Time for DLC'ers to admit it...DLC incumbents are NOT persecuted on DU

[Ken Burch]

Yes, DLC incumbents do come in for rigorous criticism here(this is only to be expected, given that DU was basically intended as a forum for more progressive Democratic activists), but calling that persecution or "purges" is ludicrous. We don't have the capacity to purge ANYBODY, and most of us are small-d democrats by natural inclination, so it's silly and really, beneath the DLC's dignity to imply that we are some sort of murderous cabal.

Try debating the issues with us. Try making the case for your views. Stop claiming victimization when you aren't being victimized.

And on to victory in the fall.

[William769]

1. And the world is really flat!

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

2. You do realize, William, that it is a complete contradiction

to defend the DLC or to indulge their persecution fantasies and at the same to display the gay rights rainbow flag in your posts.

DLC'ers are gay-bashers, or weak supporters at best. They will all sell you out like Clinton did on gays in the military.

[William769]

3. Thats where you are wrong

It's Liberals and quite a few here that would sell me out. Telling me Gay marriage is a wedge issue and now is not the time for the fight. When in hell is the time to fight for civil rights?

[Ken Burch]

5. The DLC was NOT taking a MORE pro-gay position than progressives do

And, in the last election, Clinton actually advised John Kerry to "ditch the gays" and support the anti-marriage initiatives.

Why do you feel any loyalty to the right wing of the party?

[400Years]

4. It's the DLC that wants to purge people who are not corporatists

Where's that article about those folks form Citibank?

[wyldwolf]

6. Ken, you're fooling yourself

There are calls for purges of the DLC often on DU.

"Progressives" on DU advocate MoveOn-style primary opposition to DLC candidates.

DU was basically intended as a forum for more progressive Democratic activists

Completely false. DU was created in the aftermath of Al Gore's (DLC) "loss" in 2000.

There is nothing in DU's rules or description to support your claim. However, DU's description DOES say this:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[Ken Burch]

7. Calling for the defeat of moderate or conservative Democrats in a primary

Is not the equivalent of taking said moderate or conservative Democrats from their homes in the middle of the night, convicting them on false charges in show trials, shooting them in the head and sending their families the bills for the bullets.

THAT's a purge. This is just a debate forum.

And you aren't really saying that the party should have changed NOTHING after 2000, are you?
Do you honestly believe that the status quo should have been preserved endlessly and with no debate?
The pressing need was to get progressive voters back. They had been driven away in the nineties(although a lot more who could have gone stayed because they accepted the arguement that the election of nominal Democrats was all that mattered, even though staying was agony for them in that it forced them to vote for a party that, as they saw it, stood for nothing.)

There needed to be a major effort to bring the party back to life, to renew the activist tradition and to stop treating activists as the enemy. This is what DU stood for and stand for.

Kerry lost, not because he was particularly liberal, but because he acted like having some liberal positions was a shameful malady that had to be hidden from public view. I read many articles in which voters said they didn't actually agree with the reactionary view Bush held, but they voted for him because "you knew where he stood". If Kerry had been that kind of candidate, if he'd run as the hero he was in 1971, he would have defeated Bush in a landslide. Instead, by hiding what he stood for and by refusing to fight back against a smear campaign, Kerry ran, not as a liberal, but as a clone of Michael Dukakis. I'll never understand why anyone would repeat what didn't work and expect a different result.

Americans may call themselves "moderate" or "conservative", but when you ask them what they actually support, they are often very progressive. What Democrats need to do is find out how to have gravitas and seem strong but at the same time to speak to what voters truly want. That's why boards like DU and groups like PDA and DFA are necessary...there is a discussion that needs to occur, and there are leaders who need to be held to account or even "brought to book". The party is the people, not the officeholders, and the sooner Democrats learn that, the sooner they'll learn how to win again.

The answer is principle and confidence, not shame and concealment.

[Alex35332]

8. You get rid of the DLC

and young, intelligent activists like my self may start coming back into the party. I did not want to become a Dem, just because of the DLC control. Exile them, tar and feather, and you will get guys like me back not to mention a big chunk of the 100 million + who give up on democracy.

[wyldwolf]

12. all the more reason to keep the DLC

[MrBenchley]

9. Kenny thinks if he closes HIS eyes nobody else can see

He is right about one thing...the party purge the far left is patting its popos over is no more likely to happen than any of the other causes they're so useless on. These guys cvouldn't organize a three-legged race, and nobody else cares about their narcissitic and vainglorious posturing.

[Ken Burch]

10. Well, at least you didn't just say "pout louder" and "peddle it walking"

Thanks for varying your insults for a change.

But where do you get "narcissitic"? This is a message board. Nobody can see how I look. And that's probably just as well some days.

Anyway, you're just steamed that the NYT has endorsed Lamont over the Wellknown Militarist.

[MrBenchley]

11. That's because I was addressing wyldwolf, brainiac

Have someone explain to you how to tell what posts respond to one another.

Slowly.

Twice.