Guerrilla Vlogger: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards in Manchester, NH with oreos

"LABOR UNIONS are more than just 'the folks who brought you the weekend,' as the bumper stickers say. A union contract may be the best bulwark against the widening income gap afflicting America even as worker productivity climbs."

-- Boston Globe Editorial September 4, 2006

On Monday I was able to attend the annual NH AFL-CIO Labor Day breakfast held at the Chateau Restaurant in Manchester, NH. It was quite a large turn out, I'd say 500 and maybe more. Most of the people that I talked to were happy to be there to see Edwards, represent their crew and have a great time. And most of them were concerned about the possible Verizon sale that could affect thousands of jobs in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

The story that I heard over and over is that unions are getting weaker because their numbers continue to decline. NH-erites that I spoke to on Monday were fairly upbeat and positive about their local union, but union participation among American workers has steadily declined in the past 30 years. So why fewer unions and union members? Well may you ask...

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Tula Connell asked an important question in her excellent Labor Day diary.

If Unions are so great then why don't more people join them?

Today this is what employers do when you try to start a union:

  • 92% of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda.
  • 80% require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions.
  • 78% require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.
  • 75% hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.
  • 50% of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union.
  • In 25% of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union.
  • In 33% of successful campaigns to form a union, employers never negotiate a contract.
Source: AFL-CIO through Tula Connell's diary

...And among other things we got this Monday from David Sirota:

On America Working, The war on workers
September 4, 2006

The flip side is obvious: The more corporations and politicians crush unions, the more all workers suffer. It is no coincidence that as union membership and power has declined under withering anti-union attacks, workers have seen their wages stagnate, pensions slashed, and share of national income hit a 60-year low. As Council on Foreign Relations scholars put it, the decline in unions "is correlated with the early and sharp widening of the U.S. wage gap."

Big Business claims union membership has declined because workers do not want to join unions -- a claim debunked by public-opinion data. In 2002, Harvard University and University of Wisconsin researchers found at least 42 million workers want to be organized into a bargaining unit -- more than double the 16 million unionized workers in America. A 2005 nationwide survey by respected pollster Peter Hart found 53 percent of nonunion workers -- that's more than 50 million people -- want to join a union, if given the choice.

More workers don't join a Union in America because they aren't allowed to join one or even have a discussion about it with their co-workers without inviting extreme intimidation at work. Then in a third of the cases the company just blows off the union anyway.

Back to the show, this is New Hampshire and John Edwards after all.

Here are a few buzz clips if you don't have time to watch the full remarks:
Buzz Clip - 01 (2:06)"We have a responsibility to humanity."
Buzz Clip - 02 (1:38)"I love the Democratic Party, but I love my country more."
Buzz Clip - 03 (1:36) Gilding the Lily on unions

Here are the full remarks.

Video: Edwards Remarks - Part 1 (8:19)
Video: Edwards Remarks - Part 2 (7:01)

The first part of Edwards's remarks generally deals with foreign policy these days. Ever since the UK terror plot last month, Edwards has been starting to hammer home a vitally important theme in his message.

America can demonstrate to the world that we are interested in more than just expanding our use of military power by exercising our moral leadership in the world on some of the huge issues facing the planet today.

This is the first step in reclaiming our status as a just and respected nation in the world and there are so many opportunities to lead on important issues. Opportunities that we ignore to our detriment.

Issues like:

  • Sudan - A genocide going on right in front of us and after Rwanda.
  • AIDS - For the lack of a four dollar dose a medicine a new generation of babies are born in Africa everyday with AIDS. Four dollars.
  • World Hunger - For three billion a year we could feed all the starving children in the world. That works out to 12 days in Iraq. To hell with it - you could even have Halliburton feed them with Kellog Brown and Root concessions, just feed them.
  • Human Rights Abuses - After Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib we have little credibility internationally as a defender of basic human freedoms. These freedoms are at the core of who we are as a people and we have publicly abandoned them.
How many other causes can you name that America should be leading the fight on? Twenty? Where is America?
"We are dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything."

On Iraq:

  • "I was wrong on IWR... the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth and I have to admit my mistake."
  • We have a responsibility to the troops now serving to have an honest national dialog about Iraq and change course. "You know - this is not rocket science. What we're doing now is not working."
  • Things continue to deteriorate in Iraq despite upbeat pronouncements from the administration:
    • 6,000 Dead in May and June
    • Attacks doubled July over January
    • More roadside bombs planted in July than at any time since we've been in Iraq
  • "We have to show that we won't be there forever. The best way to show that we're leaving is to actually start leaving." Big applause line.
    • 40-50K troop withdrawal now
    • 12-18 month phased withdrawal of remaining troops
Pretty simple folks...

Video: Buzz Clip (2:06)

The truth of the matter is that there is a lot of danger and a lot of threats in the world. There's no question about that. The problem is this: what the United States of America is doing over the last five or six years is that we react ... there is absolutely no long-term vision about what kind of world we want to live in and what kind of world America should be leading in.

And I'll tell you something else. We have two responsibilities. One is to make sure that we act in the interests of the United States of America. We need to be strong economically and we need to be strong militarily, but we are now the pre-eminent power in the world.

But we have a second responsibility; we have a responsibility to humanity. If we don't do it then no one will. And when we don't lead which is what we've seen over the last five or six years - there's a huge vacuum.

So by taking some of these responsibilities head on we can repair our image abroad while we renew our long standing and I think universally accepted commitment to combating hunger, disease and regimes oppressive to human rights all over the world.

On the Democratic Party:

Video: Buzz Clip (1:38)

Now I know that most of this room is filled with Democrats. I love the Democratic Party, but I want to say to every one of you that I love America more. And I want us all to understand... when we're working in these really important elections, I want us all to understand what's at stake because we get all wrapped up in these elections with getting people to the polls and...

That's all important, but there are only two political parties in America and for the last six years we've seen what one of them will do to us and the world. We've seen the incredible chaos and damage that can occur when they are leading. This is not just about politics, this is about the kind of America we want to live in and the kind of world that we want to live in.

On Energy:

We need to ask each other to be Patriotic about something more than war. We cannot continue to drive vehicles that get 10 miles to the gallon and think we can solve the problem. It'll never happen. We need to be honest and tell people the truth about where we're at.

Video: Edwards Remarks - Part 3 (7:42)

This clip starts with the poverty piece of the speech.

This is in my mind the greatest moral issue that faces here at home today. And it's not all that complicated. It's just wrong that we have so many millions of our people who are worried about being able to survive until tomorrow.

I've been traveling around a lot and there's one thing that I am completely sure of and that this. There is a huge hunger in America, a hunger to be inspired again. People are looking for something big and important, something they can be proud of. Something that makes them proud to be Americans and proud of what we're doing together. And people want a sense of national community.

Ending poverty in this country can be one important way to accomplish many of these goals because Edwards doesn't talk about alleviating poverty anymore. He doesn't talk about addressing poverty anymore.

Edwards talks about ending poverty in America. Ending Poverty in America.

He starts in here with his program proposals on the domestic agenda that we need to implement to achieve our goals. He always talks about unions in this part of his speech, but Monday he took an extra minute and gilded the lily for this crowd. Here's what he said:

Video: Buzz Clip (1:36)

When politicians or people running for public office come in front of you, in front of you - I'm talking about union members here today, come in front of you to talk about union issues I want you to ask them whether they're talking about it in front of other crowds. Hold them accountable. Hold them responsible. Don't let them come and preach the gospel to you and then when they walk out of the room and forget everything they just said. They ought to be talking about this in front of every audience they speak to even if there's not a single union member there.

But you need to hold these people accountable, hold them responsible. But make sure they aren't just talking to you about this because they ought to be out there across America talking about unions. If they're running for office here then they ought to be out talking about it all across NH.

I'll go you one better, Senator. How about we all demand that politicians take the issue on? How about we all express real solidarity with our fellow citizens struggling to get or keep union representation all over the country? How about if we all hold them responsible and hold them accountable on this issue whether it affects us directly or not? Personally I've never been eligible to join a union, but I'm going to find out whether or not every politician I vote for in the future is a friend to organized labor or not before I cast my ballot.

Video: Edwards Remarks - Part 4 (6:34)

This clip starts out with one of my favorite Edwards riffs. He doesn't do his full remarks every time he speaks. Sometimes he'll go 15 minutes and other times, "when the sun is setting he'll speak long" or something like that and end at around 25 minutes. Since he's always adding new material some of my favorite stuff gets sidelined for the quicker stumps. Labor Day he "spoke long" and added one of my favorite bits.

It's the one entitled:
"Why I have sleepless nights worried whether Exxon is making enough money," by John Edwards.

The sub-title for the riff is:
"The budget is an moral document and the Bush budget is immoral."

It's a good one. Enjoy it.

Manchester Grassroots (6:15)

The Democratic primary is coming up in New Hampshire on Tuesday September 12, that's next week. If you're registered D or Independent then you can vote with a Democratic ballot.

Two candidates that are running for the same district, US Congress NH-1, were at the breakfast on Monday. They are Carol Shea-Porter and Jim Craig. The winner in Tuesday's contest will take on incumbent Jeb Bradley.

I did an interview with Carol, she says that she's running a National Election in her district.

Here's what she thinks are some important issues:

  • Iraq - Get us out now
  • Budget Deficit - Control spending and address the budget
  • A Moral Budget - Give us a plan to make sure that we don't have a "permanent under class" in this country
  • Diplomacy - Try some

Here's what Carol had to say:

You don't build friendships with people by dropping bombs on them. You build friendships with people by feeding them when they're hunger and helping them. So I think that Edwards is exactly right about how we could get our good name back internationally and at the same time take care of people in our own country.

Jim Craig also has some excellent stuff at his website:

A great kos diary on Jim Craig can be found here: Working to turn NH Blue by dopper0189. It's written by a Craig volunteer about the time of the Lamont win.

Carol's supporters also spoke with me on camera. They were a very fired-up and inspirational group of good progressives. Here's some of what they said to me:

  • Portsmouth Herald has endorsed their candidate in the race
  • We'll win with less than 30K total spent
  • "You can't attract grassroots, the grassroots find their candidates."
  • "Substance over hype, that's Carol."
  • "No paid employees, just us. We are the campaign - our offices are the street corners."

You can also check out Fr. Michael Kerper of Chorpus Christi Parish in Portsmouth, N.H. He's one of only two Catholic priests in America that is also a card carrying member of a union.

AFL-CIO Rally - Manchester, N.H. (8:09)

The rally before the breakfast. Meet Bob, a fellow guerrilla.

Edwards at NH AFL-CIO - Crowd (10:00)

The crowd and a couple interviews with local unions: IBEW 2320's President and SEIU 560's table at the event. Feel better Earl. Looks like Glenn Brackett and IBEW 2320 have coined the phrase "Stop the Sale" as concerns the Verizon deal.

But I promised you Oreos, didn't I?

Well I saw someone named Aaron from do the Ben Cohen budget Oreo thing as street theater. He has a big rig with 50+ giant oreos and he performs the animation that you can see here: TrueMajority Oreos live in front of an audience. I saw the animation for the first time this spring, it's awesome check it out at TrueMajority if you haven't seen it.

Here it is performed live on the street by Aaron:
Cookies and Priorities - Part 1 (8:04)
Cookies and Priorities - Part 2 (3:28)

And these puppies are available to host through priorities NH. Stop by the website, you can e-mail Melissa and ask them to come to your location to do the demo.

Upcoming Vlogs:

Deval Patrick debate highlights and rally in Worcester with Jim McGovern early next week.
Elizabeth Edwards on her book tour for Saving Graces in Boston soon-ish.

Previous Vlogs:

Guerrilla Vlogger: People Powered Media - Edwards, Lamont and Deval Patrick
Guerrilla Vlogger: Meet Deval Patrick
Guerrilla Vlogger: Lamont and Edwards in New Haven
Guerrilla Vlogger: Patriotism for something more than War
Guerrilla Vlogger: WakeUp Wal-Mart assignment
Guerrilla Campaign, Iowa w/YouTube video

See you out there...

Tags: AFL-CIO, Carol Shea-Porter, Health care, IBEW, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jim Craig, Labor, Poverty, Priorities NH, SEIU, Stop the Sale, True Majority, Unions, UNITE HERE (all tags)



AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Edwards is an oreo himself -- populist on the outside, DLC on the inside.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Do you have any evidence to back up your argument?

by adamterando 2006-09-06 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Do you have any evidence to back up your argument?

Sure. How much do you need? It's all over the internet.

"Edwards' Democratic .... Leadership .... Council .... credentials"

When Edwards renounces the DLC, please let us know.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Not all over, not close.

The DLC loves to claim members that it doesn't have. Obama was supposed to be on the DLC website for a time.
The NDN was not a part of the DLC and there is limited eveidence Edwards was in it: t_Coalition

Well, I guess you googled, but none of your links really prove anything as far as membership, or more importantly, beliefs.  Edwards economics is about as far from the DLC as you can get.  Why do you think strange website with Frank Zappa posters on the front page show anything.  Really wierd.

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

You can lead an Edwardiac to water, but you can't pull his head out of the sand.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

did you even watch any of the video?

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

I've seen Edwards drawling out of the side of his mouth many times already, thank you.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Well, there's a nice bigoted remark.  C'mon down to Carolina sometime and we'll treat you to a nice ass-whoopin.

by Robert P 2006-09-06 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Your evidence does not warrant drawing a conclusion that he is DLC on the inside and populist on the outside.

How does renouncing the DLC make him "not DLC". Have Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, John Sweeney, Christine Cegelis, Antonio Villaragosa, or Phil Angelides renounced the DLC? If one does not renounce the DLC, does that mean that they are a supporter, or continue to support them if they have in the past?

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. This is almost as bad as "the tan" comment.

by adamterando 2006-09-06 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Are any of those you cited in the DLC as Edwards is?

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

How do you know he is? All you know is that he was. What we also know is that everything he is saying is not representative of what the DLC advocates. If he IS still in the DLC, then that means that the DLC currently has a member that is way to the left of where they espouse to be.

So so what if he is? Since you are an American citizen (I assume) does that mean that you support everything this country does? Would like people to judge you only based on your membership or your being a part of some group (even if you are no longer part of that group) rather than on your actions or your actual beliefs?

by adamterando 2006-09-06 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Several current publications cite Edwards as a current DLCer. If you think there's anything wrong with that, perhaps you should dig deeper and find out more about the guy you seem to support instead of believing what you want based on nothing.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

None you cited said anything about Edwards currently being in the DLC.  Now you're just making things up.

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

I made nothing up. I provided links to current websites that document Edwards being a DLCer. Do you have a problem with him belonging to the same club of corporatists who once proudly claimed Zell Miller?

"Most of Miller's agenda is vastly more consistent with the New Democrat point of view than with that of his new Republican friends."

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

I don't care on wit if he's in the DLC, the purple elephants club, or the Sierra Club. I know what he's been saying and doing since 2005 and that's what I care about. YOU seem to be the one that cannot do anything but throw out epithets and pithy statements about Edwards, oft-times solely based on his affiliation with the DLC. I was arguing on your turf. Actually if I was arguing on your turf I would try to start to make non-sensical arguments, but that's another story.

I was addressing your argument. I have no problem with Edwards past affiliation with the DLC, or even his current affiliation if he is affiliated with them, given his ACTIONS and what he is working for.

But hey, if guilt by association is what you're all about, maybe I should point out that you must support Mussolini and Fascism since you quote him in your signature line.

by adamterando 2006-09-06 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

maybe I should point out that you must support Mussolini and Fascism since you quote him in your signature line.

Be careful. That's enough to get you kicked off of here if someone (besides me) reported it.

I do have a problem with Edwards past and present affiliation with the DLC, but I wouldn't call him a fascist as a cheap insult.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

It's not an insult. I don't for a minute think you support fascism or mussolini. I'm pointing out the absurdity of your argument. You absolutely WILL not do anything but make ad hominem and red herring arguments about ANYTHING related to Edwards, mainly because, from what I've seen, he was associated with the DLC. None of his actions or words follow what comes out of the DLC, and yet you continue to say that he must be a corporate troglodite because of his past membership. None of his actions or words mean a thing to you because of this.

Therefore I was pointing out that the same flimsy argument could be made about who YOU support. Because if I'm going to judge you, NOT on your actions or words, then I could make all sorts of outlandish claims as to who or what you represent. Understand?

I in no way think you are a fasist or support fascists. I am basing that on your actions and words, maybe you could try doing the same thing for John Edwards. This ain't a cult, just try to be fair and quit doing knee-jerk attacks. This blog entry had no comments until your first oreo comment, that is not helpful in dialog or discussion. If you have something constructive to say, then say it, otherwise just stay out of it.

by adamterando 2006-09-06 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

mainly because, from what I've seen, he was associated with the DLC.

Actually, it's because as a senator he was a model DLCer and voted for the most odius aspects of Bush's agenda. Put his and Hillary's voting records side by without their names and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

I must also say that I was really turned off by his claim to be "the son of a mill worker" when it turned out his dad managed the mill. He's not only corrupt, he's disingenuous.

He also never took a case pro bono as trial lawyer. You had to have the cash up front to hire the Great Populist Edwards.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Yea you're right, cuz you know way better than the SEIU, Teamsters, Change to Win, and the AFL-CIO.

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

The opinions and endorsements of the organizations you cited don't carry any weight these days.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos


by philgoblue 2006-09-06 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

Just ask Howard Dean -- or Joe Lieberman. Democrats simply don't let unions, special interest groups, or high profile politicians tell them who to support any more.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

You really know almost nothing about how the Democratic Party really works.  See ya, you're boring.

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: AFL-CIO hosts John Edwards with oreos

I've been watching politics and the Democratic Party since the 60's. In that time I've learned not to follow false prophets populist panderers like Edwards.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Guerrilla Vlogger

Edwards thanks citizen journalists in the new podcast: y/2006/9/6/122315/8937#1

by philgoblue 2006-09-06 11:07AM | 0 recs

Woh, Sitkah, I have to interject here. Your argument makes no sense, at all.

Let's look at the evidence that you showed us. The first article is back from 2004 right before Edwards was picked. And the evidence in the article? One line that mentions his "DLC credentials." There is nothing here that says anything about his views, other than he is stongly anti-Conservative and a big attacker, especially on poverty (you know, those classic DLC tactics).

Second, your next source is a bunch of things about his views, none of which are particularly DLC. The most you can argue is that he is moderate on Gay Rights and critisized Dean on not talking about social issues. Well, this could work, if you were arguing that he was a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind that is Socially Conservative. But you aren't; you are saying that he is a member of the DLC, which is conservative on Economic and sometimes Foreign Policy issues, which as noted below he is quite liberal on. While the DLC likes moderates, they are more concerned with Economic moderates rather than Social moderates.

And finally, your last source, which basically just says he is a member of the DLC. You are saying that because Edwards was a member of the DLC, then he must be an insider with all DLC positions? Well, let's test this out in the real world, I am going to describe some politicians.

1. One of the key organizers of the Alito filibuster and one of the more liberal voting records in the senate.

2. Moderate Senator who has been known to flop to the Republicans and is often critisized by bloggers including Kos and Matt

3. Very liberal man who has campaigned for environmentalism and been one of Bush's harshest critics

now, what to know how all these guys are?

1. DLCer John Kerry

2. non-DLCer Chuck Schumer

3. DLCer Al Gore

You see? It is rather narrow minded to automatically attach labels. When you check John Edwards on the issues ( htm), you see that he is not a DLC type, at all. For Christ sake, HE OPPOSED NAFTA!!! Even his tactics are not very DLC type, with his huge opposition to Iraq, his massive critiqing of Bush, and his disuse of DLC type slogans. To label him as such, without any real evidence is quite frankly a little short sighted.

by JewishJake 2006-09-06 02:15PM | 0 recs
Al Gore: Hard Core Populist (

(Multi-Part Response: Part 1)

Al Gore is a Hard Core Populist.
Al Gore On the issues:

by NuevoLiberal 2006-09-06 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Al Gore: Hard Core Populist (

I took that test once and it said I'm the Dali Lama. I like Gore a lot more these days than I used to when he was a triagulating, consultant cringing, centrist. But so long as he's a DLCer he'll get no support from me.

The DLC is rotten to its corporate core and the only way to get rid of it is to make those who belong to it pay so much of a political price that they'll abandon it to irrelevance.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Al Gore: Hard Core Populist (
The DLC is rotten to its corporate core and the only way to get rid of it is to make those who belong to it pay so much of a political price that they'll abandon it to irrelevance.

And what would constitute "abandoning it" in your eyes? Should one release a public statement to that effect? Should one issue you a personal apology instead?

You seem to be very interested in seeing the DLC ways abandoned, yet you crucify those who seem to have in fact done so, essentially accusing them of being two-faced.

Should we not look to their actions in the present? Or should we continue to live in the past? Or is it your intent that we should shame and condemn to irrelevance the very politicians who bear the DLC label, and shun them, irrespective of their accomplishments for the common good, until all shall know your wrath and will no longer join the DLC?

Just curious.

by machka 2006-09-06 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Al Gore: Hard Core Populist (

Should one release a public statement to that effect?

That would certainly eliminate a lot uncertainty.

You seem to be very interested in seeing the DLC ways abandoned, yet you crucify those who seem to have in fact done so, essentially accusing them of being two-faced.

I'd love for you to produce a quote even remotely to that effect.

Should we not look to their actions in the present?

Politicians have two things to be judged by -- their words and their records. When their current words differ from their past records, trust the record.

Or is it your intent that we should shame and condemn to irrelevance the very politicians who bear the DLC label, and shun them, irrespective of their accomplishments for the common good, until all shall know your wrath and will no longer join the DLC?

That would be a good start toward cleaning corporate corruption out of the Democratic party. As for "irrespective of their accomplishments for the common good," what I see too often is people ignoring their actions for the common bad in the name of political expediency.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 05:52PM | 0 recs
The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

(this is my combined response to you and Jewish Jake).

Gore was an early member of the DLC, back when it was founded with a desire to try and resuscitate the Democratic party from the horrible beating it took from Reagan, with his 1984 landslide victory.

Gore and the DLC have little in common since the latter took a serious turn towards preemptive warfare.

The primary beneficiary of the DLC's hay days was in fact Bill Clinton, who also was an early member. Clinton was the first chairman of the DLC and he used the DLC plank to catapult himself to national prominence.(Gore never held a DLC office from what I have seen).

Both Clinton and Gore were and are dyed-in-the-wool policy wonks that support socially responsible pro-growth fiscal policies. The fact that the Clinton/Gore economy produced 22 million new jobs (among a long list of accomplishments) speaks for the effectiveness of their combined policy vision.

It is only after 2000 that DLC turned exceedingly hawkish on foreign policy front, and Gore was the most prominent Democrat to oppose the war.

1.DLC was strongly pro-war (as was Edwards), and Gore was firmly against the unwarranted, unprovoked, baseless preemptive Iraq war.

2. DLC opposed Gore's populist People, not the Powerful campaign (Edwards re-badged the theme and called it "Two Americas" in 2004).

How the DLC Does It

By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 4.23.01

"I listened to Gore's speech at the [2000] convention with incredulity," says William Galston, a longtime DLCer who served as domestic policy adviser to President Clinton..


"From the convention on, I had essentially no input into the campaign," he says.


After his populist turn, Gore surged in the polls in August and early September, and many analysts credited his fiery attacks on pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and health insurers, Big Oil, and George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich.


after the election Al From blasted Gore for alienating upscale "wired workers" in the new economy, the swing voters in comfortable suburbs who, he says, were turned off by Gore's populist message

2000 election reviews: Stuart Rothenberg's pre-election review, on FL'2000, 2000 election summary by NeuvoLiberal)

3. Just days before the 2000 convention, the DLC issued the so-called "Hyde Park Declaration", which makes no mention of AL Gore, the winner of the party's presidential nomination:

DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century

 ``And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.''

This makes me questions if they really wanted Al Gore to win the Presidency or not.

4. Gore opposed Lieberman and endorsed Howard Dean mainly on the grounds of the war and the promise of a grassroots based reform movement:

Al Gore endorses Howard Dean

Gore: 'One candidate clearly now stands out'

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Posted: 10:21 PM EST (0321 GMT)

Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.

"He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said. "And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important because those judgments -- that basic common sense -- is what you want in a president."

"Whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the grassroots, and promising to remake the Democratic Party as a force for justice and progress and good in America, whether it is a domestic agenda that gets our nation back on track, or whether it is protecting us against terrorists and strengthening our nation in the world, I have come to the conclusion that one candidate clearly now stands out," Gore said.

As everyone knows, DLC vehemently opposed Howard Dean's candidacy. There are strong indications that they were part of the scheme that raised millions in short notice, aired attack ads against Dean (with Osama in the background), and managed to derail his campaign (ironically, they all hammered Dean for saying that US was "no safer" from the fall and capture of Saddam, and almost all of them sign his tune now).

Actually, I don't care much for labels. IMO, DLC turned to its worst on policy grounds when it became aligned with the "neocons" (not a label, but a shorthand for people promoting a 21st century version of colonization, as by the PNAC) in promoting the Iraq war.

Gore stood against them and in fact also swam against the tide of public opinion (which was largely in support of an invasion, due to the wide-spread misinformation about WMD and Saddams's nuclear programs etc).

Gore was leading the polls for the 2004 Dem nomination at that time, and going up against public opinion in such a situation rarely helps in improving your numbers, especially in a biased media framework as it has existed.

The fact that Gore rose in opposition notwithstanding the potential cost to him speaks volumes about his integrity and moral rectitude (sure enough, his poll numbers took a sudden dip shortly after he declared his opposition to the war in his September'02 speech. In short, Al Gore is by no means "a DLCer".

My own political philosophy can be summarized as: policy driven by sense, common sense, and the scientific method. Al Gore and Howard Dean come the closest to this, in my opinion, and hence I support them.

If we must go around labeling people, then I'd call them both principled progressives, through and through, with strong modern populist underpinnings.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-09-06 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

I'm glad to hear that Gore is no longer a DLCer. If only Edwardiacs could demonstrate as much about their messiah.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

Actually you demonstrate your own ignorance if you didn't already know those things about Gore.

Gore's "People vs. the Powerful" speech in 2000 was roundly panned by the DLC and the millionare pundits alike. But Gore was still a member of the DLC. So shouldn't that mean that he is still an evil DLCer? After all, those were only words, he didn't actually vote or enact any legislation (the only criteria you claim to matter).

You contradictions are frustrating, silly, adn counterproductive.

by adamterando 2006-09-06 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

I said I've liked Gore since he stopped being a triangulating centrist and dumped the DLC. You seem intent on attacking me no matter what I say. Whatever your motivation for it is, you sure aren't putting a good foot forward for Edwards by being so petty and vindictive.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

My motivation is the crap you spew everytime Edwards is ever mentioned. If you ever had coherent or fact-based arguments rather than commenting on someone's tan or their resemblence to a cookie, then I would be fine with your criticism.

In addition, your contradictions are getting really tired.

So you like Gore since he stopped being a triangulating centrist and dumped the DLC, huh? Well, what the hell are you basing that on? He didn't publicly renounce the DLC did he? Oh my gosh, HE's JUST AN OREO!!!!

Also, I hear that he plucks his eyebrows!

You got an axe to grind with Edwards, fine, by all means go ahead. But don't try to put forth a bunch of bullshit and then contradict yourself as to why someone's current actions and words don't mean anything while another persons now mean that they are OK.

A Foolish Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Edwards realized this, do you?

by adamterando 2006-09-06 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The War: DLC supported it, Gore opposed it

You have yet to refute a word I've said. Ad hominem pesrsonal attacks are what you've boiled down to. It's you who should give your hatred and anger a break.

If you can't stand to read criticism of your idol then you're in for a world of hurt after November when others start focusing their attention on his dismal record as a senator and the tiring attempts of Edwardiacs to cram him down everyone's throat.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 09:27PM | 0 recs

The DLC itself listed Edwards as a member of its SNDC. Why are so many people in such a state of denial over it?

For the record, I don't support, Kerry, Schumer, or Gore, for president either.

Belonging to the DLC and not renouncing it is a symptom of the disease that has made the Democratic party so weak in recent years. It's called triangula centritis. I will refuse to support and will denounce any of its memebers who run for office. If they don't like it, they can quit.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 04:06PM | 0 recs
I don't think Gore is a DLC member presently

My hunch is that he probably isn't a dues-paying and card-carrying DLC member. He may have let his memebership expire shortly after 2000 (by not responsing to the renewals), as there are many ways in which he has parted ways with them from the middle of 2000, as detailed above.

I think asking for people to "renounce" is a bit too much. Even beating the GOP by 25 seats in the house and 10 seats in the senate will not be sufficient if we started asking everyone to denoune the DLC and renounce their memberships.

Just not subscribing to their war-mongering ways (and brushing aside the DLC core's apparent proclivity towards the "wired community") is good enough for me. Edwards failed that test in 2002, by supporting and promoting the war.

Gore valiantly fought against the war.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-09-06 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Gore is a DLC member presently

I can relate to where you're coming from. I'd just like for DLC membership to be a kiss of of death for politicians. If that happened, the DLC and its infusions of corrupting corporate cash would vanish and we'd be one step closer to having a party to be proud of.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Gore is a DLC member presently

I agree. But your one-man effort to single-handedly try to make that happen to John Edwards ain't gonna happen as long as he is working, talking, acting, and running as the epitome of what the DLC isn't.

So take a break.

by adamterando 2006-09-06 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Gore is a DLC member presently

Edwards had his chance in 2004 and was rejected by Democrats  as their nominee -- and he will be again. He can waste his and a lot of other people's time and money by running again -- but his record of being a NeoDem Bush enabler will drag him down just as Hillary's and the other DLCers will drag them down too.

There's a new mood in the Democratic Party and the old faces with records of appeasing Bush aren't going to cut it any more.

by Sitkah 2006-09-06 07:36PM | 0 recs
It's a MYTH to say that 'Edward Opposed NAFTA'

He's against cancelling NAFTA if that's what "opposing NAFTA" means (that's how most people would interpret that phrase, unless clearly qualified).

John Edwards' Position on NAFTA
(the latest I know)

Renegotiate NAFTA rather than cancel it

EDWARDS [to Sharpton]: The Chile trade agreement and the Singapore agreement have very strong enforcement mechanisms. I would use the Free Trade of the Americas agreement as a vehicle for renegotiating NAFTA.

SHARPTON: I want to cancel it.

EDWARDS: I think we do need to renegotiate it. The problem with NAFTA is these side agreements don't work. You have to put these labor/environmental protections in the text of the agreement.

Q: Will that be enough?

SHARPTON: No, I don't think so. This cost jobs for Americans. And it is unequivocal evidence that it costs Americans jobs. People were unemployed. It also went below labor and human rights standards abroad. We need to cancel NAFTA unequivocally. We need to have standards that we would not deal with nations that would put laborers in those kinds of situations. We cannot protect American corporations and call that patriotic and not protect American workers and call that protections.
Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004

I'd say that the statement "Edwards wants to fix NAFTA to ensure better labor and environmental protection" is an accurate description (that's a position shared by many other Democrats) of his position than "he opposes/opposed NAFTA".

Here's the full list of his stance on "Free Trade":

John Edwards on "Free Trade"

# Renegotiate NAFTA rather than cancel it. (Feb 2004)
# Require labor and environmental standards plus right-to-know. (Jan 2004)
# Against NAFTA, against Chile trade, against Singapore trade. (Jan 2004)
# Level the playing field for American workers. (Nov 2003)
# I supported steel tariffs, but now ease off. (Sep 2003)
# National venture capital fund for those hurt by trade. (Sep 2003)
# Against Fast Track--not enough for US workers. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)

# Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
# Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)

# Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)

# Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)

# Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
# Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

by NuevoLiberal 2006-09-06 06:41PM | 0 recs
by NuevoLiberal 2006-09-06 06:46PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads