These radical anti-DLC rants are making this progressive a DLC supporter.

[expatriot]

I am very progressive in my political belief system. I have had quite the political journey already in my life. My first presidential election after I was 18 I voted for Nader in 1996... while at university and became aware of the extent of all the injustice I became very radicalized... joined several various socialist and Communist parties at various times. I was a dues-paying member of the Socialist Workers Party for a couple of months before I realized how politically non-pragmatic such insular dogmatic idealism was. By the end of my college days I was slowly moving back from the brink, cutting my ties to the radical left and jumped aboard the Nader2000 campaign. I voted for Nader in 2000 and then I started waking up. The left had been divided in 2000 and that is how Bush won and then of course I really woke up to how evil Bush was - we thought he was too dumb to be dangerous - I woke up to the reality that there are socio-political forces at play in this country that defied the theories - the dark side of social conservatives that played the henchmen for corporate power. Lord of the Rings - corporate power as Sauron and the Rapture Right and the ultra-nationalistic fascists as the Orcs mindless pawns of corporate power.

It is war... I still have the same values I had when I was in the Socialist Workers Party - but with every political defeat and setback the blood in my mouth makes me more wiser and world-wary. We are progressives, out for change and we do not forget for whom we fight those who suffer day in and day out and we will keep fighting for them , but we can not hold out for absolute change when incremental change will lessen their burden change... we will keep fighting for more change, more change...

It very much unnerves me to see the radical disruptors here tonight posting uncivil "fuck you hillary clinton" threads, I am tired and am very busy - i shouldn't even be posting this... but i needed to.

in the rules it says "generally progressive views and support Democratic Party candidates" I think that, in spirit, means also generally support the institutions of the DP... yes, disagree with other Democrats all you want but do not stand in judgment of their credentials to be Democrats or to tell "centrists" and "conservatives" (in your perspective) to get "the fuck outta here" when, it you can be called a "radical" and likewise be accused of being in violation of the "generally progressive" rule. I am going to bed.

[jsamuel]

1. Everyone just needs to take a chill pill, election time is still over 3

years away. We are at a pivotal moment in our nations history and tension is running high. I think things will balance out fairly soon.

[IChing]

2. that the problem, it's not 3 years away from now, it is now

2005 and 2006

[jsamuel]

4. The people (Hillary) that are the subject of most of this are not up for

election in 2006.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. It is always election time.

2006 is going to be every bit as critical as 2008. We need to be grooming and supporting qualified candidates NOW!

[sasquatch]

3. I'm just tired of the Democrats not fighting back

I just want to see the Bob Shrum's and Mary Beth Cahill's out of the party.

[HardWorkingDem]

5. One thing we can learn from the Repugs...

is party cohesiveness. Yes, we can criticize the DLC (the Al From's and Martin Peretz's certainly deserve it) but we also need to mimic how the right does it within its own party.

While I find it alarming not many of them care to speak of truth and integrity (Rove and reasons for the Iraq War) and play by party fed blood loyalty oaths, I do think the Dems need to realize we are all in the same boat.

The other day I was accused of being a "stealth" poster because I was critical of how we are focusing so much on Bush's popularity ratings and expressed concern about how if we are not careful it could be a huge distraction with undesirable results.

It ticked me off because in my life, I've voted for Carter (second time), Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore and Kerry, and it took so long to get to vote for a winner.

[Andromeda]

11. I agree, HardWorkingDem...

Some posters here are an accusatory bunch of left-wing zealots who really aren't Democrats at all, not that they have to be registered Dems, and I am left to wonder if some aren't just here to disrupt. I get tired of the tirades against good Democrats who happen to vote for or against something they do or don't agree with.

We're just not going to agree with every vote or position they take.

It's okay to disagree and I don't blame anybody for being mad when a Democratic leader disappoints us. It happens a lot and I've been close to quiting the Democratic party myself.

Nobody is going to agree 100% of the time and even though I get upset with some Democrats I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

A Democrat is better than a Republican any day!

You don't have to live up to somebody else's standards because they think they are more "pure" than you are. It's all relative and your own conscience is your guide.

Some people on the left have not learned that being "radical" does not win elections. Being too far to the left, or the right turns most people off. Look at a circle and left and right merge in the middle.

The middle. That's where most people are.

[wookie294]

12. Well...

being "radical" does not win elections.

That's not true. George Bush won the election by being radical. Studies have shown that negative campaign ads are effective in winning elections (despite the voters' claims that they oppose negative ads). Democrats need to be as dirty and vicious as Republicans in their approach to politics. If not, enjoy spending the next 50 years in the minority.

[JDPriestly]

13. The Republican strategy has resulted

in the hijacking of the Republican Party by an extreme right-wing element. We don't want the same thing to happen here. In my view the struggle between the DLC and the rest of us is really more about style than about substance. That's why, come election time, we will be one party.

I used to support a conservative, middle-of-the-road DLC kind of style and favored compromising with Republicans. Nowadays it appears that the Republicans are attempting to strangle and utterly destroy the Democratic party, so I think a more aggressive style is needed. That is why I no longer support the DLC view. You can't compromise with a party that turns the mike off on your representatives in Congress or that does not give them a chance to read legislation before calling for a vote or that refuses to hand over all documents on candidates for appointments to public office and prevents legislators from informing themselves thoroughly before voting. Unfortunately, the time for compromise and cooperation has passed. I hope that it will become possible to compromise and cooperate again one day.

Don't be hurt if people accuse you of being a "stealth" poster. It has happened to many of us. It isn't personal. You are fine.

[Carolab]

6. News flash: GORE won in 2000

"The left had been divided in 2000 and that is how Bush won and then of course I really woke up to how evil Bush was - we thought he was too dumb to be dangerous."

And some of us know that Kerry won in 2004...with the BIG PUSH from the grassroots...

[JDPriestly]

14. Yes, Gore won.

But the moderate Democrats in the Senate and House were too timid to let the world know he won. That's when grassroots Democrats lost faith in the center and the DLC. They abandoned us when we needed them. They were weak in the face of adversity. They let themselves and us be bullied.

[Carolab]

43. Now THAT is something I can't disagree with.

However, since they continued to abandon us even though they SAW we lost faith in them...why should we even THINK about embracing them again?

[Why Syzygy]

7. Most of us

just want someone who is going to stand chest to chest with the adversaries. A line in the sand, if you will.

No more wimps.

[longship]

8. The DLC

The DLC has called many of my positions on issues extreme.

I don't think it's extreme to want an illegal, immoral war to end.

I don't think it's extreme to want health care for everybody, just like every single solitary major country in the world has, except the USA.

I don't think it's extreme to want an end to toture and abuse.

I don't think it's extreme to oppose a party which is so extreme that it has alienated the entire rest of the world to my country.

I don't think it's extreme to want an immoral, lunatic man held responsible for his crimes.

I don't think it's extreme to ask that we have a political party where people of many views and who share a common love for our country can call their own.

I just don't know what to do about a faction of our party which seems intent on dividing us.

The DLC saddens me greatly.

[mattclearing]

26. Seconded. n/t

[truth2power]

34. I'll second that second. n/t

[Deja Q]

35. Ditto. No progressive wold stand for the DLC. The DLC has done TOO MUCH

to say we are not welcome.

Well, when the repukes win next time the DLC is why. Not me. My not voting pro-DLC is a symptom. The DLC is the problem.

It's time to deal with the problem.

[HughBeaumont]

46. POTD!

Remember, the further the Dems move to the right, the further RIGHT the Conservatives will move.

PNAC ass-kissers aren't getting MY vote.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[wookie294]

10. Heaven forbid we criticize a DLC supporter

LOL

[expatriot]

22. Criticizing a DLC supporter is not the issue....

Criticize away, the problem is in saying they have no place in the Democratic Party. Yes, I wish the center was more progressives and that is the progressive role in the DP, to make it more progressive... you don't do that by saying the center has no place in the party.

[JHB]

45. But the DLC is not the center. Just because they say they are doesn't...

...make it true.

Some of their positions are "centrist", but then so are many of the positions held by the people they call the "left wing". But on the issues they press hardest on, they're corporatists and the spoonful of truth in Republican "elitist" shovelfuls.

Their main claim to power is money, pure and simple: they've mastered the workings of the sort of party-less political fundraising which arose in the 70s (ironically to make the parties more small-d democratic (no more Missisippi Freedom Democratic Party shutouts)), but which inevitably led to "going where the money is", and Democratic Party's disasterous de-emphasis of populist economics.

[rman]

15. If we'd bash Bush hard enough would you become a * supporter?

in spite of you being a "progressive"?

Anyway, go help the DLC "progress" their corporate agenda.

[expatriot]

23. Bush is the real enemy.... yes, the DLC is corporatist

but they are our centrist corporatist wing of a party that includes an progressive wing, rather than a party that is built upon corporatism and social conservatives who serve as corporatist henchmen.

Heaven knows we need to be critical of the DLC but we can not attack the premise of the DLC and progressives being able to share the same political party, we can not divide the left from the center-left like that.

[G_j]

30. it is not us doing the dividing, it is the illegal war

and that is just a fact of life right now. I've been a peace activist since the Vietnam war. As many others, I think of myself as a peace worker first and foremost. We know playing politics is necessary but continually asking us to support those who support the war is just not going to work. As long as the DLC enables and /or supports the war and militarism (profiteering and empire building) "unity" is going to be very illusive.

So yes, I would like the unelected DLC elites to step out of the way.

Yes, let's try to treat each other with civility.
I do agree that just telling people to "fuck off" is counter productive, but if discussion were limited on this debate, DU would loose a lot of anti-war activists, which is a major segment of the DU community.

[LittleClarkie]

16. It's the Repub-lite operative infiltrator threads that are getting to me

Some of them have their tinfoil hats on awfully tight.

[rooboy]

17. It's the DLC which gives the Democratic Party its Joementum. n/t

[Mairead]

18. If you can stomach DLC, then you're not as much a 'progressive' as you

would like to think.

Really. It would be like me, an Alinskian radical democrat saying that criticism of the Communists is making me move closer to them. It would suggest that my politics are chosen for their oppositional value rather than their goals.

[expatriot]

24. When I said "more of a DLC supporter" I meant

more tolerant of them.

[Mairead]

27. More tolerant of them than what??

[expatriot]

31. than I was before.... remember, I don't like their strategy either

being constructively critical of them and putting up progressive candidates in the primaries to oppose DLC candidates is one thing that I am all for.... what I am very much opposed to is the "they should leave the Democratic Party" and the "they are as bas as Bush" crap.

Now I have to get to work, my wife is yelling at me to get going.

[truth2power]

36. there's a difference between being tolerant

and colluding in your own destruction.

Just sayin'! :)

[Bluebear]

19. EP, really now. Anonymous message board rants are changing your politics?

Really?

Say we rant about Bush and say "fuck you, Bush", would that make you support him? Just sayin'.

[Skidmore]

20. Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite....

[clitzpah queen]

21. Democratic ...Underground - 2 words that draw in different crowds

Here's the inherent challenge on a board such as this -- different folks are more drawn in by one word than the other--begging the question of "how big does our Democratic Underground tent get?" ZELL MILLER - is a "Democrat", as is BEN NELSON who digs Bush's nickname for him (the BENiter). WHERE does the line get drawn? I can see dealing with the DLC from a site like this, but in a putting pressure on them to move to the left, kinda way - NOT "We need to change and adjust the party to what the leaders of the DLC are saying." I joined Democratic UNDERGROUND because I thought it perceived itself as a force to Push the Democratic Party to take more principled stands -- to clearly distinguish itself from the Repubs, to return to its prior reputation for being the "party of the people" --which I know is kinda naive as long as there is no campaign finance reform in place removing the corporate stranglehold. But I do NOT excuse the democrats who voted for this war, nor do I tolerate those dem pols who are wavering on steadfast support of Roe and gay rights. I guess I see our most important role as finding creative ways to breakthrough the media corporate choke-leash to PUT THE FACTS OUT in creative/entertaining ways -- Cuz I believe that most people like to think of themselves as "nice and good" and when they get more aware of all the lies and evil being done in their name - they will find their voice and say "NO, not in MY NAME!" We also need to raise awareness on the rapidly creeping fascism threatening to limit our rights of dissent-- it was OUTRAGEOUS that Durbin had to apologize!~

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. A Trotskyite DLC supporter? Now, that's a real stretch.

Unless SWP has really changed gears since I hung around with those alphabet soup folks, they're a Trotskyist organization. I have nothing against the Trots and am usually in agreement with a lot of their stuff.

But, supporting the collaborationist wing of the Democratic Party and calling yourself a "progressive"???

Progressive DLC is an oxymoron, like Compassionate Conservatism or Pro-life Feminism.

[ulysses]

29. well, ok.

I think you misunderstand the original source of the party divisiveness, but whatever.

[Coexist]

32. I don't support the DLC because they

seem to only pay lip service to my ideals, then sell me down the river once they get my money and my vote.

I would rather vote Green than vote DLC.

[IrateCitizen]

33. First, you need to understand the meaning of the term "radical"...

And I would characterize many of the "anti-DLC" statements -- not ravings, but reasoned arguments -- as completely and totally radical, in the old British tradition. The original "radicals" took their name from the symbol for a square root, otherwise known as a radical, because they sought above all to "get to the root of the problem".

The DLC is all window dressing and no radicalism, at least in the sense I described above. I mean, they still consider the "war against Islamic fundamentalism" to be the most important issue of our time -- when anyone with half a brain and a willingness to use it rather than succumb to emotionalism knows that climate change and energy are much, much bigger problems than some stirred-up fundamentalist Muslims egged on by our wrongheaded foreign policy.

If you want to join the DLC based on what some people say on a discussion board, I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

[G_j]

37. a disturbing example of what you are talking about,

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Centrists who contend Democrats cannot retake the White House until voters trust the party to protect them said Sunday the Army should expand by 100,000 soldiers and that colleges should open their campuses to military recruiters.

"A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern," said Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council. "People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."

From argued that national security and safety are threshold issues for swing voters who increasingly are trending Republican.

<snip>
"No political party deserves to win unless it lays out a plan for Americans to win," said From.
..more..



http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050724/D8BHUN201.html

[IrateCitizen]

39. Sending other people's sons and daughters to die...

... for a meaningless cause is not "toughness". Rather, IMHO, it is the epitome of smallmindedness and cowardice.

Perhaps if all of these pundits and pols preaching "toughness" were to take their kids and sign them up for the military, I'd see it differently. But as it is, it's little more than a dick-measuring contest between a bunch of teeny-weenies.

[charlie]

41. "A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern"

And a Democrat who'll boost an illegal and unnecessary war in a quest for political capital should have the toughness to join the infantry.

Heh. Look what Big Al revealed in a moment he was trying to pick up a little street cred:

I think as I said a minute ago, we have a branding problem, and the security issue is probably where that branding problem is the worst. I mean, we're still paying for the neo isolationism of our party after Vietnam.

And I want to make it very clear, I was one of the people who was out in the streets protesting Vietnam...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253060&kaid=86&subid=84

Just another what's good for me ain't what's good for thee scoundrel... but we knew that.

[K-W]

38. ignore mispost

[Pithy Cherub]

40. Shifting the goalposts a bit, OK a lot?

Each person has a first amendment right to free speech. No one has to like 100% of what anyone says or writes. A call to tell others how to tell others to post, beyond the rules of DU, is based on a value system you have constructed for yourself. Everyone else has the same right to express theirs according to the rules.

Clearly there will be no more being silent by the full spectrum of the Left, while the DLC continues its mindless support of ruinous practices (Iraq) and corporate ass kissing. Candidates (and candidates start earlier than anyone politicking, $$$$) are not accustomed to this new interactive means of full throated discussion. DLC adherents now are forced to relinqish full ownership of the democratic platform of ideas and ideals. The strange new phenomenon of being held to a higher standard, not of their own making is clearly causing consternation. This comes from taking the Left for granted and is outright arrogance.

There is a permanent sea change afoot. I was a bit more tolerant of the DLC before (2001), No Longer! Due to being here and learning a fuller scope of the perfidy being perpetrated by DLC Third Way politics. Then that stupid acquiesence called IWR sealed the deal that their judgment was poor and their voices shrill about beating the drums of war.

Hillary will have to earn votes just like any other candidate and if she can't take the smashmouth politics, then she is not worthy of being POTUS.

[Ron Mexico]

47. Hillary

"Hillary will have to earn votes just like any other candidate and if she can't take the smashmouth politics, then she is not worthy of being POTUS."

I couldn't agree more. As a newbie I'm very reluctant to post "I agree" because it is so often a cheesy method to build post count, and I don't think I've done that yet, but I'm really glad someone said this.

I really get sick of "fire Rove," "we want an apology from this asshole or that one," etc. Let the Repugs say what they want, and let's see our best fend it off. What people fail to realize is that the Repugs aren't likely to pick up new voters, we are. Let their words do the "talking" for them, and let a decent spokesman from our side fend off the attacks with ideas and facts.

If we had run a competent candidate in November, we'd be on 1600 Pennsylvania right now. No matter which way you slice it, a "president" like Bush should have been crushed by any decent candidate. We didn't run one. We will in 2008, and as far as I'm concerned, let the Repugs hit us with any chuck of drivel from their playbook that they like.

[Pithy Cherub]

48. Welcome Ron, opinions are valued here

sometime on differing weight scales, but valued. :)

If you agree, feel free to agree fulsomely and wholesomely regardless of your post count. Your views may not always be appreciated (see above) but you are participating in the DU community.

Welcome! :toast:

[Ron Mexico]

49. Thanks, Pithy.

To be honest, the intensity of this DLC debate has me a bit nervous about jumping in, so it's good to read posts like yours.

[Oilwellian]

42. Ironically, "The Progressive" wrote the following:

A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention.

The triumphalist talk was backed up by the reality of the convention. Vice President Al Gore, a man present at the founding of the DLC and loyal to the organization ever since, was nominated for the Presidency. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the current president of the DLC and very possibly the truest of its true believers, was nominated for the Vice Presidency.

And, with virtually no debate, the convention endorsed a platform that, on the vast majority of issues, deviated radically from the views of most party members. According to a New York Times survey of convention delegates, Traditional liberalism remained the most popular ideological stance. Trade union members made up a quarter of the delegates, and people of color were better represented than at any major party gathering in the nation's history.

"We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on them we lose," said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois. "But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.

(snip)
Those corporate contributors--whose names fill the lists of givers to the DLC and a closely linked political arm, the New Democrat Network--include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, the Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and much of the rest of the Fortune 500.

"With the DLC in a position to influence the Democratic Party, Wall Street wins either way," says populist Jim Hightower, who has abandoned his lifelong loyalty to the Democratic Party this year in order to back Nader's candidacy. "If the Republicans win, the corporations have a party in power that will do their bidding. And if the Democrats win, Wall Street knows the DLC will keep them in line."


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

So tell me expatriot, how can you be a progressive when you're so willing to support an organization that's backed by corporations?

[JNelson6563]

44. progressive+DLC=oxymororn

If you're a progressive you may want to rethink your support of the DLC.