New DLC Outrage: Smear Pelosi and Murtha as "offering surrender" in Iraq

[BurtWorm]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/2/105129/657

The New McCarthyism: DLC Style
by Armando
Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 08:51:29 AM PDT

The DLC will remain a corrosive and harmful entity for the Democratic Party as long as it continues to include people like Marshall Wittman:

Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party
on national security.

"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from
heaven."

David Sirota, a Democratic strategist in Montana long critical of the party leadership's timidity, fired back: "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack
Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."

I agree with David but I think he is too kind to Wittman calling him an insulated elitist. Wittman is A Rovian pawn who practice the New McCarthyism with Republican aplomb. Criticizing Pelosi and Murtha's position is certainly his right, and we can argue fiercely about the policy, but to accuse them of "offering surrender"? Rove himself could not have done it better.

The DLC, if it actually cares about the Democratic Party, should disassociate itself immdeiately from Marshall Wittman. The man is an affront.

* ::

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[PatGund]

2. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????

What the hell is a "former Republican political strategist" DOING in a supposely democratic group?? Can we say "PLANT" boys and girls???

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. Not only that, why is he getting press exposure?

How is it they are letting this guy write such trash and put it out there???

Crap like this, I wish Dean would broadcast a strong rebuttal and put pressure on the DLC to clamp down hard on this kind of stuff!! :grr:

[Pithy Cherub]

34. Those "bright" DLC'ers welcomed that asp with open arms.

Cleopatra-style. :eyes:

[gulfcoastliberal]

127. How about Alpha Mike Foxtrot?

Adios, Mother-F*ckers!

Loathsome, simply loathsome. Why won't the DLC go after Schmidt or Bush?

[mopinko]

3. the dlc is an affront

and is openly defying dean's 50 state plan here in illinois.

[IndyOp]

22. How is the DLC defying Dean's 50 State Plan? Please, do tell... (nt)

[mopinko]

25. dlc'er and dccc chair rahm emmanuel

is undercutting goood progressive candidates, while allowing thugs to go unopppsed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2283091

[MrBenchley]

29. Hahahaha...

So instead of backing somebody who's already run and lost and who is unable to raise money, he's backing an actual combat veteran...

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/12/major_tammy_duc.html

[AntiCoup2K4]

65. Quit repeating the fundraising LIE

Fact is that Dean has raised far more money than Terry McUSELESS did in the comparable off year. What the Dumbass Likud Corporatists can't stand is that he's raising money from PEOPLE, not CORPORATIONS.

[MrBenchley]

77. It's not a lie....

Cegelis is having trouble raising money, perhaps because she's already lost.

"Dean has raised far more money than Terry McUSELESS"
For the 2002 cycle, McAuliffe raised $162 million...

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp?type=R&cycle=2002

For the 2004 cycle, McAuliffe raised $312 million...

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp?type=R&cycle=2004

So far for the 2006 cycle, Dean has raised $42 million...

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp?type=R&cycle=2006

"he's raising money from PEOPLE, not CORPORATIONS."
Here's where the democratic money has come from so far...

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/indus.asp?Cmte=DPC

Sure seem to be some corporations and industries represented there....

Hilariously, our third highest donor is the guy our teen progressives want to purge from the party....

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=DPC&cycle=2006

[mopinko]

104. it is a lie

cegalis is far outpacing her last run in number and size of contributions, and exceeding the pace of melissa bean, whose path she has deliberately followed. and then some. so, anyway, why are they trying to replace her with someone who has no money, or any way to raise ANY on her own? and why isn't duckworth running against biggert or manzullo who have no/token opposition? she does not live in the 6th. she could just as easily run against biggert. why? answer that, why? none of rahm's apologists seem to even bother to answer that question.

[MrBenchley]

122. Remember, she's lost a run for that seat already....

Far as I can see, she's raised $159,000 but all but $50,000 has been spent...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet14.html

The GOP's Roskam haas more than half a million bucks on hand already...

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=H6IL06117*2006

"none of rahm's apologists seem to even bother to answer that question. "
Wonder why?

[mopinko]

165. why are manzullo and biggert unopposed is the question

which you, too, have not bothered to answer.

[OzarkDem]

89. Is Duckworth a Republican?

[MrBenchley]

95. No....

And in fact she's got the right wingers scared shitless already.

[mopinko]

188. care to name names? np

[radio4progressives]

173. Yes.. These assholes are on this board and calling in radio shows

like Ed Schultz a little while ago, screaming about something Dean said about disregarding "southern christians" in a organizing telephone conference! if this asshole wasn't an obvious DLC mole/functionary i don't know what is. the DLC would rather LOSE elections to the fascists neo-cons than work for party unity, as they go on begging conservatives to join the "New Democratic Party".

What the fuck is up with that bullshit?

DU'rs better start organizing big time to confront the DLC traitor bastards -up close and personl, (in their face style, at their offices and at every public event) or be prepared to live under fascists rule for decades to come.

[mopinko]

180. i heard that guy

and yes, they do have a lovely choir. they all sing in tune.

[radio4progressives]

189. thanks for verifying ..

i hate it when i'm the only reporter on the story ;)

[Al-CIAda]

4. R&K

[madfloridian]

5. Wittmann was a lobbyist for Pat Robertson at the Christian Coalition.

He went from liberal to very conservative and then to the DLC. Is this his role now, to put down good Democrats who are speaking their conscience.

[BurtWorm]

6. Brilliant, DLCers!

Way to show "leadership." :eyes:

[gulfcoastliberal]

202. Looks like they learned something from the Swiftboaters after all!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. I shall only...

point you all to my signature line to say it all. :mad:

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. Hmm - let's play "Spot the faux frame":

"Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council...

CENTRIST??? Oh, really? How long before more people realize

1. The DLC is reactionary and shares all too many goals with the corrupt and destructive GOP, and
   
2. The voters would support a TRULY Democratic, progressive agenda far more strongly than the warmed-over, contradictory mumblings of the DLC?

These DINOs must to be ejected and ignored - except for revealing their corruption.

[Individualist]

13. DLC: Republican enablers n/t

[MrBenchley]

39. LOL!

"The voters would support a TRULY Democratic, progressive agenda"
You mean like that Dennis Kucinich bandwagon that wowed voters during the primaries (snicker)?

[Nothing Without Hope]

107. Things have changed since the 2004 Democratic primary. And Dennis

Kucinich is wonderful and would make a great President - but he lacks TV-ready charisma.

Yes, I believe a strong, incisive, truth-speaking person of integrity WOULD win in a matchup against the DLC candidates.

[MrBenchley]

124. What 2005 Democratic primary.....

"Kucinich is wonderful and would make a great President"
Who couldn't even convince 10% of the voters in his home state that he had anything to say worth hearing....

[Nothing Without Hope]

129. Thanks for pointing out my typo - of course the Dem primary was in 2004

I've corrected it. I stand by what I said about Dennis Kucinich. He was not viewed as electable, and his candidacy developed as a platform to get his views out. I do believe that if he were tall and distinguished-looking, with a fine oratorical style but exactly the same substance that he really has, he would have gone far in 2004.

[MrBenchley]

131. Any time....

"He was not viewed as electable"
Mostly because he wasn't.

"I do believe that if he were tall and distinguished-looking, with a fine oratorical style but exactly the same substance that he really has, he would have gone far in 2004. "
And if frog asses didn't leak, the swamp wouldn't smell so bad.

[Neil Lisst]

9. He needs to shut the hell up!

I'll defend the DLC's right to be IN the party, but I'll also defend the right of other Dems to slap them around for being toadies, when they are being toadies.

Al From and his crew are self-serving punks. See my view of From getting waited on by his fat cats here:

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Now when the DLC slams someone as conservative as Murtha......

....they should have NO defenders left on this board.

And Marshall Wittman is a "former" Republican like Chimp is a "former" dumbass.

Cut this fucking cancer out of the party NOW!!

[Toots]

11. What gives this guy wittman credibility?

What Democratic issues has he ever been correct about?

[MrBenchley]

26. Hey, what gives anybody credibility?

He's part of an influential group that includes most prominent Democrats, and he's trying to forge a centrist coalition.

[JHB]

33. The DLC is NOT centrist

Just because they say they are doesn't make it so.

[MrBenchley]

37. Sez you.....

They are centrist....and slightly to the left of folks like Howard Dean and Jack Murtha, if it comes to that....

[bowens43]

12. How can anyone support these idiots of the DLC?

They need to be tossed the hell out of our party along with Liebrman and Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

14. Did you vote for John Kerry ?..nt

[MrBenchley]

36. Damn the DLC's Max Cleland!

Clearly he's only a faux Democrat according to some here....

[BurtWorm]

51. When Cleland speaks, does he speak for the DLC?

Most of us can tell the difference between mere membership in the DLC and speaking on behalf of it. Why can't you?

[MrBenchley]

78. That IS rich....

So Max joined the DLC because he wants to see its members purged from the party?

[BurtWorm]

93. Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying.

;)

[MrBenchley]

98. I got no idea what you're saying, frankly....

You want to piss and moan because Wittman was quoted, and pretend it's "slander"....

[BurtWorm]

108. A smear, not slander.

It is a smear when someone lies about another person to put them down. That's exactly what Wittman did to Pelosi and Murtha, saying they were "offering surrender." I don't recall Pelosi or Murtha ever using those words. Do you?

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

134. I've been arguing with it. It's not that hard.

The choice facing Democrats on the issue of Iraq is:

a) More of the same waffling and following the Republicans' lead that has had them losing elections since 2000 (at least).

b) Developing a vision consistent with the party's principles, differentiating it from Republicanism, and offering the country hope for a return to sanity.

You might notice that the war is not very popular anymore. Americans seem to be catching on to the fact that Bushism breeds terrorism and national insecurity. And you (and Wittman) want us to take our cues from how Karl Rove might be reading the situation?

[MrBenchley]

142. So what's the plan?

[BurtWorm]

150. Didn't you watch Murtha's speech?

Don't you read the papers?

[MrBenchley]

157. Tell me again....

When did Murtha get elected to the Democratic leadership? And when did the rest of the party sign off on his plan?

[BurtWorm]

158. He has the ear and support of Nancy Pelosi.

And he's speaking for the leadership of the military, from what I understand. What Murtha talked about in November is what is going to happen. US troops will be redeployed in the upcoming year. Will Wittman be calling that redeployment "surrender?" Or will he be telling Democrats to credit Bush with bringing the troops home?

[MrBenchley]

159. Really?

So all of the Democras and the Generals are all on board with Murtha's plan?

"What Murtha talked about in November is what is going to happen. US troops will be redeployed in the upcoming year."
Really? You're sure?

[BurtWorm]

163. Did I say *all* of the Democrats are on board?

No I didn't. But there is a lot of evidence that the momentum in Washington on the future of Iraq is in the direction of redeployment as a result of Murtha's earth-moving rejection of the status quo. Exhibit A: Bush's pseudo-"Strategy" speech.

Of course I'm not "sure." But the evidence supports me. There's no way for the US to move but out.

[MrBenchley]

164. So basically so far it's JUST Murtha's plan....

"Exhibit A: Bush's pseudo-"Strategy" speech. "
In which Chimpy said "America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief. "

[BurtWorm]

167. Pure reaction to Murtha, that speech was.

That quote is a perfect example of what I mean. Thanks for picking it. :toast:

[MrBenchley]

169. So in other words....

When Chimpy said the same dreary blah as he's said at least six or seven times before, it was due to Murtha THIS time?

[BurtWorm]

170. Consider the timing

as Wittman might say. ;-)

[MrBenchley]

172. And when we do, we find it pretty meaningless....

So tell us, what did Murtha say that triggered almost the same damn speech when Chimpy gave it in October?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10253079/

or in June?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bush.speech/

Or in May?

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2004/05/20040524_9.asp

[BurtWorm]

175. Bush's speeches on Iraq have all been reactions to bad news for him.

Why else do you think he drags out the same old speech? Only this time, he specifically plays up the timetable question. This time he actually starts to talk about a "strategy" for "victory." You think Murtha had nothing to do with that? Can you explain the timing of it by some other agency? He'd already made his "Okay-so-2000-have-died-and-we-must-stay-the-course" speech in October. Do you think he was going to make another speech a month later if it hadn't been for Murtha? Get real!

[MrBenchley]

178. And they've all been more or less identical....

"This time he actually starts to talk about a "strategy" for "victory.""
Unlike this time....

"In his weekly radio address June 25, President Bush recalled his June 24 meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari at the White House and previewed his scheduled June 28 address to the American people, in which he intends to speak of "our mission in Iraq, why it remains important to our safety here at home, and our two-track strategy for victory."

http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2005/0627/epf105.htm

"Can you explain the timing of it by some other agency?"
Let's see, Republicans got clobbered around the country in Novemebr elections, and a bunch of the losing GOP candidates publicly blamed Chimpy in the weeks that followed....nah, that couldn't have any fucking thing to do with it.

[BurtWorm]

179. I can't tell if you really don't see the Murtha effect

or if you're just gainsaying for fun now. You really believe Bush is leading on this issue and not just reacting? You really believe Murtha's turnaround has had no effect on the administration's behavior?

[MrBenchley]

181. I think anybody who pretends there WAS a Murtha effect

is kidding themselves.

"You really believe Murtha's turnaround has had no effect on the administration's behavior? "
Yup. I think folks like Doug Forrester and Jerry Kilgore bitching publicly that they would have won except for the corrupt drunk had a lot more to do with that speech...

And since it was more or less identical to the speeches that came before it, it's hard to see what "effect" there is even IF you ascribe the speech to Murtha...

[BurtWorm]

182. Then we'll just have to leave it at that, won't we.

Fundamental difference of vision on this. And only time will tell who sees more accurately.

[MrBenchley]

184. Next month when Chimpy gives the same damn speech again

We can talk about it....

[SOS]

140. In 2004 only two incumbent Democratic senators lost...

Cleland and Carnahan, both DLC.
Is this our strategery for victory in 2006?

[MrBenchley]

145. Rich....

No clearly, the strtaegy should have been to purge them from the Democratic party , because they were part of the DLC....<sarcasm>

[rman]

207. Voting for Kerry is not supporting anything Kerry is associated with

Many people did vote for "the lesser of two evils" aka "anyone but Bush". Also many people understood there'd be no point is scattering the votes across multiple candidates other then Bush, and Kerry was obviously the most promising candidate other then Bush.

That, and not support for the DLC, is the reason why many people voted for Kerry.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

53. Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5501371&mesg_id=5501764

[MrBenchley]

15. Jeeze, louise!

Some people sure as shit have an exagerrated notion of what constitutes a smear.

THIS is a smear.....and what Wittman was talking about.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2005/11/surrender_monke_3.html

[BurtWorm]

17. Do you think Pelosi and Murtha were "offering surrender?"

Or is that a lie? If it's a lie, it's a smear. QED

[MrBenchley]

23. Do you think right wingers are spinning it that way?

Funny you're upset about the person who pointed out it gave them an opening to smear, but not at all about the actual smear.

[BurtWorm]

27. Huh?

No comprendo. Please rephrase.

[MrBenchley]

30. Happy to.

I wonder why you're not at all upset about some right winger calling Pelosi a "Surrender monkey" but bent out of shape at a prominent Democrat pointing out that Pelosi's own comments gave right wingers an opening to do so.

[BurtWorm]

42. You expect wingers to be idiots.

You don't expect Democrats to be useful idiots--useful to Rove.

[MrBenchley]

57. So tell us....

Which one was more "useful to Rove"...the one who gave him an opening to smear Democrats, or the one who pointed out that it was perhaps not wise to give "Rove" that opening?

For that matter, what could be a clearer sign of "useful idiots" than a bunch of "Democrats" sitting around on a Democratic discussion board publicly screaming that the group that includes John Kerry, Al Gore, Max Cleland, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Tom Carper, Ellen Tauscher, Adam Smith, Ken Salazar, Carolyn McCarthy, Loretta Sanchez Blanche Lincoln, etc. are not "really Democrats": and ought to be slandered and "purged from the party."

[BurtWorm]

63. Membership in the DLC is not the same as spokesmanship for it.

The DLC has served its usefulness. It's no longer useful to anyone but Republicans by affirming their policies and dragging the Democratic party to the right. Especially on the issue of Iraq. The DLC policy is as out of touch with where the American people on Iraq as PNAC is. On Iraq, the DLC has demonstrated again and again an inability to envision how to actually lead.

John Murtha, on the other hand, is actually leading. Look at the effect of his statement. Is Washington not following his lead?

Do you not want Democrats to lead us out of this mess in Iraq? Or do you prefer Democrats to allow the right-wing to continue dictating the way Iraq will be played out--even when it's obvious that the right-wing has not an ounce of a clue?

[MrBenchley]

69. Now what are you trying to pull.....

"The DLC has served its usefulness. "
Sez you.

"Do you not want Democrats to lead us out of this mess in Iraq?"
Yeah? What's the plan?

"John Murtha, on the other hand, is actually leading. Look at the effect of his statement. Is Washington not following his lead? "
What WAS the vote on that resolution the other day? 403-3? Even Murtha voted against it. Now, that's leadership, by cracky </sarcasm>.

By the way, the person who spoke out about it being a political stunt? The DLC's Ellen Tauscher. But don't let any facts get in your way.

[BurtWorm]

75. You actually fell for the Republican stunt in response to Murtha?

:eyes:

You think Murtha is proposing to cut and run? What makes your position different from a Republicans? :wtf:

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

88. Marshall Wittman is not a respected Democrat.

He's a party-jumping whore.

May I remind you that you're bringing all sorts of Democrats into this. Most of us have no problem with most of the Dems you name, I would wager. With Al From and Marshall Wittman, on the other hand, that's another matter.

[MrBenchley]

92. Says who?

"He's a party-jumping whore."
Yeah, damn him and David Brock. They're no better than that flip-flopper John Kerry, because clearly anybody who'd change their mind is worthless</sarcasm>.


"May I remind you that you're bringing all sorts of Democrats into this. Most of us have no problem with most of the Dems you name, I would wager."
And that's why we hear all this horseshit about the DLC.

[BurtWorm]

106. Marshall Wittman made his statement on behalf of the DLC.

His statement attacked two prominent Democrats: Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. The DLC--the organization, not the membership--has a history of attacking Democrats who don't toe its right-wing line. Why do you give *them* a free pass to piss on Democrats and get hysterical when DUers dish it *back* to them?

[MrBenchley]

110. Who ARE you kidding?

It's shameful to get this far down the thread and find out you either didn't read the goddamn Washington Post news story or didn't comprehend it.

"The DLC--the organization, not the membership--has a history of attacking Democrats who don't toe its right-wing line."
Bullshit.

[depakid]

117. You're really in denial

It's obvious to me that you either haven't read (or understood) many of the statements coming out of the DLC- or you simply agree with right wing policies.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

120. Which part of this quote do you not understand?

"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."


Why is Wittman reading Pelosi's statement as "offering surrender?" If Karl Rove wants to read it that way, what's going to stop him? He'll read anything anyway he wants to. Why does Wittman read it that way? Does Wittman think Pelosi was offering surrender? Who was she offering surrender to?

Do you agree with Wittman that Bush was "expressing resolve?" Do you have evidence that Americans are viewing this as you, Wittman and Rove do?

[MrBenchley]

130. If you really must know....

I don't understand why you left off the first paragraph which puts that in context, for a start....

"Do you agree with Wittman that Bush was "expressing resolve?""
Geeze, you mean you thought Chimpy's idiotic posturing the other day was not him trying to express resolve?

[BurtWorm]

136. Trying to express is not the same as expressing.

Can't you tell the difference?

(The first paragraph was not in Wittman's words.)

[MrBenchley]

138. And omitting context is always dishonest....

"Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security."

So now are you publicly doubting he said that?

[BurtWorm]

139. Where are the quotes showing the words were his?

You want me to quote a Post reporter's paraphrase as Wittman's words?

And anyway, if he did use exactly those words (which he didn't), what of it? Why would he characterize Pelosi's words as "offering surrender" if he did not read them that way himself?

I have to ask you again point blank: Did Nancy Pelosi offer surrender? If she did, Wittman has a serious point. If she didn't, why is Wittman--not Rove, but DLC spokesperson Wittman--insinuating that she did?

[MrBenchley]

141. So you ARE claiming the Post just made that up?

"And anyway, if he did use exactly those words (which he didn't), what of it? "
Yeah, what possible meaning could context adsdd to a quote?

"I have to ask you again point blank"
You can ask what you like.

[BurtWorm]

143. I repeat:

Why would he characterize Pelosi's words as "offering surrender" if he did not read them that way himself?

[MrBenchley]

144. Repeat until you're blue in the face....

The fact that you're yanking Wittman's quote out of context says it all....

[BurtWorm]

149. How are we supposed to read the words I quoted from Wittman?

It looks to me as though the reporter's context comes directly from the quote:

"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."

How does this "context"--"Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security"--add anything to the meaning of Wittman's quote (other than making it crystal clear how Wittman understands the Republican mind so well)? It doesn't. It's clear that he's talking about how he thinks the Republicans will play it. But it always comes back to the questions: Did Pelosi offer surrender? Did Bush express resolve? And again, if Bush did express resolve and she did offer surrender, then Wittman has a point. If not, then how did he read resolve and surrender into Bush's and Pelosi's statements?

It comes to the point when you have to decide which side am I on? Am I on the side of Bushism--aka quagmire and incompetence--or the side of Murtha, Pelosi and the military? Wittman has made it all too clear which side he's on.

[MrBenchley]

152. Try reading them in context....

"It's clear that he's talking about how he thinks the Republicans will play it."
And in fact the GOP did and continues to play it that way...and that it doesn't seem to bother anybody nearly as much as the fact that Wittman got press and is correct in what he said.

"It comes to the point when you have to decide which side am I on?"
And I sure as shit wonder who is sitting around calling for purges and inventing smears of other Democrats by taking quotes out of context....

"Wittman has made it all too clear which side he's on. "
Yeah, he's a Democrat.

[BurtWorm]

154. The GOP is walking wounded.

Haven't you noticed? The country has wised up to their incompetence.

[MrBenchley]

155. Of all the things you've said yet

that might be the funniest.

[BurtWorm]

156. That may be the most substantial thing you've said.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

146. And that IS a question for the ages....

Why would somebody familiar with Republican dirty tricks warn other Democrats not to give Republicans an opening to pull dirty tricks?

[Qibing Zero]

204. My goodness. Still at it?

Don't you think you've caused enough trouble today?

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

208. Trouble with who?

Hahahaha.....

[JAbuchan08]

100. Who's attacking respected Democrats?

the DL-fricken-C.

Centrist is when you stake out a position in the center and hold that position. The DLC picks up and moves wherever Republicans redefine the center.

[MrBenchley]

113. Hahahaha...

Yeah, who are these people screaming that the DLC has to be purged? What a fucking mystery.

[JAbuchan08]

185. And that usually starts up right after the DLC attacks a Democrat

Sure DUers attack the DLC constantly, but they don't have the same platform as the rest of the party. It's not like Faux news picks up on what DUers say, but they sure have an open ear for people like From and Biden and Lieberman to attack other Democrats.
I hardly ever see prominent Democrats attack other Democrats - excepting DLCers who seem to do it as a matter of principle.

[robbedvoter]

177. What WAS the vote on that resolution the other day? The Hunter resolution?

Please tell me you do know that they voted on the Hunter (R) resolution and not Murtha's...

[Marr]

40. Yes, right-wingers are.

Right-wingers like Wittman.

And before you ask me why I'm not upset about the Republicans framing Murtha and Pelosi as advocates of "surrender", I'll tell you. Because they're fucking REPUBLICANS. I expect them to lie and smear. I expect the opposition to counter it, not hug it.

[MrBenchley]

61. Hahahaha.....

"before you ask me why I'm not upset about the Republicans framing Murtha and Pelosi as advocates of "surrender", I'll tell you. Because they're fucking REPUBLICANS."
Yeah, God forbid any Democrat ever get upset about what Republicans do...better we take it and not wonder why it happened. After all, there's Democrats to attack!

(Sweet Christ on a crutch, do you guys ever stop and think that the reason your positions get lukewarm support from so many Democrats is because you seem to hate Democrats as badly as the freepers do? Or that the reason your positions get such lukewarm support from so many Americans is because you can barely contain your contempt for all but a tiny handful of Americans?)

[Marr]

166. Christ- is that you, Rush?

Seriously- way to take a statement out of context. You really beat the hell out of that strawman, too.

[MrBenchley]

171. No, Rush is busy attacking Democrats

including folks like the DLC....

"way to take a statement out of context"
Now what was even remotely out of context there?

[Marr]

187. I said that I'm not surprised to hear Republicans lying and

smearing. That's what they always do, and it goes without saying that Democrats are upset about it. I expect the opposition to point these lies out, not *promote* them.

You edited that to suggest I'd said that Republican lies don't bother me, and then argued against that.

[TahitiNut]

45. So, the reichbots commit the equivalent of POLITICAL RAPE of Pelosi ...

... and the DLC's sole reaction is to blame Pelosi for provoking the rape?

It's an obscene game of political enabling. Every time a psycho-fascist attacks a liberal Democrat, the DLC climbs on board to blame the victim.

Folks who condone that kind of behavior are sick. :puke:

[MrBenchley]

64. That IS rich....

I'll tell you what IS sick...it's people who are bent out of shape at Wittman, but not at all about the right wingers actually slandering Pelosi.

[TahitiNut]

68. Well ...

I'll tell you what IS sick ... it's Wittman being bent out of shape at Pelosi, but not at all about the right wingers actually slandering her.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

73. I guess the foo shit got worn, huh?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

190. Good one, Tahitinut!

I think you've said it in a nutshell.

And wittless was beyond bent out of shape at Pelosi..you'd think he was rethug.

[TahitiNut]

200. It's pretty clear to me that Dimwittman is further right than John Birch.

:shrug: If the DLC doesn't fire him, they're 'flashing' their 'virtues.'

[Marr]

168. Hahaha!!! Where have I heard that before...? Oh I know!

"You should hate the terrorists, not GW Bush!".

Give me a fucking break, please.

[erpowers]

16. One Question for Mr. Wittman

I have one question for Mr. Wittman. Where are your kids. It is easy to say that calling for a time table for Iraq or calling for a withdrawal is surrendering in Iraq if your kids are not there. Therefore, I challenge Mr. Wittman to sign his kids up for the military if he think we should stay in Iraq.

Instead of attacking Pelosi and Murtha, Wittman should be attacking people like Rove. Wittman should point out that Rove like many other of the Republican screaming for us to stay in Iraq have never served in the military or gone to war. Wittman should point out that even though Rove supported the Vietnam War he found a way not to fight the war.

[dpbrown]

18. The DLC is former and wannabe Republicans already

Corporate handouts, preemptive war, trickle-down economics.

There is nothing Democratic in the ideas of the DLC.

[jsamuel]

19. You guys have been pulling us down for too long

it's enough that we have to fight the repubs, but having to fight you too, by YOUR actions, not ours...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

41. LOL- you're right- we should just shut-up and let Lieberman drive.

The DLC is destroying the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[jsamuel]

55. stop following me around, your just mad you lost the argument from another

post.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[wryter2000]

20. We don't need the repugs

The DLC can do their dirty work for them.

[robbedvoter]

21. "Rove himself could not have done it better. " - who says he didn't?

We already know that Donna Brazille and karl are good friends. We know how BFEE uses people like Zell, Joe or Ed Koch, the Teamsters. Why would we think that the DLC os off bounds for them?
I was one of the people who thought - especially during election time that the hostility towards the DLC here was a bit out of proportions.
But on Murtha - for the first time all dems in congress achieved unanimity and sent a message strong enough that BFEE has to at least somewhat bend and pretend to respect him.
So, where does the whispering campaign start? From behind...If anyone doubts this is orchestrated....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. DLC = moderate republicans with a (D) after their names.

Losers.

[depakid]

35. "....stab the Democratic Party in the back"

That's the DLC's raison d'etre- and THE single biggest reason that the Dems have lost 6 elections in a row- and are now bucking for a 7th.

I've said it before- and I'll say it again- the DINO's are bigger enemies than the Republicans- and until the Dems clean house once and for all, they're going to have trouble even becoming relevant in national politics again.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

47. The arguments in your posts lately

fit perfectly into the theory held by Sirota (and many others) as to why the Dems have lost 6 elections in a row- and seem anxious to lose a seventh even as the Republicans are imploding.

Never mind that the DINO's have handed every single incompetant and extremist nominee and every piece of egregious legislation to the far right on a silver platter.

Until the party gets serious about ridding itself of these kinds of "representatives," and starts standing up for traditional Democratic values again, it's destined to remain irrelevant- except of course- as an enabler of "bipartisan" right wing policies.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

58. Some Dems seem to want the Party to lose

either that- or they want far right policies to prevail. Either way, the evidence and the analysis couldn't be clearer.

Someone famous once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

So unless one's insane, then apparantly they like the results they've been getting.

[MrBenchley]

82. Hey, I can't think of a better way to get the Party to lose

than by calling for purges of Democrats.

"apparantly they like the results they've been getting"
So how did that Kucinich boom do, anyway?

[depakid]

121. Is a strawman the best you can do to defend Republican lite?

Apparantly so-

Because the evidence speaks for itself as to how successful that "strategy" has been in congressional elections for the past 11 years....

[MrBenchley]

135. Hahahhahahaha

Yeah, and there's nobody calling for purges here, either....

[JHB]

66. I don't think "chucking overboard" is what's needed...

...but actually backing the party would be nice.

Regardless of what does or doesn't fill your trousers, ther'd only be a fraction of the complaints about the DLC if they simply put as much energy into attacking the Republicans as they do attacking the "left" of their own party.

[MrBenchley]

90. Most of the posters here do....

and in pretty much every other "e-e-evil DLC" thread.

"ther'd only be a fraction of the complaints about the DLC if they simply put as much energy into attacking the Republicans as they do attacking the "left" "
Actually, it's hilarious to read that Wittman's quite sensible comment is an "attack."

[JHB]

111. And WHY is that? Because the DLC treats THEM as the enemy...

...and not the Republicans.
I reiterate: "there'd only be a fraction of the complaints about the DLC if they simply put as much energy into attacking the Republicans as they do attacking the "left".

Wittman's comment does not come in a vacuum, and he characterizes it as "the Democratic leader offering surrender".

How is that "quite sensible"? Why is it not an "attack"? And as long as we're on about "how politics is played", how about "Why doesn't he keep his criticism of a fellow Democrat out of the media?"

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

151. Again

Where are these attacks?

http://www.dlc.org/


"Wittman's comment does not come in a vacuum"
That's true...there's a whole paragraph of his remarks some people persist in pretending don't put the second remark in context.

"How is that "quite sensible"?"
Because it's sensible to think about how things are likely to be recieved before one speaks.

"Why is it not an "attack"? "
Because it's not an attack, even when his remarks are ripped out of context.

[depakid]

115. Some people learn- and others don't

Some admit their mistakes and attempt to change their behavior, others continue to stay the course, no matter what the evidence shows- or what the results are likely to be.

Pretty sad, really- and it bodes poorly for our chances in 2006.

[Cha]

191. I know..it's makes you wonder

what the dlc's(democrats Losing Constantly) agenda really is?

[Crunchy Frog]

43. The DLC can go fuck themselves!

Our party's greatest liability is that we don't present a unified front, and that there are many Democratic leaders who would rather go after their fellow Democrats and undermine them, than go after the Republicans.

People like these guys publicly excoriating some of the strongest and outspoken leaders of our party and accusing them of the old RW canard of being "weak on national security" does our party more harm than the Republicans ever can.

Speaking of which, I are we sure that Marshall Wittman is really a former Republican strategist?

[grytpype]

44. Sorry, but the DLC is right!

The Dems who are calling for withdrawal are offering to share responsibility for the losing war with Duhbya! And Karl Rove is taking full advantage of it.

[BurtWorm]

46. I don't understand what you're saying.

"offering to share responsibility for the losing war with Duhbya"

What does that mean? Are you agreeing that Murtha is "offering surrender" in Iraq? Is that what you think he's doing?

[grytpype]

52. This is what I am saying.

Duhbya has lost the war and he is trying to shift the blame to the Dems.

He is going to be forced to retreat from Iraq and it will be a disaster.

The Dems are calling for retreat now, which allows Duhbya to blame them when he does in fact have to retreat. "See, I retreated like the Dems said, and it was a disaster." That is going to be the line.

Try to understand this people: the Dems are not in charge. They have no influence over the Iraq policy, it is run 100% out of the White House. The Dems can "call for" any damned thing they want, it is not going to influence the Iraq policy because Bush does not listen to advice from ANYONE.

What the Dems should be doing is making sure Bush takes 100% of the blame for losing Iraq. That is all we can do at this point, we can't help the situation inside Iraq. We aren't in a position to do anything but stand back and watch Dubya lose the war.

[BurtWorm]

54. Most Americans want this thing in Iraq over with.

They see the pulling back and redeployment not as surrender but as smart. Why let Bush take credit for that?

[grytpype]

60. I understand what you are saying.

But when Bush pulls out, it is going to be a disaster. If you think things are bad now, they will be worse inside Iraq when we pull out, at best we will have accomplished nothing. There aren't going to be any victory parades.

What's underlying my position is that Bush is going to stay in Iraq until he is forced to leave, no matter what the Dems or anyone else says.

[BurtWorm]

67. Do you want the war over or not?

When Murtha says our presence there is getting in the way of progress, do you think he's wrong? I don't. I think he's speaking for the military that is in Iraq and that sees no positive result from our staying there.

[grytpype]

76. You're not getting it.

We don't control whether the war is over or not. It's not up to us. We have no influence over it whatsoever, and it is a big mistake to act like we have control over it when we don't.

[BurtWorm]

81. It's not a matter of control.

It's a matter of speaking on behalf of the people, giving the people a voice. That's what Murtha did. That's what Democrats should do.

[MrBenchley]

85. Appalling, isn't it?

Some people seem to have no grasp of how politics works, how Congress works, how the media works, how most Americans think and feel...and yet they not only want to control what the Democrats say, they want to purge everyone who doesn't agree with them.

[grytpype]

103. It's not up to us Burt.

We have no control and can provide no input (that will be heeded) about the Iraq policy. It is 100% run out of the White House and they think they are geniuses or something because they never take advice from ANYONE.

My point is that the Dems are making a mistake by piping up and trying to be helpful and make suggestions about what to do next in Iraq. It will have ZERO influence. The troops won't come home one day sooner. But Bush and Rove are laughing at us because we're offering to take some responsibilty for Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

70. Have you ever taken a civics class?

The Congress has power over funding. It can defund this war.

It can say that all authorization for this war is terminated. Murtha resolution:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Now for some, who want to play politics, the theory is to let people die in Iraq, Dems say nothing... Bush and repubs get blamed...Dems win the next election.

That is a strategy devoid of morality AND common sense.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[grytpype]

116. We don't control Congress.

<i>The Congress has power over funding. It can defund this war. </i>

We don't control Congress, and defunding the war while there are troops in the field is the surest way to guarantee a disaster.

I don't care for your personal remark, by the way.

[Tom Joad]

199. We don't Control Congress, no use taking a stand on anything.

Might as well play possum. say nothing and just hope for better times in 2006. Say nothing about the war, about minimum wage, about health care access, about Veteran's funding. No use even showing up. Use that time fundraising. It will be enough to say "i'm not a republican" in 2006 and get lots of votes.

I'm being a bit sarcastic.

McGovern introduced a bill to fund the end of the war. It's not perfect, but it's better than the suicidal path of passive support for war, which is what you are suggesting, even if that is not your intent (though it would seem to be).

As the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq reaches 2,000, U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) this week will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops; for transitional security provided by other countries – including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations; and for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq – as well as funding for reconstruction efforts.

[Warren Stupidity]

123. So you think that the Democratic position should

be stay the course no retreat?

[Qibing Zero]

203. Easily said.

Not so easily done when so many of the dems still think we need to 'stay the course'. What can one do but speak out and try to gain some support? Do we have to politicize things even when people's lives are on the line? Goodness...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. And, your alternative to withdrawal from a lost war is...?

[grytpype]

56. We are not in control of the Iraq policy.

The Dems are not calling the shots when it comes to Iraq. They control NOTHING. They are not even listened to by Bush. That is why I don't want Dems piping up and offering suggestions and being helpful, the ONLY thing that accomplishes is it gives Rove a target to shoot at -- a hook to hang responsibility for the war on the Dems.

The only thing the Dems should be doing now with respect to Iraq is piling responsibilty on his shoulders, let it crush him, and then when we're back in power we'll have to try to clean up his mess.

But it is a huge mistake to try ineffectually to clean up the mess while Bush is in still in power and still in the process of losing the war.

[MrBenchley]

105. Evidently we're supposed to pout and posture like we are....

because THAT will win the voters' hearts (snicker)....

[BurtWorm]

114. Rove is finished.

Haven't you been following the news? Rove's bullshit has gone beyond the expiration date. The vaunted "Counterattack" is a miserable failure.

The question Dems have to ask themselves now is "What must be done?" Voters want a vision--to get us the hell out of Iraq. Dems are just now beginning to form one. And idiots like Wittman aren't seeing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. You seem to believe that politicians lead.

They follow. The public is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If the Dems are dumb enough to play it safe and offer nothing but silence, they will be seen (deservedly) as weak and without solutions while more people are killed.

Standing by silently and watching the catastrophe unfold in hopes that BushCo will take the fall will be seen for what it is. Playing politics with lives.

Is it any wonder that the American people are disgusted with politicians of both parties? While they pose and blather and watch the polls the slaughter continues.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. So when Democrats are asked what their position on the war is,

what should their answer be?

[mmonk]

49. Their stance as a group

cannot be defended if you believe neocon policy is wrong. They also weaken any effort to get at the truth of the matter concerning the Iraq war, policy, and all the dishonesty associated with it. If they ever take firm control of the party, then I will just help people running on an individual basis but not any party control apparatus. Before I get flamed by their apologists, this war and this policy direction for the US will determine America's future and how well it fits in the world for at least a generation. This is the final crossroads for our country. Which path will we take?

[The Witch]

59. The DLC is letting him say this shit? My god.

That is sick. He needs to go.

[Tom Joad]

62. Is there any doubt the US military should surrender to the Iraqi people?

It should admit defeat and move on. Then learn about not attempting colonial control of other nations. Chalk it up as a lesson learned.

[BurtWorm]

74. Surrender is not an issue here.

The issue is to decide if the US presence in Iraq helps or hinders the situation. The military, as reported by Murtha, seems to think our presence is harmful in that it gives insurgents a target and a reason to continue using violence. There is no hope--no visible goal even--for a military solution. There is no good reason for us to stay in Iraq.

[W stands for Wacko]

72. War based on lies, deception, fear, oil, scandal, and Neo-con cunning?

In the absence of the above issues, Marshall Wittman may have a point, but in their presence he is a Neo-con enabler.

[MadHound]

83. The DLC, if it cares about the Democratic party,

Should immediately disassociate itself completely from the party and all members of the party.

It is sad to see somebody who stands up and speaks not just truth to power, but also expounds a vastly popular position get stabbed in the back by the DLC. They have done this time and again, and it is time to kick the mofos out of the party. They bring about no good within the party and only cause harm to it. It is the DLC and their monetary grip on the party that has eroded more and more support away from the party. They need to go over to the Republicans where they would feel much more at home.

[AntiCoup2K4]

87. The DLC does NOT care about the Democratic party

Their motivation, from day one, has been to destroy the party from within. The fact that they hire such obvious extremist shills as Wittman proves it.

[Cha]

192. Yup! The proof is in that

freaktard's puddin'head.

[OzarkDem]

91. The Democratic Party should publicly renounce the DLC

It has become fatally flawed and rendered itself useless.

The Party should also withhold funds from any candidate who supports it.

[Cha]

193. At some point in the near

future I wish Dean would make a statement on our Differences with the ilk of wittmann.. as only he can.

[OzarkDem]

84. The last nail in the DLC coffin

Any Dem leader who continues to support these Repub stooges should start looking for a new line of work.

[mzmolly]

101. I TOTALLY AGREE!

The DLC, if it actually cares about the Democratic Party, should disassociate itself immdeiately from Marshall Wittman.

[AntiCoup2K4]

153. Wittman isn't the exception here, he's the rule.

He sticks out like the sore thumb because his right wing resume is a matter of public record. But his sickening rhetoric is no different than that of Al From, Bruce Reed, Will PNAC Marshall, or the other public faces of the DLC. It's arguable whether some of the Senators and Congresspeople on the DLC list have redeeming qualities or not, but the organization itself is completely worthless, and needs to be eradicated like the cancer it is.

[mzmolly]

183. Well you and I don't get to eradicate organizations that contribute

financially to Dems unfortunately. What we can do is support the organizations WE agree with and make others marginal. I think the DLC is becoming such already.

[Lasher]

118. The DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic party

OK, that's it. I've had about enough of these guys. I decided to learn more about them, and did so by reading a good article at:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php

These people are not Democrats! They support the objectives of the neocons. They seek a less progressive tax structure. That means tax cuts for the rich, at the expense of everyone else. They are opposed to affirmative action. They are in favor of dismantling provisions of the New Deal.

They are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. I think Dean should sue them for fraudulently having a name that implies they are part of the Democratic party.

[depakid]

126. "...Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist"

What makes anyone so sure that many of these people or their supporters are actually Democrats (much less people who believe in traditional Democratic values).

[Cha]

194. If it talks like a rethug, if it

smells like a rethug, if it smears like a rethug then it probably is.

[PATRICK]

147. One simple principle

If an action or utterance by a "strategist" can be easily seen as the act of a hostile GOP plant, is it really that critical to find out whether he is dupe, a dunce or a troll? I would make it a litmus test for these converts especially to disclose their personal finances and offshore accounts, but in any event if it trumpets like a Repug, craps like a Repug, and tramples Democratic leaders like a Repug elephant, I don't care what el;se you call it. And it should be swiftly conveyed to the Elephant's Graveyard.

There is a short list of unbelievably stupid things that elected Dem officials tolerate: lousy rotten advisers, big money donors, electronic voting reform, trashing progressive liberalism for whatever is left of status quo entitlements, timidity and being more duped by the MSM than most voters, inability to fight GOP crime as crime, inability to put our lives and the nation ahead of their career fears. Get rid of the Wormtongues and we might get somewhere. Send them back to their master.

[LittleClarkie]

148. In my usual Kerry-centric way, my first thought was

that anyone who is offering a way out at this time is NOT DLC. I need him to get his name off their rolls.

They've already disowned him. When they talk about New Democrats for 2008, they don't talk about him. When they proudly displayed the names of the New Dems that had Iraq plans, his name was not among them.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

This Wittman person is doing nothing but helping the the Republican spin.

It is not "cut and run" Mr. Wittman. And a man who served for both parties in as distinguished a way as Rep. Murtha did can in no way, shape or form be called weak on national defense. You could make that case if you wanted to. I don't know why you wouldn't.

Even Hillary is backing away from Iraq now. I wonder if Mr. Wittman is even representative of the DLC anymore.

I wish I could trust anything this administration says. Here they are, spinning about cutting and running, when people like Murtha tell us that the military is in desperate shape and that the generals are scared to death to say anything about it lest they too lose their jobs.

Meanwhile Bush talks of withdrawal. That makes me go cross-eyed. How is talking of withdrawal not CUTTING and FUCKING RUNNING? I'm serious. You lost me, Mr. President.

Shit. The only problem for me with the Kerry plan is that HE'S NOT IN A POSITION TO IMPLEMENT IT. Because you KNOW Bush is going to fuck up whatever he touches. Short of impeachment, I don't know what we can do about it.

[smoogatz]

160. DLC=Democrats Lose Continually

They represent no one. The last thing anyone wants right now is the Republican Lite party.

[in_cog_ni_to]

161. SEE?!!!!! Those people ARE NOT on our side. They DO NOT speak for ME and

I'll be DAMNED if I vote for ANYONE who is a DLC member. PERIOD! They can kiss my ass and I'll vote Green. That is BEYOND ridiculous. The Dems FINALLY find some freakin' balls and the DLC REPUKES backstab them? I call BULLSHIT!

[G_j]

162. Go to hell DLC/Wittmann, the follwing letter speaks for me!

every single word!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5501396

[radio4progressives]

176. Speaking Profound TRUTH to POWER - PROFOUNDLY.

I responded to that letter in the original thread.

please send to the media and Congress, but most especially to the in the DLC quislings.

[FreedomAngel82]

174. I agree

Why the heck is a Karl Rove wannabe associating with a group of supposivedly democrats?

[Odin2005]

186. DLC DELENDA EST!!!!!!!!

These Repuke-lite corporate whoring cocksuckers can GO TO HELL. If the Democrats want us Greens to rejoin the party the DLC must go. They are traitors that sobotage thier own party for corporate money.

DOWN WITH THE DEMONIC LOOSERSHIP CREEPS!

[Cha]

196. Unfortunately that

describes them Perfectly!

"DOWN WITH THE DEMONIC LOOSERSHIP CREEPS!"

[OnionPatch]

195. Saddam is gone, there are no weapons

I would think that would be enough of a "victory" for most Americans. Weren't those our main security concerns? Why are we sucking our treasury and our military dry to occupy a hostile country once those concerns are taken care of? It's just insane!

[stickdog]

197. Pelosi "surrendered" to common sense and her constituents!!!

In contrast, the DLC keeps trying to surrender the Democratic Party to neocons and corporate titans.

[Chicago Democrat]

206. about time!

talk about a 'careful' politician....well she's a survivor and knows when the winds have changed.

[LincolnMcGrath]

198. No surprises here

What is shocking is the one or two DUers still clinging to the DLC teat, Especially the one who feels that only he can bash the DLC, while attacking others who dare.

[paineinthearse]

201. WTF "...now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council..."

When did the DLC move to the center?

:shrug:

[Chicago Democrat]

205. DLC is the ONLY true ENEMY!!! Give $$$$ to Anti-War Candidates!!!

We must DEFEAT THEM IN EVERY CONTEST WE CAN! WE MUST GIVE MONEY TO TRUE LIBERALs!

Even if you are poor! GIve until it hurts! Forgoe Christmas! I AM !


Everyones getting an electric toothbrush and the rest is going to TRUE LIBERAL CANDIDATES!! (1/5 of my income in December I pledge to Anti WAr Dems and ANti WAr Blogs!!)


Save Democracy for Christmas! Its what Jesus would do! AMEN