Are you now or have you ever been , a member of the DLC?

[cali]

The McCarthyite nonsense that sometimes rears its ugly head here is just offensive. As it happens, I've never felt any affinity to the DLC, but so what if I did? When we have people here taking notes on who's voting to recommend a satirical post, we're emulating the worst kind of crap from the right.

People shouldn't be forced to march in lockstep on DU- or anywhere else, for that matter. There shouldn't be the type of group think pressure that insists that if you disagree with the conventional thinking of the DU mainstream, you're some kind of traitor.

Honestly, if you can't tolerate opposing opinions at all, if you're constantly accusing people of being DLC or not being the "right" kind of liberal or progressive, you're betraying liberalism, not standing up for it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Let's have a big round of applause for cali!

:evilgrin:

[MannyGoldstein]

2. They Don't All Have To Be The Same, But...

But at some point, people cease to be Democrats - even if they call themselves Democrats.

To my mind, the Democrats are the defenders of the Middle Class. If a person seeks to badly hurt the Middle Class, they are no longer a Democrat.

[Taxloss]

3. Burn her! n/t

[mvd]

4. Well..

I don't think we can withdraw ALL the armed forces in Iraq immediately. Some for sure, but Bush put the region in a perilous state. So even if it sounds moderate to some, caution is needed.

[cali]

6. I disagree with you.

I believe that American troops in Iraq make things worse not better, and we should get all the troops out within a 6-9 month time span. I realize that's not going to happen, but that's what i think should happen. Yes, the region is in a perilous state, and yes the killing may get worse, and we'll have even more blood on our hands, but staying seems just insane to me.

[mvd]

7. I support a strict time table for the remaining troops

So I do not want them to stay. Some should come home now and the others should leave in less than a year, to ensure an orderly manner. And phase the withdrawal.

[ellisonz]

22. 2-3 years is very realistic IMHO.

We may be able to negate the "surge" and get a draw down of 10,000-30,000 troops. People here have to understand that there are real lives at stake, and that any withdrawal has to be phased and gradual to work.

:nuke:

[cali]

26. 2-3 years? Why?

Why does the withdrawal have to take that long? I believe that US troops on the ground are the largest spur to violence. And that the presence of those troops is costing real lives.

[ellisonz]

29. Because we don't control the executive branch...

Congress is very unlikely to cut off the funds, and Bush isn't going to pull them out. Yes, I know its tragic, but unless you believe in miracles...

[PA Democrat]

27. Hmmm.... Like Nixon's Vietnamization Plan?

That worked well, didn't it?

[ellisonz]

30. No. That historical analogy is silly. The two are very different countries/situations.

Wanna bet? You can holler and scream all you want, but it won't change a damn thing.

In the words of Nancy Pelosi: "responsible redeployment."

There is a train leaving the station, will DU be on it?

"MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

MARGARET WARNER: So are you saying that, as far as the Democrats are concerned, and certainly many members of your caucus have called for a rather quick withdrawal, that you would not accept the kind of open-ended commitment to achieving some end-state for the Iraqi government before American troops left?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: What I'm saying is, is that the president of the United States, in pursuing a course of "stay the course," has limited any good options for us. So let's at least say that, if we have a new direction, it will include talking in a bipartisan way to the Iraqi government about what the responsibilities are for their own governance and also for their own security."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/pelosi_11-08.html

[PA Democrat]

33. Not a perfect analogy, but far from silly.

Both were disastrous attempts at nation building.

Both Johnson and Bush tried to fight their respective wars with minimal impact on the majority of the US population. It was only after it became evident that Johnson could not sustain the war effort with an all-volunteer army, that the draft was instituted. The current all-volunteer army has now reached the breaking point.

In both conflicts, the US made mistakes based upon ignorance of the local culture and local politics.

Nixon promised to withdraw US forces after the ARVN troops were properly trained under the infamous "Vietnamization Plan." It sounds strikingly familiar to Bush's statements that "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."

It was only after public sentiment turned against the war in Vietnam, that plans were made to withdraw forces from Iraq. But in the process there was also an escalation of the air war (I have read of similar plans for Iraq) with huge numbers of civilian casualties, that resulted in condemnation of the US by the international community.

But of course a major difference between the 2 conflicts at this point in time, is that a person your age, would most likely not support a 2 to 3 year redeployment plan with a commander-in-chief who still thinks that a military "victory" was possible. During the Vietnam War, you would have been nervously looking at your draft lottery number praying the war ended before you lost your college deferment.

[H2O Man]

36. Actually a very good analogy.

The attempt to discredit it with nonsense like "you can yell and scream all you want" is the only silly thing found in the discussion.

[ellisonz]

38. Please reread the useful digression.

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Relevant post:

Because we don't control the executive branch...

Congress is very unlikely to cut off the funds, and Bush isn't going to pull them out. Yes, I know its tragic, but unless you believe in miracles...

PS. PA Dem and I had a discussion in another thread. So it's kinda running...

[ellisonz]

37. Vietnam does not equal Iraq. Analogies are a very risky proposition.

"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq."

Every decision has a price to be paid, but there are better and worse decisions. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not talking about "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." They are talking about making an attempt at trying for a political solution. Let me repeat, there are very significant differences between Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot take your generations Vietnam expierence, and say oh geez, this must be Vietnam all over again, and therefore we have to follow exactly the same ideologies and strategies.

I don't even want to think about how many more Iraqis are going to die...but you are ensuring a long bloody civil war with "ethnic cleansing" if we pull up stakes and run now without even attempting a change in strategy. Oh, and since we can't get past Vietnam, how about listening to Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam veterans, who man comment so far to date in the new Senate has been: what is the strategy?

Since we want to use analogies: here's a fun one for you...Is Moqtada Al-Sadr the new Pol Pot?

I'm not enthusiatic about the realistic appraisal that we are looking at another 2-3 years, but unless you've got a way to get 67 votes in the Senate its not going to change. Get real, and please don't patronize me ala "you would have been nervously looking at your draft lottery number praying the war ended before you lost your college deferment."

PS. I never supported the war and vigoursly agitated against it all channels available to me from the get go even though I was but a junior in HS when this started.

[PA Democrat]

39. LOL! As I stated it is not a perfect analogy. If analogies are as you say "a risky proposition"

are we to assume that we should not attempt to draw lessons from history? After all, no past event equals a current event. I am not taking "my generation's" Vietnam experience and insisting that we apply the same ideologies and strategies. But I am not so politically naive as to assume that politicians' words and promises equal results.

I've done political advocacy for children and adults with disabilities for more than 12 years, and I know from firsthand experience that politicians must be continually reminded and pressured to do the things that aren't always politically easy or popular. So, while I like some of the things that I am hearing from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Biden, I will continue to write letters, make phone calls and participate in protests until I see results.

I would also suggest that it would be politically expedient for the Democratic congress to take aggressive action to attempt to pull down troop levels as soon as possible, even if they don't have the votes to do so. The electorate who gave us a Democratic victory in '06 is going to be less inclined to vote for Democrats in '08 if they don't see tangible evidence that this congress is doing everything possible to get us out of Iraq.

And let me assure you that as a member of "my generation" I was not attempting to be patronizing when I suggested that you would be less patient waiting for the slow wheels of the political process to end the US occupation of Iraq if there were a more equitable sharing of the sacrifices associated with this conflict.

[ellisonz]

40. Oh but there is an equitable sharing of sacrifices of sorts...

As ShortNFiery was commenting another thread, follow the money, I'm paying for this goddamn war, not you, because it is almost all deficit spending, and even w/pay go it is going to take a long time to pay the bill.

You should continue to protest, but I just would not get my hopes up for ending the war by that means...I'm all for investigate, inform, impeach, convinct if we can make it happen, which is no small order.

There are things to be learned for history...but history does not repeat itself in perfect order and IMHO opinion there is a pretty radical difference between the two chains of events in practical terms, and these differences must be taken into consideration. Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax, 9/11 was not, and that is not to suggest Iraq had anything to do w/9/11, because it most certaintly did not...but to abandon Iraq in a state of chaos, one we are primarily responsible for is to take a tremendous national security risk. I certainly believe in LIHOP to an extent, but I also realize that "failed states" are very dangerous things to let occur, and our fuckups in Afghanistan prior to 2001 had a great deal w/the death of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. So yes, you can learn from history, but you can only learn so much and you must always contextualize the claim. Merely asserting the analogy has little use beyond rhetoric unless you can clearly and explicitly explain why the analogy is useful. That is the major difference between Nixon's false "peace w/honor/Vietnamization" and what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are calling for, and thank God they made themselves heard, it only took, what all of 2 days?

http://www.speaker.gov/

Is that not a result? Harp if you must, but give them space to do their job.

:toast:

[donheld]

35. I dont' think we should withdraw everybody

Just let all chickenhawks go and stay there. That includes the Bush cabal. If they want to keep fighting let them fight. Just no money or any kind of help from US.

[stonecoldsober]

5. What an ugly, disgusting thing to ask your fellow DU'ers!

[Reterr]

8. Yeah its McCarthyite!

Because a random handle on DU states that they think a bunch of other random handles are Freepers :eyes:. Talk about hyperbole. Who is "forcing" anyone to do anything?

People who are going around calling every one they disagree with "childish", "people making arguments lacking in substance", "people who idolize and worship Cindy Sheehan" and in general being extremely rude ("Baloney", "Your post is rubbish", "Bullshit", "You have never made any sense", "I have seen some of your other posts and they seemed ok but this is nonsense"), should be thick-skinned enough to tolerate being called DLC. This is so dishonest.

Its no less illiberal and no less rude to imply that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of drooling ignorant idiot and condescendingly give people your stamp of approval/ a lecture on how to behave/debate, as its to imply they are DLC. This is a message board. Almost everyone contributes to rudeness, obnoxiousness, infantile behaviour and so on.
This holier than thou, self-important crap is really dishonest.

People who claim loony left DUers are paranoid about the adminstration, turn around and act paranoid about DU. "Oh we are being watched by ...gasp...DUers", "Oh we are being forced to march in lock-step." But God forbid, anyone say anything nasty/leaning towards a CT like the Bush administration engineered something or the other :eyes:.

Btw regarding what that poster was doing-most people do that-they just might not state it. They identify handles they like/dislike on message boards, as some of you moderates do with the "loony left" posters (which would be when you stalk them on their threads and call them "nutty"). This is a completely and utterly dishonest post.

[cali]

12. First of all let me state that

I'm hardly thin skinned. Believe it or not, this post doesn't arise out of any personal umbrage- I know who I am and what I stand for. And I wouldn't claim for a minute that I don't confrontational or rude, though I wouldn't attack someone for as "DLC" or "SLA" or whatever. The OP is about the tendency to try and shut down dissenting voices, on the part of some DUers- quite a few of them, by stating that they're DLCers, a group identified by many here as nearly equal in evil to the neocon.

By the way, speaking of dishonesty, if you pay as close attention to my posting as you claim to, you know damned well that I've said repeatedly that I'm a liberal, so your accusation that I'm a moderate, is dishonest. Who are you to contradict me on that?. I've been a liberal for a long time, and I've never shied from that label, so I'm not about to let some people on a discussion board try to define me as something I'm not- not when I've worked as long and as hard as I have for liberal causes.

[Reterr]

21. What about the label "conspiracy theorist"?

If your OP is about people shutting down dissenting voices of one kind, then in my observations, it is many of the people who are often called "DLC types" who are calling about 30% of those who post here "conspiracy theorists" and saying "they make us look bad" etc. etc. How is that not shutting down people whose opinions you may not like?

Many CTists are deadly serious about whatever they think is the actual truth about something and many/most are not stupid or ill-informed. In my unscientific estimation many people in 9/11 forum are more familiar with both American and world history than most of us out here in GD. I may not agree with all of the theories but I appreciate the effort put into the research by some in the detailed threads in the 9/11 forum (tip of the hat Octafish and Reprehensor). And some people label anything they are unfamiliar with CT. I have seen Robert Parry called a crazy conspiracy theorist with no credentials here :eyes:. And maybe I am wrong here, but I thought you were one of those people who often said "X makes us look bad", "Y makes us look bad", "The CTists make us look bad" -I might be wrong on that particular thing. If I am wrong apologies.

Anyway my point was, imo if some people can say the CTists "make us look bad", its a perfectly appropriate response to call them DLC shills.

Anyway, I apologize for calling you a moderate. I actually haven't really paid that close attention to your posts-I saw a bunch of them pop up in the last few weeks in various impeachment and flame-bait threads and I have no idea where you stand on issues. I got the general sense that you were a moderate, but then those types of threads aren't the best places to guage someone's stance on actual issues. Apologies for the assumption.

[cali]

24. You have a point about the CT accusations.

For me personally, it depends on the Conspiracy theory. If you're suggesting that Senator Johnson fell ill due to the machinations of the repubs, or that the tsunami was caused by a nuclear explosion, or that the zionists were behind 9/11, yeah I'll call someone out on that stuff. Same thing goes for insisting that bush installed Specter to protect himself. I'm more open about LIHOP stuff than MIHOP, but honestly I"m just not that interested in either, and I rarely even glance at the 9/11 forum. I certainly haven't called Parry a CTer. And I don't believe I've ever objected to CTs because they make DU look bad.

In any case, I truly appreciate the apology, and the discourse.

[Reterr]

28. That makes sense

I don't care for some CTs myself -like ones involving entire races or ethnic groups.

I apologize for my overly harsh first post btw.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I haven't noticed a lack of DLC, conservative,or "moderate" opinions here.

One only need at the threads attacking Cindy Sheehan and her supposed "radicalism" to see that the voices of the right are quite active here.

[cali]

14. But you have noticed that DLC is used as a strong pejorative

haven't you? And your little snark that people who don't agree with Cindy Sheehan's current tactics, are "voice of the right", is precisely the type of crap I'm talking about. My thread yesterday about my disagreement was written in a civil tone. I repeated more than once how grateful I was to her. I said nothing nasty, and yet you would have though I'd spit in her face from some of the reactions that thread elicited.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. So, you expect all of your posts to be greeted with applause?

You disagree with her tactics. I agree with her tactics.

Do you consider the DLC "leftist"? In comparison, perhaps, to the Heritage Foundation. But, hardly to most left-wing organizations.

Do you consider Cindy Sheehan and her tactics to the left or right of what you advocate?

[cali]

19. No. I don't consider applause when I start a thread.

No, I don't consider the DLC left- Do you even read what I write? I consider them to be an organization who's tactics I deplore- not because they're right wing tactics, but because it's all about triangulating and not standing for anything. I don't consider Sheehan's tactics right or left either. At this point, I simply don't think they're effective, and I believe she's wrong to try and portray herself as the voice of what Americans want. She talks about the recent election as if it were a clearcut mandate. Like most elections it's a complex tapestry of voices speaking for many different types of change.

Sorry I don't think in your left/right black/white terms.

[originalpckelly]

10. Digital Library Center?

http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/dlc/

What's wrong about the DLC?

[dflprincess]

11. Once upon a time DLC types were generally referred to as

"Rockefeller (Nelson, not Jay) Republicans". Though I'm inclined to think that Nelson Rockefeller was more liberal than some of the DLCers.

[cali]

15. Actually, no they weren't.

Bad comparison. The DLC is more about tactics than anything else, and winning through triangulation. I don't think the DLC itself (not talking about individual politicians who may belong to the organization) has any strongly held convictions. As an admirer of the now defunct species of New England Republicans, I feel compelled to defend them against the comparison. Such republicans as the late Senator Stafford, who ill and aged, came out from retirement to address Vermonters and tell them that gays and lesbians deserve the rights of marriage, stand head and shoulders above the ever shifting DLC philosophy.

[originalpckelly]

31. Very odd how you should respond with a serious post to a completely...

un-serious one.

I was joking, not being serious. Is there some reason you decided to take the stupid post and say something serious in response to it? :shrug: :rofl:

[depakid]

13. It's all about policy

If you support far right policy- like the DLC does, you're part of the problem. The labels themselves- or sometimes even party affiliation, means little or nothing.

[cmd]

17. I'm a Democrat

I'm DLC, DCCC, DSCC, DU, ODP, TCDP, TCDW, war protestor, Bush protestor, left wing liberal. If I see a (D), it gets my vote.

[k_jerome]

18. I support the DLC. Didn't know I could join though...nt.

[KittyWampus]

20. I just don't like the way some use "DLC" the same way a 5 year old says "poopiehead"

or a freeper calls a Democrat "commie".

It's just a catch all pejorative unconnected from any meaning other than "doesn't agree with me 100%".

[salin]

23. in 1984 I was drawn to Gary Hart and the "new democrats"

the precursor to the DLC.

[nini]

25. No.. I'm a freeper

:evilgrin:

[originalpckelly]

32. Free reefer? What is that you say?

:P

[kentuck]

34. Traitor!

Lead us...:sarcasm: