MyDD :: The Democratic Wing

The Democratic Wing

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:40:05 PM EST

I got one more post to get off my chest before I get out the door. As a member of the minority Democratic party, ideology of others in the party doesn't mean squat to me; and it shouldn't mean squat to anyone that wants to see the Democratic Party return to a majority satus this decade.

Like millions of others that have recently joined the Democratic Party, I wasn't involved in the intra-party fights of the late '80's and early '90's between the pro-governmental Liberal establishment and the Business-friendly centrists. Under DLC guidance, the Moderate wing of the party wanted the Democratic Party to become closer to business. The Liberal wing was tagged with having nominated McGovern & Mondale, The DLC wing with having elected Clinton & Gore. We know who won that ideological debate, and yet in today's political landscape, it means nothing.

The only gripe I have with DLCers is that they can't get beyond last decade to realize that the new movement within the Democratic Party has nothing to do with restoring a Liberal agenda. Howard Dean did not say "I'm from the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party," he said, "I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. This is why the establishment in DC failed in their struggle to stop Howard Dean-- they don't understand how the terrain of the party has shifted, and are still thinking like Democrats are a governing party that must put forward an ideology.

The movement that brought Howard Dean to power has nothing at all to do with ideology, and everything to do with partisanship. In fact, Howard Dean was once a darling of the DLC, who cares? Harry Reid has a different viewpoint on abortion, but if he's not going to push government into a woman's body, who cares? Evan Bayh is a member of the DLC, but who really cares, as long as he's able to strike a partisan chord?

The only questions to ask is, are they a strong partisan Democrat that wants to beat Republicans? Do they walk the talk, and do they cut the crap? That's all I want to know. DLC, Deaniacs, Liberals, Centrists, Moderates.... it's all meaningless when you are in the minority. Democratic, that's the price of entry.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 72 Comments :: Post a Comment

Wow (none / 0)

not much more can be said.

I was against Salazar from the beginning because I knew he would vote against the Democrats. In these few weeks he has been in office I have been proven right 3 times.

Bayh is getting the picture and is now pretending to be more of a Democrat than ever before and I salute him.

There is however the fact remains that DLCers are more likely than non DLCer to vote against the principles of the party hence all of the pro-torture Dems are stauch DLCer.

So you can see why it is easy to brush DLCer with a broad DINO brush.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:52:21 PM EST

Re: Wow (3.00 / 0)

Agreed. This is and alway has been the problem with the DLC--even before it was formally established. They don't really represent the Democratic Party. They represent elite interests that want to control the Democratic Party. And when they can't do that, they are perfectly fine with bashing--and, if needs be, destroying--the Democratic Party.

Now, that's certainly a bit harsh. And it doesn't describe everyone who's ever had anything to do with the DLC. But it does describe the motivating rationale, and a great deal of the out-front actions of the DLC leadership over the years.

And that's the problem with them. If they act like Democrats, then fine. I'll agree with Jerome. But that's a mighty big "if."

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democratic Wing (none / 0)

I agree wholeheartedly that winning elections is important. I think that Democrats have to realize that conservatives outnumber liberals and that Republicans nationally slightly outnumber Democrats. The party needs to win more hearts and minds. Bush's agendas (both stated and hidden) must be challenged and an alternative needs to be presented. If the party thinks it can only succeed by selling it's soul to special interests, they will continue to be the minority party.

by flatblade on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:10:01 PM EST

People who identify as "Conservatives" (none / 0)

May outnumber people who identify as "Liberals".

But when push somes to shove, the values-Integrity, Justice, Economic Equity-are not the agenda of the Freepublican party.

They are American values. The American public will respond to a candidate who is strong and shares those values.

That's our job as a Party. Find those folks, and unite behind them-because those folks are Democrats.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Democratic Wing (none / 0)

conservatives outnumber liberals and that Republicans nationally slightly outnumber Democrats.

Where is the proof?

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (3.00 / 3)

I'm essentially a DLC Democrat. I'm a fan of the free market (when properly regulated) and socially liberal. If you gave me two economic plans I'd probably pick Clinton/Gore over Kerry/Edwards.

But I'm a Democrat. Last year I pushed for Kerry, raised money for Kerry, and thought he'd make an excellent president. I'd say the same for Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and John Edwards. Hell, if we had slipped through a portal to another dimension and Kucinich was the nom, I would have not abandoned him (though a Dept. of Peace is kooky, even for a Dem :)

All that matters to me is that someone has a (D) behind their name. Give up the intraparty bombthrowing and realize that the GOP is the real enemy here.

Oliver Willis

by owillis on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:26:25 PM EST

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

With the possible exception of Zell Lieberman. Last time I checked he was still in the Fainthearted Faction, he voted for Gonzalez and is more interested in lecturing Democrats than in opposing Bush.

Maybe Lieberman needs to start listening to Jerome.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I'm sick and bloody tired of people bashing Joe Lieberman. Max Baucus and Ben Nelson are conservative Democrats. Joe is a moderate liberal populist. I would have worked my butt of to get a Democrat elected no matter how much I disagreed or agreed with their platform--except for ZELL MILLER.

There will not be any unity in this party if we continue to purge moderates in this party!

Oh, and those who say the DLC is for free trade and for anti-Social Security as is: Evan Bayh is leading the fight to raise tarriffs on items being imported in China and he says there is no crisis with social security. Oh yea, Evan Bayh is the DLC chair..

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Lieberman is a zionist Sharon pole-smoker. As far as I'm concerned, he has Israel's interests at heart more than America's.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I am a Zionist as well. All, if not many, Jews that support Israel.

Main Entry: Zi·on·ism
Pronunciation: 'zI-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel

I support a two state solution. However, it looks like just like his first term, Bush ain't doing jack for Eretz Yisrael.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I could care less about the Zionist sideshow. Maybe Evan Bayh should have a talk with Lieberman about taking as many shots at Bush as he does at Democrats. A good first step would be to get loud and proud about defending Social Security.

I dont' see any defense for Lieberman's silence about being in the Fainthearted Faction. If you want me to back off Lieberman, skip all the side shows and give me a direct answer to a simple question.

Where does Lieberman stand on Social Security?

That's not a sufficient step to get out of the dog house, but it is absolutely necessary.

Why should I care more about Sen. Lieberman than he does about my retirement? You better believe I take it personal. If Lieberman is such a moderate populist, explain his silence on Social Security.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:18:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

From The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

Stewart: Let me ask you a question. Are you, you actually seem to get along with the Republican party in a way that many of the Democrats aren't able to. What's the secret? Is it some shared sense of a bedrock community--that sort of thing--the values thing?
Lieberman: It's high tolerance for pain. No, seriously, look, I, uh--No forget it--obviously I disagree with the Republicans on lots of things but in the end we're all Americans and so when the fights are over, you go on. When you agree with them, you might as well work with them and try and get something done for the country. That's the way I feel about it and that's the way I get on with it.
Stewart: So what can you throw out to us know with the start of the second term? What's gonna happen? What do you think the Democrats are going to do? What's their agenda? We know alot about privatizing social security and invading everyone from Syria to Lichtenstein.
Lieberman: Yeah?
Stewart: What's the program for you guys?
Lieberman: First, where did you get the plan for invading Lichenstein? I thought that was being held classified. Social Security protection - don't fool around with it. It's probably the best thing the government has done in 100 years, getting senior citizens out of poverty -
Stewart: You're not just saying that 'cuz you're getting older?
Lieberman: (laughs) Yes that's one reason I'm saying it, but if we want to add some extra savings opportunities for baby boomers and those younger, let's fugure out another way to do it without messing around with Social Security so that's one thing I think Democrats are going to do.
Stewart: That's gonna be the stance.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Thanks Kentucky Dem. How long ago did Joe appear on The Daily Show? I'll be glad to lighten up on good ol' Joe. Pass this on to Josh Marshall.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Inauguration Day. Josh already posted about it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_23.php#004519
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_16.php#004502

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I missed that. I was just checking with the Fainthearted Faction list at the top of the page. It's down now, so Josh must be updating it.

Ben Nelson (NE) also ought to come off the list. He was on Lou Dobbs and said he would discuss Bush's plan as long as it didn't raise taxes or cut benefits. That put's privatization clean off the table. We still have to keep an eye on them, but I'm satisfied with Lieberman and Nelson's statements.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I think every Democrat is opposed to Bush's plan so without the 60 votes, the plan is dead on arrival.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get used to it Kentucky Dem (none / 0)

Bayh has left the Fainthearted Faction. What's Zell Lieberman's problem? Max Baucus and Ben Nelson have both made reasonably clear statements in opposition to privatization. I'm not cutting Lieberman any slack until he starts acting like a Democrat.

Lieberman voted to cofirm Ashcroft, Rice and Gonzalez. He still supports Bush on the Iraq war and his not spoken out against privatization. It looks to me like he may have the worst voting record in the Democratic party, and he's from Connecticut. He doesn't even have the excuse of being from a conservative red state.

It looks to me like Lieberman is as bad or worse than Zell Miller. The question is why you continue to defend Lieberman, not why we continue to criticize him.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get used to it Kentucky Dem (none / 0)

Again, don't call him Zell. I don't know a single Democrat in the Senate today that ACTIVELY campaigned for Bush.

Look at his voting record--aside from a few confirmation votes. Wasn't it Russ Feingold that says that the president should have the cabinet members he wants?

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 86% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)
Independent minded center out candidate, like Bill Clinton. (Nov 2003)
Very different than Republicans-a good Democrat. (Nov 2003)
True to the ideals of Bobby Kennedy, where he got started. (Nov 2003)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.issues2002.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm OK with Lieberman Kentucky Dem (none / 0)

I don't expect Lieberman bashing to go away and I'm still keeping an eye on him, but he made a move in the right direction and I'll cut him a little slack. I hope he can just STFU if he agrees with any Bush policies. Joe doesn't need to be a trailblazer for the Democratic party to drink Bush-lite. A little bit of discretion for Joe is in order.

Sorry about the profanity K Dem. I'm still purging.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I feel your pain. I'm sick and bloody tired of Joe Lieberman bashing Democrats.

Seriously, I wouldn't be in support of ideological purges either, but I think that's basically the point of Jerome's entry here. The litmus test is no longer positional. It's about discipline, and acting like a real opposition party. Lieberman can feel how he wants about the war. But he needs to stop going on CNN and talking about how Bush is doing a great job and he regrets that his colleagues on his side of the aisle just don't get that. If he doesn't play ball with the rest of the team, then he shouldn't even be sitting in the dugout. It's not like he doesn't routinely provoke the lambasting he receives.

by Woodhouse on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bashing Lieberman (none / 0)

I think the original post goes to the heart of Democratic discontent with Lieberman. It isn't his moderation but his lack of resolve in the face of Republican partisanship that will lead to his defeat in the 2006 primary. There are lots of moderate- and even conservative- Democrats who don't receive 1/2 of the derision of Joe.

It's simply because he volunteers to go onto Sunday news shows during election seasons and can't provide any reason why a viewer should vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

If he really has that much of a problem with our nominees perhaps he should keep his ass off of the Sunday shows! We're sick of his faint praise for other Democrats and his gushing for Bush.

He can take his Liberal ratings and shove em if he can't deign to support fellow progressives in a tight election.

by Preston on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Oliver,

The question is... when you say your "essentially a DLC Democrat" do you mean a moderate? Or do you mean you adhere to the policies and views of the DLC leadership From & Reed? These are two different things. If you are a moderate then I do not believe that we have any problems and will work side by side just fine (as evidenced by your further comments).

However, if you mean that you are a disciple of From and Reed then we may well have a problem because these guys go beyond promoting a moderate or centrist agenda to doing their best to marginalize the left portion of the party out of existence and certainly out of power and say within the party. That is where they cross the line. That is where the problem is. Centrist and moderate are not the problem. Selling out the party to corporate interests, maginalizing the left, and attempting to keep the people from having any say or power is where they are wrong, dead wrong.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

I thought From and Reed were idiots for kneecapping Dean, who I supported largely because his fiscal beliefs and foreign policy beliefs lined up with mine. I don't know what you mean by selling out the party to corporate interests, in the way you put it. I believe that the Democrats should find a way to balance between business and workers without being the do-boy of either lobby.

by owillis on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Well... I generally use stronger terms then "idiots" but I'll accept that as a usable description. :)

And yes, balance is the key.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Hope U Guys Listen To Jerome (none / 0)

Salazar has a (D) so does LIEberman what good have these so-called Democrats good for if they refuse to vote with Democrats.

These are guys are the ugly face of the DLC.

The DLC is not just pushing for free trade but they are now behind the scenes pushing anti-choice and anti-gay anti-labor anti-black anti latino sorry but no, there is nothing redeeming about these corporate thugs.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the real DLC (none / 0)

A Quiet Revolution In Business Lobbying
Chamber of Commerce Helps Bush Agenda

www.washingtonpost.com :

The chamber is at the forefront of a quiet revolution in business lobbying. Corporate groups now raise big money to advance broad issues, largely to help the Republican president enact his fiscal agenda.

...

"The Chamber of Commerce represents the people who have an overwhelming share of the resources to deploy," said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress. That kind of imbalance, he said, "can overwhelm the voices on the other side."

The chamber eagerly deploys every weapon in the lobbying arsenal and can be counted on by the president to get things done. It has demonstrated its success repeatedly in the past four years on issues as disparate as loosening ergonomics standards and creating health-savings accounts.

Its lobbyists blanket Capitol Hill. Its Web sites and telemarketers stir up voters back home. It donates generously to political campaigns coffers, and it bankrolls multimillion-dollar ad campaigns for the politicians and policies it supports.

Few organizations can muster that much firepower, except perhaps the most prominent groups the chamber will go head-to-head against this year -- the trial lawyers' lobby on legal reform issues and AARP on Social Security private accounts.

...

The chamber has hired the Swiss Guard of paid consultants from both political parties. Several showed up at a recent dinner hosted by Donohue at the chamber, including Al From, chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council; Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, who was White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration; and Scott W. Reed, who was Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign manager.>

Give me a break that these people are Democrats... they are *not even Republican Lite they are full fledge 100% bona fide Republicans.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the real DLC (none / 0)

How do you counteract corporate lobbying of congress? Boycotts linked to your legislation.

Join the revolution for progressive legislation.

http://www.boycott-republicans.com

by maximus7 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ya, but.. (none / 0)

What about Lieberman. Sure he has a "D" after his name. But his actions undermine the whole of the party. Case in point: his vote and more importantly speech on Gonzales.

Do we look the other way because he has a "D" after his name?

So did Zell.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ya, but.. (none / 0)

No, I don't Lieberman -- not for his DLCism, but for the fact that the guy is to the right culturally of even moderate Republicans.

by owillis on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is exactly what I'm talking about! (none / 0)

I don't know if anybody is still following this diary, BUT, Nancy Pelosi was on This Week. She told Stephanopolous that the job of the DNC chair was fundraising. I think the DLC long knives are still out and they will do everything they can to neuter the grass/netroots and silence Dean.

I hope Pelosi and the DLC are listening to Jerome.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Standing up for the things that matter...... (3.00 / 0)

We have to be the opposition again. We can not go along with the other party any more on things that matter.

This is from Howard Dean's book "You Have the Power."
Dean talks about the Democrats' loss of power in the 90s.
"The Democrats, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s didn't stick up for the people who were left behind by the Reagan revolution and the corporate restructuring that came at the end of the first Bush recession. Eschewing 'class warfare', they didn't stick their necks out for the millions of American whose wages and living standards were frozen or falling.

SNIP..."We became afraid of the Right, afraid of the anger, and instead of being steadfast, we pandered....The Democratic Party has paid a big price for that. Worse, our people have paid a big price for the collapse of our will to lead. We failed to articulate a vision for American that keyed into Americans' hope of ovecoming economic and social instability. ..."

...."By remaining silent about the things that mattered so much to Americans, we allowed ourselves to be painted into a corner and to be defined by the Republican opposition. .."

by concerned democrat on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:28:26 PM EST

False Choices (3.00 / 1)

Jerome is absolutely right. The national Democratic Party does not have the luxury of choosing between left and right, base vote and swing vote. We are a minority party that is running out of voters. Those who have the luxury of sitting in the intellectual cafes and salons in DC are the same ones who have not had to win an election as a candidate or work on one as an operative. Candidates and managers must look at the electorate and measure how many loyal, base Democrats could be turned out and add that to the potential swing voters that can be convinced to come on board.

Beyond the mechanics of left and right campaigning, the truth is that Democrats -- whether liberal, moderate, or conservative -- agree with each other on about 80% of our core values and about 80% of our key issues. Unfortunately, we have the tendency to create a circular firing squad and fight over the few things we disagree on.

ChangeTheParty

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley

by donnie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:33:59 PM EST

Re: False Choices (none / 0)

I'll work with the DLC if the DLC is willing to work with Dean. Are Pelosi and Reid going to be taking as many shots at Dean as O'Really and Hannity?

For now, I'm focusing on the real enemy, but I'm keeping my powder dry as far as the DLC goes. Is Feinstein going to give Boxer more public lectures? If I see some signs of good faith from Pelosi and Reid, I'll wash off the DLC war paint.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Choices (none / 0)

So what's your "litmus test" then? Jerome's saying that, so long as they're Demos, they're one of us. You're saying that you can't agree with Dems who don't agree with the particular Dems that you agree with.

We're in this together. Feinstein may not be liberal but she's a Democrat, and oftentimes a damn good one at that. Same thing with Lieberman -- look @ his voting record on vote-smart.org.

the lyceum

by mattgabe on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What we're saying is... (none / 0)

Difference of opinion are good. Keeps us sharp and stimulates debate. Circular firing squads drain our ranks and our ammo. Don't be self-indulgent and expect us to indulge you, too.

If you're going to be an intra-party asshole farting flames at your rivals, be prepared for blowback.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Choices (none / 0)

No we are NOT in this together.

Al From is now consulting with the NAtional Chambers of Commerce on how to implement Bush's dismantling of the SS. SO WE ARE NOT IN THIS TOGETHER.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Litmus test (none / 0)

See my post above. Feinstein has redeemed herself somewhat with her stand against Gonzalez. Where was Lieberman? Lieberman is the only Senator I am aware of that voted for Ashcroft, Rice and Gonzalez. Lieberman is one of the very few Senators still in the Fainthearted Faction.

I heard a statement from Ben Nelson, that in my opinion takes him out of the Fainthearted Faction. That leaves Carper, Landrieu and Lieberman. I think they all should lose their committee assignments as an initial sanction, unless they get loud and proud about defending Social Security.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Choices (none / 0)

While Reid may qualify as a DLC/NDN Democrat, Pelosi is not nor has ever been a moderate Democrat. Do you mean something different in describing her as a DLC'er?

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley

by donnie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Choices (3.00 / 1)

I think Pelosi and Reid are perceived as being four-square against Dean - which of course may be more hype ("Conflict in the Democratic Party - story at 11!") than reality. The coming months will show how they work together.

I think, though, that the connection to how Pelosi is being described and how the DLC is perceived is that both seem very interested in carrying (what appear to be) "personal grudges" out onto the public stage. We don't hear about probably 95% of the back-and-forth discussions that are behind endorsements and such things, and most of the time that's probably due to the fact that those discussions are private. I know that we're not just playing whack-a-mole amongst ourselves throught the NY Times.

The DNC seems to relish lobbing bombs into the middle of "liberal outposts," and in that space between the DLC and the New Republic is probably what I would say is the only real party "faction" in the ideological sense. Why did Chait write a vicious anti-Dean editorial just as it was becoming clear that he would get the votes to win the DNC race? I can't imagine who that helps.

Likewise, we've all heard about Reid and Pelosi's "acceptable alternatives to Dean," and of course there's the infamous "Pelosi Letter" on Israel from the primary days -- neither of which needed to be broadcast, excepting a desire to be antagonistic. I mean, if the House Democratic leader wanted to communicate displeasure with Dean, or with you, she could just call you up, right?

Let's just hope that next time we hear from them, we're all on the same page.

by matt w on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Choices (none / 0)

We do not have the luxury of kicking out Democrats who are too left or too right on selected issues. But, kicking out elected national Democrats who constantly help the other side is not a luxury -- it is a necessity. Vichy Joe Lieberman consistently gives cover to Republicans.

The Republicans are amazingly partisan. Democrats (professional ones, that is) must match this in intensity. A Republican Senator from Connecticut (unlikely, in any case) would do much less damage to Democrats than Vichy Joe does.

by EdSez on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:38:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bravo!! (none / 0)

I couldn't agree more. To quote a line out of "Blinded by the Right" attributed to Grover Norquist, the only question to ask is "do they get up each day wanting to hurt the other team?"

This is a partisan battle royale and we need folks who can play hardball and won't rollover like that president-hugging, "can't we all just get along" Sen. Joe Lieberman.

** Stop getting "skewed" by right wing radio - ProgressiveTalk.org

by stlseven on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:01:51 PM EST

Mondale Ran A DLC Campaign (3.00 / 1)

It needs to be pointed out that Mondale--though a traditional, labor-backed liberal--ran a DLC-style campaign. This is very well described in "Right Turn: the Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics" by Joel Rogers and Thomas Ferguson.

This was the beginning of the same syndrome we saw in this last election, where the people on the ground went and worked their hearts out for a progressive agenda, while the consultants crafted a "safe" centrist message that utterly failed to resonate with the candidates strengths, the party's heritage, or the unmet needs and desires of the electorate.

Then, after the fact, history was rewritten to say the election was lost on values because the candidate was "too liberal." If you believe that about the 2004 campaign, then by all means, pay no attention to me, and continue to beleive it about Mondale in 1984. But if that description of why Kerry lost rings false with you, then you ought to check out Right Turn. It's a very telling examination of the politics that gave rise to the DLC.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:13:24 PM EST

Re: Mondale Ran A DLC Campaign (none / 0)

I was very upset at how Gore and Kerry ran their campaigns. I was sure they had total losers running their campaign until a thought occured to me.

The reason Kerry couldn't attack Bush on tax cuts is because they are popular.

The reason Kerry can't attack Bush on gay marriage is because it isn't popular.

The reason Gore couldn't attack Bush on the enviorment is that it was unpopular at the time (think that has changed)

In short the reason both Gore and Kerry were such wimps trying not to offend the middle undecideds is because they NEEDED those votes. NEEDED them in a way that Bush didn't.

Mondale DID run a liberal campaign. He said he was going to raise taxes to pay for social programs rather than cut services. People knew he was the labor candidate its just that the labor policies were not popular.

What we need is a re-tooling of our beliefs. Helping the worker by making re-education by business a mandatory thing would help the worker and help the business. Its probably a more popular idea than just lets tax the business to pay for the union.

Or having workers rights to sell their time in more flexible ways. For example, employers don't like part time workers because employers pay a host of taxes and insurance for employees that make this a bad deal for them. If employers effectively paid an hourly tax and an hourly insurance fee then we would have the freedom to get jobs that paid 7/8 per week for 35 hours of work or 1/2 as much for 20 hours per week.

That is popular for working moms, middle class guys who want to golf more etc. It would also address unemployment...

It would also allow skilled workers to get a stable 20 or 30 hour job and then contract out there time in a very unstable market but at a higher rate of return (thus becoming a business in a sense themselves). Employers would fire their contractors in a down turn and the worker would only lose 50% of their income (because they still have their stable job with a different employer) so they would be able to keep their house etc if they planned well, thus much less misery for the worker in a recession.

The flexibility along with the education would make America compeditive and help growth etc.

Same pro-worker stance but from a completely different angle will be much more effective than same old same old.

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mondale Ran A DLC Campaign (none / 0)

No, Mondale said he was going to raise taxes to BALANCE THE BUDGET, not to pay for existing or expanded social programs.

Which was exactly Kerry's loser stance in the election just past.

by tgeraghty on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mondale Ran A DLC Campaign (none / 0)

Here's what happened when the Apollo Alliance tried to get Kerry to emphasize its plan as an economic issue:

We did a poll and found that more than 70 percent of voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania supported a $30 billion annual investment in energy efficiency and clean energy. Having never seen such high numbers supporting any government program, the pollster to the Steelworkers, an Apollo ally, stressed in a poll question he asked that the $30 billion annual investment would come from TAXPAYER money. A funny thing happened: support for Apollo went up. . . .

Kerry's economic advisers objected to our investment plan. "The country wants to see deficit reduction," they said. . . .

by tgeraghty on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mondale Ran A DLC Campaign (none / 0)

Once again, the people are smarter than the "elite."

Big brains are sexy. I like 'em.

Big brains with a deaf ear? Makes me think the big brains need a kickstart in their center of gravitass.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wondered what happened to that (none / 0)

I heard a couple of comments about a national energy independence program and I read about the Apollo Plan, I believe it was in Two Americas?

God, that is so DLC. I'm afraid I still don't understand how anybody got excited about Kerry. Hell, I saw a post before the election over at Q&A, a conservative/libertarian/warmonger site. Jon Henke thought Bush and Kerry were the worst two candidates in the history of our country. I really couldn't argue with that analysis.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What color is the sky in your world? (none / 0)

"What we need is a re-tooling of our beliefs. Helping the worker by making re-education by business a mandatory thing would help the worker and help the business. Its probably a more popular idea than just lets tax the business to pay for the union."

Present the case for re-education over unions. Seriously. I'm dying to hear this.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What color is the sky in your world? (none / 0)

Unions exist primarily to forcibly hold as equal (in the ideal) or at least more equal the jobs of Wall mart clerk and wallmart founder for example.

In practice there is a rather large difference. I could randomly pick 10 people and at least 8 of them could do the job of the clerk but you would be lucky if 1 of them could really do the job of founder or even regional supervisor. Nature or God is funny in that some people really do have more ability than others.

This isn't always obvious to the casual observer, in my job as a professional you could do 80-90% of my job as an engineer and on many days the 10-20% that you would do wrong doesn't occur. And when you made the wrong decision related to the area that you don't understand you wouldn't know it immediately, but trust me if you don't understand it ends up badly. For some people no amount of school fixes this, there really are tasks that only 10% of the population will ever be good at chess for example, just as I would never have made the NBA no matter how hard I practiced. By focusing on allowing everyone to reach as close to their real potential you get positve results for everyone.

The reality is that Capitalism has succeded because there is a link between being able to earn money and the abilty to wisely invest it to grow the economy. It is this perceived inability of the worker to invest wisely that is the real reason the rich as a class will not free the worker as a class.

Education would allow those who do have the ability but not the education to move into more lucrative work. Either by moving up the wallmart ladder or by leaving the company to a better one, or starting a better company themselves (thus growing the economy).

Paying clerks more is a fine idea until you realize that wallmart really can totally eliminate the job of clerk. Capital really doesn't need the bottom end of labor anymore. The automated checkout machines of today are nothing like the ones of the future.

Once RFID tags are common they will just put one in your credit card (like the mobil speed pass) and one in every item they sell, and you will just get what you want and they will charge you on the way out. Maybe they will have a mechanical mantrap to act as guard to make sure your credit cards are valid before they let you leave.

So in the future technology will enable the Wall mart founder/manager to elimniate the job of the clerk. You either accept that the clerk needs to be trained to apply for the manager job or you have an unemployeed clerk.

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What color is the sky in your world? (none / 0)

Not really. But thanks for playing.

Unions exist primarily to forcibly hold as equal (in the ideal) or at least more equal the jobs of Wall mart clerk and wallmart founder for example.
In practice there is a rather large difference. I could randomly pick 10 people and at least 8 of them could do the job of the clerk but you would be lucky if 1 of them could really do the job of founder or even regional supervisor. Nature or God is funny in that some people really do have more ability than others.

Keep aside the question of whether many managers aren't so removed from customer service they couldn't do the clerk's job anymore. The purpose of unions is to prevent businesses from treating people like commodities. Which is exactly what you're doing. Treating people like the components of an equation rather than stakeholders in a shared enterprise (which is what some businesses actually do without unions, but that unions force management to do.)

Let's take your Walmart example for starters. In addition to the suit they lost in the linked story (and why should anyone have to sue to be paid for the hours they work in an hourly wage job?), they've come under fire for shaving employee timecards:

According to the lawsuit, managers at the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores regularly deleted time from the payroll records of unsuspecting employees who forgot to punch in after returning from meal breaks or who forgot to punch out before leaving at the end of their shift. The "time-shaving" was not discovered until last year, the lawsuit said, after a New York Times article mentioned the practice.

Also, gender discrimination seems to be considered a management tool at Walmart.

In other words, Walmart's management has chosen an adversarial relationship with their workers rather than a cooperative one. The power in that hierarchical relationship clearly lies with the management side. The purpose of a union is to balance out that inequity. Think of it as giving management's better angels a choral assist. If goodness of heart had been sufficient, those abuses-both of workers and shareholders-would not occur with such alarming frequency.

So, below poverty level wages is only part of the concern. Worker safety is also a union charge. As is outsourcing things like, oh, engineering jobs.

Over the past three years, US companies have laid off "tens of thousands" of professional white-collar professionals and sent the work abroad, the union said.
The IFPTE delegates approved a resolution regarding this issue and said, "The IFPTE opposes outsourcing, privatisation and deregulation that costs North American workers their jobs and their communities."

Not to mention, that lefty value, responsible corporate governance.

Trade unions are campaigning for the implementation of an effective national and international framework of rules and standards to ensure good corporate governance and accountability and wider market integrity, along with regulatory systems to ensure effective implementation and enforcement. Depending on the national framework that governs corporations, approaches will differ. Continental European workers have a voice within the internal governance structure of corporations (works councils, board level employee representation). Others, such as in Anglo-American countries, the labour movement seeks influence over institutional investors, including pension funds, to act as responsible and long term shareholders of the companies they invest workers' retirement funds, or through traditional collective bargaining.

None of this is to gainsay the problems of corruption in some unions, nor to say that they should be given everything they bargain for. They need to be accountable for their finances and their management practices as well.

But that's not strictly a union issue, after all.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What color is the sky in your world? (none / 0)

The reality is that Capitalism has succeded because there is a link between being able to earn money and the abilty to wisely invest it to grow the economy. It is this perceived inability of the worker to invest wisely that is the real reason the rich as a class will not free the worker as a class

Speaking of re-education donkeykong, allow me to recommend One Market Under God. Scroll down and read the review, then buy the book.

Your "Ayn Rand, rugged individualism" theory of capitalism is in the same category as social darwinism economic theory. Henry Ford, one of the greatest capitalists of all time, paid his employees enough money so they could afford to buy the cars the produced.

Behind the cherished invisible hand of free market utopianism, is a thinly disguised crony capitalism. Think Enron, Global Crossing, the Savings and Loan bailout, the Chrysler Bailout and Long Term Capitol Management. Think golden parachutes, stock options and do a google search on wall street&lawsuit. Do you really think it was the invisible hand that decided to pay Dick Grasso $185 million?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What color is the sky in your world? (none / 0)

It may be a suprise to you that this "invisible hand capatilism" that you ascribe to me and then try and discredit is something I have never heard of.

There is a link between ability and income. If you give everyone the support they need to reach the best ability that they can then thats the most efficient thing you can do.

You car mention is relevant as the Japanese are replacing the line worker in their car factories with Robots.

Unions are a flawed tactic from a valid strategy.

by donkeykong on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just Out of Curiosity.... (none / 0)

Where do you get your data?

I know you pull it out of your ass.

I just want to know.
(a) Large intestine?
(b) Or small?

Fish, Barrel, Gun

The reason Gore couldn't attack Bush on the enviorment is that it was unpopular at the time (think that has changed)

"With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent." Options rotated

Envi- Economic Equal No
ronment Growth Priority Opinion

3/04 49 44 4 3
3/03 47 42 7 4
3/02 54 36 5 5
3/01 57 33 6 4
4/00 67 28 2 3

Source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Out of Curiosity.... (none / 0)

Gore would have won easily in 2000 if that poll were true.

There is a lot of denial regarding where the people really are. We seem to have these little polls that are focused to give the answer we want to hear but we are not really listening...

A more valid poll is would you forgo your raise for the enviornment if everyone else did it too...

by donkeykong on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Out of Curiosity.... (none / 0)

How is your opinion of "where the people really are" more accurate than a poll?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:17:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Out of Curiosity.... (none / 0)

Where were the unions on ANWAR?

http://www.yale.edu/forestry/downloads/yale_enviro_poll.pdf

Page 9 shows same question you posed but 54% in favor of economic growth.

It seems to be a pretty ballanced write up.
Details how many Americans believe in the enviornment in the abstract but don't want to pay anything to protect it.

by donkeykong on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Out of Curiosity.... (none / 0)

I'd like to see that with crosstabs for region and age cohorts, but i'm guessing that it's easy to say "Yes, I support the enivronment;" and also vote for Bush based on those crosstabs.

"into your illusion, i make my intrusion"

by fng on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So how are you different than the (none / 0)

Republicans in terms of what you stand for? I ask this question with the assumption that Bush is an abberation for their party in that he doesn't represent prior idealogical paradigms of the right. This is great talk- and I agree about the need for organizational reforms that I believe is the primary offense by the DLCers, but how does this translate into actually redefining the Democratic brand, what is the brand, who are we?

by bruh21 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:15:38 PM EST

I disagree. (none / 0)

It IS about ideology.

We as a party have to form a large (55% or so) coalition that all agree on a set of beliefs and actions that support those beliefs.

To do this the left needs to face the facts that to get 55% of the voting public you will have to move to the center.

Having an Anybody but Bush party doesn't work long term. Sure we might win in 2006 but we won't be able to work together. There are elements of the left wing who want to MOVE LEFT for pete sake.

The republicans of the 80s was the anti-dem party it didn't really work for them. The republicans of the 2000s have an agenda that gets to 55% (newts partnership with America etc). They were willing to change their racial policies to get the votes. Don't you think there are some extream right kkk types pissed about that? They retooled their lets kill everyone and make them capitalists into lets kill everyone and make them democratic.

If the republican's are winning by stealing popular issues that used to be Democrat party policies then we either need to re-exert ownership of those issues in a very popular and credible way, or we need to grab their popular issues.

Clinton did a credible job taking the issue of fiscal responsibility and mature foreign policy decisions for us.

But we need that kind of thinking from EVERY candidate.

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:19:42 PM EST

Looks around at Freepublican ascendancy... (none / 0)

"The republicans of the 80s was the anti-dem party it didn't really work for them. "

You think not? How so?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Stopped Clock (none / 0)

Is right two times a day.

It's something to shoot for.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly so... (none / 0)

I have no problem with moderates or centrists or businessmen that are democrats.

I do have a problem with the DLC. But that problem has nothing to do with their ideology and everything to do with their efforts to marginalize my portion of the democratic party out of the party. If they can be convinced to wake up and cut that crap out then I won't consider them the enemy. If they continue (as they appear to be continuing) their efforts to not only fight an intra-party fight with those of us on the left side of the party but to also force us out of the party or into such a marginalized position that we have no political power or say in the party then we still have a fight on our hands I will do everything in my power to crush them on our way to defeating the regressive party.

So which is it DLC?

Are you willing to be a part of the Democratic Party and accept the other members of the Democratic Party as full and equal partners in the party or are you a divisive and destructive force within the party and therefore deserving of being marginalized yourselves out of any shred of say or power in the party?

Which is it?

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:24:54 PM EST

Re: Exactly so... (none / 0)

I think if you look at the strength and weakness of each element of the party you can set up a working relationship whereby each person does what they are good at.

Liberals are very good at identifying potential problems. Enviornment, Racial equality, Sexual equality, Homo-hetro equality, economic equality, worldwide power equality. They are the heart of the party in that sense, they feel your pain.

Liberals are very bad at charting the course that fixes those problems.

For example, being anti-business or anti-rich or anti-corperate doesn't help the worker. The rich corperate business types are EXACTLY who can fix the problem. Demonize them and they will not be open to helping. Instead explain the issue, listen to their concerns, there is almost always a way to build a solution that meets their needs AND meets the workers needs. Believe it or not almost all business types would forgo 10% of their personal income if they truely believed that it would help their workers in a meaningful way.

Another example, being anti-man does not help most women. Most women are not going to make a choice to remove men from their lives. Instead you listen to what women want and what men want and you find a way for both to get more. The feminist movement didn't win by bashing men. It won ultimately because men love women and when women made a clear statement that they would not be happy unless they were taken seriously the majority of men responded.

I value the liberals in the democratic party. I value the greens. But I value them for identifying the problems not for their abilities to fix the problems.

To fix things you need pragmatic people who are able to compromise and see the other guys point too.

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Extremists (none / 0)

Are the problem. Many liberals are just as pragmatic as you claim.

Demonizing one part of the party-whether it's businesspeople, identity political groupings, or liberal/conservatives is ammo for the circular firing squad.

CFS are a luxury of those in power not a way to achieve power.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly so... (none / 0)

I agree with the idear of putting the right people in the right places to take maximum advantage of the skills and experiences that they bring to the table.

I wholly reject the notion that any broad grouping such as "liberals" are all good or all bad at something. It is preposterous.

I am a liberal.

I am also very pragmatic and capable of compromise and evaluating multiple points of view when I chose. I am also capable of digging in my heels and saying "I'm right and that's that." As well as respecting the profit motive and having a keen grasp of military strategy/necessity despite not holding "getting rich" as one of the highlights of life and having been raised by an episcopal priest and a quaker organist/choir director and believing their are few times where war or violence is necessary or called for and that those times always mean that you failed at analysing and solving a problem properly.

So I reject the idear that liberals are good at this and bad at that. Waaaay too simplistic.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are things we must not abandon. (none / 0)

It is good to talk peace for all Democrats. We have done that for a long time, though. We talked peace and said ok when they passed a bill to privatize schools under a misleading name...NCLB.

We said ok when the outrageous tax cuts took place for corporations, and we have not pointed out that they shifted them to the middle class.

We went along when they voted for the Iraq invasion. And I am afraid enough will go along to destroy the program of Social Security...they have already damaged Medicare, perhaps irreparably.

If someone wants to be called Democrat, they need to stand for certain things that Democrats have always been about.

If they don't, there won't be any more of the peace and saying ok from many of us.

by concerned democrat on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:19:45 PM EST

Yes (none / 0)

Absolutely.

by raginillinoian on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:00:08 PM EST

If you want to counteract corporate lobbying (none / 0)

How do you counteract corporate lobbying of congress? Boycotts linked to your legislation.

Join the revolution for progressive legislation.

http://www.boycott-republicans.com

by maximus7 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:18:08 PM EST

What about us? (none / 0)

Independents are a minority "party" too.

I have to disagree with this statement:

--"This is why the establishment in DC failed in their struggle to stop Howard Dean-- they don't understand how the terrain of the party has shifted, and are still thinking like Democrats are a governing party that must put forward an ideology."--

Dean was unstoppable because a Kerry loss predictably led to the the blame-shift that follows every election's losing bid. Happens every time and was predicted by many, many op-eds. If Kerry had won, as he should have with 57 mil votes, the opposite would have happened and Dean would have been spurned and never saw the light of day. Ultimately, it's meaningless.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:34:59 PM EST

Dean wouldn't have been spurned.. (none / 0)

Even if Kerry had won, the fact that the Democratic Party is weak on the ground would still have been an issue. Kerry would have faced at best a reluctant Congress and no branch of the Federal Government besides his under his party's control. In short, the Clinton situation after 1994-only a bit more virulent. To govern effectively and with some peace, he would have needed a strong Party or a divided Republican Party.

And the issue that apparently has won the day for Dean-greater local control-would still be on the table, even more so. And I also have read rumors that Dean was Kerry's choice for DNC chair if he had won anyway.

BTW, ideology is important. Tactics are nice, but they are grounded in a series of principles that we are willing to fight for and implement.

by CarolDuhart on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:41:21 AM EST

DLC (none / 0)

Jomemtum needs to be targeted for defeat. Being a Dem isn't worth a damn if they comport with the enemy. Newt and crew hunted Clinton, obstructed everything and took over the House. This is the time to put everything on the back burner and to come together on one cause - getting rid of the rightwing nuts and jesus freaks. Gov. Dean is the man to do it. The DLC should thank their lucky stars Dean WANTS to work within this wimpy party. Dean goes, we go. No Dean, no money, no vote. Without us, they can even compete harder for the 13 undecided voters in this country. Motivate the base - evangelicals and conservative catholics put Bush over the top. Dean is no dummy. He is reading Newts playbook, and he will take our country back. We have the power, and we need to use it. WRITE, WRITE, AND WRITE AGAIN. Oppose Bush and his zealots, oppose the media that parrots their propaganda, support Air America and other opposition voices. Contribute as much as you can to DFA. When you get solicited by others, tell them you are a DFA supporter and to contact Gov. Dean for support.

by dkmich on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:19:15 AM EST

Let's get on with LIFE (none / 0)

I cannot wait until next week at this moment. Governor Dean will be named our new party chair and we will hopefully be able to put intraparty differences behind us and focus on reshaping our party. This is what we need to focus on. We are simply wasting time and energy by arguing over whether the DLC is a true Dem party organization or not. I like the DLC, but I don't buy into the notion that there is not enough room in the party for those with different ideas. My, that's why our party is so great. We accept all.

Anyways, in closing, I read in the newspaper today, that Senator Bayh seems to be laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2008. While he is a proud member of the DLC, he will have no problem countering the Republican Noise Machine as has been our problem recently.

by southern IN DEM on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:08:34 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.