Newsweek: Dems Are the New Republicans

[Totally Committed]

Dems Are the New Republicans

Democrat$ are kicking the tar out of their rival$ this campaign cycle.

Don't take this the wrong way. But everything you know about the link between business and politics is incorrect. For nearly the entire 20th century, a simple formula held: business people like Republicans and don't like Democrats. Republican politicians and voters heartily embrace free trade and lower taxes, while Democratic politicians and their constituencies cotton to protectionism and higher taxes. Over the decades, racial, ethnic and geographic realignments altered the shape of the national parties beyond recognition.

Until now. Democrats, who have never out-fund-raised Republicans in the modern political era, are kicking the tar out of their rivals this campaign cycle. Through the first half of this year, Democratic entities—congressional, presidential and party operations—raised $388.8 million, compared with $287.3 million for their Republican counterparts, according to The Wall Street Journal. In the third quarter, the top three Democratic candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards—raised 50 percent more money than the top four Republicans.

>snip

Back in 2000, George W. Bush called his base "the haves, and the have-mores." But the have-mores are clearly more receptive to Democrats than they were seven years ago. "It's a much easier pitch drumming up support this cycle from business people, there's no question," says Steve Rattner, founder of the private-equity firm Quadrangle Group, who is a longtime Clinton backer. His take: Fed-Up CEOs are reacting to the bungled war in Iraq, poor fiscal and disaster management, and to conscious outreach efforts by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

As happens every four years during the primary season, Republican business leaders are rallying around the establishment candidate. This time, however, it's a Democrat. Morgan Stanley chief executive officer John Mack, who raised more than $200,000 for W's 2004 campaign, came out for Hillary this spring. James Robinson III, the Atlanta-born banker, former CEO of American Express and co-founder of RRE Ventures, tells NEWSWEEK: "I've been a Republican all my life. I believe in fiscal conservatism and being a social moderate." But this Fed-Up CEO now makes the case for Hillary as effectively as James Carville. "It seems to me she's the person who has got the broadest experience. She understands the importance of business development, innovation and entrepreneurship," he says.



The author's conclusion (he leaves out Dennis Kucinich along with Edwards here, btw):

With the exception of John Edwards, the Democratic candidates and their congressional allies have been loath to embrace measures that would alienate their new friends. The trial balloon floated earlier this month to enact a war income surtax, which would weigh heavily on high earners, was swiftly shot down. Closing the loophole that allows private-equity and hedge-fund managers to pay low long-term capital-gains taxes on the compensation they get for managing other people's money would be a popular way to pay for Democratic priorities. But last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told private-equity lobbyists that Congress would move no such legislation this year.

Entire article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43346?GT1=10450

TC

[Totally Committed]

1. Wow, no takers yet... It's getting "chilly" in here.

:kick:

TC

[CoffeeCat]

2. Our party is dying...

Dems have evolved into corporatists--as most of them are just as bad
as the Republicans when it comes to being owned by the corporations.

The deal is all ready clinched. Americans don't matter. The politicians
have been bribed with campaign contributions (and God knows what else),
and the politicians vote with the corporations and the citizens of
this country are merely flies in the ointment--little bugs that they
must endure during campaign season.

Hillary represents the worst of this. She's so owned, by banking, big
pharma and loads of other special interests. She's practically crawled
up on the laps of the neocons and adopted their PNAC plan--now touting
war with Iran. She's totally sunk into views and stances that the
military-industrial complex finds wonderful.

This is why I don't support Hillary. She represents the "new normal" in our
party. We've devolved, following the corporatists and the neocons down
the putrid toilet.

Many people on this site, accuse me of being "anti-Democrat" when I say I
won't vote for Hillary. I am a Democrat. I always will be--the kind of
Democrat who represents "We the People" and takes care of its citizens--instead
of being slave masters to big pharma, big oil and big sell out.

I'm sad for our party. We're a ghost of our former self. I used to cackle
at the Republicans and their corporate whoring and their corruption. I used
to feel relief--knowing that there was a party who wasn't all about greed,
money-for-favors and kow towing to the rich and powerful. Now, most Dems do this,
and the ones who do are the most powerful in our party.

It's a scene from the movie, "The Blob". The Dems have been folded into the fray
by the power establishment bullies.

I shed a tear for what was once our party. I feel like I've lost my home.

[leftchick]

3. very well said TS

:(

sad but exactly what has happened. It is just us now.

[...of J.Temperance]

4. No, our party is ALIVE and our party is GROWING

And this is marvellous news....after seven years of incompetence and chaos, we're standing of the verge of winning back the White House, keeping hold of The House and hopefully increasing our number of seats in The Senate.

We've done this, by being logical and pragmatic, and by being politically savvy and exhibiting political common sense.

How do you think that our party can be in a position to do ANYTHING for "We The People", UNLESS we WIN?

It's not enough to just control the House and the Senate, we NEED the White House as well....because with the White House comes a Democratic President who ISN'T going to threaten to veto Democratic legislation.

To me, this is called Progress, and I think it's a very good thing.


On Edit: Capital letters error

[Totally Committed]

5. Well, at least you're honest, and true to the ideals of the organization you support

with your avatar.

Straight and to the point.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

6. We

Obviously differ about some things, but the bottom line that connects us, is that we BOTH want a Democrat in the White House come January 20th, 2009 and we BOTH want the House and the Senate to remain in Democratic hands.

We simply can't afford another four years of the Neo-Conservative Republicans....heck the WORLD can't afford another four years of the Neo-Conservative Republicans....I've read about Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, especially their views on foreign policy, and both men are scary, I dread to think what would happen if either somehow got into the White House.

I am honest and true to the ideals of the DLC, although, as I've mentioned in other threads, I don't support 100% of what the DLC advocates....I think I'm straight and to the point as well, thanks :)

You're honest and true to your ideals as well, we might be coming at this from differing directions, but I do respect your points.

[cali]

20. Well, no.

The OP has been quite honest and to the point regarding her belief that there's no essential difference between repubs and democrats, and has stated that if Clinton is the nomineee, she won't vote for her. I'm not sure where she stands regarding keeping the House and Senate in dem hands, but if she believes that there's no difference between the parties, I'm not sure why she'd care.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. After these seven years I find it astonishing

That ANYONE would still believe that there's no difference between the two parties.

Of course, I remember during the 2000 Presidential Election race, where that sort of mentality was saying that they were voting for Ralph Nader BECAUSE there was NO difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

These people have learned NOTHING these past seven years, it's rather sad actually that they've learned nothing....I don't know how old some of them are, but they often appear as if they're like some 16 year-old Teenage Idealist, instead of appearing like grown-up individuals.

[cali]

28. Generally, they're not young people.

They just adhere strongly to a certain belief system which, frankly, I consider rather selfpdefeating, and they seem to consider virtually anyone who disagree with them as evil or at the very least, siding with evil. It actually reminds me of the flip side of the coin.

[...of J.Temperance]

35. I'm 30....I know most of them are older than I am

That's what I find so incredible, I mean most of them will have lived through the 1960s, and it seems many of them still hold these 1960s ideas where if we ONLY concentrated more we could establish this incredible Utopia.

I find it baffling to say the least, because it never happened then and it's never going to happen now....because in order to establish your Utopia, you have to EXCLUDE an inordinate amount of people.

I can't fathom the thinking of if someone disagrees with you then they're automatically siding with evil....and I agree it's self-defeating and it is very much like the flip side of the coin.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[bobbolink]

126. What in the world would you do if you didn't have us boomers to bash?

[...of J.Temperance]

135. What in the world would you do if you didn't have us DLCer's to bash?

Also, I wasn't "bashing" boomers.

[bobbolink]

177. Rejoice.

[Art_from_Ark]

182. In the '60s we had the Great Society

which gave hope to millions of underprivileged people. The government itself was even advertising on TV that things would get better if we worked together. Even during the height of Vietnam, there was a lot of optimism among us lower class types that things would get better.

[defendandprotect]

152. We've learned . . . that there isn't ENOUGH of a difference . . .

Granted, Bush is peculiarly insane -- as Nixon was before him -- and LBJ before him ---

But, there was a world of opposition to the attack on Iraq --
too many in the Democratic Party supported the belief in WMD and biological weapons --
That's kind of beyond belief, in itself --- How could anyone have believed that crap?

And too many Democrats right now are supporting hanging in with this war -- until 2013!!!!????

[AngryOldDem]

33. "We want a Democrat in the White House"

Even if we can't tell the difference from his or her GOP counterpart? I want a more than a just-in-name-only Democrat. Titles mean jack shit.

[cali]

39. I have no problem telling the difference

between ANY of the dem candidates and the repuke candidates. All I have to do is look at their voting records and their "grades" on those records, from such organizations as Progressive Punch, the ADA, NRDC, the Unions, the Sierra Club, etc.

That tired old meme you're dragging around has a smidgeon of truth and a heaping helping of lies.

[...of J.Temperance]

40. If YOU can't tell the difference, then that's your problem and I'm sorry for you n/t

.

[mondo joe]

70. If you can't tell the difference you might be better off not voting at all.

The USA doesn't need more voters without discernment.

[BadgerLaw2010]

83. You'd think seven years of George W. Bush would teach these people...

You clowns really think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq and appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court?*

*Roberts and Alito aren't exactly that "bad" compared to what they were replacing, but since Rehnquist kinda died, that's at least one where you could have put in a significantly more liberal Supreme Court justice.

[Clark2008]

102. Not Al Gore, no.

But I think Clinbamwards would invade Iraq (since two of the three voted in favor of that) and would have appointed someone to the Supreme Court who would appease Republicans.

[Skidmore]

7. Yup, win one for Big Business then

turn around and screw the people six ways to Sunday. Progress, my hiney. It's called being bought and paid for. When those big donors start cashing in, who the hell do you think will be hurt the most?

[leftchick]

8. perhaps the poster

is a CEO or someone of that rarefied air? That is the only explanation I can see for defending the corporatization of both parties.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. I'm not a CEO

But I do know some CEO's....I'm not a CEO myself though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. The DLC democrat, which Clinton and others are part of

come from a very similar place as neocons insofar as foreign affairs

Many are students of the Chicago School (that means Leo Strauss and Milton Friedman)

They will continue this imperial policy

And they will be a little nicer to you in national policy

That does not mean they're progressives

And if they can get away with it, they will screw you seven days to Sunday

Now she is far better than little boots, but at this point so is my parrot...

What you should be concerned is with systems and how Neo Liberalism (rarely used in the US) is code for corporatism.

[defendandprotect]

157. Anti-corporatism? Then you're anti-DLC . . ... . .. . . . . .. . . .!!!!!

[...of J.Temperance]

11. What is

The alternative?

To tell Big Business that we don't value their contribution to the economy and we don't value that they employ MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people?

Politics is often working in tandem with outside groups, be they Big Business or Labor Unions or Environmentalist groups et al....all of them, in exchange for donations are going to expect something aren't they?

I mean Labor Unions and Environmentalist groups they expect something in return as well.

I'm not saying that I necessarily think it's correct, but in modern politics, it's life and it's reality, that's the way it happens.

I don't see where the people are going to get screwed, the objective of the next Democratic President, like always with our party and our leaders, is going to be putting forward policies and initiatives that are designed to help the people.

We are a people kind of party, we always have been and we always will be.

[Totally Committed]

14. You don't see people being screwed?

From my OP:

With the exception of John Edwards, the Democratic candidates and their congressional allies have been loath to embrace measures that would alienate their new friends. The trial balloon floated earlier this month to enact a war income surtax, which would weigh heavily on high earners, was swiftly shot down. Closing the loophole that allows private-equity and hedge-fund managers to pay low long-term capital-gains taxes on the compensation they get for managing other people's money would be a popular way to pay for Democratic priorities. But last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told private-equity lobbyists that Congress would move no such legislation this year.

That doesn't count as us getting screwed at the expense of dorporate interests?

:argh:


TC

[Skidmore]

16. Take it to the people. One million $10 contributions is a lot of money.

And while you are at it, shape the message for the people. Make it a populist message that address the needs of the many and not the few. And make it a just and fair message. Quit treating big as people. Corporations will employ people regardless of which administration is in power.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. You need more than one million $10 contributions

Political campaigns, the national campaigns, like a Presidential election are getting monstrously expensive.

A candidate cannot be in EVERY state EVERY day, thus they often need to get their message to that states' people via TV ads, and those are really expensive and eat up a lot of campaign coffers.

I think you can have a combined message, that you CAN address the needs of the many, while at the same time you CAN address the needs of Big Business, you don't have to exclude either of them.

[Totally Committed]

22. And, THAT is the crux of the problem in a nutshell!

The need to raise that obscene amount of money to buy a "seat" in the "Top Tier" is disgusting, chilling, and UNdemocratic (only small "d" these days, I gueaa...) to the core.

No wonder we are all stuck with every DLC dinosaur they can rouse from the dead to run every four years now as our candidates for nomination, while REAL Democrats (like Kucinich) don't stand a chance.

You made the point of the OP very well.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

24. So ONLY Dennis Kucinich is a "real" Democrat?

Tell me, what IS a "real" Democrat exactly?

Don't say it's someone who refuses contributions from Corporations, give me a proper definition of what constitutes a "real" Democrat in your opinion?

[Totally Committed]

25. Maybe I should have said, "old-time" Democrat...

the kind we used to get the honor of voting for before it became fashionable for too many in the Democratic Party to worhip corporate personhood over American citizenhood.

You're correct, I should have qualified that.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

29. Okay that's cool

The thing is, times change, circumstances change and the world changes....nothing stands still.

The Democratic Party has had to move with the times and adapt, it'd be nice to think that we could go back to the 1930s or whatever and have political parties operate like they did then, but the reality is we can't.

Just because we've had to adapt and modernise our parties systems and ability and aparatus, doesn't mean we've abandoned any of our Democratic ideals....we've had to move with the times in order to remain competitive.

[cali]

32. "Old time democrats"

Like who? The dixiecrats were out and out segregationist and racists. In fact, the dem party now is more liberal on the whole than in some imagined past.

[Totally Committed]

53. Mario Cuomo is a good example. n/t

TC

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Psssst.

the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party after the 1967 Civil Rights Act was lobbied for and enacted during Democrat Johnson's administration. In protest, the Dixiecrats joined the Republican party which is what contributed to the rise of the Republican party to the presidency in 1980 -- only 6 years after Nixon resigned. Johnson knew the consequences of what he was doing, only he predicted it would only last for 25 years.

And to define a whole, entire party, indeed, movement, by the actions of a relatively few (though powerful bloc) -- I can't figure out if its stupidity or ignorance of history on your part.

[cali]

59. pssst.

I'm trying to point out that the myth that dems were once these great and noble warriors for truth, justice and the liberal way, is exactly that.

And of course, I didn't try to define the entire party by one bloc. That's you creating your own little myth.

I can't figure out if it's mendacity or your part, or... mendacity on your part.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. Perhaps it was this line:

And i quote:

"Old time democrats

Like who? The dixiecrats were out and out segregationist and racists. In fact, the dem party now is more liberal on the whole than in some imagined past. "

You want to run that "I didn't try to define the entire party by one bloc" thing by me again?

I don't know of ANYONE who claims that Democrats were once these great and noble warriors . . . I do know that they used to write legislation for, defend and fight for laws that benefited the American people. And the American people rewarded them for that -- they dominated the Senate, Congress and, most of the time, the presidency for 40 years.

Without them AND the endless activism by good, socially-conscience people, you would not have:

-Child labor laws
-Social Security
-Anti-trust laws (which have now been obliterated)
-Voting Rights Act
-Civil Rights Act
-Freedom of Information Act
-No draft
-Safety nets (again, in the process of being obliterated)
-G.I. Bill
-Student Loan programs
-Peace Corps

And that's just a few examples so yes, they DID work for We the People. Then the "new" Democrats emerged and we have, well George Bush. And Nancy "I'm taking impeachment off the table" Pelosi. And a pro-war Hillary Clinton as the anointed candidate. Yeah, that whole "progress" thing is workin' REAL well.

[Totally Committed]

56. You know I was not talking about "Dixiecrats"... n/t

TC

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Tell me Social Security would pass today

No

What about Medicare

Hell no

Is that the America you want?

Read on the Guilded Age... that is where we are going

On the bright side... both Republicans and Democrats of that age gladly took the country there.

Ah but history don't repeat itself, they told me once

[Totally Committed]

145. With this sorry-ass lot we have elected NOW?

I don't think so.... VERY good point!

TC

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Well the problem we have is that

we have about... I'd say three major factions in the democratic party and two minor ones

And the Republicans have two major factions and one or two minor ones

In a country wiht proportional representation I can bet Dennis Kucinich would not be in the same party as Lieberman and Snowe woudl not be in the same party as Larry Craig

That is why the political system has to evolve and join the rest of democratic societies and ennact proportional representatiion and pluraity of parties.

That is another reality that people truly don't fully understand

[cali]

164. What's the point of asking that?

It's pure unadulterated speculation. But since you asked: It would be blocked by the repubs but all the dems would vote for it. Same with Medicare. And if we do get 5+ dems elected to the Senate and another 13 or so elected to the House next year, you'll be seeing a lot more social programs passing.

Do you have a clue how large a majority the dems had when SS passed?

Historically, large majorities pass more sweeping legislation. It ain't rocket science, nadine.

Oh and I suggest you read "Diary Of A Man In Despair"- the book I recommended that you read on an earlier thread. Also Muellers' "The Uses Of The Past", "When Time Shall Be No More" and "The Great Chain Of Being".

[defendandprotect]

159. The last breakdown I heard on public financing was about $6 per person ----

That was just last week ---

[BadgerLaw2010]

85. Actually, it's $10 million, which isn't significant Presidential money.

National elections cost big bucks. You want to win, you get big bucks. End of story.

[Indenturedebtor]

34. I really don't like this view on Big Business

"To tell Big Business that we don't value their contribution to the economy and we don't value that they employ MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people?" - J. Temperance

The people that those businesses employ don't need their company representing them in government. That's what they have the right to vote and lobby for themselves for. Business as a whole or in all of its tiny and not so tiny parts needs to either be encouraged or kept in check, but its only purpose is to serve the people. When it has a voice in government it invariably works against the people.

The reason is simple: companies are run by very small groups of individuals who seek to maximize profit at the expense of nearly all other concerns. They will justify cutting pay, vacations, jobs, healthcare, anything to save a penny. The modern business model sings the glories of "externalizing" which is nicey nice for making society handle the costs and consequences of its operation.

Big Business today has about as much compassion as a great white shark. They will always stand against the people because the people are a consumable raw material. How many just over bankrupt sods have to work 80 hours a week so that one CEO can decide where to send his campaign donations?

Fuck Big Business. The system needs to change not the party. Let Big Business serve the people... ALL the people and not just the ones with rich mommies and daddies. The DLC is republican lite and would have been a part of the republic party 20 years ago.

[Marr]

61. You can support business or you can support labor. You cannot

support both-- they are competing interests. We already have a big business party, and they're called Republicans. The DLC would leave labor with nowhere to go. I expect that's the goal.

[...of J.Temperance]

68. Utter nonsense

"You can support business or you can support labor. You cannot support both - they are competing interests."

Complete nonsense, Big Business and Labor are two sides of the SAME coin, and as such they rely on each other and are tied to each other.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Solon]

75. That's not true, labor can exist just fine without big business around...

It seems your history education ended around 1800 or so.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Big Business gets it's

Employees from where exactly? Oh yeah, that's right, it gets it's workers from Labor.

Not ALL Big Business is banking and private equity firms you know.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Solon]

80. EmployEES, big business IS the employers, don't confuse them, please.

Your mistake is that you think the "traditional" corporate structure is the only viable structure for how competitive enterprises can organize themselves in. The fact is that labor can organize itself, removed from this structure, without the need to traditional "big business" and chug along just fine when given the opportunity. So the fact of the matter is that you are wrong.

[...of J.Temperance]

84. How can

Labor organize itself without Big Business....or are you just referring to small business employers here?

[Solon]

87. Don't tell me you never heard of co-ops?

Where employees own an equal stake in a company where they do things like elect managers, etc. and no, I'm not talking about big businesses that offer "stock options" to employees, I'm talking about companies that, for all practical purposes, both the employees and employers are one and the same.

[Marr]

97. Would you like to say something about a "rising tide lifting all boats"?

*That* is nonsense, and proponents of big business have been chanting it for years from the comfort of their rising yachts. Everyone else is slowly sinking.

You cannot support both big business and labor. You will give to one or the other. That's how economies work. Giving to one means taking from another.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Labor unions are democractic

Business is autocratic

How exactly are they two sides of the same coin?

They are forces wiht disparate interests

Labor wants their work valued, good pay, benefits

Business wants to externalize all costs and increase all profit

So exactly are they two sides of the same coin?

I mean business has gone so far as to hire local armies to shoot out labor... but I am sure you knew that

And that is why business has fought a war against labor since labor tried to organize for the first time

[defendandprotect]

154. Interesting coin . . . one side 400X the worth of the other -- !!!!

Of course, corporations and labor are not the same --

Lincoln said: "All that betrays labor is treason"

Corporations were set up to SERVE the public and then to be folded --
and held to high accountability with penalties for wrongful behavior

LABOR is has never shared co-equally in the profits of corporations --
and today more than ever, they are shut out as to salary, benefits, etal --

What we can see quite clearly now is that Patriarchy, Patriarchal organized religion,
and Capitalism are suicidal ---

LABOR will remain -- personal and profitable, enriching one's own life and the lives of others when not used for destructive purposes.

[MadHound]

105. Working in tandem is one thing

The trouble is that we're not doing that. More and more our government, our society, our individual lives are being disproportionately dominated by Corporate America. Hell, one fine example is Peak Oil and global warming. If thirty years ago we had held to increasingly stringent CAFE standards, we would have 60mpg cars by now, with little or no emissions. If we hadn't caved in to corporate media, we would still have a diverse media landscape that would allow Democrats and liberals to get their message out to a wider audience. If we would have continued to emphasize clean renewable energy sources thirty years ago, we probably wouldn't have needed to fight this damn war for oil. But in each and every instance Corporate America exerted an inordinate influence on our government, killing these and so many other policies that have led to the decline of our society.

And frankly if you're not seeing where we the people are getting screwed, then you are willfully blind because it is happening on almost a daily basis and all you have to do is look around. We were a people kind of party, but sadly corporations and groups like the DLC have steered the party onto an increasingly corporate friendly path. You cite the jobs created, what about the jobs exported, hell, the entire manufacturing sector is virtually gone. Sure, jobs were created to replace them, but they are low paying, low benefit service sector jobs, and now even many of those are going overseas. But hey, those corporations are still making profits while they screw over the working stiff.

[Mythsaje]

110. Corporations shouldn't have more say in our government

than REAL people do.

That's the crux of the problem and what all the obfuscation in the world cannot hide.

[defendandprotect]

155. The crux of the problem now is that corporations are STRONGER than

the people's government . . .

Government has also been corrupted by corporations/capitalistic "values" --

[Totally Committed]

169. I totally agree with this!

"Government has also been corrupted by corporations/capitalistic 'values'"

Indeed, it has!

TC

[cali]

18. I can't say I agree.

Big corporate money is a huge problem in politics and it does set up a very damaging quid pro quo system that's extremely difficult for politicians to extricate themselves from.

I don't have an answer for right now, and part of the problem is that there won't be a solution later because dem politicians become to tightly linked with big corporate funders.

[...of J.Temperance]

19. The irony is that

The candidate that I'm supporting is John Edwards, don't ask me to explain it, I just think he's a good fellow and comes across as a genuine and caring person....and I like him, he was my candidate in 2004 as well.

I think that we have to compete and put ourselves in a position to be competitive, we can't just rely on grassroots financial donations, and as I said earlier....whichever grouping gives a political party money is going to want something in return, you can't escape that....the Labor Unions, Environmentalist groups, Educational groups etc, all will want something in return for their donations.

[Clark2008]

106. Well, his voting record is certainly DLC.

I don't buy into this current schtick.

[Mythsaje]

113. And I think you're wrong.

But it hardly matters anyway. We're going to end up with HRC.

At least we can forgo your predictable "John Edwards is a lying scumbag" commentary.

[Tesha]

31. The party you've hijacked is alive, albeit parasitized.

The party you've hijacked is alive, albeit parasitized
and living a sort of "Rump Republican" zombie-like
experience.

I hope you like it, because at this point, I'd just as
soon euthenize it, seeing you go your centrist, cor-
poration-oriented way and letting me go my liberal,
progressive, people-oriented way.

Tesha

[...of J.Temperance]

46. How can we "hijack" our OWN party?

We've always been Democrats, we've always been members of the Democratic Party, it's very difficult to "hijack" a party that we've ALWAYS belonged to.

And I'm sure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid would NOT take kindly to your outrageous comment that our party is now "parasitized" and "zombie-like" and that you'd like to "euthanize" our party.

Good grief, get a grip.

[Tesha]

63. If they were standing in front of me, I'd say it to their faces.

They're Democrats who are ashamed of being Democrats.

They are atrocious "leaders".

They (and you) are directly responsible for us being
in the mess we're in.

Tesha

[...of J.Temperance]

64. No, Ralph Nader and The Naderites are RESPONSIBLE for the mess we're in

The Naderites share joint responsiblity with Antonin Scalia....it's time the Naderites stopped being in denial and admitted their guilt and took responsibility for their defeatist and moronic vote in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[...of J.Temperance]

72. Heck, apologies for the triple post....hopefully a Moderator will delete posts # 65 and # 66

Thanks.

[Tesha]

73. You got anybody particularly in mind? 'Cause I voted for Gore and Kerry. (NT)

[...of J.Temperance]

76. I wasn't specifically meaning you though was I?

It's just the line of argument, that blames the DLC for the mess that's been going on for these past seven years, is the sort of argument that the Naderites use and that those use who bizarrely insist that there's NO difference between the two parties.

For the record, I voted for Gore and Kerry as well....so do you want to change your comments where you stated that the DLCer's are responsible for the mess that W and the Republicans have created?

How can I be responsible and how can my fellow DLCer's be responsible when we voted for both Gore and Kerry?

[Tesha]

91. No, you're still responsible. Kerry would *NEVER* have been my choice as the candidate.

> For the record, I voted for Gore and Kerry as well....so do you
> want to change your comments where you stated that the DLCer's
> are responsible for the mess.

No, you're still responsible. Kerry would *NEVER* have been my
choice as the candidate and I knew he'd lose from more than a
year out. But your folks such as Tom Volsack did their thing
to help politically assasinate my candidate in favor of the
DLC-blessed Kerry.

Just like you're doing with the DLC-blessed Clinton this cycle.

Only the Connecticut '06 Senate race disabused me of any need
to hold my nose and vote for your bozo *EVER AGAIN*. 'Cause
when the lefties actually managed to follow the advice so
often offered here and went out and *WON* a primary election,
all the DLC types bolted and voted for (and campaigned for)
the non-Democrat that they liked better.

So from now on, I'm only voting for candidates I actually
support.

Tesha

[...of J.Temperance]

139. Kerry wasn't my choice either, but I voted for him

In 2004 my candidate was John Edwards, my second candidate was Wesley Clark....neither got the nod, Kerry did and I voted for him.

[defendandprotect]

156. Kerry was bottom of the heap -- and Howard Dean was leading -- Oops ....

No one wanted Kerry -- but we got him anyway . ..

[MadHound]

108. LOL, you are seriously deficient in history

Either that or you're simply parroting talking points mindlessly. I really should copy this post down somewhere so I can just paste it in when somebody is showing their ignorance.

OK, lets start at the beginning. First off, during the campaign Gore pissed away aprox 600,000 votes of registered Dems or self described liberals in Florida. How did he do this? By siding with his corporate masters at BP over the issue of near shore, off shore oil drilling in the Gulf. This pissed off these people so much, they either stayed home or voted for Bush(Palast, Greg. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy).

Secondly, early in the recount process, Gore and his campaign handlers were given the entire Votescam scandal to them on a silver platter. Names, numbers of voters disenfrachised, ties all the way up to Katherine Harris and Jebby. Now think about it, here's Gore, with a sworn duty to protect the Constitution. He is handed an airtight case, during a tight race, that would not only banish his opponent to the political wilderness forever, but would allow him to protect the Constitution and win the presidency. Yet what did he do with this information? Oh, yeah, he sat on it.(ibid)

Third, even that great DLC god Al From admits that Nader didn't adversely affect the election outcome. In fact quite the opposite: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Oh, and in case you missed it(and a lot of people did) Newsday and a consortium of other papers went in and did their own count, and found that Gore actually won <http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-01.htm>

And then there is that little matter of the Supreme Court decision.

So tell me, exactly, how did Nader cost Gore the election with his miniscule two percent of the vote? Sorry, but the evidence simply doesn't say that, and even the head of the DLC had the good grace to acknowledge reality. Why don't you?

[Tesha]

140. Blaming it on Nader lets peaople avoid facing the sad fact that...

Blaming it on Nader lets peaople avoid facing the sad
fact that for many elections now, the Democrats have
frequently failed to provide any good solid reasons
to vote *FOR* them.

And the aftermath of the 2006 election is showing
that it's still all true: Meet the new boss, same
as the old boss!

Tesha

[Totally Committed]

170. I agree --

"the Democrats have frequently failed to provide any good solid reasons to vote *FOR* them."

And THAT is a HUGE mistake. H U G E !

TC

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated to sink in

but I will try again

If Ralph had not run those voters would have staid home

They didn't want to vote for Gore, he didn't have their votes

And perhaps I don't remember the events of 2000 very well, but didn't the USSC (against all LEGAL precedent mind you) order the vote count stopped?

And didn't the press later on (Sept 11 to be exact) publish the fact that Gore won the vote?

So... who was guilty of that?

Not Nader.

The USSC...

And yes... I Will contend at this point, there was a conspiracy to have little boots elected

It is time to start placing the blame where it truly belongs.

[...of J.Temperance]

65. No, Ralph Nader and The Naderites are RESPONSIBLE for the mess we're in

The Naderites share joint responsiblity with Antonin Scalia....it's time the Naderites stopped being in denial and admitted their guilt and took responsibility for their defeatist and moronic vote in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. I'm not a naderite

but I know my history

And it was the USSC who stopped the vote

Once again

Those folks would have staid home

Gore didn't have their vote

I know, hard thing to accept

But it was the USSC who stopped the vote... not Ralph Nader

Ironically it was that same green party you excoriate right now that tried to get the count done in Ohio four years later, since something was really rotten there.

Care to tell me why?

[defendandprotect]

160. Joy in "scapegoating" prevents one opening one's mind to reality, evidently -- !!!

In fact, it was the Greens in a major way who did most of the fighting back against the Supreme Court Decision and other stolen elections ---

Neither Nader nor the Greens had anything to do with the GOP-financed and inspired Republican Rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs . . . which STOPPED THE VOTE COUNTING ORDERED BY THE FLORIDA STATE SUPREME COURT.

Neither Nader nor the Greens had anything to do with the Supreme Court STOPPING the Florida vote counting and nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision to not count more than 100,000 uncounted votes and put Bush in the White House.


Now . . . if you want to suggest that Nader/Greens were involved in the fascist rally to stop the vote counting, or went "Duck Hunting" with Scalia .... I think you're going to have to offer some
evidence for your opinion.

[...of J.Temperance]

66. No, Ralph Nader and The Naderites are RESPONSIBLE for the mess we're in

The Naderites share joint responsiblity with Antonin Scalia....it's time the Naderites stopped being in denial and admitted their guilt and took responsibility for their defeatist and moronic vote in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[defendandprotect]

161. Where is your evidence for "conspiracy' between Nader/Greens and Scalia -- ????

[Mythsaje]

179. That's the third time you've repeated the same

bullshit statement. Word for word. Against all evidence to the contrary.

Try again. In your own words this time.

[OzarkDem]

121. Make no mistake, its not their party. It still belongs to Democrats

A few smoke and mirrors in DC don't mean squat when candidates have to get out and face the real Dems in the real world.

Crash and burn, they will. Fortunately, we have plenty of good "real" Dem candidates who can lead the party.

[MadHound]

99. Gee, how can you say that it's progress

When the Dems are backing more and more of the same policies and positions that the 'Pugs do? The Dems have and are continuing to evolve into their opposition. They back the same corporate friendly legislation, they support the same corporate friendly war, they favor the same corporate take down of our Constitution, gee, no wonder people think that we're under a two party/same corporate master system of government. When do we the people get a voice in these matters? When do non-corporate issues get addressed?

You may think it's progress, but in my eyes it looks more and more like selling out.

[Totally Committed]

104. Great point!

And, sadly, so damned true! Thanks, madhound.


TC

[alarimer]

114. The DLC is nothing but corporate whores

If that's what the Democrats are becoming, I want no part of it.

[OzarkDem]

118. Yes, you're party - the GOP - is winning

They have turned the tables and taken over the Dem party in DC.

But you haven't taken over the grassroots Dems and that will be your undoing. Your party - the GOP - is very unpopular right now. Your candidates will continue to lose because they represent GOP values and issues, which the voting public has rejected.

If you think average voters can't tell the difference, wait and see. They'll teach you the same lesson they did in 2006. Buh bye.

[...of J.Temperance]

138. My party is the Democratic Party

Unless you haven't been told, the D in DLC, it stands for DEMOCRATIC....as in Democratic Party.

The rest of your comments about people "taking over" the Democratic Party in DC, I'm sorry, I don't do Conspiracy Theories.

MY party, the Democratic Party are very popular right now, thanks to the political pragmatism and political savvyness of our Leaders, and MY political party, the Democratic Party are VERY financially healthy right now, thanks to us embracing people OUTSIDE of our Big Tent as WELL as embracing people INSIDE of our Big Tent....we have sold NOBODY out.

[OzarkDem]

143. I used to be a member of DLC

back when it was working for the Dem Party. It isn't any longer.

[Totally Committed]

151. It once worked for the Democratic Party?

I must've missed that.

At any rate, I agree if it ever did, it isn't any longer.

TC

[BadgerLaw2010]

9. I'll take money and winning. Policy making ability when out of power = zilch.

[Totally Committed]

10. Lovely.

You don't care about the results on our legislative agenda at all?

TC

[NNN0LHI]

17. We have no legislative agenda at all as the minority party

We aren't going to beat the Rethugs next year by having everyone sing kumbia.

We have to beat these fuckers at their own game. Or we don't win. Simple as that.

Be nice if things were different. But they aren't.

Don

[Totally Committed]

27. We are no longer the "Minority" Party.

The only reason it seems that way is because of the DINO "Blue Dogs", "Bush Dogs", and the weak-ass, collusionist, enabling Corporatist Shills in Leadership positions of both Houses.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

37. If you got rid of the DLC and the Blue Dogs then

The Democratic Party would be forevermore the minority party....can you understand this?

If not, why, what's so difficult to understand?

[MadHound]

109. Not necessarily so

The vast majority of Americans simply don't vote anymore, and many do so because they (correctly) see little difference between corporate controlled Dems and corporate controlled 'Pugs. Sure, if the Dems went back to the left and once again became the party of the people, the DLC and corporatists, a relatively small amount of voters, would bail on the party. Good riddance to bad rubbish, especially since they would be replaced with millions and millions of voters who would come swarming back into the political process simply because they see that a party actually gives a damn about the ordinary person again. Ooo, a net gain in votes.

[Totally Committed]

125. This is just the "There'll be no one left in the Party..." argument.

That said, the people who make this article don't see the fundamental irony inherent in the argument, itself.

It just proves the point of the OP over and over.

TC

[cali]

41. bwahaha

Ilove the quasi marxist style cliches you purchased.

The poster clearly meant that if the dems lose next year, they'll be BACK in the minority.

[BadgerLaw2010]

78. With how partisan things are now, you either need the White House or 2/3's in Congress to do policy

I prefer the White House because its quite a bit easier.

[...of J.Temperance]

23. To get solid and concrete results on our legislative agenda we

NEED a Democratic President in the White House, as I commented earlier, a Democratic President ISN'T going to veto or threaten to veto Democratic policies, initiatives or legislation.

EG: The Democratic Congress and Senate pass legislation to ensure that ALL children are provided full and adequate healthcare insurance, a Democratic President ISN'T going to veto or threaten to veto that, he OR she will SIGN that legislation and it'll become law.

As we know with W, he's threatening to veto that childrens healthcare insurance legislation.

[MadHound]

112. Let see, yeah, Bill Clinton was a real people's president

What with enacting NAFTA, welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, killing 500,000 innocent Iraqis via sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs, and let's not forget Bosnia. Meanwhile he presided over a period that saw the emergence of the working poor, homeless families, and the gap between the rich and the rest of us open to record breaking proportions. And what about healthcare:eyes:

Sorry, but Clinton is just another example of the problems we face with corporate America controlling our government.

[...of J.Temperance]

134. Yes he was, President Bill Clinton was an excellant President

I wish he could have run for a third term in 2000, he'd have easily of won a third term.

ALL of the people who have this big problem regarding NAFTA, you're aware I presume that one of the biggest sellers of NAFTA was Vice-President Al Gore, you're also aware that Senator Barack Obama has recently stated that's he's going to vote in favor of the NAFTA expansion.

And, while Senator Obama isn't my chosen candidate, I do greatly applaud him for his decision to vote in favor of the NAFTA expansion.

Welfare Reform, was needed....we remain 100% committed to keeping the Social Security Safety Net fully protected from being dismantled - being dismantled by the Republican Party, because that's what they'll try and do again IF a Republican gets into the White House again in 2008.

We're committed to protecting the Social Security programs, to ensure that those crucial programs will ALWAYS be there and will ALWAYS be FULLY available to those who need them....a society and a government should be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, the sick, the disabled et al.

Welfare Reform, that President Bill Clinton believed in and still believes in, and Senator Hillary Clinton believes in it, in fact most of the mainstream Democratic Party BELIEVE in Welfare Reform.

The Social Security programs were NOT put into place to be used as a lifestyle choice, they were NEVER meant to be abused by people who are fully able-bodied and have no excuse NOT to go and get a job....Welfare should be a HAND-UP and NOT a HAND-OUT.

This is why Welfare Reform was needed and is supported, because people who have no excuse for not going and getting a job, have no RIGHT to be claiming Welfare, it's as simple as that.

President Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi's via sanctions? No he DIDN'T....Saddam Hussein refused to behave himself, which was why the sanctions were put onto Iraq by the UN in the first place....it WASN'T President Bill Clinton's fault, the blame lies squarely with Saddam Hussein....the bombing runs were perfectly legal and were permitted to occur so the No-Fly Zone could be enforced.

Bosnia? Yes and President Clinton did the RIGHT thing....The Bosnian Serbs were systematically butchering the Bosnian Muslims, they needed to have their asses kicked....the same with Kosovo, President Clinton did the RIGHT thing....The Serbs were carrying out Ethnic Cleansing missions in Kosovo, and they had to be stopped.

I will ALSO point out, that when President Clinton ordered action on Bosnia and Kosovo, during both cases, not ONE American soldier died....compared to how MANY American soldiers dying in George W. Bush's War of CHOICE in Iraq?

WTF?! President Clinton is responsible for creating the working poor and homeless families? What a completely ridiculous statement....I'm sorry but the working poor and homeless families were created LONG BEFORE President Clinton took office....or have you forgotten Ronald Reagan's terms in the White House?

Your hatred of President Clinton is perfectly clear, it's there to be read in your accusations about him and your comments about him.

President Clinton was a good President, I LOVED that man, I still love him and come January 20th, 2009, IF Hillary is the nominee, then President Clinton will be a GREAT First Gentleman.

[Totally Committed]

167. NAFTA, DOMA, Don't Ask / Don't Tell, The Welfare Reform Act,

The Media Consolidation Act.

Yeah, an EXCELLENT REAL PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT. :eyes:

TC

[MadHound]

171. Wow, talk about a biased view of the world

First of all, you are assuming a lot in your post, and you know what they say about ass u me. First of all, don't assume I hate Clinton. One can be critical of policies and politics and not hate the person. I'm sure that Bill is a warm, interesting individual to meet in person, however his policies were often off the mark and detrimental to the best interests of the country and the world.

Actually, not all of the candidates "have this problem with NAFTA." Kucinich actually wants to repeal NAFTA, which I think is the best option out there. NAFTA has been an unmitigated disaster for the ordinary working stiff, shipping off more and more well paying jobs overseas, only to replace them with low paying McJobs in the service sector.

Welfare reform really wasn't needed. Why rip away part of the social safety net, all over an item that was what, 0.8% of the federal budget? And please, don't tell me you fell for that old Republican meme of people becoming dependent on welfare. You do realize that pre-reform, that seventy percent of welfare recipients were on the rolls for two years or less. And that only seven percent of the people were on the rolls for eight years or more. Welfare "reform" was nothing but playing to the conservative Reagan Democrat, always afraid that their tax dollar was going to the undeserving. Oh, that and the fact that if flushed a whole group of low end, low skill workers into the marketplace, depressing wages even further.

So it was legal mass murder that Clinton engaged in in Iraq? Yes, Hussein was an iron fisted dictator, but before '91, he took very good care of his people. Yet sanctions and those thrice weekly bombing runs(many times going over and hitting civilian targets) were our fault, and yes, we killed those people. If the sanctions had been lifted, the bombing runs stopped, many more people would be alive today. Did Hussein "violate" the rules, sure. But he mainly did so in small, minor ways, actions that certainly didn't deserve the massive amount of overkill that we dished out.

In Bosnia, yes, we were there to put a halt to the genocide, but the trouble was we didn't go in on the ground. Instead we bombed indiscriminately from the air(and please don't feed the bullshit about smart bombs, which only hit their intended target twenty percent of the time). We bombed civilians, Muslims, Serbs, everybody. Instead of applying surgically precise amounts of power, we instead beat away with a sledgehammer, killing 75,000 civilians. So one American soldier didn't die, big fucking whoop. Do you think that matters to 75,000 dead innocents?

No, the working poor and homeless families weren't created under Clinton. But they did become a major component of our society during Clinton's tenure. This coincides with the record breaking gap that opened between the rich and the rest of us, and those who were on the edge, they suffered the most.

I really would suggest that you put down your pom-poms and stop cheering for awhile. Instead, go out and pick up Howard Zinn's "People's History of the US" or Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy" or "American Theocracy". These are learned, well respected writers, and they will fill that huge gap you have in your historical knowledge. If you're going to cheer on the Clintons and the DLC, at least have the full picture of what exactly you're cheering on.

[Mythsaje]

180. And you don't see why many Americans can't see the difference

between DLC Dems and Republicans? Because, in the end, the difference is so miniscule that there isn't much to see.

The only REAL reform welfare ever needed was to tie it to educational opportunities to allow people with no chance of supporting themselves or their families the chance to build a better life. As things worked out, they were forced into the service sector, making minimum wage, and adding nothing more to the tax base than they were on welfare.

The sanctions against Iraq didn't hurt Hussein, but it killed thousands of Iraq's most vulnerable citizens. Hardly a constructive method of handling the problem. No more constructive, in the end, than invading. Which it seems the DLC also supported, at least tacitly.

The DLC is as dangerous to America as is the Republican Party.

[BadgerLaw2010]

81. What legislative agenda when the President can veto with no override possible?

Anything making any major policy changes Republicans do not like has no chance of having a veto overturned in either the House or the Senate.

Since we can't get 2/3's in both houses, you need to win the White House, period. It isn't necessarily always this way, but with monolithic Republican knuckle draggers, it is.

[...of J.Temperance]

13. Yep, it's just plain common sense and pragmatics isn't it?

You can't do ANYTHING, you can't put forward policies and act on them, you can't CHANGE the dynamic, UNLESS you WIN and gain POWER.

It's fairly easy to understand.

[OzarkDem]

120. No thanks, not if its GOP

DLC and its candidates are not Dems, they're GOP'ers thru and thru.

[Totally Committed]

36. Awesome post!

I feel mostly the same. Maybe "moreso" is more accurate. ;)

Thanks for this great post!


TC

[cali]

43. I don't know where you live

but none of my reps are corporatists. I don't believe the 82 members of the Progressive Caucus are either, and there are at least 20 in the Senate who don't fit that description, but whatever.

[Lorien]

47. Sadly I agree with you

we've all been taught that if a politician has a (D) after their name, they will represent us, the people. But many who bear those (D)s hardly resemble the Democrats I campaigned for years ago. They serve a very different master now.

[Romulox]

50. Was it a mistake to abandon working people and economic fairness for IDENTITY POLITICS?

Identity politics (along with so-called "culture wars") allow politics to hawk the same agenda as their rivals while skirmishing on minor "cultural issues" around the margins.

[mondo joe]

69. Funny thing about political parties - the people in them decide what they are.

It's democratic that way.

[warren pease]

93. I've been around and around on this issue so many times here...

...that I'm going to let a good friend and fellow OLJ writer say it for me this time:

<snip>

Then again, maybe they’re just really slow starters
By Mark Drolette
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 12, 2007, 00:52

I’ve had this sneaking suspicion lately -- call it a hunch -- that the Democrats perhaps haven’t been all that effective in stemming America’s headlong hurtle toward hell. (I’ve always been intuitive that way. Yes, it’s a gift.)

‘Course, if the goal all along has been to actually help send America swirling ever faster down history’s loo, then I stand corrected.

Speaking of stands, check out these boldly decisive responses from Democratic presidential aspirants when asked at a recent New Hampshire debate about bringing all American combat personnel home from Iraq by 2013 (yes: 2013):

John Edwards: “I cannot make that commitment.”

Barack Obama: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now.”

Hillary Clinton: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”

Despite such fuzziness, one thing’s for certain: when it comes to demonstrating true leadership, one should never doubt whether the Democrats have it or not.

</snip>


Full article here.


wp

[leftchick]

95. "here’s the down-and-dirty: the Democrats are utterly complicit"!!!!

Hot Damn! Great to see that in print! Thank you warren!

<snip>

For instance, it should shock no one that 29 Democratic senators voted for the saber-rattling, Iran-is-evil Lieberman-Kyl Amendment or that 22 voted to censure “left-wing” Moveon.Org (if they’re left-wing, as Dubya asserts, then I’m a choice candidate for marriage, despite what my three ex-wives say) or that nary a one voted against the July 2006 resolution supporting Israel’s God-given right to commit war crimes in Lebanon or that they’re getting ready to extend the hideously unconstitutional wiretapping bill they unforgivably handed BushCo back in August. (They’re in rare form on this one: it’s a mean feat to roll over twice on the same piece of legislation.)

Because, here’s the down-and-dirty: the Democrats are utterly complicit, they’re in cahoots, they’re on the take, they won’t buck the system because they are the system and their primary role is critical to keeping the whole sickening cycle of planetary pulverizing and profiteering going.

In other words: They’re the beard.

Without them as the “opposition party,” fascism’s façade falls. The Dems’ presence lends a patina of legitimacy -- such as it is -- to perpetuate the myth of American democracy amongst those who’ve yet to see it is a long dead duck. (‘Tis amazing Americans could remain so oblivious, but with one in three still asserting Hussein was “personally involved” in 9/11, I rue the day I spurned Dad’s advice to go into the blinder business.)

<snip>


Would my plan stop American fascism? Are you kidding?? Of course not! But at least we’d have a more transparent fascism. Plus, we’d not have to listen to the Democrats tell us anymore why they can’t do whatever it is we shouldn’t have to plead with them to do to begin with.

[Totally Committed]

103. Awesome post!

Thanks, warren!


*M-WAH!*


TC

[Individualist]

94. Cause of death: DLC cancer

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[Totally Committed]

101. Thanks!

Great post.

TC

[bobbolink]

111. The deathly part of this is... most USians don't realize it.

You have laid it out accurately.

It's so hard to realize just how deadly this is to democracy.

I don't really think that most people will "get it" until it's too late.

Well worded... thanx!

[Me.]

12. Establishment Candidate Translates Into

More of the same, especially for them.

[Elspeth]

30. Big business knows that the neocon label is bankrupt

So they're backing the horse they think will garner enough votes.

[skipos]

38. The economy and the stock market have been historically better under Dem presidents

That is a fact. Forbes has some ratings of economic prosperity that verify this.

"Not surprisingly, Bill Clinton tops the magazine's prosperity chart. He is followed by two other Democrats – Johnson and Kennedy. The first Republican to show up is Reagan, who comes in fourth. No Democrat finishes lower than seventh (Truman), and the last three spots are all occupied by Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush). On a scale of one to eleven (one being Bill Clinton, eleven being the elder Bush), Democrats have an average ranking of 3.8, Republicans of 7.8."

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=131769

That probably explains why democrats are better for the stock market too.

DOW SINCE 1901
Republican years Avg. annual change 6.9%
Democratic years Avg. annual change 13.3%
Source: Stock Trader's Almanac 2005

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm
(this doesn't include the latest surge, but even with that the Repubs trail.)

[Romulox]

42. Many newer Democrats are aisle jumpers who want to be on the winning team

Democrats are winning by becoming Republicans, and the "blue dogs" they attract were pulling the 'R' lever an election cycle ago.

On one hand, you must convince your political opponents to win elections. On the other, when a party changes its platform to be virtually indistinguishable from their opponent's then the benefits of such a "victory" almost exclusively redound to party bosses and their corporate sponsors.

In other words, "meet the new boss..." :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Much Of What You Say Is True

But I rather have Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer as my bosses than Denny Hatert and Tom DeLay...

[Romulox]

51. Dad's an alchoholic, but at least he's *somewhat* fun to be around when he is drunk

Might as well keep supplying him with bottles so we never have to address the *real* problems! :sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. How Do We Address The Real Problem

You are challenged to a fight... Your opponent brings a knife... You have two choices... You can bring a knife of your own or run away...I choose the former but then again I'm not one of these liberals who walks around with a "kick me sign" on his ass...

[Romulox]

62. The fight analogy is fatally flawed...politics should be collaborative and consensus based

Not a binary, zero-sum "combat".

But be that as it may, your knife-fighting analogy leaves no room for those of us who prefer to solve our problems with dialogue. In your world, one is either a "knife fighter" (i.e. corporatist) or a victim. We know that the American people are therefore victims in this process, no matter which of our corporate warriors win. :(

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. "War Is The Continuation Of Politics By Other Means"

-Baron Von Clausewitz...

Politics is the battle of who gets what, when, and how...

It's the clash of ideas...In the United States we settle our battles at the ballot box...Some nations have their battles settled by force of arms...

The Dems and Reps are in a battle... Do we really think there is common ground for us and the Reps or that we can collaborate with them?

To beat them it requires money to get our message out...Until there is a better system I want a lot more money than the Pubs to get the message out..

[Romulox]

71. The dominant ideology in the modern Democratic party is PREDICATED on adopting right-wing economics

That's the real irony here. We are in a fight to the death with people whose party advocates exactly the same economic program as the Democrats.

Corporations certainly know how to work together. They've simply bought off both sides. Therefore, they win, full stop.

[OzarkDem]

122. They're only getting money - not winning

DLC Dems lost most of their elections the last two cycles.

They can raise all the money they want, but they won't win with the same old GOP issues and talking points.


Its a different world outside the Beltway and no doubt there will be some very expensive failures in 2008.

[Totally Committed]

127. Absolutely correct!

Very well-stated.

TC

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I Don't Understand

The Republicans are raising tons of money to spend to attack Democracts....We are raising tons of money to defend ourselves from these attacks... Are we supposed to unilaterally disarm?


You don't bring a pea shooter to a gang fight...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. seconded.

[...of J.Temperance]

49. Exactly correct

Heck it's a relief that at least SOME people can realize this....that our party needs to raise as much money as possible, not only to run our own ads, but also to run ads to defend ourselves AGAINST what are going to be, let's face it, pretty nasty slash and burn Republican attack ads.

Yes I think some of them, judging by the comments that we often see displayed, would like our party to unilaterally disarm....as long as our party has next to no money and there's a Republican in the White House to veto Democratic legislation, then I think that'll make these people happy.

I mean they seem to be AGAINST anything and EVERYTHING that the Democratic Party has to do in order to stay competitive and be in a position to win the Presidential election.


On Edit: Format change

[cali]

52. Hey,DSB

what you fail to grasp, is that the folks you're addressing, think that the dems=repubs, so it doesn't really matter to them if the repukes win. And if the dems did become pure enough for them, they'd simply switch into another mode, cheering them on uncritically.

[Mythsaje]

181. That's crap, Cali...

We simply want a party that fights as hard for the common person as all too many fight for the corporations.

[antigop]

57. Hey, TC -- take a look at this article I posted in the Editorials forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x314591

[Totally Committed]

89. Nail hit on the head with that one, my friend!

"As dissatisfaction grows among both Republican and Democratic party loyalists heading into the 2008 election, it's the independents who stand to gain significant numbers, a national leader in the independent voter movement told a local conference on Sunday.

Jacqueline Salit, executive editor of The Neo-Independent magazine and president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, said registered independents in New Hampshire, for instance, have increased from about 28 percent of total voters several years ago to roughly 45 percent today."


I'm not surprised. Not surprised at all.


TC

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. A choice between neo-cons or neo-libs.

Kind of like a choice between being run over by a truck or a bus.

[Totally Committed]

90. We call this "Sophie's Choice" in my house....

Makes the skin crawl.

TC

[Joanne98]

60. Sellout bastards. We're so screwed!

[bonito]

79. Support the PDA and DFA

Its going to take concentrated efforts to eradicate the corporate DLC foreign AIPAC from the democratic party, they have invaded the party an call all who won't lockstep with them dividers when they are just that.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. Huh? AIPAC has NOTHING to do with this

So why you felt the need to bring AIPAC into this, I'm not entirely sure.

The ONLY dividers I see, are those who keep telling the DLC to leave OUR OWN political party....it's not the DLC that's advocating purges within our party.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

150. AIPAC is simply MIIC . . . Nixon armed right-wing fundamentalist Israel . . . and buried . . .

peace-loving, liberal Israel --

[bonito]

92. Heres some info

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1432

[Totally Committed]

100. I would say these two excerpts illustrate the point:

"AIPAC claims to have 100,000 members and on its website prominently displays a New York Times description of the group: 'The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel.'”

And, conversely... America's relationship with the rest of the world, these days!

"AIPAC's apparent ability to influence the direction of U.S. policy has been hotly debated for years. The Iraq War helped reignite the debate because many observers argued that key Bush administration supporters of the war—including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—were at least in part motivated by their views on Israeli security. However, many elements of the pro-Israel lobby were not immediately supportive of the neoconservative desire to go to war with Iraq. In a March 2006 paper, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt helped fan debate when they seemingly conflated neoconservatism and the pro-Israel lobby. They wrote: “Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq War than the population at large, 52% to 62%.' Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence.' Rather, the war was due in large part to the Lobby's influence, especially the neoconservatives within it” (“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” March 2006). But as the Washington Post's Glenn Frankel reported, AIPAC “took no official position on the merits of going to war in Iraq … But, like the Israeli government, once it was clear that the Bush administration was determined to go to war, AIPAC cheered from the sidelines, bestowing sustained ovations on an array of administration officials at its April 2003 annual conference and on Bush himself when he attended the following year” (Washington Post, July 16, 2006).

Few would dispute the pro-Israel lobby influence, although many who point it out are often accused of anti-Semitism, as was the case with Walt and Mearsheimer when they released their working paper. Remarks made by Alan Dershowitz, the well-known lawyer and Harvard professor, were typical of much of the criticism. Dershowitz lambasted the paper as being full of “bigoted comments” and that it had the “the smell of singling out Jews and singling out Israel” (cited in Frankel). The two authors foresaw the criticism, arguing in the paper: “No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy—an influence that AIPAC celebrates—stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's ‘Jewish Lobby.' In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti-Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.”

According to some estimates, there are about 500 national and local organizations that collectively make up the pro-Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most weight—“the most effective general interest group over the entire planet,” Newt Gingrich once said of AIPAC. As Walt and Mearsheimer reported: “In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings.'”

Extremely active in securing weapons deals for Israel, in lobbying for sanctions against the country's Middle East rivals, and in promoting the political agenda of whatever government happens to be in power in Israel, AIPAC has long played a highly public role in American policymaking in the Middle East. It has also been active in pushing U.S. intervention in the region.

Ugh.

TC

[leftchick]

96. I will help you out

guess who wrote the Kyl-Lieberman Lets Attack Iran Bill which 29 Democratic Senators voted for? Hint.... its initials are AIPAC!

[Totally Committed]

98. Not many seem to grasp this concept.

Thanks for posting this.

It is a great clarifier!

TC

[defendandprotect]

149. We are trying to "purge" Republicans from the Democratic Party ----

[tblue37]

86. If people can't wrap their minds around any other difference

between the two parties, they should at least keep in mind that "It's the Supreme Court, stupid"! The next president may appoint as many as 3 or 4 SC justices, young liberal bloc, if the Dem president has enough of a majority in the Senate to ensure confirmation of good candidates. (I might point out, too, that Chief Justice Roberts' epilepsy is likely to grow worse over time, so he might not serve out as long a term as was once thought. I don't wish this on him, but it is a factor we should also take into account.)

Furthermore, if Dems control the presidency and both houses of Congress, there is a good chance that many more of the crimes of the Bush administration, including DOJ crimes, can be uncovered.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I will vote for any Dem nominee, no matter who it is, no matter what office it is for. The somnambulants in our party allowed the anti-human corporatists and fundamentalists to get a huge jump on us over the last generation, so that the game is now being played entirely ON TEHIR HOME COURT. They didn't just say they would win the very next game after Kennedy was elected, or else take their ball and go home. They began plotting and planning, patiently and carefully laying the groundwork for the corporate robber-baron comeback a generation later.

We have to plan ahead. Get a large Dem majority into the two houses and a Dem president into the WH to appoint liberal justices. Also, a Dem president with a strong Dem majority can start redressing the balance of super-conservative justices on the federal bench. The Republicans successfully blocked the appointments Clinton tried to make, while the Republican presidents' appointments end up getting confirmed. If the Dem president has a good Dem majority, the Republicans won't be able to do that this time.

We also need liberals in congress and in the FCC to work toward getting some control over the concentration of media.

If we work hard, especially in the primaries, we can probably replace a number of blue-dog Dems with real liberals. But that would include working hard to educate their constituents, who reflexively vote against anyone perceived as liberal. But even a blue-dog Dem has to toe the party line if there are enough liberals running the party—just as the moderate Republicans were forced to toe the Republican party line while the Republicans were in control.

Instead of focusing narrow-mindedly on one race and one candidate, we must think in the long term. We need to flood the machinery of government with people-friendly types, and that can’t happen if we don’t get a Dem into the WH and a bunch of Dems into the two houses of Congress.

I might point out, too, that this is exactly what the conservatives did to gain control over all levels and branches of the machinery of government—including the media.
But this is a generational task, not a one-race task. The conservatives and corporatists recognized this back in the middle of the 20th century, and that is when they began to work on it. Because we weren’t paying attention, they won.

Pitching a hiss and refusing to play because we can’t undo 50 years of their work in just one race isn’t going to help. The 2006 elections didn’t get us everything we wanted, but it did get us some. We have subpoena power. Sure, we aren’t getting the tough take-downs of Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al., that we want, but more and more keeps getting exposed, and that is helping us to move toward a larger victory in 2008, which will enable us to uncover even more crimes and even do something about them. Our skinny majority isn’t enough—especially since the Repubs can still mobilize the media to make Dems pay if they move too far too fast to bring the Republican criminals down.

[MadHound]

115. So you're willing to throw away thousands of innocent lives down the hole of an illegal, immoral war

All so you can get a judge or two on the Supreme Court.:wow: Especially since the Dems gave the cow away years ago during the Roberts and Alito hearings, keeping their powder dry.

Sorry, but I can't go down that path, I cannot sanction more death and destruction.

[tblue37]

116. Straw man argument. I didn't say that at all. I just said that in order to

do what we want to do, we have to gain power.

[MadHound]

119. No, you didn't state it so succinctly,

However, given the lead candidates admission that they possibly won't get us out of Iraq until 2013 or later, that is essentially what you're voting for. That's not a strawman, that's what is really facing us this election cycle, war party D vs war party R.

[RainDog]

175. So you're willing to throw away 1000s of innocent women by a ban on abortion?

all so you can... what? not vote?

[fenriswolf]

133. raaaa raaaa raaaaa sis boom bah

our candidates have been subverted only differance with democrats is that they go one step forward then two steps back while the repubs only go backwards. while this might be better then the repubs it is ultimatly the same end for america, this is why a corpratist president my allow a schip bill to go through but will contineau with the war, contineau the horrible tax cuts and contineau to privatize our government and society. so I'll vote for a DINO dem and contineau with my wonderfull waterride down the tubes.

[DeepModem Mom]

107. K&R

[OzarkDem]

117. DC Dems walk, talk and act like GOP

Not a good idea, considering the GOP approval ratings are at their lowest point in decades.

It doesn't pay to look like a Republican when everyone hates Republicans. Well, unless you're cashing in.

[Totally Committed]

123. I agree. Good point! n/t

TC

[AuntPatsy]

124. This is nothing more a way to distract the voter from realizing just how ignorant it is to vote repu

[Totally Committed]

128. afternoon kick (n/t)

TC

[mzmolly]

130. So Republicans are finally realizing that "trickle down economics" doesn't work in the long term?

Good!

[AtomicKitten]

137. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

We are at the precipice of an opportunity for change, and it seems the party is clinging to the center, again.

[Totally Committed]

153. .....

:hi:


TC

[AtomicKitten]

166. *

:hi:

[RainDog]

142. A view from the gutter

If we only have "reality" to use as a basis for decisions that will affect our lives and our children's lives for decades to come... what is that reality, and how do we make the best decisions within it?

1. the DLC is economically conservative, compared to New Deal and Great Society ideology.

2. they attract independents and republicans who are repulsed by the social conservatives of the republican party

3. their leadership is telling big biz that the DLC will not rock their boats (at least for now... tho I think that applies for the future, too.)

4. rather than "blue" v "red" states, the U.S. is really barney the purple dinosaur (oh wait, let's get back to reality.) The U.S. is not strictly divided by states (except maybe the dixiecrats... tho uber liberal (social democrat) Roosevelt did snuggle up to in order to win, btw) Some states are "bluer" than others in other words.

5. The electoral college exists. This mechanism destroys popular vote. If the electoral college will not be abolished by the next election, then we must recognize this awful truth.

6. Social "conservatives" in the Republican party have alienated metropolitan republicans and independents. The tradition of letting other nations work out their own course draws some repubs away b/c of Iraq (this argument cannot be a financial one, it seems, since the trillions we are spending there could be offset by controlling their oil fields and exploration, according to an article I read this weekend... sick but true.. because we are still addicted to oil.) --which also explains the backing off on the withdrawal issue for democrats, too.

7. Bush's entire administration has been littered with these social conservatives...the ones Bush panders to by not allowing talk of the real age of the Grand Canyon, fer cryin' out loud. They are a bitter and rejected minority whose power has only stemmed from a moderate/middle republican willingness to form an alliance. If they don't continue this alliance, the theocrats will wander in the wilderness muttering about gays to their families before going out with their same sex partner for fun. Hopefully the Armageddon they thirst for is a limited strike that destroys them politically.

8. Electoral and party shifts are the norm, if we look at our past history... whigs, Lincoln republicans, dixiecrats, new deal, eye of newt era, neo-cons, DLC. ...Rehydrated Greens may be the way of the future... we'll see...

So, if I look at all those issues, plus the ones that matter for this election -- rolling back religious intrusion in govt, removing power from the nutcases in the oval office, the choices for the Supreme Court, the de-politicization of the Justice Dept, a renewed U.S. to make peace with our former allies to find ways to deconstruct the "war on terror," not use it as propaganda, socially more liberal policies than the repukes...

none of this is heaven to me, but if I don't hold my nose if the DLC pushes through their candidate, what do I get? More Bushiness. With the DLC it's less bushiness. What do I get if I don't vote? nothing except a pat on the back for my personal ideological purity. So I decide to hold my nose... once again... not like I haven't done this for every election in my lifetime, btw.

Okay, so I do this and moderate republicans join the democratic party. The bushies have so disgusted the "reality-based" republicans that the religious right becomes marginalized, ann coulter can't get a gig on the shopping channel, rush is busted at the border with hillbilly heroine and a nine year old, and news media makes a claim for the need to "restore civil discourse." -- which means Murdoch tells Fox to call off the hounds barking at Democrats. He fires Ailes and hires Carville. Suddenly republicans get the sort of criticism democrats have gotten for years.

This starts the shift away from the abyss where we currently stand. Maybe there are some truly savvy big biz types who know that evolution is better than revolution and agree that the middle and lower classes have a right to some of that money they were given via corporate welfare. The new DLC buzz words can be "get corporations off welfare." (okay, I do have to return to reality again, sorry.)

Off shore bizzes are punished. Where is the patriotism of these so-called republicans?? Where was the call for sacrifice after 9-11... to put money toward jobs that create a new energy economy via localized branches that can meet the requirements for resources available in regions, not the world... who are the entrepreneurs and who are the dinosaurs? Let entrepreneurs be entrepreneurs and stop shackling them to an organization just for health care benefits. Don't make them choose between family or country. Even the neo-cons have admitted that universal health care is the future. they just want to suck out as much blood from the U.S. as they can before they die from exposure to the light of reason.

The "green" and social democrats do not like the conservatism of the "Truman" democrats in control. They ORGANIZE, create voting blocs instead of railing at the organized DLC, raise money, and use their power to either get changes within the Democratic party, or form a party of their own. The majority will still be the moderate centrists.. this is how the world generally works, right? The pig in the snake.

the moderate republicans don't want to give rise a new era of embarrassing bushism, so they and the DLC have a large voting bloc. the greens, etc. have defectors from the democratic party.... and then the country is basically back to where it was before the dixiecrats took power.

Money is taken away from nutjob religious schools, the govt is purged of creationists and dr. strangelove, the supreme court gangs up on scalia and he is hoisted on his own...celice... (sorry, reality is so much less satisfying than my fantasies.) The DLC has to choose between their democratic or republican impulses. Which way will be wind be blowing then?

Who would I prefer to be in office if the hit comes down from global warming pressure?

My personal choice, of course, is to move to a more liberal nation. I haven't yet placed adverts in newspapers offering myself for sale, uh, I mean, as a mail-order bride, and I am looking at job listings in my area.... so for now, the above seems like the immediate future for my choices.

[OzarkDem]

144. DLC doesn't attract voters

Most of its candidates lost in 2006. Republican-lite agenda is neither innovative or appealing to voters. Ask Harold Ford.

[Totally Committed]

147. But, they attract Corporations.

They'd rather have them than the votes... thus snapping defeat out of the jaws of victory every time.

TC

[OzarkDem]

158. Real Dems believe in getting votes, making progress

Cashing in for personal gain isn't usually part of the equation.

[Totally Committed]

168. Yup, those are the ones I remember!

Few and far between now.

TC

[RainDog]

173. were you guys around during the Roosevelt administration?

...because that's the only one I know of that might even possibly fit your description, and even then Roosevelt fed the U.S. economy with the war machine....which has, sadly, never been dismantled.

[RainDog]

172. yes, democrats aren't the DLC

but the DLC is part of the democratic party. In 2006, did they lose against republicans or against other Democrats in primaries? Or rather, other democrats first, and then the general election? B/c the DLC will ask you... which democratically-fielded candidate has won a presidential election since Carter? we had, lessee, Reagan, Reagan, Bush Clinton, Bush.

I don't want the DLC to control the democratic party, but if I look at the way in which Clinton femme is pandering to moderate republicans, that's what I was addressing in my post before. what is the current reality for a presidential race? I suppose I'm sort of looking at the reality of America as the embodiment of "elite rule," in pol. theory...which seems to be political fact if you look at American history. Obama and Hillary are both "others" who are now incorporated as part of the elite by remaining within the bounds of certain power elite povs. They serve as hope for disenfranchised or marginalized groups from which they come, but they accomplish no great changes beyond, as I said, marginalizing the talibornagains... who became part of the power elite in order to help republicans win elections (c.f. Kevin Phillips' "southern strategy" for Nixon, and Johnson's admission that civil rights lost the south for democrats. The pendulum needs to swing back toward the center/left. Within those parameters, things like civil rights are possible. Within those parameters, responsiveness to voters on the left becomes more important.

(btw, a digression - I believe the 2000 election was stolen outright and the 2004 election was decided by Ohio's corrupt repukes... but what did ANY democrat do to stop this? are none of the democrats in office now real democrats?) Are they all part of the power elite by virtue of the offices they hold? Regarding Bush 04, I also know that no president has ever been voted out of office in the middle of a war. Johnson did not choose to run again. Nixon was re-elected. Roosevelt led to the mad dash for term limits by repukes that they then wanted to call as a "do-over" with Reagan...and now want to let Ahnuld run for prez.... all these are political machinations that are and have happened. all of these are part of the reality we contend with. People in the U.S. will vote for Ahnuld (like Reagan) even if he opposes their best interests. Just look at all the labor voters for Reagan, who then destroyed the unions.

as noted, imo the electoral college makes it possible for republicans to continue to get elected nationally... by whatever means.... Reagan was certainly elected by votes, it seems to me. Until the EC is abolished, the repukes can continue to manipulate elections. Maybe a better strategy for more liberal American is to create a coalition to abolish the electoral college. maybe that's something that would make disaffected people want to vote. I don't know. Gerrymandering has occurred on both sides of the aisle over the last few decades. Although oftentimes the goal was good... minority representation, the other side has and continues to use these political strategies to make extreme right wingers viable in elections.

The 2006 election is interesting because it was a vote against Bush, wasn't it? It was a vote against Bush's war, against the Patriot Act, against his economic policies, against his politicizing of EVERY part of his administration, along with his buddies in the legislature. Most Americans also poll (or polled in the past) that they think a two party division works best for leg. and executive, at least before Bush. I wonder now.

Is Pelosi DLC? I don't think so. Where is the groundswell by the democrats who were elected to get rid of Bush NOW? I don't see it. Are they all DLC? if not, then why haven't they acted differently? (that's a question I ask myself all the time.) The only answer that makes sense is that they, too, are incorporated into the power elite. they follow a group strategy to gain control of American political office. Kucinich is sop to those liberals who want to be able to support someone, but the power elite know he will never be elected as president. (Nevertheless, I am glad he is in the race, like Ron Paul, to ask the uncomfortable questions.)

Of all the declared candidates, the DLC choice is my last choice. I don't like dynasties. I think it's possible to elect a more progressive candidate. but I don't get to control the spin, so if I am only given that choice, what will I do?

I would love for Gore to run b/c of the revenge factor. the rebuke. also because I think he's stopped pandering so much to the right. but is he a social democrat? No. That's my position. He was part of the DLC but was labeled an "eastern elite." As someone from TN, I can tell you that the reason he couldn't carry his state was because the head of the Southern Baptist Convention is in Nashville, TN, and that voting bloc, imo, is the most dangerous bloc we Americans have faced since Nazi sympathizers who wanted to assassinate Roosevelt....or rather, they are the same bloc that wanted to assassinate Kennedy, imo. Those who disparage Gore for not winning his state do not appreciate how radicalized the talibornagains are in this country.

so strategically, my issue is not only how to get a democrat elected, but how to totally obliterate the power of the religious reich. Kucinich is not going to draw republicans away from their alliance with the talibornagains. I think Edwards could. I think Obama could. I think Gore could. Not just one possible candidate. Marginalizing them is how we get to the possibility of getting back to the biz of govt that is responsive to the present, not some imagined non-existent past. How did McCarthy and McGovern do?

As far as the primaries go, I will work for my candidate... tho I haven't decided who that is yet among the field now offered. Edwards and Obama are my first two choices if Gore doesn't make a run. But I will also vote against the republican party in a national election. I will offer to "trade" my vote with anyone in a state that is an electoral college toss up if that helps to oust the Republicans. there is a difference, even if it is sometimes in degrees. those things matter.

I feel so frustrated by the the Lieberman portion of the democratic party. If that was all it had to offer, I honestly would not bother to vote. But I don't think that's all the party has to offer. to me, that's reality.

oh, and if someone can find a way to punish the democrats who supported Lieberman after he declared himself an independent, without harming this nation, I'll gladly do whatever I can to make that happen. That's part of my opposition to Hillary as well. Even if all the other viable candidates (sorry, I do not consider Kucinich viable, tho I support many of his positions) hold the same positions as Hillary she is my last choice because of the issue of dynastic rule.

sorry for the rambling, but all of these thoughts are part of my understanding of current politics. I don't agree with the DLC, but I also cannot demonize them. Coalitions are how elections are won. If the DLC wants to win, they see opposition w/i the democratic party, so they look to moderates in other constituencies. Moderates according to those groups' definitions of themselves in comparison to their alliances, too.

[bonito]

178. Rant on anytime

It's really refreshing to hear members here contribute openly like this.
Peace! :hug:

[defendandprotect]

146. Kucinich: "DLC are the same as neo-con Republicans" . . .

[Totally Committed]

148. Do you agree with that, or disagree?

I agree with that, 100%.

TC

[defendandprotect]

163. A G R E E with Kucinich . . . !!!!

[Totally Committed]

165. Thought so!

Yay, Dennis!

TC

[leftchick]

174. Excellent Article!

thank you TC!

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

176. You are very welcome!

It was a good discussion, too!

:hi:

TC

[bonito]

183. Just finished reading the link

From Newsweek, wow! in the msm!