Who do you trust more, Paul Krugman or DLC corporate toadies?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Who do you trust more, Paul Krugman or DLC corporate toadies?

This is in response to a nitwit poll in this forum. It's depressing how transparently the DLC tries to ape the name-calling tactics of the GOP only without any of the effectiveness.

[Occam Bandage]

1. The appropriate response to bullshit is obviously more bullshit.

[yurbud]

4. pretty soon the DLC will start buying fake scientists and economists like the GOP too.

[HughMoran]

81. It's infantile bullshit isn't it?

Is this what passes for intelligent dialog on DU these days?

[liberalmuse]

2. Dude's been right since I've been reading him...

for years and years.

[ellenfl]

3. was this a trick question? eom

[Cleita]

5. Too bad those guys are never brought on as consultants by the Washington

nabobs.

[leftstreet]

6. Paul Krugman 2012

[underpants]

7. :-)

:evilgrin:

[Unsane]

8. your avatar looks like michael smerconish

[yurbud]

49. ouch! I looked that up, and I'm much better looking than him:

[Cha]

9. Bullshit..I don't trust Krugman's assessment

of Obama supporters..he's too fucking jealous.

<snip>
"It's no secret that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has his problems with Barack Obama. But in his column Monday, Krugman made it clear that he's no huge fan of Obama's supporters, either. Decrying the bitter partisanship that he sees taking over the Democratic race and saying the campaign is turning into "Nixonland," Krugman lays the fault at the feet of Obama supporters exclusively.

"I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," Krugman writes. "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again."

<more>
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/11/krugm...

[TTUBatfan2008]

14. Exactly...

The dude is as biased as anyone and supports the DLC Clintons, yet somehow I'm supposed to listen to his criticism of Obama when he's been bashing Obama since the primaries. Perhaps Mr. Krugman should look in the mirror. He seems to be the one who couldn't accept anyone other than Hillary, given that Hillary and Obama's policies during the primary were virtually identical. With that in mind, why wasn't he bashing Clinton? Because he's just as guilty of the "cult of personality" issue as Obama's supporters.

[Zodiak]

17. That I can somewhat agree with

The piece cited here clearly shows that Krugman was writing the piece with an open bias. We saw quite a bit of bitterness from both sides of the Democratic debate during the primary, and Krugman was clearly ignoring one and highlighting the other.

However, I would like to point out that the piece cited does not criticize Obama, but his supporters...and the pieces that he has written more recently rail more against the centrists in the party than they do Obama. Krugman's lamentations do seem to be consistent with not only a leftist position, but also a disagreement in policy. I do not understand why we feel the need to counter his points if they are valid, and to me, they are valid.

I really wish that the tenor of the pushback against Krugman stuck with the issues. That would be far more helpful to our community, the party, and the country overall.

[Cha]

22. Yeah, it strikes me

as jealousy but hypocricy is totally evident.

[AtomicKitten]

38. This poll offers a false choice.

Krugman supports the DLC toadies vis the vis the Clintons, so a "neither" or "both" option should have been offered.

[Cha]

40. I know..I just

didn't want to spend my time and energy pointing out that it's a freakin' push poll and ignorant as limpdoodies.

Thanks for shining some logic on it, AK.

[Zodiak]

15. That is the second time I have seen this said

And it is not any more true than the first time.

In order to know a person is jealous, they have to tell you. Otherwise, it is just thin speculation of motive.

The only thing you can surmise from that excerpt is that rallying around a personality makes Krugman nervous, and he did not like the partisanship he saw amongst Obama supporters. I see no indication of jealousy at all. You can accuse him of being myopic, because ostensibly the partisanship was coming from both sides during the primary, but the accusation of jealousy has no basis at all.

This is why some have called today's Krugman roast a "smear campaign". When the criticisms leave the realm of facts and turn to speculative emotion, then we are no longer debating about policy. Krugman was guilty of that when he wrote that piece (saying Obama supporters regard him as a hero) just as you are guilty of it here.

[TTUBatfan2008]

16. It's not jealousy, it's hypocrisy...

He complains about Obama being too centrist but he supported Clinton during the primary. You can't get any more centrist than the Clintons.

[Cha]

19. Okay, I'll go with

Hypocricy.

[Zodiak]

21. The point I made was about jealousy

The hypocrisy I can agree with.

Obama is to the left of Clinton by my scale (and yes, I researched them both in great detail over two years), but not terribly far. Far enough to get my support during the primaries and then the general election, but not far enough left to not need prodding. I believe that Krugman's piece does just that (and no, I am not a fan of too many famous American economists of the last 20 years....I'm putting that out there to pre-empt the accusation that I am on of his "fans", as if any economist has the personality to attract "fans" besides Friedman's brownshirts).

I certainly do not want Obama only feeling the need to make the right happy because they alone are squawking.

that stimulus needed the education and sceince funds. Both make this country competitive, and both lead to the jobs of the future. We need those issues back on the table, and so these sorts of lamentations go a long way to keep those ideas in the body politic. I suspect Obama knows what function they have, as well.

[TTUBatfan2008]

23. I'm against the stimulus altogether...

whether it be tax cuts or government spending. I think we should have the FairTax, which would get rid of the insanely complicated income tax code we have as well as eliminating all the loopholes that corporations use. So basically I think Krugman, President Obama, the Republicans, and pretty much all of the major parties discussing this are wrong.

[Zodiak]

24. We are so far beyond needing to tweak the tax code, it is not even funny

This stimulus is about our economy not imploding on itself, not an ideological battle over taxes.

It's a very real thing, and yes, there is a lot of blame to go around....but I'd rather have this debate over a slowly recovering economy that over its ashes while we scrabble for beetle grubs to eat for protein.

[TTUBatfan2008]

27. We should have let the banks fail...

they deserved it. I guess I'm a lot more fiscally conservative than most people here. Social liberal by all means but I am against big spending, whether it be on tax cuts, government programs, wars, etc. I just wish they'd stop blowing our money on stupid shit. I'm basically a libertarian I suppose.

[eridani]

84. If Clinton had won the primary and the general--

--and had offered the same only partly effective economic stimulus plan, I don't doubt that he would be criticizing it on exactly the same grounds.

[AtomicKitten]

113. I doubt that. n/t

[eridani]

126. Why. They are both centrists with huge donations from the finance industry n/t

[AtomicKitten]

135. You misunderstand my point

... which is I doubt Krugman's reaction would be the same. I read stats yesterday showing Krugman bent over backwards with 8 virulent anti-Obama screeds (versus 2 pro-Clinton) during the primaries and rather lukewarm quasisupport during the GE.

I doubt Krugman would have doubled back and come at Clinton like he has Obama if they had produced similar packages. Krugman has allowed his own partisan politics to taint what would otherwise be considered sound advice.

[camera obscura]

28. I hated his primary attitude too. But it doesn't distract from his economic prowess.

[yurbud]

41. I wasn't pleased with his primary positions, but choosing between Dems is different from kowtowing

to GOP.

I thought Hillary was corporate and even GOP-pandering than Obama, which is why I wanted him to beat her, so it was odd that back then he made the opposite choice.

[depakid]

95. Well, there WERE and ARE cultist followers

Krugman was right about that, too- and we can see it pretty much every day on these boards.

[damntexdem]

10. Hmm, lessee -- how many DLC corporate toadies have Nobel Prizes in economics?

But actually, the GOP seems to be declining to the effectiveness level of the DLC.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. I can think of at least one.

Paul Krugman.

[TTUBatfan2008]

11. Neither...

Krugman supports the Clintons. You can't get any more DLC than the Clintons.

[bridgit]

12. I trust push polls whatever the outcome

:bounce:

[jefferson_dem]

13. DLC...

Can we be done with that bit of 'ooga booga' finally...?

[Occam Bandage]

18. "DLC" is my favorite empty blogosphere boogeyman buzzword.

[Runcible Spoon]

26. DLC certainly is your favorite something, that;s for sure. nt

[jefferson_dem]

30. Liberal purity police officer / cyber scribbler word for "evil doer"...

Ooga booga...

[yurbud]

42. it's an actual organization that openly put corporations ahead of traditional Democratic voters

Do your homework:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010502041458/http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[Occam Bandage]

97. It's an actual organization, full stop.

The rest is OMG FEAR THE POLITICAL MIDDLE.

[anonymous171]

20. I trust no one. I live in a box and I steal WiFi from the library.

[On the Road]

25. I Don't Trust Any Individual

Would prefer to form my own opinions.

[wyldwolf]

29. in this order: DLC, Krugman, whiney progressives

[Uzybone]

31. whiney progressives have given up the right to be called progressives

at this point they are just obstructionists...right up there with the likes of Inhofe, McCain, BFF Lindsay and the rest. The only thing that separates them is that they are on the left wing.

I have no other way to explain why a pretty much useless op-ed from a very fine economist is creating so much grist here.

I love Krugman, but he has been consistently petty and nasty towards Obama since the primaries began.

[wyldwolf]

32. it does remind me a bit of the Clinton health care plan

When the president was attacked, first from the right for "socialism," then from the left for "corporatism."

[yurbud]

44. that doesn't mean it was right. Clinton's were trying to do compromised, private sector reform

and for their troubles putting the Rube Goldberg contraption together, they still got their head handed to them by the right.

Here's a thought: sometimes the pragmatic thing IS the progressive thing.

That's just not palatable to the DLC crowd because public sector solutions don't lead to profitable jobs as CEOs, on boards of directors, or as corporate lobbyists, lawyers, or consultants.

[wyldwolf]

48. "right" according to who?

The minority party of the right or a bunch of unorganized habitual complainers on the left?

The DLC was not in favor of the Clinton health plan as it was structured, by the way.

And the whole "corporate whore" schtick people like you keep repeating just gets tiresome.

[yurbud]

51. Clintons were pandering to business interests and it didn't help get reform passed

So the value of pre-compromising looks pretty pointless.

We should take some lessons from the right--figure out what's important, and fight for that. If you get less than what you were fighting for, come back and fight for it again later.

Democrats start out with a compromised position then let the GOP haggle them down to nothing.

If you try to offend no one, you help no one too.

[wyldwolf]

55. Clintons were pandering to the left as well. After all, any universal coverage is left in nature

Your post is just another example of the "my way or nothing" mentality that has always crippled the left.

[yurbud]

63. hardly. If you actually read my post, I explained an acceptable private sector solution

but a solution that doesn't control costs is just screwing us in a different hole.

[wyldwolf]

67. give the post # and quote your solution

[yurbud]

52. By disorganized, you mean the left can't offer seven figure salaries to former pols?

[wyldwolf]

53. more of the same from you. No, the left can tell you what they think is wrong, but...

... they can never offer a workable alternative.

[yurbud]

57. actually we do again and again, but DC seems to define ''workable'' as what those with money

will tolerate.

On healthcare, single payer health insurance would take care of the problem as it has in every advanced country that has national health insurance or a national health service.

I support what Obama is trying to do on the stimulus EXCEPT giving the GOP veto power over the package and watering it down to pull them into the tent instead of forcing them to filibuster and lose what little support they have left.

Bill Clinton was DLC but one of things he did was call the Republican budget bluff and let them take it all the way to shutting down the government. In the public perception, he won and the GOP went down in flames. Obama is even more popular, has both houses of Congress, yet rather than forcing the GOP to make fools of themselves, and kill their own party, he is giving them CPR.

[wyldwolf]

58. where's the plan?

[yurbud]

76. 54

[wyldwolf]

92. THAT'S your plan??

lol.

[yurbud]

54. DLC bends over backwards to avoid plain truth if it will offend business, like health insurance

profit-taking being at the heart of the healthcare crisis.

I would support a private sector plan if whoever was pushing at least said they would cap prices and take the power to deny service away from the insurance companies themselves and put it in the hands of a third party oversight agency.

I combed through the DLC site looking for something like that, but instead, they had crap like making medical records electronic, which is a good idea, but far from the heart of the problem.

[wyldwolf]

56. who's "plain truth?" Tell ya what...

Where is a workable "progressive" plan for universal healthcare that can pass through congress.

Where is it?

I predict you won't answer the question.

[yurbud]

59. I addressed that in another response. If you think Democrats won't vote for single payer

or at least strict controls on health insurance companies, the problem isn't with the reform but with too many Democrats being as corrupt as Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

60. no you didn't. You made some vague reference about what other countries do.

Where is the specific "progressive" universal healthcare plan created by Moveon? Or DFA? Or PDA? Or any "progressive" policy think tank?

[yurbud]

61. so if other countries do it, it's automatically bad? That's pathetic right wing know-nothing crap

[wyldwolf]

65. no, but making intentional disingenous misinterpretations of my posts are... so again...

WHERE is the plan??

[demhistorian]

69. WTF??? Nothing like that was even implied

[yurbud]

62. We have a good single payer bill here in CA, and John Conyers has one too

or don't those count?

[wyldwolf]

66. Can it pass Congress?

[yurbud]

74. is there a point where a bill would be so watered down you would consider it a token solution

that actually is a setback because it gives pols an excuse to put the issue on the back burner?

The appearance of progress is not the same thing as actual progress.

[wyldwolf]

91. was that an answer to "can it pass Congress?"

[yurbud]

98. I don't know the exact number of Democrats who put their future careers as lobbyist

ahead of the good of the country, so I don't know the answer to that question.

The public supports the idea of single payer. If a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress won't vote for something with overwhelming public support, that is not a failure of the legislation but a profound failure of our democracy.

Also, Democrats need to start doing a bit more of what Republicans do--instead of just taking polls and counting votes before you propose something, try to move public opinion to what you want to do. On health care, public opinion is not the problem, bought politicians are.

[wyldwolf]

101. so the answer is no

:shrug:

[yurbud]

102. I answered your question, but you didn't answer mine: can a bill be so watered down that it

is pointless or even destructive if it passes?

I've had some involvement with California politics and seen that happen with bills that have a profound effect on my life (I teach community college). The legislators pat themselves on the back for addressing the problem, move it to the back burner or off the stove, and nothing changes.

On a national level, Bush made some hooha after the Enron collapse about regulating Wall Street, but the effort was so token it didn't prevent the current mess.

[wyldwolf]

103. it was a yes or no question. Can any health care plan endorsed by the left pass Congress?

[yurbud]

104. Who is being the extremsit in this conversation?

I gave you an honest answer, and you didn't deal with it, you just boiled it down to a yes or no question, when as usual in life, there are a couple of more options.

Its time to retire Bush style arguments of shouting down your opponents with empty catch phrases.

I answered your question, and you didn't give me the courtesy of answering mine.

[wyldwolf]

105. only one of us is revolutionary-type language

[yurbud]

108. sometimes change needs to revolutionary or it won't fix problem

And lead to a greater catastrophe.

DC bowing to health insurance companies hasn't helped cover anyone or reduce costs.

Also, if you read up on the history of the DLC, you'll find that "corporate toadie" isn't an exaggeration, and they probably wouldn't even take it as an insult. It is what they aspire to.

[wyldwolf]

111. only for those who see a problem around every corner

[yurbud]

116. you don't see a problem with our health insurance system? Are you rich enough to buy your own?

or does your employer provide it?

If the latter, you could be in for a rude surprise when it's either cut or the burden is shifted to you.

If people go bankrupted or die because of the way insurance companies are allowed to do business, that's a real problem.

What would count as a real problem to you?

[yurbud]

109. you still haven't answered my question on your healthcare solution

I gave two: government run single payer, or a mixed public/private system with tight oversight of private insurance.

I would hope that even the DLC wouldn't see the latter as extremist because if they do, they will prolong the problem and let it get worse.

[wyldwolf]

110. Because you never answered the question I asked FIRST

You gave two IDEAS. Not two PLANS.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

117. For a "progressive" it took you longer than usual to throw a personal attack

[yurbud]

80. what's YOUR plan that would control cost and cover everyone?

[wyldwolf]

93. was that an answer to "can it pass Congress?"

[eridani]

85. It passed the Assembly and the Senate in CA twice n/t

[yurbud]

99. yep. and if GOP hadn't forced recall that put Schwarzenegger into office, it might have been signed

into law.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in California suffer from the same affliction as those in DC. They let the GOP push them around and rig the rules so that even when they are a tiny minority, they can veto desperately needed change.

[Wetzelbill]

72. If you really believe that you are in the wrong party nt

[yurbud]

79. DLC thinks our contribution should be to vote, cheerlead, and shut up in between

[Wetzelbill]

83. Their biggest problems are that

They are primarily a political organization that espouses weak policy initiatives as an attempt to win politically, except they always lose politically. The exception was with Bill Clinton who is a charismatic political natural who ran against two Republican presidential candidates who ran poor campaigns. I am not one of those people who believe that the DLC is evil etc, but they are naive, weak and proven losers. They serve little purpose other than to lose elections and water down good policy by constantly capitulating to Republicans.

[yurbud]

86. ''naive, weak and proven losers'' I would agree with all but naive. amoral opportunists is more

accurate.

[Wetzelbill]

87. I say naive because they

believe that their way actually wins elections, it doesn't. But they are definitely amoral opportunists too.

[yurbud]

89. then we agree

[Wetzelbill]

90. definitely

[wyldwolf]

94. yeah, here's an example of elections the DLC has lost... I'll start with Bill Clinton...

... :rofl:

For every netroots style "progressive" who has ever won anything, I'll name you three DLCers who have.

[Wetzelbill]

119. Lost the House after 40 years

Lost several elections in a row. Bill Clinton has been the only one who has ever won anything. Go ahead, laugh at the previous 8 years. That worked out well for us. You sleep through that? Or '94? Just keep capitulating to the GOP and losing elections, it works well.

[wyldwolf]

121. Leftwing myth - the DLC doesn't isn't in charge of elections - that would be..

The DNC, DCCC and DSCC.

The house was lost because of 40 years of Democratic corruption, southern gerrymandering, Democratic retirements in districts trending Republican, and the Christian Right's first big anti-abortion mobilization.

Or don't you know your political history?

Lost several elections in a row.

I seem to recall Bob Shrum having much to do with the Gore and Kerry campaigns. Shrum is far from a DLCer

Bill Clinton has been the only one who has ever won anything.

You're kidding, right? I'll just name a few DLCers, past and present:

* Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
* Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
* Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
* Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
* Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
* Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
* Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
* John Kerry (MA, from 2000<7>)
* Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
* Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
* Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
* Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
* Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
* Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)
# Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009 <8>)
# Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000-2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
# Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
# Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
# John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
# Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
# John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
# Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
# Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
# Chuck Robb
# Al Gore
# Max Cleland

The facts are clearly not on your side.

[Wetzelbill]

123. nope. Not a myth.

Good luck with that though.

[wyldwolf]

125. yes, definitely a myth. You have no facts. You can't refute mine. And nice DLC avatar

[mvd]

127. While Shrum might not be officially DLC, neither is he progressive

He's the one that convinced Edwards to vote for the IWR despite his better judgment. The Kerry campaign focused too much on competing with Bush on "toughness" in foreign policy and Kerry didn't sound like the Kerry that's been in the Senate. What won for Clinton doesn't necessarily win now. Obama represents finding solutions that he thinks can work, and not some third way. He's not about centrist or progressive. Obama seems willing to compromise on strategy more than principles, while I believe the DLC compromises too much on principles.

[wyldwolf]

128. so? The world isn't either DLC or Progressive.

[mvd]

129. Actually many people are one of the two

But my point is more that the DLC way is not needed to win. While we shouldn't demand complete purity, I do not believe in compromising on many progressive issues.

[wyldwolf]

130. Actually, infinitely more are not either one

But my point is more that the DLC way is not needed to win.

Well, we can agree on that.

While we shouldn't demand complete purity, I do not believe in compromising on many progressive issues.

That's where we differ, because there is no set definition and consensus of what "progressive" issues are.

Many issues "progressives" support are not supported in the DNC platform, for example, and have never been. This is but one example of how the Democratic party has never been the "progressive" party.

[mvd]

131. I disagree completely on that second point

I'm a progressive and feel just as much a part of the party as you. Progressives have influenced the party direction at important times: Roosevelt was at one time considered centrist/party establishment. And I consider certain principles to be progressive or liberal - single payer health care, marriage equality, not worrying about higher taxes to fund programs that work, elimination of the death penalty, and peace unless there's self defense are just a few. A centrist Democrat/DLCer would likely not believe like this across the board.

[wyldwolf]

134. A can cite several examples, if you wish

Again, because you might have missed my point, the DNC platform has always contained elements contrary to what "progressives" believe it should.

[mvd]

136. Yes, it has SOME that are contrary, but I don't have to agree with that platform

That would be purity demand in the other way.

[wyldwolf]

137. then what about my second point do you disagree with?

I said: "That's where we differ, because there is no set definition and consensus of what "progressive" issues are. Many issues "progressives" support are not supported in the DNC platform, for example, and have never been. This is but one example of how the Democratic party has never been the "progressive" party.

Your answer has been that "Yes, it has SOME that are contrary, but I don't have to agree with that platform."

That appears to be an agreement, not a disagreement. :shrug:

[mvd]

138. I'd say partial agreement

The DNC platform isn't entirely bad for progressives. I guess there's not much more to say, then. We have differences on philosophy, but that's not what we are discussing here. :hi:

[depakid]

96. DLC's policies and pandering got us into this mess in the 1st place

They're every bit as irresponsible as Republicans- in some ways even worse.

[Danger Mouse]

33. Where's 'my ass' on this poll?

[Fire1]

34. Anybody who says, "Senator McConnell doesn't know what he's

talkibg about,' HAS GOT TO BE RIGHT!!!!!! (stated by Krugman this a.m. on msnbc)

[Fire1]

35. Anybody who says, "Senator McConnell doesn't know what he's

talking about,' HAS GOT TO BE RIGHT!!!!!! (stated by Krugman this a.m. on msnbc)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. On the ecomony?

Krugman, hands down. :shrug:

[Jennicut]

37. Neither, they are both full of themselves and love the sound of their own voices

Really stupid poll.

[yurbud]

64. oy--that only sounds smart when people say it on TV, and not so much even then

[Jennicut]

68. I have no love of the DLC but Krugman does not get politics

at all. A liberal can have a big ego too. I like his views, don't like him personally. Sorry.

[yurbud]

77. I'm not sure the DLC gets politics. Democrats have a winning hand and instead of playing it with

the public, they are giving the GOP CPR.

[Jennicut]

82. Um, I just said I don't like the DLC. I hate when people are put in neat little groups.

The world is gray. Only Rethugs see it in black and white. I like Krugman's views, the center is not the best place for the country to be. But Krugman called Obama's supporters essentially a cult. He really has no idea what it takes to get someone elected, how impossible Washington is right now, and the fact that Obama suffers from poor leadership in the Dem party like Reid. Congress is a mess on both sides. We have some good people in their but I trust Obama over most of them.

[Forkboy]

120. "I like his views, don't like him personally."

I can respect that. I feel the same way about a ton of people on the Left.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Krugman supports THE DLC toadies, the Clintons, so this poll offers a false choice.

[yurbud]

45. he supported Hillary, but his policy positions aren't DLC.

[AtomicKitten]

73. the hell they aren't: he's pro free trade and pro cheap labor/outsourcing n/t

[amborin]

46. Krugman's one of the world's leading left wing economists

[AtomicKitten]

78. Krugman being pro free trade and calling opponents "protectionists" is as DLC as it comes. n/t

[Deja Q]

47. Note to people who ask: That's one reason why I changed my name.

(this time)

:rofl:

[Wetzelbill]

50. Easily Krugman

[H2O Man]

70. "

[demhistorian]

71. to respond to a nitwit poll you create a nitwit poll?

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. I understand both to have an agenda, and I make my own decisions based on conditions

I assumed all intelligent people thought similarly.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Does anyone trust the DLC corporate toadies?

I mean, come one...

[QC]

100. Lately a lot of people around here seem to adore them.

DU has certainly changed a lot these past few months.

Did you ever imagine this would be a place where the likes of Arlen Specter and Susan Collins were hailed as heroes while Paul Krugman was savaged?

[MrMickeysMom]

107. Funny about those heros...

They shape shift when they're up for re-election. There benchmark is so low, they actually look good those who don't pay attention.

Krugman has been steady at the wheel, gets the noble prize, and like all the heros on their journey, gets pulled apart by the same uninformed public led by the less interested media. growl....

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. I trust the President. Is he a DLC toady?

:shrug:

[southern_dem]

112. Yeah, I'm going with the President on this one too n/t

[wyldwolf]

114. The DLC-obsessed rank right up there with those who continually wash their hands

[Laelth]

118. A push poll, but I share its sentiments.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Forkboy]

122. This stuff is really shortsighted.

It seems to me that, like it or not, for the foreseeable future the DLC will play a major role in Democratic politics. They're not going anywhere soon, and the left wing of the party isn't going anyhere soon.

So, we can continue to put each other down with push polls and name calling, finger pointing and demonizing, making the existing split grow even wider. Or, both sides can try to actually see that we share about 3/4 of the same viewpoints, that many of our differences are in the "how to do it" category and not the "what to do" category, and that if we concentrate on the views we share and reach those goals than many of the other differences will seem a lot easier to reach agreements on.

I've been watching this split grow wider and wider for about 15 years now, with neither side seeming to care if it's really solved. We win only when we have extraordinary personalities like a Clinton or Obama. We use scapegoats, either the center, the progressives, Nader...anything to avoid facing this split in the party and actually address it in a meaningful way. Every party has it's factions, and a natural give and take is expected. But neither faction in the Democratic Party seems overly interested in giving, just taking.

Posts like yours may feel good, but they don't help in any way at all. In fact, it has just the opposite effect. Your goal of ridding the Party of the DLC is fine by me, but it's also highly naive to think it's going to happen. And until, or unless, it does, this kind of head butting is useless because it doesn't advance your goal at all. I've gone that route, I know it won't get us anywhere. :)

I expect both sides to now come in and tell me why I'm right about one side, but not theirs. ;)

[yurbud]

124. you might notice that being nice to DLC hasn't helped either. It's not about tactics but money

Progressives don't have the juicy jobs to offer as CEOs, board members, lobbyists, etc., so the DLC will ALWAYS treat us as marginal because in terms of what matters to them, graft, we are marginal.

We only represent actual people, as the results of this poll will attest.

There are only two ways to move entrenched power: money and overwhelming public sentiment. We can't get together enough money to bribe the DLC to behave or go away, so we have to get voters excited about replacing them with actual progressives, who don't say nice platitudes during campaigns then give away the store to Wall St. when they get in office.

[Teaser]

132. A pictorial representation of this post

[AtomicKitten]

139. I hope people are careful smoking too close to this OP.

:thumbsup:

[GOPBasher]

133. The DLC way is much better.

I'm just kidding, but I made you look.