieberman's votes on trade deals, social spending and the Pentagon budget, as well as Lieberman's senseless cheerleading for this insane war.

I'll need a few days, as I'm also in the process of moving out of my apartment. But back off with the "prove it, prove it, prove it" chant, because I will.

[wyldwolf]

175. you've given me no proof

You've given me linkless, sourceless statements.

[Ken Burch]

160. Stop implying that I'm not telling the truth.

nt.

Prove I'm wrong. Prove that being "strong on defense" doesn't have to mean being unquestioning supporters of every weapon the Pentagon demands. Prove it doesn't mean being on the side of the rich against the poor globally. You can't.

[wyldwolf]

164. I'm not implying that. I'm just asking you to prove what you say

Prove I'm wrong. Prove that being "strong on defense" doesn't have to mean being unquestioning supporters of every weapon the Pentagon demands. Prove it doesn't mean being on the side of the rich against the poor globally. You can't.

That isn't how it works. When one makes a claim, the burden of proof is on that person.

[Ken Burch]

120. You're still arguing that we have to be indistinguishable from the GOP

on defense. If we agree with them there, we make it impossible for us to be progressive on anything else, because keeping the war budget high and staying in the war eat up all the money.

Surely, we can agree that staying in Iraq is pointless and benefits no one but investors in the defense industry and Halliburton.

(And yes, historically, we did have to have an antiwar challenge to LBJ, because LBJ would have had to completely defund the Great Society in order to keep the war going for another four years. If Johnson had just let Humphrey accept the McCarthy/Kennedy peace plank, as Humphrey wished to do, we'd have been spared Nixon.)

[wyldwolf]

127. by saying we have to be strong on national defense?

...by saying so-called "progressives," starting in the 60s, gave the public the perception we're weak on national defense?

Funny. Yet Peculiar.

[Ken Burch]

137. Your wing of the party insisted that the only way we could prove

we were "strong on national defense" was by giving the Pentagon everything it wanted, no questions asked.

And your wing wouldn't listen when we pointed out that we could have saved a lot on defense and actually had a more secure international situation if the U.S. hadn't taken a reflexive position of always opposing movements for social change around the world. It was a conservative Democratic State Department employee in South Africa, for example, who told the apartheid government where Nelson Mandela was hiding in 1962. I hope you'd agree we should apologize to the man for that.

The way to a secure world is to create a just world, not to try to make everyone accept the status quo(or to change according to U.S. specifications)by brute force. It isn't being "weak on defense" to point out that we don't always have to use the 82nd Airborne to solve the world's ills.

But your wing of the party, in power under LBJ and JFK, wouldn't listen to that. Except that JFK listened a little, which is probably what got him shot. And RFK listened a lot and embraced his own form of progressive politics, which is definitely what got him shot.

[wyldwolf]

142. bold yet dubious claims. No sources.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Your wing of the party insisted that the only way we could prove we were "strong on national defense" was by giving the Pentagon everything it wanted, no questions asked.

You always resort to outlandish claims with no sources. Maybe you were on the inside at some point? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

147. Not outlandish sources. Democratic defense policy from 1945 to 1968.

Along with staying in Vietnam no matter what.

There is no way to use U.S. military force for anything the Democratic Party believes in. That hasn't been possible since 1945. All the wars after that were wars of corporate interest.
Clearly you'll agree that, in retrospect, we should have stayed out of Korea and Vietnam, or at least we shouldn't have been fighting to keep the corrupt ruling elite in power in both places.

[wyldwolf]

152. Completely outlandish, This was your claim:

"strong on national defense" was by giving the Pentagon everything it wanted, no questions asked.

No proof. No source.

[Ken Burch]

159. THE HISTORY PROVES IT!

It means being no different of foreign policy than LBJ was.

Do you really want to put the party through that again?

It certainly can't mean anything positive or progressive. History has proven that.

[wyldwolf]

162. Quotes? Links?

No? I didn't think so.

[Ken Burch]

168. I'm researching it. But I didn't it up.

That's what "Pax Americana" meant. That's what the Cold War was really about. It wasn't about fighting the Soviet Union, which was discrediting itself globally and losing influence by its dictatorial methods in the time from Truman through LBJ. It was about protecting corporate interests. I'll need a few days to get the degree of proof you are so didactically demanding. But you can read it in Chomsky and in William Appleman Williams and Howard Zinn's work for yourself.

I'm not saying anything that's untrue.

[wyldwolf]

174. you're going to quote Chomsky and Zinn???

LOL!

[Ken Burch]

177. They are reputable historians.

The fact that you don't agree with their politics doesn't change that.

[wyldwolf]

178. go ahead, then

See if thet back any claims you made in the list upthread. This should be good!

[Ken Burch]

172. It's what Democratic hawks did from 1945 to 1968.

It's what Lieberman still does. He never, to my knowledge, votes against them.
Being a hawk means being a reactionary. Especially since the DLC has repudiated LBJ's domestic agenda. Give that up, and your're left with Republicanism.

[Aaaargh]

101. Hey, we're on a roll! ! At this rate, we stand to hit the trifecta in '08!

We certainly don't want to screw it up by "WIN winning," that is, clearly winning an election so that the Repigs don't simply take the office away from us through chicanery.

Now, folks: if Howard Dean had gotten the nomination in '04, and the general-election outcome had been EXACTLY the same as with Kerry, do you think these DLC-liners on DU would be arguing that that had been a VICTORY and shows we should stay on that course represented by Dean?

[wyldwolf]

103. LOL

IF Howard Dean had gotten the nomination in '04...

I say we return to the days of McGovern/Mondale electoral disasters - when the GOP didn't have to steal them.

[Ken Burch]

150. Kerry was NOT the strongest candidate we could have run.

And he didn't have to stay that far to the right to get close to winning.

[wyldwolf]

154. Did I say he was? I don't recall mentioning Kerry at all.

[Ken Burch]

180. I was responding to a Benchley post there and inadvertently replied

to a post of yours. Excuse me.

[rman]

135. If progressives have so much influence, one would think they are not

a minority.
You don't see the radical fringe of the RW giving the Republican party a bad name, do you?
Reality is that only a small minority (i'm not counting repubs here) supports a candidate such as Lieberman.
Reality is that a vast majority of citizens supports nationalized healthcare - which neither party supports.

[Wetzelbill]

61. how many times have they won back congress?

how many presidents besides Clinton have they gotten elected?

Winning some random election for some random candidate in a heavily democratic district doesn't count either. These guys are professional losers. All they do is lose elections. They don't win them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, just because these guys stumble into a winning candidate from time to time doesn't mean they are any good.

If the DLC is so good then how come they have gotten blown out of virtually every election since '94? Other than Bill Clinton they have a record that is a step below dismal.

[wyldwolf]

65. since when?

how many presidents besides Clinton have they gotten elected?

Conventional wisdom on DU is that they have won the last 4 presidential elections.

How many presidents have the "progressives" gotten elected? None.

If the DLC is so good then how come they have gotten blown out of virtually every election since '94? Other than Bill Clinton they have a record that is a step below dismal.

Seems your describing the DNC as a whole.

[DrGonzoLives]

113. Like who?

List some Congressmen that upset Republican incumbents using the foolproof DLC method.

[abbiehoff]

104. Clinton won partly because of Ross Perot.

I don't deny that the man is charismatic, but he never won a majority of the vote. If Perot was not running, it's difficult to say how 1992 (or for that matter '96) would have come out.

[wyldwolf]

105. not true

With Perot not in the race, Clinton still would have won the electoral college.

[autorank]

8. This is the worst advise I've ever seen. Great find. Thank you.

I've seen him. He's not giving this advise for the benefit of the Democratic Party. He's a troll. It's like Olberman taking advice form O'Liely, how good an idea would that be.

I feel sorry for Eleanor Clift. She's been stuck with that loser panel for years.

Whitman is clever. It was his idea, I believe, to have McCain object to being shut out of the NY presidential primary in a press conference held in front of the Russian Embassy. Now that's funny.

This advise is not well intended.

If the current leaders do not stand up and fight, you know what we'll have pretty quick:

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Recommended and thank you.

[gratuitous]

9. "Do no harm?!"

Do no freakin' harm Marshall, you jackass?

How's this for harm?

Turning surpluses into deficits.

Running up more than a trillion dollars in new obligations for the country.

Millions more in poverty since 2001.

Millions more without insurance since 2001.

Thousands of dead soldiers.

Tens of thousands of dead civilians.

The Twin Towers are gone.

Warrantless spying on Americans.

Warrantless searches of people's homes.

Torture as official U.S. policy.

New Orleans mortally wounded.

What the fuck harm do you think the Democrats could possibly do that would rival this record of misrule?

You're a fucking idiot, Mr. Wittman.

[w13rd0]

12. Everytime I've read one of this goons...

...articles, he's been WAY off the mark. It's quite telling that he doesn't permit comments, just like a Republican blog...

[madfloridian]

13. Moose Heaven....contains McCain and Lieberman as heroes.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/03/moose-heaven.html

The Moose was in Moose Heaven last night.

There are two living politicians and two deceased ones that the Moose reveres. Of course, the Moose is a acolyte of T.R., the great one. And the other past statesman that the Moose worships is Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson.

Last night, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation honored the two living statesmen who embody the Scoop and T.R. tradition - Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Interestingly, the two Senators are the co-sponsors of the prime legislation to curb global warming. And they both consistently put country before party to the consternation of the partisan fever swamp from both parties.

The tribute to the two Senators in awarding them the Henry Jackson Award for Distinguished Public Service,

"Joe Lieberman and John McCain embody the qualities so valued by Scoop - unshakable integrity, the ability to stay the course against the odds, and a willingness to cross party lines to get the job done."

The Moose so despises the left that he seldom misses a chance to use the word partisan against them.

[AX10]

27. "Scoop Jackson" is buring in Hell right now.

That's where he belongs. Jackson was known as the "Senator from Boeing", known for his chickenhawkish views on foreign policy and bringing in TONS of pork to Boeing (the defense contractor).

[Ken Burch]

122. Scoop Jackson Democrats did everything they could

to sabotage McGovern's chances in the fall of '72, even though in hurting their party's nominee, they were helping Nixon, the man who had destroyed Jackson's chances for the nomination by spreading scurrilous rumors about his personal life. McGovern did nothing to deserve "Scoop"'s betrayal.

[flpoljunkie]

85. Yeah, Moose, Lieberman showed real integrity when he voted for cloture on

the bankruptcy bill, and then voted against it. Of course, I would suspect that Bullmoose sided with the banks and credit card companies on the one-sided bankuptcy bill. McCain voted for it, too.

[OzarkDem]

112. Why would Dems in DC listen to him?

I imagine there are quite a few who don't.

The guy is a Republican. I've never understood the attraction some Dems have to Republican strategists.

:shrug:

[AX10]

14. I have nothing but pure contempt for the GD DLC!

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[wyldwolf]

16. I agree with this fully

The sweetest revenge and strongest exclamation mark we can put on Bush's "mandate" is winning November 7, 2006, election day.

There IS only one force that stands in the way of Democratic control over Congress. That obstacle is known as the Democratic Party and, I dare say, those in the party who can't stand the prospect of winning.

[madfloridian]

20. Do not dare accuse ANY of us here of not wanting to win.

Bull Moose sounds very arrogant, just like others do.

[wyldwolf]

22. hey! I'm doing it!

If we win, many on the left will have nothing to bellyache over, unless they again start whining that their guy was robbed of the nomination in whatever race is in question.

"others" DO sound arrogant.

You must surf the net a lot to find anything remotely related to the DLC, then try to find some aspect of it to differ with and report back on it to DU.

[madfloridian]

25. Fooled you again....WW...I am not "on the left."

I am tired of being accused of being a leftist. I am in the middle, or where the middle used to be before the DLC pulled us so far right that they call us liberals.

I am liberal, but I am middle. I am free-thinking, but I believe in taking care of my fellow man.

And I am tired of people here who talk to me as if I were a child.

[AX10]

26. I too am in the middle. The DLC took the party to the right...

so in effect we have two parties serving the center-right community. There is no one to represent the TRUE center and the center-left.

[wyldwolf]

28. you've never fooled me once

Yes, you're on the left.

Your recent "conversion" to the middle is just your way to insulate yourself in these kinds of conversations.

And I am tired of people here who talk to me as if I were a child. :cry:

[madfloridian]

33. You are really doing great PR for your DLC.

There are things I could say, but I don't go there. I don't believe saying personal things to hurt.

And yes, the DLC posters here do speak to most of the rest of us as though we are stupid.

I was raised in a background of fundamentalism, and I able to see pretty much both sides of the issues.

I usually here have the far left and the far right upset with me....so that itself says I am middle.

DLC is Republican now.

[wyldwolf]

36. right. So let's stick to the facts

Present them -- with sources.

[madfloridian]

38. What facts are you asking me for?

.

[wyldwolf]

40. facts in general instead of knee-jerk reactions

You apparently agreed with this statement:

the only person the DLC could get elected was Bill Clinton

So let's speak to the fact of it.

And in post 13, you stated, The Moose so despises the left that he seldom misses a chance to use the word partisan against them.

But isn't it true he used "partisan" to describe both the left and the right?

[madfloridian]

42. I did not make the first statement. Get your facts straight.

To Bull Moose, we who make waves are partisans.

[wyldwolf]

43. I didn't say you made the first statement. Get YOUR facts straight

But you obviously agreed with it because you quoted Howard Dean as some sort of corroboration.

To Bull Moose, we who make waves are partisans.

That, again, would be your knee-jerk reaction to him.

[Zodiak]

102. that is the part that irritates me

DLC advocates on this board are quick to denigrate, name-call, and condescend.

And they post like 100+ times a day.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. There are very few on the left who don't want a dem victory in November

There are some who think that it won't make much of a difference, I disagree with them completely. The difference is that many of us on the left believe that not only is censure the right thing to do, it is the best thing to do to help us win in November.

[wyldwolf]

52. I have no disagreement with any of that

However, if/when the Dems win big in November - and IF the DLC has much to do with it by fielding candidates, my prediction is that many on the left will either be silent about it or immediately call for those Dems to be replaced next election cycle. My prediction is if the DLC has much to do with wins in '06, many on the left will not be satisfied.

However, Democrats that generally support DLC-type Dems would dance in the streets if the GOP is removed, and they wouldn't care which type of Democrats did the removing.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

62. The DLC is not supposed to be supporting candidates, is it?

Are they giving money?

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

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

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

[wyldwolf]

68. If you see a problem, report it to the FEC

[knight_of_the_star]

108. I do see a problem

Are they giving money?

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

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

First problem:

It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Yet they also say this:

Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

Wouldn't pushing specific ideas for campaigns and candidates be influencing elections in a substantial way or another?

Second problem:

It is not a political committee

Then why is it that the leaders of the DLC are so heavily enmeshed in modern politics trying to influence the Democratic party? I think that fits the bill perfectly thankyouverymuch.

Third problem:

It appears that they substansially contradict themselves on that one page, one might even go so far as to venture that they are LYING. I think I will report that to the FEC thanks for the idea wyldwolf. I'll remember to inform Mr. From that you gave me the notion.

[wyldwolf]

153. report it to the FEC

[Ken Burch]

124. We will ALL celebrate a Democratic victory if we get one

But you DLC types will have to admit that progressives and activists had as much to do with it as you did. You will have no right to claim all the credit and leave us out in the cold. Fair enough?

[wyldwolf]

125. I don't think so

I think there are people here who's hatred of the DLC is so deep that if we win with the DLC or if the DLC candidate/candidates win, they will immediately begin attacking.

[knight_of_the_star]

107. Wow

So you are claiming we don't want to win? I find that interesting because there is no person here on this thread who has stated, "I can't stand the idea of the Democratic Party winning!"

When you can back that up, go for it, but until then please don't use Republican talking points to try and make an argument.

From what it sounds like you are completely ok with instead of presenting forceful alternatives to the GOP's screwups that we sit by and try not to be offensive. You are ignoring a key tactic the GOP has been using to good effect since 1980: they have sought the endorsement of the far right and their support in terms of money and votes by backing some VERY controversial pieces of legislation. They did a LOT of things to rock the boat, and they are in power. The DLC, it appears, advocates that we try not to disturb the GOP too much and maybe we'll win. That isn't strategy, that is surrendering. By not creating controversy, by not addressing the issues and defining the debate in our terms, we are surrendering.

Tell me, with the exception of Bill Clinton, how many major pieces of legislation has the DLC successfully pushed and capitalized on? How many times has the DLC been able to sieze control of Congress? How many times has the DLC based solely on their approach and ideas been able to even narrow the margin? When you can answer my question with LINKS and PROOF then I might consider that they know something, but until then please stop fouling the air with your GOP BS.

[Ken Burch]

119. It doesn't have to be a choice between censure OR winning in November.

Supporting censure now doesn't hurt us in the elections. The voters are not going to reward Democrats for their leaders continued refusal to stand up to Bush.

We're ahead in the polls because the voters have rejected the whole conservative agenda and want to wipe the GOP out. We are winning IN SPITE of our Congressional leaders and the DLC.

And it is just plain wrong to say that posters here DON'T want the Democrats to win. We want a Democratic victory, and we want a progressive Democratic Congress FOLLOWING that victory. We don't have to settle for bland, timid centrism at home and militarism abroad to win. Bush is losing the arguement and the antiwar movement is winning it.

[wyldwolf]

128. no one has said as such. Where do you get that from?

[Ken Burch]

140. "strong on national defense" is a code phrase.

It is code for "never question the Pentagon. never question any wars. Increase the war budget.
Make everyone on the planet obey the U.S. government and U.S. corporations by brute force.

We want a defense that will protect the U.S. from outside attack. We have that. What we need is a means to find those who are trying to infiltrate the U.S. to attack it, and to deal with what causes people to support radical terrorist groups. Considering that the guys who crashed the planes into the Towers took over the planes with box cutters, a bigger war machine may not make much difference in this struggle.

What we should be pressing for is a competent, professional intelligence service, one that knows the difference between terrorism and nonviolent dissent, and one that passes on information on credible threats as quickly as possible.

We don't need to support the continued massacre in Iraq. I assume even you agree that that war is now a dead loss.

[wyldwolf]

144. maybe in some wacky tinfoil hat world... unless...

...you have sources? You know, facts? Those pests that keep vexing you in posts?

[Ken Burch]

148. That's what those who support Hillary are insisting on.

They are demanding that we give up on stopping the Iraq war and give up on any hope of a less militaristic world. That's what being a Scoop Jackson Democrat means...treating the rest of the world as the enemy or as our inferiors.

[wyldwolf]

155. Another sourceless yet bold proclamation

No proof, nothing from the historical record.

[Ken Burch]

158. Hillary is still supporting the war. Therefore, she is demanding

that everyone in the party give up their opposition to the war.

Even though we know a pro-Iraq War Democrat won't get a single vote an antiwar Dem wouldn't since all the people who are still pro-Iraq War are right wing on everything else at this stage.

Hillary's apologists have even demanded that Cindy Sheehan endorse Hillary as a prowar candidate if Hlllary is nominated, even though that demand means asking Cindy to forsake her son's memory and everything she herself stands for.

If Hillary is elected on a pro-Iraq War platform, she has no choice but to keep us in the war for another four years and will also feel obligated to wage war on Iran as well.

This is all clearly drawn from the logic of Hillary's position.

[wyldwolf]

161. Quotes?

Hillary is still supporting the war. Therefore, she is demanding that everyone in the party give up their opposition to the war.

Quotes? Links?

Hillary's apologists have even demanded that Cindy Sheehan endorse Hillary as a prowar candidate if Hlllary is nominated, even though that demand means asking Cindy to forsake her son's memory and everything she herself stands for.

Quotes? Links?

But let's return to the previous reply, because you keep changing the topic...

That's what being a Scoop Jackson Democrat means...treating the rest of the world as the enemy or as our inferiors.

Quotes? Links?

[Ken Burch]

171. Stop repeating "Quotes, Links"!

There was a whole thread here on DU where Hillary apologists were demanding that Cindy endorse Hillary even if Hillary was nominated as a hawk.

And Scoop Jackson was the prime defender and advocate of "Pax Americana", the doctrine that the world should obey the U.S.(and especially U.S. corporations)without questions. That's what wanting the U.S. to be "the world's only superpower" means. That's all it can mean.

The U.S. can't be a positive force in the world if it insists on dominating it. We need humility and we need to listen to the world. Hawks are against that.

[Ken Burch]

173. Here are some facts.

Fact: Hillary is still against withdrawal. Which means she's still in favor of the war.
Hillary has had antiwar activists dragged out of the hall when the protested her(It happened in Portland a few weeks ago, and I had a thread about it.)

Fact: Hillary's supporters here at DU did a thread earlier this year attacking Cindy Sheehan for saying she wouldn't endorse Hillary if Hillary was nominated as a hawk. If Cindy did endorse Hillary under those terms, it meant she would be giving up her opposition to the war and all her principles. She could never have spoken out against the war again.

Fact: Bill Clinton never made any moves to the left as president. Every adjustment in policy he made was a swing further to the right. Since Hillary is Bill's clone on policy and strategy, we can assume she will do the same. This is, after all, the woman who bragged that "there is no left wing" of the Clinton White House staff.

[Zhade]

17. "former lobbyist for Pat Robertson at the Christian Coalition"

Why that isn't enough to make some of the fools here question the DLC is beyond me.

[wyldwolf]

19. Yes, a record as clean as David Brock's and Arianna Huffington's

[madfloridian]

21. But they are on OUR side....Bull Moose despises activists.

Brock and Arianna don't look down their noses at the party activists.

[wyldwolf]

23. Arianne looks down her nose at Democrats

[madfloridian]

39. She's not a Democrat.

She is supportive of activism.

[wyldwolf]

41. so?

Neither is Bull Moose, but he supports winning.

[PBass]

44. This "concentrate on winning in November" thinking misses the point...

Democrats will win or lose in November based on what they're doing NOW.

This 'concentrate on November' patter is kinda like being in school, and thinking you'll get good grades because you focus on the end of the semester. No, you get good grades by working hard all along. The grade is just a tally that sums up what you did all semester... and so is the vote in November.

[wyldwolf]

45. Democrats will win in November based on what they're doing now

We agree on that. We will also lose in November based on what we do now.

However, this whole thread began because someone from the DLC DARED imply winning in November would be sweeter than censuring Bush now, an action the majority of Americans are currently against and one the majority of Americans believe would be for partisan gain and not the right thing to do.

[PBass]

51. Pardon me?

Most Americans are against censure? Do you have a source for that?

Anyway, how do Americans know what they are for or against, when this censure issue hasn't even begun to play out? Funny thing about polls, they change over time.

And censure is not the crux here... illegal domestic spying is. How well do you think that will poll with the public?

[wyldwolf]

55. why would I make such a charge if I had no source?

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 16-17, 2006. N=1,020 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).


"As you may know, Senator Russ Feingold has called for Congress to censure, or formally reprimand, President Bush over the issue of his warrantless wiretapping program. Censure is a way for Congress to express strong disapproval of a President's actions without going so far as impeachment. Would you support the censure of President Bush by Congress, or not?"

Support: 42%
Wouldn't support: 50%

"Do you think Feingold and other Democrats who support censuring Bush are doing it more for partisan political advantage, or more because they believe it is the right thing to do?"

Political advantage: 53%
Right thing to do: 33%

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

See. one of the things I try my best to do is not make a charge without at least partial evidence.

And I certainly don't assume the American public is ignorant when their opinion breaks opposite of mine. By the way, polls also indicate a general public acceptance of the wiretapping. Sad but true.

[WyLoochka]

59. It doesn't matter if 99.9%

support illegal wiretapping and law-breaking by a President. It is unconstitutional! The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights and the provisions for checks and balances, protects - or is supposed to protect - from the "tyranny of the majority" and a tyranny of any one particular branch of the government over the other two, or two branches over one.

If a majority wants to do away with the 4th Amendment and checks and balances it has a long row to hoe. They will have to get Constitutional Amendments passed by a 2/3 majority in Congress and then get them passed in each state legislature. What do you think the chances of that are? Do you honestly think people will demand that their elected reps throw out the 4th Amendment?

Congress, including DLCers like Bayh, is talking about making it "legal" for the executive branch to abrogate the 4th Amendment by simply fiddling with the FISA law. What a sick joke. Congress cannot by itself abrogate the 4th Amendment, and it cannot write the judicial branch out of it's Constitutional review responsibilities, any more than the President can (legally).

[wyldwolf]

63. right, but...

If, A: The public is against censure
and, B: they approve of what the censure would be for, then censuring might have a detrimental effect on our chances in '06.

I'd rather let the Bushies flap in the wind, continue to build the case against them, then take it to the American people.

[knight_of_the_star]

110. We also can't let them define the debate

Most cardinal sin in the Art of War is to allow your foe to determine the ground over which you will fight.

[Zhade]

98. Thank you for your sanity.

Majority might does not equal right.

[PassingFair]

116. Hold on a sec. Let's look at your own polling numbers a little

..more closely...

Support Wouldn't
Support Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 42 50 8
Republicans 20 75 5
Democrats 60 30 10
Independents 42 51 7



Sixty Percent of Dems SUPPORT censure.

And TWENTY PERCENT of 'pukes!

With a SMIDGEN of support, and by
keeping the censure resolution in the
eye of the media, we could OBVIOUSLY
have a WINNING issue here.

ack: on edit -- that "chart" didn't translate very well.

1st column: Support
2nd column: Wouldn't Support
3rd column: Unsure

WHO'S afraid of winning?

NOT the progressives.

[wyldwolf]

131. OK, let's do

hmmm... yep, I get the same results as I did before. Most Americans DON'T support.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

156. *

:patriot:

[WyLoochka]

56. The "Moose" is a neocon - a slavish devotee

of the late neocon mentor - Scoop Jackson. He agrees right down the line with those other Jackson "mentees" Perle and Wolfowicz who left the Democratic Party for the Repuke Party, once Jackson was gone and they could not find any other hard line neocons among the Dems to attach themselves to.

Whitman is NOT a Democrat. He does not "support winning" for the Democrats. He only supports neocons winning. That is why he strongly backed McCain in 2000 over Bush - he thought a Bush admin would be loaded up with realists like his Dad's was - not his beloved neocons - and he was sure McCain was on board with the neocons at that time as he is to this day. All that "straight talk express" about campaign finance reform was a smokescreen for the Whitman-McCain-Kristol agenda which was the agenda we ended up getting with Bush anyway - the invasion of Iraq, then Iran, then...

Whitman will support McCain in '08 - if McCain doesn't succumb to melanoma.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why any Democrat even gives this creep "Moose," with his fundie neocon bona fides on record, the time of day, let alone provide a link to his blog as wyldwolf and the DLC do.

[Ken Burch]

123. Most progressives ARE Democrats

Non-progressives have no special claim to be more Democratic-than-thou.

[wyldwolf]

126. maybe small "d"

Ralph Nader was/is not a Democrat.

And besides, I haven't claimed (well, until Nader) that anyone isn't a Democrat. That claim is usually made by the anti-DLCers.

[Ken Burch]

138. Implying that DU'ers don't want the Democrats to win is the same thing.

And yes, if the newly elected Democrats end up being unexpectedly conservative, we will hold them accountable for that. But that won't mean we'd prefer the Republicans to have won.
It will just mean we want Democrats to be Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

145. I didn't imply that

I SAID SOME DUers don't want Dems to win.

[OzarkDem]

114. Or at Democrats, period

DLC'ers seem to dislike all Dems, even the ones in Washington DC.

[Zhade]

97. When Whitmann repudiates his formerly-held (?) positions...

...then you'll have a point.

[knight_of_the_star]

109. You are ignoring substantial evidence there

Namely that Brock and Huffington go after the GOP with as much vigor as they used to the Dems. Also unlike Bull Moose, they don't pretend to be Democrats so they can attack other democrats. Fallacious reasoning will get you nowhere, if you want to make an argument use logic.

[OzarkDem]

115. Seldom do you hear

a DLC'er criticize a Republican. Its very rare.

[wyldwolf]

133. want to compare numbers?

Here are a few to start you off with:

Evan Bayh, generally considered a national security hawk, offeredba blistering critique of the administration's handling of the war on terror, concluding: "That's not strength, that's incompetence."

Hillary Clinton, who squarely accused Republicans of trying to return the country to the policies and political practices of the 19th century.

Mark Warner scorned the Bush administration for choosing to intervene in the medical decisions of the Schiavo family while choosing to do nothing about the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

[wyldwolf]

132. interesting

Upthread, people are saying Whittman is an independent. Now you claim he is "pretending to be a Democrat."

Which is it?

Huffington go after the GOP with as much vigor as they used to the Dems.

She goes after Dems with a lot vigor still.

[LincolnMcGrath]

57. Never thought I'd see the day when the likes of Marshall Wittmann

would have such voracious supporters here.

[madfloridian]

60. In this blog Bull Moose compares us to Jim Jones followers and Kool-aid.

This guy should NOT be making fun of and posting snide remarks constantly against good Democrats. His tone is unnecessarily rude and intended to anger us.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/01/grape-flavored-kool-aid.html

"Grape-flavored Kool Aid

The Moose observes that the primary differences between a day care center and the Senate Democratic caucus are playground monitors.
Here's a useful rule of thumb when judging the political effectiveness of a nomination fight - have you come off worse than the nominee? And in the case of Alito, this is not even a close call. The Democratic opposition presented themselves as badgering, bloviating, politically correct, elitist, unattractive obstructionists. And the nominee comes off smelling like roses.

Of course, the crowning grace was to launch a filibuster on the slopes of Davos. And the one time nominee of the once proud Democratic Party goes blogging on a left wing site that his campaign once rejected as being outside the mainstream for repulsive remarks about Americans murdered by terrorists in Iraq.

Then, the Democratic leader followed the former nominee's lead as did aspiring future nominees. No doubt their Democratic colleagues in such states as North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska are grateful for the assist. It's as if these filibustering salons live on another planet in a distant galaxy inhabited entirely by left wing high dollar donors, bloggers and lobbyists from People for the American Way."

"America hasn't witnessed such a breathtaking instinct for political suicide since Jim Jones urged his followers to partake of the grape flavored Kool Aid. The deeper existential question is why are President Bush and Karl Rove so fortunate to have these political adversaries"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have only posted the less offensive parts. It gets better.

This man despises real Democrats. Why is he speaking for this wing of the party? He is not a Democrat, and his hatred for us spills over.

[wyldwolf]

70. At DU, an on KOS, and on Huffington, and on Sirota's blog

... they compare us to Republicans, etc. They should NOT be making fun of and posting snide remarks constantly against good Democrats. Their tone is unnecessarily rude and intended to anger us.

madfloridian wrote: In this blog Bull Moose compares us to Jim Jones followers and Kool-aid. This guy should NOT be making fun of and posting snide remarks constantly against good Democrats. His tone is unnecessarily rude and intended to anger us.

[madfloridian]

72. You really don't see the difference. You truly don't see it.

In your mind it is one and the same, and you don't see the difference.

I been around and around with you so often, and it is the same old stuff.

You are sincere in your belief that Whitman's motives are really on our side.

[wyldwolf]

75. No actually, you don't

Typical of you, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

94. now THAT is funny

FarLeftRange, call me a closet freeper.

[NoPasaran]

106. Speaking of "Republican Lite"

Okay, Chris Bell won the primary and I will be supporting him in November, but this is still pretty funny.
If Chris Bell was a beer

[Generator]

111. This dude is playing for the other team

Sorry, but I've had enough. Some are deluded and fearful. Some "mean well" and are blissfully content with the status quo. But some really are the enemy. It's that simple. Which just reminds me of Collen Rowley. Which is a major digression I know, but people use your common sense. There is a propaganda war for the heart of soul of everything in this country.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/28/1022243318700.html

But requests for a warrant were thwarted by FBI supervisors in Washington, who seemed so intent on ignoring the threat Moussaoui posed that some field agents speculated that key officials at FBI headquarters "had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden".

[mrgorth]

134. Honestly,

I can't even understand what he is saying here.

[Cha]

146. If "bullmoose" likes to be referred to

in terms of the animal kingdom..how about "chicken-livered chameleon"?

Is that the kind of advice he gave repukes?

[RazzleDazzle]

165. David Sirota says Wittman is former Christian Coalition

I'd sure love to see some documentation on this:

-------
12.20.05
More bull makes blowhard look dumb as a moose
I promised myself that I would try not to pay anymore attention to Marshall Wittman - you know the former Christian Coalition leader and GOP operative now claiming to be a Democrat who is so in love with himself he actually writes his blog in the third person. The guy has really proven himself to be one of the most hackish, amateurish bloviators of our day. But a few people emailed me his comments from his so-called "Bull Moose Blog," and I must say, wow - the guy has really set a new standard for shooting one's mouth of while being totally uninformed.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=4B0774A7-0F5D-2D1E-BA3256E4FCEEA823
------

[mzmolly]

166. "First do no harm" to one another is how I would take this?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

167. No, no, mzmolly. He means do no harm to Republicans.

He does this all the time. He should not be speaking for a Democratic group as he is not a Democrat, his own admission. He was a McCain campaign manager before he became part of the DLC.

He alarms me, but this is America. You can assume he meant that.

[mzmolly]

179. Well if that's what he meant - WTF is he doing advising Democrats?!

I would have to agree it's insane asking him for advice. I could swear McCain lost?