How far would the DLC Dems go to silence the progressives?

[The Backlash Cometh]

This is a serious question. Since learning that Hillary Clinton's answer to revive the economy is more real estate development, I'm just a little bit concerned.

[Swamp Rat]

1. All the way

[blm]

Let's see -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. I said I was serious.

I think I've found an issue that seperates the party. Maybe it should be labeled the Civil Rights Dems versus the Old Guard Dems?

[Bucky]

8. They would murder us. They would track us down at our jobs, in our homes, at church, in the park...

...they'll never relent until they capture us all and eat our brains. EEEEEEKKK!!!

Or wait, maybe they'll just argue against the progressive Democrats and occasionally slip into villifying our approach to politics as unworkable... something we would NEVER do to them.

[Swamp Rat]

11. BRAINS!

[Bucky]

28. Finally! Proof that George Bush sucks.

Nice one.

(Is that photo Betty?)

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Would we ever go out of our way to interfere with someone's job

security, if that someone worked for one of the "corporatist" corporations?

[Bucky]

27. So we should fight the corporatist corporations to save our democratic democracy from evil evilness?

Geeze, Backy, you say some silly things sometimes. Do you even know what corporatism is?

Use the Wiki!

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. The way it's used on DU, I thought corporatism was basically corporations

which bought influence.

You may not agree with my position, but you should at least respect my concerns.

[Bucky]

33. You're right, Backy. I was being a prick.

About your concerns, I'll say this. I agree corporate interests swing too much weight in the country, but some level of involvement is inevitable and the best way to handle them is to hammer out arrangements with them that can protect both consumers' rights ("promote the general welfare" as Gouverneur Morris once wrote) and the capacity of businesses to turn profits and contribute to a healthy economy.

"Corporatism" is a fascist ideology that has nothing to do with private corporations in a free market economy (for one thing, corporatism tends to do better at protecting the rights of trade unions). It's basically the view that everyone in society is simple a cell within the body politic and that certain groups, or "organs" in the society have a special charge to run things; others have a special charge to do things (think of the "Fingermen" from V for Vendetta).

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. "The level of involvement"

Here's the problem I have with "the level of involvement." Some of the money that is used to invest in real estate development, is coming from New York, or Massachussetts or the North East, in general. But also Georgia. They don't care about community. They don't care about the aftermath of bad building inspections or decisions that in the long run, create a hostile environment for future homeowners. In fact, a city that has a record of weak building inspections, is probably a plus for them. So, Hillary coming down and indirectly promoting new construction growth, really isn't helping us any. She's simply making things worse, all around.

You know, it takes a hell of a lot more than cement and framework to build a good community. In fact, expensive real estate has fucking nothing to do with the quality of the community. What I've found is that the higher up in real estate you go, the more selfish and rotten the neighbors. And I've actually read in a city's comprehensive plan, that park amenities weren't needed in certain private residences because people who pay for private communities drive their kids outside of the community for things like schools and recreation. And you know how I read that? The private community is such a failure, that they can't stand each other.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have Hillary working on new home loans when what she should be doing is working towards protecting workers at work so they can have some security in paying off their existing mortages. Maybe if she did that, we wouldn't be experiencing the churn we have in Florida, where you keep needing to truck in cheap labor to replace people who have gone elsewhere because they got laid off at work. You see, Florida is probably a good example of where illegal aliens are taking jobs from unskilled legal workers. Between the agriculture and tourist industry, there is a need for people who work for dirt cheap, and maybe those workers save enough to get one of Hillary's new home loans, but then what happens when they get laid off because they've been turning beds down in hotels for ten years and they now want a raise? Where are they going to go when there's nothing else here in Florida for them? Oh, another transient Floridian.

Thanks but no thanks. The "level of involvement" is duplicitious and really only helps the developers.

[Swamp Rat]

9. You sure did.

Now you've said it twice.

[Skidmore]

5. Excellent, Swampy!!!!

Lovely shade of green! Well done!

[omega minimo]

10. ow

:rofl:

[leftchick]

19. oh my swampy!

:rofl:

:yourock:


:loveya:

[KoKo]

32. uh...oh........n/t

[waiting for hope]

2. I don't trust the DLC -

They seem to prescribe to the "McCain Doctrine" - you know, the one where they move the way they perceive the wind to be blowing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Then...wouldn't we have as much to worry about them getting access

to our private info as the Republicans? I mean, it's even worse if they can pluck us out off the blogs because we express views which their own members have access to.

[leftchick]

21. no

the move the way the DOLLARS are flowing. Just like repukes, no difference. They are corporatists first and foremost.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. That's kind of scary.

I think our corporations will do far better if they go back to the old roots of employee loyalty and providing good service for their products.

[leftchick]

26. we are so far past that now

I do not hold out any hope for change. Only a true revolution could cause change and americans are too ignorant/lazy to know what is going on to even bother to entertain that idea.

:(

edit: here is a most excellent post targeting exactly what is happening.....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=528707

[Wiley50]

4. excellent question

we never thought the neocons would go this far

so I expect the neolibs to go far past any limits too

either way you're plugging the same coin in the slot

round and round and round she goes............

[BeFree]

7. How far?

Just up to the point where we finally beat them.

We are better than they are.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. I've no idea.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. But since they're as tied to corporations as the Repubs, should we worry?

[HereSince1628]

12. well, the DLC and the New Dems believe winning is EVERYTHING

just how freakin far do you think that would motivate them?

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Call them out.

If they're playing dirty tricks, let us know.

[bigtree]

36. losing is . . .

BUSH

[NorthernSpy]

64. then how come the DLC steered us into so many election losses?

Oh, I know. For the DLC, winning really is everything -- when it comes to securing the interests of the people they serve. Perhaps THAT's why they've thrown so many elections to the Republicans (who serve those same interests even better!).

[Raven]

13. This war would be rockin' along if it were not for the progressives

and the Dems know it

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Progressives have definitely had an impact with the war.

[onenote]

44. Last time I checked, the war was still "rockin' along"

As many soldiers died last month as in recent months. More soldiers are being sent over. A presidential veto of a withdrawal deadline will be sustained.

That is not to say that the opposition voiced by progressives hasn't been a good thing. But only when folks who don't label themselves progressives -- including repubs -- get on the bandwagon, will the war stop "rockin' along".

In other words, progressives can't go it alone.

[Psephos]

15. Not as far as the Republicans

Not nearly as far. It's worth remembering that.

Peace.

[Lorien]

17. Seriously? She said "more real estate development"????

I missed that. Geez. If I were to suggest a way to improve the economy I think I'd start by giving tax penalties to corporations who do excessive outsourcing. Then I'd promote the idea of creating a national high speed mag-lev rail line with light rail connectors to ease road congestion, reduce greenhouse gases, supply employment for thousands of Americans and make America more mobile / encourage travel throughout the US. With all the foreclosures, water issues and the ruined wild places real estate development is not the way to go!

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. No, no, no!

Just a quick blurb in the paper about providing finance for new home loans. She's in Orlando today and the real estate industry is the number one contributor to the Republican party and we just had a downturn on new home loans. So, suddenly Hillary is here promoting new home loans. Unfortunately, our old guard Dems are as embroiled in the real estate industry, as the Republicans are.

[Selatius]

18. Harold Ford, Jr., Chairman of the DLC, says Democrats are wrong for demanding Iraq timetable for...

withdrawal.

He thinks most of America wants to win the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=536192&mesg_id=536192

[Jim Sagle]

24. He doesn't really think that.

He's just a fake Dem who wants us to think he thinks that. He wants Dems to lose.

[IChing]

30. A mulitude of ways they will try

to silence the grassroots of democracy
however the roots are healthy as proven in the last election.

The internet has provided a venue that has lead
to a transformation to a new freedom of communication,
information and expression which has guided us to a paradigm shift
in the very means of a democracy and finding justice.

The MSM, DLC, Republicans, who are not innovators, has yet realized they have no
real control over, although they are trying to dismiss and destroying it at the same time.
They are in awe of its power. The dissuasion of progressives is
not to realize this concept of its power.

That said, real information is being pass to the masses on
what is really going on, and what the DLC really has stood for
over the years. The people are wiser now.

We will win this battle,
money doesn't buy my vote, my consciousness or my soul
only justice, equality, freedom and real democracy will do that.





"Old pirates, yes, they rob i;
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds."
Redemption song -Marley

[deutsey]

31. I think we've seen all too clearly that there is no limit to what the DLC

will do to crush what makes the Democrats significantly different from the GOP.

[bigtree]

35. How far would 'progressives' go to silence 'DLC Dems'?

can't you just argue the issues and ideas and leave the labeling out. It's a cheap way to make your argument, unless you can find a specific DLC endorsement of an issue or a similar proposal from the think tank. I'm not looking at the DLC agenda right now, but it seems dishonest to just label someone DLC and expect someone to argue against it. "DLC" is whatever you want to impose on the characterization, isn't it?

[MadHound]

37. No, the DLC label is specifically applied to those who belong to

Or have signed onto the principles of the Democratic Leadershit Committee. Yes, that term can also be short-hand for a group of centerist Dems also, but the common thing that these folks all have is their pro-corporate, centerist stance.

And yes, there has been a war waged on progressives for over three decades now, trying to get rid of the leftists, the progressives. Yet every four years, after being demonized in the interim, the Dems dare dare to come out, both here and across the country, demanding that these leftists, that they've attacked and demonized, fall into line behind a candidate that is an anethma to them. And sadly, many of us do just that, hoping against hope for some crumb off the Dem table.

We've been waiting a long time down here friend, and frankly we're not going to wait much longer. I predict here and now that if Hillary gets the nod, the Dems will lose. Simply due to the fact that the anti-war left will flee the party, voting third party or not voting at all. This is what happened forty years ago in the '68 campaign. You think that the Dems would have learned from that one, but I guess not.

[bigtree]

38. I've seen the same sniping war from the left against the DLC for over a decade

It doesn't serve the voters to allow them, or others compartmentalize their rhetoric or actions into some, 'take it, or leave it' box. Their proposals should be fleshed out and accepted or rejected on their merits. Their actions should be the focus as well.

But, just pointing out that they choose to affiliate with some think tank doesn't tell me where they agree or differ (It would be dishonest to say that all who affiliate agree with everything the think tank has to offer).

Are they beholden to EVERY organization that they belong to, or to every organization whose principles they say they agree with?

[MadHound]

40. Thank you for once again proving my point

If the leftists dare to fight back, it is somehow wrong, a "sniping war", we don't have the good of the party at heart, yadda, yadda, yadda.

And the DLC agrees on certain things, the crucial one which drives most leftists mad is their love of all things corporate. From their web site: "the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893> Market based solutions, hmm, where have we heard that before:think:

And frankly, if somebody voluntarily joins a think tank or organization, I has to assume that they agree, either with all or a majority of that organization's positions. After all, what would be the purpose of joining otherwise?

The DLC, its membership, adherents and syncophants are indeed the corporate wing of the party. And as I've said, they've been carrying out a war against what was formerly the base, those of us on the left. I suggest that you go study your political history, for this is well documented. Another example that I'll give you is the campaign of McGovern, when he won the nod, the centerist/corporatist wing of the party abandoned him, yanking funds and support. I imagine that if somebody like Kucinich gets the nod, the same thing would happen today.

Sorry, but you simply can't sugar coat this enough to make it palatable. Nor will trying the reprocity arguement work. The DLC, the corporatists have indeed been carrying on a war against the leftist arm of party. Gee, now that we're fighting back we're getting slammed. What, you simply expect us to roll over and take it?

[bigtree]

42. Such a good tactic. You are trying to pigeonhole me into one group or the other

by assigning my complaint about the squabbling to one side or the other. They are both throwing insults at each other, here and elsewhere. You won't get anywhere trying to draw me to one side or the other. I think both sides who have chosen to pal up in these little groups are responsible for their own part in the back and forth. I don't think it has gained anyone any more influence or power to effect or affect changes than any other individual effort. These groups need to come together after they're though crowing about how right they are and do the work of reconciling their positions. That's the only way legislation is going to advance, outside of one faction or the other assuming numerical control and *forming a workable voting bloc.

The dividing is destructive and should be resisted by all sides of the debates we have. Our political institutions are the place where most Americans expect our differences to be resolved, not used as hammers against each other.

I don't know who you think you're speaking for when you say "what do you expect us" to do. Will anyone ever have a chance to agree with your proposals (or their proposals) without joining YOUR club or THEIRS?

[MadHound]

48. LOL! My oh my, did I strike a nerve or what?

I think that you're reading way too much into my posts, but your response certainly was enlightening, probably more than you intended.

And when I refer to "us", or "we" I'm talking about the leftist wing of the party. I don't expect anybody to join a club, however I do expect that everybody's POV is heard, and that reasonable compromises can be made. Sadly, that's not been happening for the past thirty years and more, as the leftists have gotten ever more shut out of the compromise process, and instead the corporatists/DLCers have taken control of the party, its leadership, and with their control they have set the agenda and the platform. When was the last time that you saw a genuine leftist proposal, such as UHC or publicly funded elections make it into the party platform? When's the last time the party through in a leftist VP candidate on the ticket to give those on the left a bone? When's the last time were the proposals put forth by the left taken into account and woven into compromise legislation? Yeah, over thirty years ago.

As far as resisting the devisiveness goes, one can only do that for so long and for so far. Then you get run over by the side whom you are holding your folks from attacking. This happened about fifteen years ago, starting with the Clinton regime. Up until many folks on the left preached a philosophy of compromise, going along to get along, holding the party together. Yet while we were preaching this message, the DLC/corporatist wing of the party simply came up and ran us over, demonizing us for our principles, expunging us from important positions(ones that we had earned as part of this compromise stance), sidelining the left from any participation at any level of the party. When you find yourself under attack you can do either one of two things, either get killed while preaching peace, or fight back. Many of us on the left have decided to fight back, and now we're demonized for daring to do so. Again, the DLC/corporatists want complete control of the party agenda, and will blow over anybody who disagrees with them. Yet if we fight back, or withhold our vote, we're also demonized and excortiated. Sorry, but I'm not going to into this unitary Democratic view that the DLC/corporpatist want. Therefore that makes me a heretic in their eyes, along with most of the left. You can see this around here, and within the party as a whole.

You don't like this divisiveness, I understand. Here's what you can do then. Get the DLC/corporatist wing to proffer an olive brand of some sort. Throw in something like UHC into the platform, and committ to fulfilling it. Put somebody like Kucinich on the ticket as VP, and fully support him. This would go a long way to easing relations within the party. But frankly, don't expect the left to take the initiative. Everytime we've offered an olive branch we've gotten our hand cut off. And frankly we have had so many of our issues destroyed by the DLC/corporatists in the party, we have no more that we can part with.

And you don't have worry about me pigeonholing you friend, you've already done that yourself:hi:

[bigtree]

52. You honestly think I have something to do with some 'wing' of the party

I think the "left' needs more members if they are to effect any of the changes they seek. You want folks to give "leftist" legislators what they don't have; political representation in numbers which would allow their votes to have more of a deciding influence. To suggest that others sacrifice their principles and constituency to bend to someone whose views are opposite is asking for a lot. If the votes are there then the views prevail. If they can't produce the votes (on either side) to advance legislation then their influence is decidedly less.

The Clinton "regime" happened because a majority of Americans voted for him. The present balance of power in Congress came about because Americans voted that way. What you want is some fiddling with these legislators to get them to be something their not; represent issues that - perhaps- they didn't campaign for and their constituents who voted them in don't support.

But, you want us to believe there is some conspiracy or some unfairness when the majority opinion prevails. I think if either side of an issue wants the cooperation of the other they have to compromise. The House Iraq bill was a compromise. Barbara Lee recognized that, even in her opposition.

I don't think it does a wit of good to stir up folks against each other in our own party. The notion that there's one side of our party who wants "peace" and the other wanting "war" is arrogant presumption which comes out of your belief in your own rightousness above all others. That's your call, but you should recognize that others have just as strong views. They won't "lay down" either.

If you have the votes you prevail. If not, you have to either sit on your hands and complain or compromise. Right now, it appears that there aren't enough votes in Congress for the "leftist" views on the war to prevail in legislation, so many of their proposals have been either sidelined or watered down to make them acceptable to the majority. That's how the legislative process works. That's what they're doing; crafting and advancing legislation. That's quite a different process than the back and forth outside of the system where it costs nothing to hold a position or view. I Congress, however, you have to have enough support for your view for it to prevail in legislation. No amount of dividing or name-calling is going to change that. When "leftists" achieve a majority of legislators with their POV then they will control the agenda and be able to present their views and have them prevail in legislative form. I don't think you get there by demonizing each other. Their obvious differences need to be reconciled, but those with the majority of legislators who support their point of view will likely prevail in legislation. That's no conspiracy, it's the nature of our representative system of governance.

As for pigeonholing, you are truly deluded if you think that this argument is about who or what I support. I advocate for issues here all of the time. Post like this aren't about issues though. They are about epic pouts about legislators who can't gather enough support to get their ideas effected into action. The primary method of persuasion is to demonize those opposed to their ideas and proposals. The logical result of that kind of approach is going to be more division, not less. So then comes the arguing, back and forth; not over issues, but over personalities, complete with innuendo and insults.

It's a recipe for accomplishing nothing. I think that's what some want out of this Congress they disagree with. Nothing accomplished that they hold any disagreement with at all. But, they can't tell us what form the next Congress they are waiting for will come in. It could have even more legislators who disagree with them. And, then, the complaint is that the party engineered all of this, as we saw after Americans had voted. Ignoring the actual votes cast by actual Americans, the focus of the complaints were toward the party for allowing these candidates which weren't of their ideological stripe to win.

I'm not willing to wait out every term whose balance of power doesn't favor me. I don't believe that our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere can afford to wait until Jan. 2009 for the uncertain prospect of some new legislators sworn in and reversing course. I believe we have a responsibility to forge those alliances now which will move the question of withdrawal from Iraq forward. I just don't know how anyone can justify not seeking out a compromise which would begin to bring our troops home before the next election. It might not happen, but I think our legislators have a responsibility to try. That's what we sent our Democrats there for, not to use these issues as weapons with which to attack each other.

[MadHound]

54. Your very post belies your claim of neutrality, or being above it all

And not just this post, but many others that I've seen you post. I don't have to claim a thing, you display your bias for all to see. What's sad is that you are trying to deny it. Look, if you're going to walk the walk at least have enough self respect to claim it as your own.

As far as needing a majority to get anything done, one doesn't need a majority, one only needs a large enough minority to effect a compromise. Face it, if most of the leftist wing sat out the election in '08, the Dems would lose, same thing would happen if the centerists sat out. We've plenty of examples of this happening in the past. That is why it is incumbent upon the party as a whole to craft a platform that includes perks for all of the diverse elements within the party. This includes perks for the DLCers as well as the leftists. The trouble is that the leftists haven't gotten many of those perks over the past three decades. Instead, most of perks, most of the planks in the party platform favor the DLC/corporatists wing of the party. Now why should any group stick around when it is so clear that they're not wanted, when their very own party repudiates them every single day except election days when the party demands their vote?

So it isn't a matter of which wing is larger, who has the most people. It is simply a matter that we can't stand alone. Thus in order to get along we need to include planks for everybody. We've done more than enough for the DLC/corporatist branch, it is past time that we rewarded the leftists with some goodies too. Why do you think that is so wrong? Hell, FDR was a pragmatic politician and even he knew that he had to include perks for people to vote for him. That's how we got Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, a couple of perks to the left insuring that they wouldn't go vote for the Socialist party candidate.

And frankly the reason that so many people are upset with this Congress is exactly the opposite of what you say. They actually want to see this Congress achieve something real and meaningful, namely getting us the hell out of Iraq. Yet that simply isn't happening in their eyes. Therefore there is much frustration and anger. That's what you're seeing. Too many people in this country see this supplemental war bill as a sell out, one that will allow Bush to keep his war going indefinitely. Loopholes and non-binding measures aren't good enough. And frankly, the party damn well better be listening. For if this war isn't either ended, or siginificantly winding down by the time elections roll around, those on the anti-war left are going to either go third party or stay at home. Thus the whole party will lose. This happened forty years ago, and it looks like we're heading there again.

And please, don't whine about leftist demonizing the DLC/corpratists, it simply rings hollow. After a concerted thirty year effort by the DLC/corporatists to slash and burn the left wing out of existence, they have little room to complain. Rather than acting as if they're picked upon, perhaps they should make a few amends to bring the leftist around. But no, sadly, the DLC/corporatists continue to demonize the left, asking for ever more concessions while offering nothing. Yet when the left fights back, we're the ones who are oh so horrible? Please, don't make me laugh.

[bigtree]

56. so I have views. debate those and stop trying to affiliate me with some splinter group

I have no such affiliations and have NO use for them.

If you have something you object to specifically, then argue it, but your attempts to smear me and marginalize me into whatever camp you oppose with your own viewpoint is transparent and obvious.

I said both groups were demonizing the other, but all you heard was criticism of the "left". You see what you want, but you can't make me into something I'm not by parsing my words. BOTH sides in their cliquish clubs are fighting each other. That's destructive and unproductive. Is that whining?

YOU don't have any credibility at all in defining me. You can't provide specifics in your definitions because there are none to support your characterizations of me. You are projecting what you believe are the views and motives of those you oppose onto my every utterance.

Find me ONE issue I've written about which you thinks defines me. Not process or political projection; an issue. Find ONE issue I've advocated which you think defines me as your political opposite.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[MadHound]

57. Ummm, I've never said which side that you're on friend, my opposite or not

I've simply said that you are defining yourself, both in this thread and others.

You are the one who is defining yourself, not I, and your ongoing defensiveness says a lot more than what you think.

But hey, thanks for making more assumptions, those very things that you so vigorously decry.

[KittyWampus]

41. No, here on DU the term "DLC'er" is used in lieu of "poopiehead", it's any Dem we don't agree with

[Robbien]

39. Always throwing out distractions

to turn the conversation away from the main point
and turn it into one where Progressives are ordered to apologize for not supporting the centrist/moderate/DLC/BlueDogs.


How far would the DLC go to oppress Progressives? As far as the very last dime will take them. And they will make sure that very last dime was taken from Progressive coffers.

A cancer.

[bigtree]

43. but you want the one's you oppose to apologize for not supporting your group?

your club/their club

here's me>>> bigtree. Democrat.

[Robbien]

45. Bull.The big monied Dems should stop working on destroying Progressives

Moderates/Centrists don't have to support Progressives. They need to stop actively working to get rid of any Progressive movement.

Plus, they need to stop demanding/begging Progressives for money to support Moderates/Centrists. "Give Moderates/Centrists your money and your votes then shut the fuck up and get the hell away from the Dem party" is the DLC/BlueDog slogan to Progressives.



All this me no moderate/centrist, me no progressive, me just a dem
is fooling no one.

[bigtree]

46. Do you think progressives are working on destroying 'DLCers'?

How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously if you are intent on questioning the sincerity of the response (or the responder)? You have absolutely no way of knowing who I am, but you'll assign me to whatever Ideology YOU choose? Do I get a say in this?

I can be a prick just as well as anyone, but I try to be polite. That's not an act, it's courtesy. I have opinions which I bother to express here. I really don't know why, sometimes. I work at a grocery store. I have for over 22 years at the same place. I retired around the time of the invasion, bought a computer, and began ti use it for my writing. I used to write mostly about civil rights issues. I wrote a book in the first year that I had my computer. It was a children's book. I wrote another entitled 'Power of Mischief' which was an attempt to consolidate evidence of the military industry connections and influence in the Bush administration. I dumped money I didn't have into self-publishing it. I maintain a website called Returning Soldiers. That's where this old hippie began his advocacy against the Iraq invasion, with the soldiers. I chose the soldiers because I was immediately concerned that we would be divided from them as Bush pushed his militarism. It began as a resource site and evolved from a news page to a place to park links to my articles. I have the privilege of being able to publish articles at Op-Ed news (Link in my journal). I advocate against the occupation and Bush militarism there. Very little politics.

I come here to discuss things. I also do a little advocacy for Bill Richardson as I did for John Kerry.

If you went down the line on any number of issues, I have very 'liberal' beliefs and positions. I don't know what a progressive is, but I do know what I mean when I call myself a liberal.

But, of course, I really don't know what the criteria would be if I decided to become part of your political club. I imagine it's the same with the others.

I think most of the division is driven by writers like myself with their own agenda. The tripe is driven by pundits and media hacks as well, looking to influence the debate, compromised by their own very transparent financial and political connections. But we let them draw us into these battles and we attack each other, divide.

I think that anyone who wants to divide into ideological groups within the party gets what they ask for; division and divisiveness. At some point, those differences have to be reconciled for our party to govern effectively and successfully craft and advance legislation. No one will benefit from the destruction or disenfranchisement of either side, as our legislators tend to reflect the divergence of viewpoints in the nation.

And, Robbien, you're entitled to your opinion, but I ONLY associate myself politically with one group; the Democratic party.


Here it is again, Robbien; from the heart, from me to you:


your club/their club

here's me>>> bigtree. Democrat.

I suspect that the majority of Americans are loath to divide themselves into groups within the party. I think they expect these adults they elected to reconcile and resolve their differences and legislate effectively.

[Robbien]

49. ha. how silly

Dems win over the monied? Oh well, one can dream.

And what is this about polite discussion. With scorn for progressives dripping from each and every word; with hero worship for centrists/moderates/bluedogs showing clearly through all the bs; that is what passes for polite discussion in your posts.

You are just having fun playing that you don't see all the divisiveness. You say you are the adult, so above the fray.

Your posts say you are just a dem. Not a lefty, not a moderate/centrist. Just a dem.

Again, still not buying it.

[bigtree]

50. you just can't argue issues without dividing folks into these neat groups

I think it helps you manage your own animosities.

I think you can't debate without putting those animosities in front of you and using our differences as a weapon instead of trying to reconcile the points of view.

You can't even argue a point without calling me a liar. You don't deserve the time I've spent responding to you.

[Robbien]

51. Good,

than please stop responding to me.

You keep talking about reconciling differences but what is really meant is that Progressives should stop all their silly outlandish populist talk and get on the centrist/moderate corporate lobbyist bus. Never a request for the centrist/moderate to get off that damn bus. No. It is always hey dumb lefties grab the money and don't look back.

Since you won't be responding, have a nice day.

[bigtree]

53. you can't find ANYWHERE I've said that 'Progressives should stop'

I don't think ANY ideas from our party should be excluded from debate. I've said that over and over. I do think those ideas have to come with the necessary amount of support if they expect to be advanced in legislative form.

. . . but, you go ahead and speak for me. Be certain not to reference anything I've actually said.

[Robbien]

60. A short skim over your prior DU postings

and all anyone would see is argument after argument. No discussions.

Almost each and every thread you post in is always one very long contentious argument. You promoting how really great smart wonderful wise the moderate/centrists ideas are and how stupid stubborn infantile pointless progressive ideas are. During each contentious quarrel you say you are above the fray and it is always the other DUers who are divisive.

I don't need to speak for you, you say it for yourself often enough.

[bigtree]

61. just goes to show how dishonest you are

any discussion to you is an argument. You need to oppose someone to define yourself. It's a wonder anyone who disagrees with you bothers to talk to you at all.

NOWHERE have I argued that progressives should stop or any of the other defensive nonsense you want to attribute to me. But, you come back here with no example, just more innuendo and insults.

What you really want are posters who will sit and kiss your ass and tell you how great you are for railing against our own party members. Brilliant.

[Robbien]

62. So much projection going on in one post

wouldn't even know where to start. But that is the whole point of the projection game isn't it. Centrists/moderates of both parties play that game continuously. Most people keep getting caught in their trap due to the outrage of it all. Centrists/moderates keep doing awful dishonest things and project them on their opponents and demand their opponents defend themselves.

Well I will not defend myself for sins committed by others and then projected to me.

I'm am done. Unlike you when you said you would stop talking to me, when I say I will stop posting to you I will honesty keep my word and stop.

Have fun playing your games all by yourself.

[bigtree]

63. That's clearly your motive; to label me and group me in with those you oppose

whatever you call them. You've done it repeatedly and dishonestly. The game-playing is all your own.

[NoPasaran]

47. Right

Left to their own devices, the "Progressives" will do the job for them.

[EFerrari]

55. Yes. n/t

[depakid]

58. Maybe we should ask Bill Clinton

what was he thinking when he effectively handed over broadcasting to the far right via the telecommunications bill. Or when he appointed Micheal Powell to the FCC.

The very LAST thing we need is another Clinton in the White House.

[mmonk]

59. They already have.