How any ordinary Democrat can not already know that the DLC is a cancer on the Democractic Party and its principles is beyond me.

But keep spreading the word. Everyone's bound to get it eventually.

DLC Update: Landrieu and Nelson (NE) have joined Pryor, Carper, and Salazar against the Democratic Party in support of the loser of CT's Democratic primary.

At least this is forcing the most faux-Democrats to shed their masks and expose themselves as the de facto Republicans they've always been.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it is Emanuel rather than Emmanuel.

Okay, so let's accept that you are right about this book, which, by the way, I don't plan to read because most books by politicians are ghost-written bs. The question then becomes what do we do about it? I don't think that either Senator Reed or Representative Emmanuel are going to now publish a book that renounces this one. I don't live in either their state or congressional district. What do you want me to do, be outraged?

I don't have the time to be outraged. Why? Because I help my wife put out a Democratic newspaper, a Democratic newsletter, and a Democratic blog. All of this I personally find more fulfilling than being outraged at things that I can't control.

Which brings me to another point. Many of the postings on this site, and others, are rantings and ravings of people who are justifiably pissed off at Republicans and turncoat Dems. Being pissed off, however, is not enough. Just ranting and raving is not enough. Being mad is not enough.

It's not enough because ultimately in a democratic society you have to translate being pissed off into political action. Political action means not just talking to those who agree with you, but talking and persauding those who don't necessarily agree with you.

Here's what I would recommend. Start a list of email addresses of people who are willing to devote eight hours to campaign work this fall. This list would be people who are not right now working for a candidate. Appoint state chairs for each state that these people can report to and have that state chair then interact with campaigns to make sure volunteers link up with campaigns. That would be a very productive use of people's time and emotion.

Being pissed off, however, is not enough. Just ranting and raving is not enough. Being mad is not enough.

That's right.....but people being pissed off and "ranting and raving" (as you so Republicanly put it) is what got Lieberscum whipped in his primary.

In the case of the DLC, repeatedly pointing what a bunch of anti-Democrats they are will erode their support from among the RealDems they've been duping for the past couple of decades.

When the DLC and its members lose the respect and support of ordinary Democrats, the members will begin to abandon it. And when that happens the corporate bribes which fund the DLC will dry up and the Democratic Party will be a giant step closer to becoming democratic in deed as well as name.

One day, I'd like a party run by politicians who don't think cynicism is valuable in the electorate.

who needs Republicans. After all, if they guy who's heading up the organization that is recruiting candidates to run for Democratic office thinks his own party has lost its way and doesn't stand for anything anymore and is a bunch of whiners, that speaks volumes.

Time for the "five year plan" of retaking the party.

I've been (still am) a huge Lamont supporter through act blue and still do not see a clear path for us. Is it possible that Joe and his back channel supporters are trying to triangulate against us and re-enforcing the Democratic meme to ensure a status quo of incumbency? Goddamit I'm f*cking one pissed off "radical moderate" that is trying but losing patience with my party's power structure.

that Reed and Emanuel probably think that those are their own ideas, rather than the effects of being saturated in a bunch of phony political marketing for years.  

Either that or it's in the water.
.

This is from an article today, where Obama continues his disturbing trend of beating up "straw Democrats"

"Obama also criticized Democrats who are always opposed to war, even when force is necessary. In cases like World War II and, more recently, removing the Taliban government of Afghanistan, war can be the only option."

Nothing like tarnishing the movement for your own gain. Senate Mentor Joe Lieberman must be smiling.

Emanuel and Reed:  The world's best paid concern trolls.

The only thing surprising here is you're surprised. Emmanuel, like Hillary Clinton, is an Anti-Thesis politician.

This means they lean against the Nixon-Reagan-Bush Thesis of how the world works. When that wall falls (and it's falling) they fall, too.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/08/t he_need_for_a_.html

What sites like this should be on about is creating a new Thesis. That is, a new story of how things got this way, the values it will take to make things right, and the power needed to set the course.

Best of all, IMO, you're soaking in it. The values and myths of this medium, the Internet, are unconsciously guiding you. Openness, transparency, connectivity, science -- these are touchstones to everything I read about here and elsewhere.

All we need do is embrace it.

I agree almost entirely with the criticisms that Chris and others have made against Democratic triangulators, and if the comment citing Obama above (12:54) is accurate, then that's exactly the sort of framing that hurts Democratic causes.  (What gives with him, anyway?)

But I do want to suggest one wrinkle in the rhetoric of political discussion that needs pointing out, and more attention than I've seen to date.  What Reed and Emanuel are doing in the prologue to their book is perhaps wrong-headed, but there's some value to a technique of this sort, when done carefully and with Chris' worries in mind.  That technique is called "mirroring," and it's essential for establishing credibility and rapport with one's intended audience, at least if that audience is made up of people not already committed, in their own minds, to voting for Democrats.  What Reed and Emanuel think they're doing, I'll wager, is trying to win over an audience of independents, moderates, and disaffected democrats who have already bought into the position that Chris suggests is the take-away message from this book.  That is, Reed and Emanuel think they are speaking to the uncommitted but persuadeable middle, and trying to do so in a language that they understand, and more or less accept.

If one is trying to convince an apostate Democrat to come back to the fold, which will work better:  suggesting that the apostate is wrong, and that the Deomcrats are and have always been right about what the country needs?  Or suggesting that the apostate has a legitimate beef, that said beef has been heard, and that the Democrats are attempting to do better by the apostate's lights?  I suspect that the mirroring technique used by Reed and Emanuel is meant to reach such uncommitted people where they live, and to establish the authors' bona fides with them, so to speak.  And (if Reed and Emanuel are skillful), they will then go on to try to move such voters into seeing that in fact they have genuine affinity with the central tenets of the Democratic party.  That is, the apostate was wrong, and the Democratic party was in essence right all along.  But in a rhetorically palatable way.

At least, this is where the argument ought to go.  That is to say, it's less important where a book starts rhertorically, than where it finishes, especially if its goal is to reach out to those who are already dubious about the merits of Democrats.  

So I have great respect for the criticism made against DLC-sorts of Democrats for framing issues in ways that benefit republicans.  But I have heard much less about how to speak the right sorts of "codes" to the moderates and independents that show how they too can identify with core Democratic values, without simply implying (or worse) that they are stupid and/or unprincipled.   From Chris's description of the Reed/Emanuel book, I don't suggest that they are succeeding in pulling off a tricky maneuver.  But it is a tricky rhetorical game, and so one must make allowances for attempts to reach the middle where it lives.  What's key is that, at the end of the day, Democrats enunciate clearly what they do in fact believe in, and show why it's right.  The "meta" has to stop sooner, rather than later, and the important persuasive claims on behalf of Democrats need to be prominent, unmistakeable, and well defended.

So sez me.

Ump

Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel can just go and live in the 1990's forever

And thus we have the present Democratic party comprised of people who think it's either the 30s, 60s, or 90s, phew, not much hope for the future. But I'll say this, at least the 30s and 60s were much more than whores and shysters.

NT

I have read "A National Party No More", I have read "winning the future" by newt gingrich, and also "the right nation" by I forget who, but they can write. I have read - with Great Enjoyment - Kevin Philips "Theocracy" and his book on the Bush Dynasty. I have read "Crashing the Gates"  By Armstrong.  And I have read "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore - which, though not political is inherently relevant to the politics of economy as we enter a new era of consequence.

All of these books are political , all are taken with a grain of salt.

If you want a bible, read "50 ways to love your country" by moveon.org. It is the only book out there that simply tells you what to do.

Ideally , however, you can read Chris Bonington's "Quest for Adventure". It looks like a Coffee Table book , but its a fantastic read.

America is essentially apolitical. Nobody needs to underscore the fact that partisanship exists, or needs to be dictated to the masses.

The Democrats haven't yet stepped up to the plate in my book - they inhabit a corrupt infrastructure that in my mind, they seem to wish to inherit - and will be summarily blocked by the republicans. A deadlocked, do nothing congress allows election of do nothing , corrupt congressmen.  Surely if control of the house passes to the democrats, we will not have passed that torch because of the new and viable alternatives proposed. Healthcare is horribly broken, there are nothing but platitudes on either side.

I guess I sort of see things like Michael Moore in some sense. I really am tired of dog and pony shows. Partisanship just allows everyone to get away with murder.  

Read books that challenge you.

I don't care what's in the book, I'm just tired of seeing you guys beat each other up.

Here is the email I sent to ol Rahmie boy, enjoy--

Congratulations on your new book. I am always impressed by Democrats who can spend so much time reinforcing the Republican/Rove narrative about the Democratic Party. It makes it especially impressive that you also have time to work towards electing Democrats to Congress as the Chair of the DCCC.

One has to marvel at your ability to at once be in charge of retaking the House for the Democratic Party, while at the same time openly bashing the Party. It's a wonder that this much contortionism has not resulted in paralysis.

What I really found amazing was your complete lack of historical perspective when you write that, "both parties have lost their way... Americans scratch their heads in wonder that Republicans and Democrats can't find common purpose." Perhaps that lack of common purpose results from an increasingly partisan and undemocratic GOP leadership? I am amazed that someone who claims to be as astute as yourself fails to grasp just what has happened in DC over the past five years. The GOP has locked Democrats out of the entire legislative process, and has pushed the country's political dialog so far to the Right that Nixon would be viewed as part of the Crazy Left.

But, of course, the GOP could not do this all on its own. It had, and continues to have, many willing accomplices such as yourself, Senator Lieberman, Al From et al. so, congratulations on triangulating your way to a permanent Republican majority. I am quite sure Lee Atwater would be proud.

The Good News is -- this book was written before Ned Lamont crushed the DLC dream boat, Joey 'short ride' Lieberman. Since then, Rahm has taken Hillary's cue, and gotten the Progressive Netroots religion.

The Bad News is, that 3 months ago -- any Democrat, DLC or otherwise, could think that any of this bullshit was part of a winning formula.

Would be a recommendation on what book to read instead, to compare and contrast the concern trolls with, well, concerned activists.  Some of the comments have suggested good reads, and that's great.

I'm an ex-Democrat. I have to say my jaw dropped to the floor at seeing the huge extent to which you've projected your own ideas about what Republicans think onto fellow Democrats who've said nothing of the sort.

"Don't read this book. Stay as far away form it as you can. It may very well succeed in wiping out any and all progress we have tried to make on anti-Democratic media narratives for the past couple years."

Message I'm getting: You must not expose yourself in the slightest way to ideas that deviate in the smallest amount from our narrative. We're terrified that even the tiniest bit of doubt will destroy everything.

Sounds like Great (not Smashing) Pumpkinism. Or a very close-minded religion.