To which Democratic Party do you belong?

[Q]

There is an 'old' Democratic party and a 'new' Democratic party. A party of Liberals and Progressives and of Conservatives and Centrists. There is a party of Jefferson, FDR and Kennedy and the party of Clinton. A party of the New Deal and a party of the Third Way.

Some of you are probably saying to yourselves that it shouldn't matter if a person is liberal or conservative...Old Democrat or New Democrat...as long as they're a (D)emocrat. But it does matter. The Old and New Democratic principles and values are worlds apart when it comes to the direction and goals of the party.

The Old Democratic Party is over two centuries old and is the result of generations of Americans and their struggle to keep democracy alive against a constant onslaught from the ruling class and their 'special interests'.

The New Democratic Party is two decades old and is the result of the ruling class and their industries finally finding a way to weaken and then destroy from within the one political party in America that was the counterbalance to their corporate interests.

We can argue about guns, abortion and God...but at the end of the day it comes down to which side is telling the truth and which is playing fast and loose with it. There are no versions of the truth or shades of gray or 'third ways' to hide behind. There is only truth versus lies, honesty versus dishonesty. Thus we find that the Old Democrats and New Democrats have become natural enemies...one side defending the 'party of the people' and the other working for and with those who want to destroy it. You can see a microcosm of this battle for the soul of the party right here on DU.

Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton personify the New Democratic DLC: They're just sincere enough to be called Democrats while manipulating the rank and file into believing that moving to the Corporate/Religious Right is in their best interests. But in reality...it's only in THEIR best interests as they move to throw off the 'big govenment' weight of the traditional Democratic base of Blacks, women, workers, anti-war activists and the poor.

Have you ever wondered why Democrats haven't gathered forces to fight Bush on issues ranging from election fraud to outing CIA agents to 9-11 negligence to lying this nation into war to nominating criminals to high office in government?

The short answer is that the New Democrats want many of the same things that Bush and the Neoconservatives want. They both want a 'smaller government'...which means a government that serves the ruling class instead of the working class. They both support the doctrine of 'preventative wars'...which translates into one man...the president...being able to wage war instead of the congress as defined in the US Constitution. They both want to eliminate unions and the power of collective bargaining and give back complete control over the worker to the corporations. They both want to 'privatize' certain government functions and the oversight and regulations that come with it. And they both believe in supply-side economics and corporate over social welfare.

Many Republicans are just now coming to grips with the fact that their party has been usurped by 'Neoconservatives' and their fanatical religious right allies. They're wondering if it's too late to do anything about it as they witness the Old Republican party of real Conservatives fade into memory.

The question rank and file Democrats need to ask: Do they want to keep the Old Democratic Party of the People or accept the New Democratic agenda that supports many of the tenets of the Neoconservatives and their corporate masters? Unlike the fate of the Republican party...it's not too late to stop the takeover of our party by Neodemocrats. We can 'just say no' to those who want to transform the oldest political party in America and the Party of the People into a mirror reflection of the New Republican Party.

Are you an Old Democrat or a New Democrat?

[Mark E. Smith]

1. The Party Of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton

As opposed to the party of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.

[Q]

5. Could you elaborate?

You're not being very clear. Some on your list are Old Democrats and some are New Democrats. The only thing they have in common is that they're (D)emocrats. It's not about 'winners' and 'losers'...it's about the future of the party.

Clinton began the era of the New Democratic party. The era that gave the New Republicans many of the things they've always wanted: Welfare 'reform'...an anti-union Democratic party...NAFTA...and telecommunications legislation that opened the way for a Neocon monopoly of the free press.

In other words...don't listen what the New Democrats say...watch what they do.

[Mark E. Smith]

15. Let Me Refer You To Padraig 18's Comments

Says it with far greater eloquence than I ever could.

Let me add that the last thing we need to do now is pigeon-hole ourselves with clumsy and subjective historical categorizations. We will always need to be supple and ready to adapt the goals of our party to the needs of the present. I sincerely doubt FDR gave much thought to the Wilson administration when he crafted the New Deal. Instead he put into motion something that was uniquely of its time.

To become overly reliant on questionable interpretations of what the past should mean to us now would be considered by many as the signs of a party totally lacking in any kind of vision for the future.

In other words, we'd be confirming a message the Republicans are already hard at work delivering.

[Sean Reynolds]

216. Actually FDR drafted the New Deal after the Square Deal...

Which was done by his cousin, Teddy. Of course we all know Teddy Roosevelt came before Wilson.

[KittyWampus]

2. I Reject Your Thesis, Sorry.

edit- more specifically, the two camps you set up aren't as clearly drawn as you seem to think.

[Dhalgren]

4. How do you explain the differences between, say,

the Clintons and Kucinich? (Dennis is a strong, old style, Roosevelt Democrat)

[wyldwolf]

49. How is Dennis a "strong, old style, Roosevelt Democrat?"

[The Gigmeister]

60. Please! Kucinich is NO FDR!!!

FDR brought this country together and won 4 national elections through appealing to all Americans.

Kucinish, while I appreciate his passion, polled in the 3's and 4's amongst ONLY Democrats.

Not even close!

[Zhade]

63. This begs the question...

Is winning the only measure of a Dem's worth?

You may find some Kerry followers to be less than pleased with such a view (though I, of course, believe he won and was robbed).

[CatholicEdHead]

68. Kucinich = "Democratic Wing of Democratic Party"

he is one of the few with the guts to speak out day after day with no exceptions. He is carrying Wellstone's torch.

[Zhade]

74. But Wellstone was a "far left commiesocialist whacko!"

At least, some DLCers think so...

[wyldwolf]

157. Really? Nah

He signed on to the Iraq liberation act.

Wanted an amendment to ban flag burning...

Was anti-choice until he had to run a national campaign...

[Mairead]

199. I think you need to check your facts. (nt)

[Padraig18]

210. Which ones does he have wrong, pray tell? n/t

[no name no slogan]

215. Kucinich was anti-abortion, but NOT "anti-choice"

True, he voted against abortion, but his votes hardly fit the pattern of the NARAL "anti-choice" label.

For example, despite his opposition to abortion, he did support funding for birth control. Your typical "anti-choice" voter does not support that stand. In fact, most "anti-choice" voters are also opposed to almost ALL forms of birth control (except for 'natural' methods like the rhythm method).

However, unlike some people, I feel no need to refight the 2004 primaries, and choose to focus on our ECONOMIC message-- which is how FDR put together a winning coalition in the 1930s, btw.

[cestpaspossible]

217. That is a rhetorical difference, not an error of fact.

[no name no slogan]

227. No, it's not

Mince it all you want, but Kucinich was both consistently 1) against funding abortion, and 2) in favor of increased funding for birth control.

This is hardly the record of somebody that NARAL would give a 0% rating.

[wyldwolf]

228. c'mon be serious

despite his opposition to abortion, he did support funding for birth control. Your typical "anti-choice" voter does not support that stand.

Really? I know many who do.

In fact, most "anti-choice" voters are also opposed to almost ALL forms of birth control

No they're not. You have source for that claim?

However, unlike some people, I feel no need to refight the 2004 primaries, and choose to focus on our ECONOMIC message-- which is how FDR put together a winning coalition in the 1930s, btw.

Hey - you're the one who brought up Kucinich. It isn't a refight of the primaries because he was never really in play.

Kucinich's economic plans were really nothing special.

[mattclearing]

248. I think there's a place for DK in the Party, but comparing him to FDR

is like comparing George W. Bush to Lincoln. Utterly preposterous.

[Q]

6. I'm assuming that...

...you have been following the debate since at least 2000. You'll have to fill in your own blanks. But certainly you can't deny that there's two competing forces within the party that seek different futures and have a different agenda?

[cestpaspossible]

38. Are you talking to yourself?

The other poster already rejected your premise. Simply saying "certainly you can't" is meaningless when the person you are addressing already has. If you wan't to defend you premise, do so, don't just pretend that it is impossible for anyone to disagree with you.

[Q]

90. That's how you read it and it's fine by me...

...but one person rejecting my premise means absolutely nothing...to me or the premise.

[cestpaspossible]

103. Why even post a thread if you reject discussion of the topic?

[Q]

254. Don't you mean...

...rejecting the deflection of the topic at hand? Discussion doesn't have to mean going off on a tangent every time someone brings up a new 'slant'.

If you have something to say...say it. If I feel like it's worth a response...I'll respond.

[Blue Wally]

7. I think they are

and it goes back much further than that. There are the Jeffersonian Democrats who believe that the common man is tyhe backbone of the country, but they need the educated elite to guide them. There are the Jacksonian Democrats who believe the common man should rule and the hell with the elites. We have been driving away the Jacksonian Democrats over the last 35 years.

A good book on this would be "Born Fighting" by James Webb.

[Zhade]

53. You reject reality, then. Q nailed it.

NT!

[Padraig18]

3. It's not as black and white as you would have people believe, Q.

The Democratic party has always been a coalition party. One can hardly cheer the Democratic party of FDR without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from decidely conservative, segregationist Southern Democrats. Revisionist history is no more appropriate in discussing the Democratic Party than it is in discussing anything else.

[Dhalgren]

8. But you wouldn't say that because the

"segregationist South" supported FDR, that made FDR a segregationist, would you?
Because a large coalition of groups came together to support Democratic ideals and values because they made the most sense to people, is not to say that therefore those values and ideals are not genuine or are immaterial.

[Padraig18]

10. No, I wouldn't (and didn't) say that.

I said what I said, and I stand by it.

[Dhalgren]

17. But how can you deride the FDR Democratic party because

it was supported by the "segregationist South"? When the party came forward and said in plain terms that it would not accept racism as a social construct, the "segregationist South" bolted from the coalition and joined the Republicans. If the party of FDR and Truman had been as compromising as you imply, that would not have happened. Today's Democratic party would have sold out African Americans in a heart beat. The current Democratic "leadership" is busy putting distance between themselves and women's rights, GLBT rights,and god knows what else. So, yeah, there is some serious differences in the basic make up of the Democratic party.

[Padraig18]

21. Pointing out a fact is not 'deriding' something.

As an historian, I refuse to let people revise history to create a false premise for a debate.

[Dhalgren]

24. There was distinct derision in your statement:

"One can hardly cheer the Democratic party of FDR without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from decidedly conservative, segregationist Southern Democrats." You say that the FDR Democratic party was a "coalition", and I grant you that, but to say that there is something inherently wrong with the dominant part of the coalition because some less desirable, minor groups saw advantage in said coalition is, at the very least, arguable. I am not attacking you in any way, I am trying to engage you in this discussion. I don't really understand your overly defensive tone.

[Padraig18]

25. There was no derision in my statement.

My statement was a factual reining-in of the flawed premise in the O/P.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Dhalgren]

39. I trust that you are being sarcastic - LOL!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Dhalgren]

44. Would you mind pointing out those "untruthful statements"

of mine, or is it easier to just snipe?

[cestpaspossible]

45. Sure

There was distinct derision in your statement:

"One can hardly cheer the Democratic party of FDR without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from decidedly conservative, segregationist Southern Democrats." You say that the FDR Democratic party was a "coalition", and I grant you that, but to say that there is something inherently wrong with the dominant part of the coalition because some less desirable, minor groups saw advantage in said coalition is, at the very least, arguable. I am not attacking you in any way, I am trying to engage you in this discussion. I don't really understand your overly defensive tone

The bolded section is simply a false, innaccurate, and misleading statement in the form of an opinion. You of course have the right to hold and promote that opinion, just as I have the right to opine that it is not true.

The italicized section is an untruthful insinuation that the other poster said something they didn't say. ("there is something inherently wrong with the dominant part of the coalition" is something the other poster neither said nor implied). It is really this section that I was refering to in my previous comment.

I consider this type of disingenuous debate tactic to be more despicable than an outright lie; of course, dishonest discourse and even blatantly false statements are in no way prohibited by DU rules.

(added on edit)
Imho, the underlined portion is also not true. The other poster did not have an 'overly defensive tone', I don't even think that term has any meaning, it is simply another example of a debate tactic seen frequently on line, an attempt to bait your opponent by accusing them of excess emotion. (in its raw form: "Why are you so upset?") It's a waste of everyone's time and no, not, imho, truthful in this or most instances.


Yes, it would have been easier just to snipe.

[Dhalgren]

46. Ok, at least you are honest in your opinions.

There is derision in the statement. If I say, "FDR's Democratic party was laudatory"; and you say, "One can hardly cheer the Democratic party of FDR without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from decidedly conservative, segregationist Southern Democrats." That is a statement deriding my original statement. It doesn't really matter whether you "think" it is derision or not - by definition it is.

When you say, "One can hardly cheer the Democratic Party of FDR" because of the support it received from the "segregated South", then you are actually saying that there is something "inherently wrong with the dominant part of the coalition" because of its association with the undesirable element - otherwise, the original statement makes no sense.

As far as my opinion of the tone of the poster - that is simply my opinion and I could care less what you think about it.

You should attempt to understand argumentation and reason before accusing someone of "lying". It makes you look stupid.

[Padraig18]

62. You are incorrect.

Simply because you desire for it to appear that I said something I did not say does not make it factually correct that that IS what I am saying. Your interpretation/'spin' is utter horseshit.

[Zhade]

65. It's not "utter horseshit". I came to the same conclusion independently.

It did appear, even if unintentional, that you were essentially saying "FDR was good, but don't forget that shitty people supported his goals".

That IS derisive, regardless of your intent. Your larger point makes sense, but so does Dhalgren's: even a broken clock (those segregationist Dems who supported the New Deal) is right twice a day.

Really, I'm uncertain why Dhalgren pointing out the derision of working with segregationists is such a problem with you. I'd be derisive, too, until I stopped to think about it and realized the clock metaphor is true.

[Padraig18]

67. It 'appears' that purple monkeys are flying out of my dog's butt.

It doesn't mean purple monkeys ARE flying out of my dog's butt, however. The statement was a thinly-veiled slur, at best. You cannot put into a statement that which was not there; hence, saying my statement was derisive when in fact it was not IS utter horseshit.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

73. Just because you don't want to see it as derisive doesn't mean it isn't.

It certainly reads that way, especially if you now admit it's at least a slur.

You should get your dog checked out, sounds serious.

[Padraig18]

76. No, I admit that YOUR statement is a slur.

Cheap debating tactic, yet again attempting to distort what I wrote. What I wrote was NOT derisive, and it will STILL NOT BE derisive no matter how many times you incorrectly state that is is.

[Zhade]

78. Ah, no. That was a mistake on my part; I thought you admitted it.

You don't see it as derisive. Others do. I believe it was, but still don't see the big deal, since I could understand finding segregationists distasteful.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

113. Considering genocide wasn't even mentioned, your point is flawed.

NT!

[cestpaspossible]

116. No, my point was missed.

Intentionally, I suspect.

[Zhade]

123. Your point wasn't even MADE, how could it be missed?

No mention of anything close to genocide was made in my post, whereas there was a "yes, but" element to the "FDR coalition" subthread.

So no, your point wasn't made or missed.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

129. Well gee, thanks for letting me choose between being an idiot and a liar.

Let's examine the statement in question, and see if you're too stupid to get it or are lying about not getting it (</sarcasm)>:

One can hardly cheer the Democratic party of FDR without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from decidedly conservative, segregationist Southern Democrats.

From this we can deduce that

1) Some cheer the Dem party of (is it safe to assume this means "led by"?) FDR

2) the Dem party of FDR had substantial (his emphasis, not mine) support from conservative Southern Dems who did not support integration (and were thus most likely rascists who wanted to preserve the racial divide)

As most decent people, Dems and non, are not racist and do not agree with segregation, it is fair to conclude that it is a less than positive thing to be supported by racists.

HOWEVER, and I think I did just get the disconnect, perhaps what Padraig was trying to put forth was the fact that the "old guard" Dems were not pure. If so, no kidding, we've known that for decades. And as I said downthread, just because FDR was flawed does not mean we shouldn't do better now.

Would anyone here agree with how internment camps have been reintroduced (think Gitmo)? Of course not. Would some Dems in Congress go along? Many already have.

I will happily concede I was wrong about the derision toward FDR if indeed the point was about the past Dems not being pure. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, in big bold letters, if that's the case and I misinterpreted him.

I still don't appreciate being called an idiot or a liar, though.

[cestpaspossible]

130. You get to choose your own actions.

Take this comment for example:


I still don't appreciate being called an idiot or a liar, though.


I don't know why you chose to interject this... no one called you any names.... what are you talking about?

[Zhade]

132. Oh, give me a break.

"Intentionally or through stupidity Those are the only 2 ways I can imagine the point being missed."

"Maybe you really didn't 'get my point' -- I suppose that's possible. And it is what you claim. However, I don't believe it."

Yeah, that's not actually SAYING I'm an idiot or a liar, but it's still saying it. If I claim not to get the point, and you say you don't believe my claim, you're calling me a liar without saying the word.

If your point is "oh, see, people can misinterpret!", well, DUH, I already admitted that. Your playing coy games with your own words is just a waste of time, especially after I offered to admit that I could be wrong about Padraig's words.

Please don't think I'm too stupid to understand your words. We're done here, have a good rest of the day.

[cestpaspossible]

134. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

Please don't think I'm too stupid to understand your words.

I didn't call you stupid and I don't think you're stupid.

[cestpaspossible]

95. You think I look stupid?

LOL

[RapidCreek]

181. Good point....I'm not a historian but I don't either

Do you allow people to ignore history to create a false premise for a debate? Or to consider it in wholistic relative terms when creating a premise for debate?

I'd love to have a historians perspective on what he believes was the imputus for these Southern Democrats choice to become Republicans or presently to refer to themselves as New Democrats?

Also, I'd love to hear you input on who it was that sent the military to the South to quell thier segragationist zeal.

RC

[Zhade]

54. "Today's Democratic party would have sold out African Americans..."

They already have. The past three elections, for example.

When was the last time you heard a DLC politician mention vote fraud, or disenfranchisement of minority voters? At least DLCers like Wyldwolf are willing to face the very real likelihood that fraud occurred in Ohio in 2004. The DLC won't touch it except to push bullshit "fixes" that actually solidify the problem!

[Q]

11. Once again...

...you'll have to have done the research in order to claim a spot in the debate.

And it depends on what you mean by 'coalition'. The Democratic party found common ground in the New Deal and 'Social Safety Net'. But there was a faction of the party that never wanted any part of it. They were the 'Dixiecrats', Blue Dogs and Reagan Democrats. They have always equated the labor movement and social welfare with 'big government'.

I'd be glad to debate any finer details if you would point out where I have 'revised' history.

[Padraig18]

13. I have done my research, and I'll claim a spot any fucking time I want to.

The rules prevent me from completing my thoughts about the rest of your so-called 'reply', and the attitude behind it.

[Q]

82. I'm only saying that there has been numerous debates...

...on this general subject. Yet you act as if there is nothing in the background to support my premise.

Al From, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and the other DLCers haven't exactly kept their intentions a secret. They don't support the Iraq invasion and occupation because they're warmongers...but because THEIR corporate sponsors want it. They continue to support what everyone knows is a lie because they're trying to break out of the 'weak on defense' mold and show that they're 'tough' on terrorism. The problem is...they've painted themselves in a corner because now they can't even admit that there IS NO war against terrorism taking place in Iraq. They will support an attack against Iran or Syria for the same phony reasons.

But you're right...you can claim any 'spot' you want. But please don't claim a spot out of ignorance or under the pretense of not knowing what's going on.

[cestpaspossible]

108. No, you tried to insult the other poster as ignorant.

At least that's how I interpret this statement:

1. Once again......you'll have to have done the research in order to claim a spot in the debate.

You could deny that you meant it as an insult, but I would not believe such a denial.

[cestpaspossible]

35. Your no-content response is laughable.

First you personally attacked the other poster by implying they "haven't done the research".

Then you implicitly agree with the poster, and follow that by pretending that agreeing to his underlying point in some way refuted it.

:wtf:

[bread_and_roses]

18. It is now

One either stands with or against these murderous imperialist profiters. There is no middle ground, no "coalition" with murderers and torturers and oppressors. A coalition presupposes a common agenda. Anyone who shares a common agenda with the NeoCons IS an Imperialist Theocratic Oligarch, whether or not s/he has a big "D" behind his/her name.

[Padraig18]

19. How 'progressive' and open-minded.

:eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

23. I don't stand in solidarity with the murderers of children

or call those grinding working people into ever-greater poverty hopelessness and despair my brothers and sisters. And if "Progressive" means standing with and supporting those agendas, then we have indeed entered Orwell's twisted lexicon.

Nor do I call supporting such evil "open-minded." I call it cowardice, opportunism, and moral depravity.

[Dhalgren]

26. I am in complete accord with your statements!

The time for finding common ground with the imperialist is over. If you support the murderous jingoism, then you are one of them...

[GreenArrow]

230. always dependable

Bravo!

[Zhade]

58. What, it's progressive and open-minded to collaborate with fascists?

There IS a dividing line, you know. That Vichy Dems don't mind crossing it does not invalidate its existence.

[Padraig18]

64. Oh, please!

Labeling someone whose given vote you don't happen to agree with a 'Vichy Dem' is not a a worthy debate tactic; 'playing the Nazi card' only betrays the underlying weakness of your own argument.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

70. So those Dems who voted for Gonzalez AREN'T collaborating with fascists?

Does Gonzalez' view that the president can break the law with impunity at his discretion - an unConstitutional and illegal view - not entail fascism? Voting for him with that knowledge isn't supporting the same?

Aren't Dems supposed to stand for the rule of law?

[Padraig18]

72. No, they're not. n/t

[Zhade]

77. Are b**sh et al fascist?

If so, then how is voting for a guy who advocates the law of rule versus the rule of law NOT supporting fascism?

Or are you saying the Dems don't stand for the rule of law?

Maybe you can excuse Dems voting in support of a torturer who believes this administration is above the law is acceptable. I do not. I see them as assisting in the violation of our laws and treaties.

[Padraig18]

80. No, the Bushistas are not 'fascists'.

fas·cism Audio pronunciation of "fascism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism

They fail to meet the test in several areas. Next question.

[Zhade]

84. Because this country is not quite a dictatorship, they aren't fascists?

Their views are decidely fascist. That they haven't achieved their ideal form of government does not discount this fact.

Are you okay with Dems voting for Gonzalez?

[Padraig18]

89. Yes, I'm OK with it.

A President should have the Cabinet he wants; I want that precedent to remain inviolate for '08, when WE retake the WH and have a Democrat selecting a cabinet.

[Zhade]

91. Just so I'm clear...

You are saying that it's okay to support a torturer who violated the Constitution and the rule of law, and believes that this president should be allowed to break laws both domestic and international at his sole discretion, so long as it's politically expedient for Dems in the future?

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Padraig18]

93. How did he violate the Constitution.

Screeching hyperbole wil not substitute for factual arguments with the electorate. Please cite a.) where Gonzales violated the Constitution and b.) where he tortured anyone, thereby making him a 'torturer'.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

94. I can't believe I'm reading this here.

Officially endorsing and proclaiming allowable the use of illegal actions - such as the type of torture that took place at Abu Ghraib - is a violation of international law, and thus a violation of the Constitution, which states that all treaties agreed to by the United States (like the Geneva Accords and Conventions) are the highest law of the land.

Therefore, by definition, Gonzalez broke the law. As to his not being at Abu Ghraib personally, well, we did hold Nazi officials accountable for the actions their soldiers carried out. So technically he's a supporter of torture, not a hands-on torturer. I grant you that correction...and shake my head in amazement that you don't understand how Gonzalez broke the law.

[Padraig18]

97. No, he did not 'by definition' break the law.

Gonzales wrote a memorandum of points and authorities in support of a policy decision his client, the POTUS, had already made; that's what lawyers do.

[Q]

212. I'm stunned by your opinion on Gonzales...

...and those Dems who voted to confirm his nomination. You make it sound as if Gonzales wrote a recipe for oatmeal cookies instead of a LEGAL OPINION that gave Bush the plausible deniablity he needed to torture 'suspected' terrorists without consequence or regard for the rule of law.

Is it any wonder that Democrats can vote to support illegal activities in our government and still be considered for re-election? There are far too many enablers in the party.

And NO president has the 'right' to choose his own cabinet if the nominee has broken the law or has views in conflict with the Constitution. Congress has the responsibility of 'advice and CONSENT' and they're duty bound to reject nominees they know are unfit for high office.

[retnavyliberal]

240. You are cursing bullet and ignoring the gun

If your boss says "Employee A, you give me a "pro" point paper, Employee B, you give me a "con" point paper", and then the boss makes a decision on which path to take, and that decision is a failure, is the person told to write that point paper the problem or is it the boss?

[Q]

251. We're not talking about a 'failure'...

...but illegalities and corruption.

Bush is not a 'boss'...he is a public servant in the employ of the American people. But I agree that he looks more like a Mafia 'boss' every day. And he'll get away with it too...because too many Americans are willing to overlook the practices of the most corrupt government this country has ever witnessed.

[cestpaspossible]

36. What a silly post.

Of course it is wrong to 'stand with' 'murderous imperialist profiteers'.

My advice: read your comments into a tape recorder, play them back, and try to understand how ridiculous they sound to someone who does not already share your views.

[Q]

87. It might be that many Ameicans aren't used to hearing the words...

...'murderous imperialist profiteers'...but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Let's break it down.

Murderous: Isn't it 'murder' to kill innocent civilians in an unnecesary war based on lies? The facts show that Bush had absolutely no valid reason to invade and occupy Iraq. This makes his war illegal and thus anyone killed in his war are victims of murder.

Imperialist: Do we really need to explain this one? Bush is creating occupied colonies in the middle east in which he'll build military bases to use for further expansion.

Profiteers: Well...this should be a no brainer. A great majority of the tax bucks going to Iraq are NOT being used to rebuild Iraq or benefit their people. If you don't know where the money's going then you need to do more research.

[cestpaspossible]

101. Hello? Does your reply relate to my comment? In what way?

[retnavyliberal]

175. Padraig, my new friend, let me help

You see, it is a understanding of your statement on an English level, not a factual level, that is the problem.

Let's use other words in place of some you used.

One can hardly cheer the BROWNIE without noting the substantial support he enjoyed from THE MILK AND EGGS.

They thought you were saying the party of FDR was bad. *winks* Try talking in smaller words for the reading impaired.

I agree with you, btw. One of the main points I make is if we as a PARTY do not join as one, we will never win again. I do not have to agree with every plank of the platform to be a Dem. Just 51% of them.

[benny05]

197. Agree

I think Q's view is more from Eleanor Roosevelt than her husband. Nothing wrong with that, but FDR happened to be more of pragmatist for his era. There were many issues he could not solve at the time, one of them being bigotry because he knew he would offend the Southern Democrats when he needed their votes to fund Lend-Lease, etc.

The last Dem, if Q defines it as such was Carter. Unfortunately, he inherited many domestic problems that took so long to resolve. It was Paul Volker whom Carter hired as Fed Reserve Chairman who finally figured out what to do about high inflation, but of course, Reagan and his ilk took the credit for it, then plunged the government into huge deficits, which also caused one of the worst recessions in 1991.

Would I call Joe Lieberman a Democon? Maybe. Al Gore, no, I wouldn't. The Clintons..well, they certainly know how to get money out of people, and sometimes they pay their friends back...and sometimes not.

I tend to go centrist myself. I think government needs to be fiscally responsible, but socially, I don't want them controlling my life either. The main agenda I have each time I vote for President is whether or not there is a balanced Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is very powerful, and they are not elected. With the current regime, we could be in for some pretty awful picks, and I do hope the Dems fight tooth and nail on those nominees, when the vacancies occur in the 4 years.

[aintitfunny]

9. I am the Same Old Democrat

that I have been ever since I began caring about the political process and that started prior to legal voting age. I have always found that my party was indeed the party of diversity. Not just gender, race and sexual preference, but opinions ranging far and wide. There has always been infighting in the party, I imagine there always will be. It is a favorite fact for the Republicans to harp on, and whenever I hear them getting away with it I sigh at the cheap shot. But cheap shots are their expertise.

While there are a wide range of opinions running the gamut from fiscal conservative to progressive liberals, I think, in the end, this is always a consensus, we have always found the middle ground.

However, I would exclude what you refer to as "Neo" dems. I do not want to be a member of the Nearly Republican Party . I would rather see the party go down in flames then succumb to the selling of it's soul by those who have neither soul nor heart. So I guess, by all accounts, I am an "old" democrat.

[Q]

16. Indeed...the Dem party can be 'diverse' without...

...selling out the traditional base of the party. And 'infighting' is different than simply accepting an agenda that is the antithesis of everything we've come to believe about the Democratic party's role as an opposition to the corporate right.

But wouldn't you rather belong to a party where everyone has a chance to be heard than a party that EXPECTS everyone to be loyal and march in lockstep?

It concerns me that many Democrats don't seem to fully understand the differences between the Old and New Democratic parties. I'm glad that you're among those who can see the differences and why it's important to acknowledge those differences.

The problem isn't that New Democrats are part of the party. It's that they want CONTROL of the party and expect 'Old" Democrats not to complain about it as they attempt to move us to the right on so many issues.

[aintitfunny]

222. I am cynical enough

to believe that people will form a belief system under the misguided belief that it is what will help them win. They are deluded to think so. (too many belief's I believe).

[Zhade]

59. I applaud you! Principles really are worth fighting for.

NT!

[LittleClarkie]

12. I'm a Kerrycrat

Let me ask you -- just for shits and giggles -- where would you put me?

[Q]

20. Kerry is difficult to label...

...in that he was once a Liberal Democrat who adopted the agenda of the New Democrats during the 2004 campaign and election. But I believe that...like Gore...he was betrayed by the DLC and didn't fully comprehend their real agenda.

Kerry doesn't have a chance in hell in redeeming himself and getting the support of the Old Democrats unless he repudiates the New Democrats and rejects their anti-worker, pro-corporate agenda. He definitely has it in him to be a great leader...but he has to be true to himself and the people in order to do it.

[LittleClarkie]

32. I appreciate that Q

I too think he has it in him to be a great leader. The real John Kerry has to be allowed to emerge though. It was telling for me to hear that Cahill and Shrum were shouting "Restrain the candidate!"

But in a few ways, he's still probably to hawkish for some in the party.

[Q]

85. It's not about being 'hawkish'...

...because every American leader is duty bound to protect our country against all enemies. But what we're confronted with are Democrats having to maintain a charade (lie) about why Bush attacked Iraq and why we're still there. Democrats that continue to support Bush in his phony war on terrorism in Iraq are being painted with the same brush of unprovoked, illegal and aggressive wars that have NOTHING to do with 9-11 or homeland security.

[LittleClarkie]

110. But I remember in the first debate that Kerry made the point

that Iraq had little to do with 9/11 and our gripe was with Afghanistan, that Iraq was a distraction from what we should have been doing in the way of protecting our country. Even now, Bush has done almost nothing about protecting our ports and making our borders less porous.

Some, like Hillary and Bill, are supporting Bush, in Iraq. Some, like Kerry and even Dean, are of the "Pottery Barn" mentality. No, it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. However, they are of the opinion we're sorta stuck with it now.

I guess it comes out the same in the end, re: not pulling out any time soon. But one acknowledges the mistake, while the other doesn't even see a mistake.

[Zhade]

61. This sums up my feelings on Kerry as well.

I think he's gotten a bit soft on standing up for We The People due to his inside-the-Beltway status, but I always saw his advisors (Albright, Holbrooke, Rubin, Will "PNAC RULZ!" Marshall) as way more dangerously imperialist and out of touch than Kerry himself was.

[rogerashton]

14. How 'bout Huey P. Long democrats?

Of course Huey was ready to support a Republican -- Califoria Progressive Hiram Johnson -- against Roosevelt for President in '36 if the Pubs would nominate him, which of course they would not.

Johnson-Long in '36! Go Progressives!

[robbedvoter]

22. None anymore. Not buying anything . Burnt one time too many.

[skids]

27. "neocons" and "neoliberals"

The terms are a tangent to this question. See my lonely early morning thread here and tell me what you think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3151913&mesg_id=3151913

[sadiesworld]

29. I read your thread and that's about how I see it.

Not much daylight b/t the two. :(

[MAlibdem]

28. THE Democratic Party.

[mandyky]

30. Personally, I'm not a belonger

If I'd have been raised in a state where Independents could participate in primaries, I'd probably be an independent. (I was raised in NY.) Right now I'm a Dean Democrat, and before that I was a Clinton Dem although his "centrism" wasn't my favorite thing about him. Never was a Gore Democrat. Was a McGovern, Mondale, JFK, RFK and Carter Democrat.

It is hard to look at Dixiecrats like Zellot Miller and feel like I want to be part of that.

I could be a partial Socialist on the left side while believing in smaller federal government on the right side. It would make more sense to send money to states and let them experiment, within reason (no segregation, some gun laws, etc.). Maybe have state depts of health and education, etc. that have oversight by the federal government, kinda thing.

As for specifics, Hillary and Jomentum turn me off with their sucking up to the GOP.

I agree with the folks who say that your question/post is too "black and white".

[cestpaspossible]

31. You are totally wrong, hightlighting a division that doesn't exist.

Where you see a distinct line dividing black and white, I see a gradual shift from one shade of gray to another.

[Q]

109. A division that doesn't exist?

The division is very clear. The DLCers are not only gradually changing the party platform to be more neocon and corporate friendly...they've stacked the deck to make sure that ONLY New Democrats become the nominee for president.

They grabbed power through Clinton and have held on tight ever since. Gore/Liberman were DLC. Kerry was/is DLC. Hillary is DLC. Do you see the New Democrats and their allies promoting anyone for president but their own? Although they DID have to finally abandon Gore when he turned 'populist' on them.

The DLC is backed by powerful corporations and they're determined to put a Democratic version of CEO Bush in the White House. They can't do this as long as Liberals and Progressives stand in their way by exposing their true intentions.

[cestpaspossible]

120. The all-powerful DLC.

Ok. I know better than to try to talk sense to someone who is afflicted with that particular fixation.

[me b zola]

34. I,for one, like the way you have framed the debate

In general, I don't like labels, but I believe that this frame of old vs.new Democrat allows us to get off of scratching each others eyes out over single issues to look at the larger paradigms of idiology.

I would put myself into the old Democrat school of thought.Class warfare waged against Americans by the elites is not a new issue, but it one of the most important themes that run through our collective blood and touches almost,if not every,aspect of our lives.
Proletarians vs the Bourgeois I suppose has been with us since the first systems of ecconomics.

I have found myself beating my head against the wall when discussing the alaming trend of our Dem leaders embracing faith-based initiatives,which I find to be a not so thinning veiled attempt to end the New Deal.The repubs have been trying for years to do this,slashing away at social programs which are there to assist us when we are most vulnerable.We allowed them to frame the debate & assault on "welfare" mothers,then some of our leaders joined in the fun.Pay no attention to the corperate welfare state ever increasing money grabs & bailouts, while decreasing regulation & accountability.
How long will SS remain solvent if we allow privitization to occur?Not long I imagine.

So these were just a few thoughts that flew off of the top of my head by your post.Thanks for framing our collective self analysis in this manner. The smaller issues will shake out if we have a clearer understanding of our idiological paradigms.

[saltpoint]

37. I don't buy the polarized model you set up.

If the goddam Republicans run Jeb, McCain, Allen, Owen, Romney, Rudy, Pataki, a yet-unnamed but equally repellent alternative, or THE CAT BUTCHER himself, I'm voting Democratic.

They used butter churns in Jefferson's time. No reason they shouldn't. I don't have one. So what.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. I'm from the Socialist wing of the party.

I've been a socialist since I first became aware of politics. I've been a registered Democrat since 1965. I have always viewed the Democrats as the "lesser of two evils" and still do. Usually, I vote for the Democratic candidate for that reason. The usual noseholding was avoided on only two occasions. McGovern and Dukakis. I voted against the Democratic candidate in '68 by voting for Dr. Spock. And, I sat out one congressional election because my Democratic rep had sold out to the NRA.

I owe no "loyalty" to any party. Looking at the possible candidates for 2008, I'll probably be voting Green.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Did you identify yourself as a socialist/anarchist a week or two ago?

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped 'round that concept.

[wyldwolf]

55. as Randi Rhodes said when one of her callers stated...

"I'm a socialist"

Randi: "No you're not, you just think you are..."

[LittleClarkie]

75. From Merriam Webster Online

Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Would seem to be diametrically opposed somehow: like a guest host or military intelligence or jumbo shrimp.

Perhaps, utopian socialism then:

Main Entry: utopian socialism
Function: noun
: socialism based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups.

Hmm. A bit closer perhaps. But still it would seem to impose order on anarchy.

I don't git it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. "Anarchy" and Anarchism or not the same.

Try this link: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

[LittleClarkie]

128. Thank you

I will print it out and give it a look.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

131. You are quite welcome.

There are any number of sites available. Anarchism has many different interpretations and interpreters. In general, I subscribe to the ideals of Tolstoy and Gandhi.

Do not mistake my disdain of the military and the politicians/religious leaders/corporations with contempt for individual soldiers. Soldiers, throughout history, have been the tools of the powerful. Whether they're American GI's, or Iraqi insurgents, they are pawns in the games that is played by the powerful. Most individual GI's who were to meet most individual Iraqis, wouldn't dream of killing each other. The military/politicians/etc condition them to see human beings not as people but as "insurgents", "invaders", "gooks", "ragheads", or the most egregious, they reduce them to "targets".

Think about it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. Try reading Tolstoy, Bakunin, Goldman, etc.

What do you find puzzling about it?

[mmonk]

41. The Democratic wing

of the Democratic party.

[KoKo]

42. Populist/Progressive Democrat. And I believe we need White Collar

Unions. We need to move away from the concept of Labor Unions just being "manufacturing." The only way the Corporatists/Robber Barons are ever kept in check is buy the People forming unions.

It's just that with manufacturing gone...we Democrats need to work to organize the rest of us "workers" who are being ripped off. Congress won't do it and the old Labor Unions are creaky not having much base left after "outsourcing." We need strong unions for Tech Worker, Pharmacutical Company employees, and Service Workers.

We need a HUGE movement to bring back workers rights to fair wage and control over CEO Salaries and Mergers and Acquisitions who do nothing but line the pockets of the Venture Capitalists, Multi-National Banks and Board Members who cross serve on Company Boards and make the decisions to commit these crimes against the average citizen.

(sorry for the rant in answer to your question asking for a simple statement).. But Progressiver/Populist is what I call myself.

On Edit: I know that Teachers, Airline Workers, Nurses and the Entertainment Industry have unions. But they are much maligned by the Repugs and portrayed badly in the MSM. We need to strengthen the images of Unions by focusing on the good they have done for wages, and family values of stability to our economy, and income to properly support one's family. We've got to focus back on "The People" the Repugs focus on Corporate Good and nebulous "values" which "they define." We've got to take the issues back and define what these mean to the quality of decline of life for the Average American...

[Q]

47. All unions are maligned by the Right...

...and portrayed badly in the Corporate Media. Now that the Free Press has become just another corporate entity...they're automatically against unions or collective bargaining in general.

The Teachers, Airline workers, Nurses and Entertainment industries...along with Labor...have no where else to go but to the Old Democratic party. They're not welcome in the corporate, New Democratic wing of the party.

While it's true that unions are partly to blame for choosing the wrong leadership...the right wing of the GOP and the Dem party can't represent them and Big Business at the same time.

[KoKo]

86. lol's I saw my post got a huge response....

:D...I guess folks aren't where I am ...yet. :shrug:

Repositioning LABOR...is the task of those of us who care...and if Neither Party addresses this...no matter..it will come up somewhere "down the road."

My BIG THING...is "White Collar Unions" ...and believe it or not, I'm defintely NOT a Socialist...but have some leanings there...but would be surprisingly "conservative" on some issues to most DU'ers.

I'm the one that BOTH parties need to court...but neither does...

I find it funny that I'm "out on the fringe" though..

[Zhade]

114. You're not fringe, you're pro-worker's rights.

That's just fringe to the DLC. I happen to agree, and think ALL jobs should be unionized, to prevent abuse of workers worldwide.

Plus, it's a bulwark against fascism like that idealized by the b**sh crew.

[KoKo]

118. Thanks, Zhade...I wonder if we could get a group together on DU

who would understand what we are talking about...? :shrug:

[Zhade]

122. Hey, I'm always up for discussing workers' rights!

Precious little talk of such on DU, it seems. I guess classism isn't a big deal to many here. :shrug:

[KoKo]

133. Okay...You're ON...

.let me think about this and figure out how we could do this...:D Might take me a few days...but I'm just itching to do a "White Collar Union" post. Every time I've put a "teaser" out on DU through the last couple of years...it dies.

Maybe it's time has come? Could you say a little more of what you mean about "class" though. PM me if you don't want to say it here.

[Q]

202. Sorry...my response was a bit abstract...

...but I agree that 'White Collar Unions' are a good idea. But we can't forget that the 'Blue Collar' unions have been completely decimated since the 'corporatists' took power in both parties.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

115. Well, it does if you decided to get involved in Dem "Grassroots" for this

past Election. If you did then you would understand what I'm saying.

But, I understand that not all DU Dems had the ability to get involved in their local level Dem Politics...

But NOW's the TIME to start! In all States in the US Precincts are being organized and where you live there's probably NO ONE handling your DEM Precinct....because we Dems have been "out of it."

Go Online to your state Dem Party Site and look for "Precincts" and find out which one you live in and please get your butt out there...because Dem State Precincts ARE NOT ORGANIZED! Go Online..find out when the meeting is and NOMINATE YOURSELF! I had to do it here in NC...and this is when all Dem Counties are actively involved in Precinct Elections.

Please do this...go ..even if you are the only person there...find a way to "break into the party." I did this a year ago...showed up and got nominated as "Co-Chair" because there were only a "handful of us" but got my vote out there because I was an "elected by myself and four others" official in the NC Dem Party. I've had a VOICE EVER CINCE...jus because I showed up....It STARTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL with the PRECINCTS...and all Dem Precincts are dying for CANDIDATES..

Please do it..if you haven't already. We NEED DU'ERS OUT THERE REPRESENTING US... :toast: to those who take me seriously with what I'm trying to say, here.

[wyldwolf]

125. I think you'd be surprised if you knew the extent that I'm involved...

...on a local level.

Heavily.

But in the real world, I never hear Democrats trashing other Democrats, the "DLC boogeyman" is hardly acknowledged... and I'm around PLENTY of local and state level heavies.

[KoKo]

136. Geeze...did the mods delete your post? I just replied in a long post and

the damned person I replied to is GONE...Was that you? I don't usually reply to "Troll Posts" or profanity...What the heck happened there?

BTW...great to know you are involved...it might vary from state to state your experience though. I'm in a "red state."

Anyway...what the Fuck happened that I'm replying to a "deleted message:"

[wyldwolf]

142. I'm about to find out

...lately, posts get deleted for the mildest reasons.

[Zhade]

143. That's weird, because on the Dem listening tour MANY trashed the DLC.

Locally, here in Los Angeles, I mean - I obviously can't offer anecdotal evidence from other areas.

But from what I've gathered talking with other Dems involved in local politics, the DLC has most definitely come up, though of course less and less as its influence wanes.

Once the marginalization of the DLC and its corporatist policies is finalized, I think your view will be prevalent - they won't be mentioned much, except perhaps in a "man, what were they thinking?" context.

[wyldwolf]

146. sorry - never once been mentioned ...

... in the state and local activities I've been involved with.

And I've been involved with a lot.

[Zhade]

150. I have no reason to disbelieve you. Just offering my own view.

We've both been involved, we've both heard different things - any number of factors could explain the difference.

I wasn't challenging your personal anecdotal evidence. No doubt where you are and the circles you run in politically are different than my own.

[KoKo]

154. Maybe it's the "Red State/Blue State" thing...Im in NC... I related my

experience in being involved locally... It's Southern it may be different from the rest of you all...I shouldn't have "generalized" my experience...but no matter our state...we Dems LOST! Rigged Voting, Bad Campaigning whatever you want to say about it.

So our "commonality" is we LOST!. We Progressive Dems in NC are crawling all over the Vote problems with the Touch Screens and making progress. And we've finally got some Dean Progressives (with Kucinich supporters backing) IN...to shake up the old stuffy Dem/DLC/DNC HACKS here. So this has been good, but it was because so many of us are pissed off after being trashed for our efforts the last year when we got involved and saw what a MESS our Dem Party is in at the Grassroots. The DNC/DLC did NOTHING FOR FUNDING locally for Grassroots here in NC...maybe they gave up on the Southern States and the rest of you guys had plenty of money. BUT..FGS Our State Senator was a Vice Presidential Candidate and we couldn't get a paid clerical worker to UPDATE Voter Registration since 2000 ELECTION??

This was my experience. others of you might have had it better..

[eridani]

244. HEAR! HEAR!

That's why I decided to stick with the Dems instead of going back to the Greens--Dems may not have enought PCOs, but Greens don't have any.

[wyldwolf]

151. why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x30392

[ClassWarrior]

140. ALL ACTIVE STATE PARTY MEMBERS CHECK IN HERE!!

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

141. I will be soon, just gotta get my taxes in first

so I have money to become an official member.

[ClassWarrior]

147. I guess we're meeting at the Pettit Center now.

That sounds like a closer location for you.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

152. Yes, it would be.

I've been contacted to join the Waukesha County Dems. And I keep getting mailings and phone calls from the National DNC to join for 2005 (apparently my 2004 donation to the campaign made me a 2004 member).

Do you have to join all three, or if you join National are you automatically a state and county Dem?

(VinnieBarbarino)I'm so confused. (/VinnieBarbarino)

(Yeah, I'm old. I even remember Chico and the Man.)

[ClassWarrior]

153. I'm older. I remember "Living Doll."

Starring Julie Newmar as a robot.

Are you in Waukesha County? I thought you were Milwaukee. I'm not sure about the national payment structure, but I know if you join the State Party, that covers you at the county level.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

158. Honest mistake. I campaigned out of Milwaukee

as it seemed more "swing" than Waukesha County.

And when I asked a staffer which one was the better choice, they said "As goes Milwaukee, so goes Wisconsin."

Something tells me the State and National are separate. I'll probably join both. I'll email the Wauk. County guy and see what he knows.

When does Milwaukee County meet at Petitt? I might still show up, if it's the right day, since Waukesha meets on a Thursday and I'm second shift.

Can you join whichever County you want to?

(I do realize we could have this chat in pm's, but this little section of ours is probably the most civil this thread has been all day)

I remember Dark Shadows. One of my first words was apparently "formaldehyde."

[ClassWarrior]

165. The fourth Monday of the month. 7 p.m.

I think you have to join your home county's party, but I'm not sure.

I was skeert of Barnabas Collins when I was a tyke.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

149. I'm already here

[ProgressiveConn]

50. The question is.

Do we turn against the New Democrats as traitors to the working class?

Personally I think so Populism is required for progressives to win. Thats why I'll be doing everything I can in 2006 to get Joe Lieberman out of office.

[Lena inRI]

51. I'm a TR Progressive Independent. . .

Teddy Roosevelt, Bull Moose Party, who trust-busted, conserved national parks, began meat/drug inspection, offered "Square Deal" to working Americans, mediated in foreign affairs (Russo-Japanese war). . .only parts I don't like are his gun-toting safari hunting and "carry a big stick" diplomacy in Lat Amer.

So I'm voting for the unrealized Democratic Party yet to be realized. . .led by someone who really puts us people before profits and ambition. Pollyanna world maybe but that's the Democrat I'd vote for.

No surprise from my avatar, Wesley Clark would be that leader. . .hands down.

:kick:

[Zhade]

56. A most excellent post, Q.

I think some who bring up the fact that past Dems like FDR were far from perfect forget that we're supposed to be progressing and doing better than even the flawed but great leaders did.

Simply saying "but FDR had internment camps!" doesn't excuse the actions of today's neodems. They should know better, from history (like, say, the Viet Nam war).

It seems some STILL refuse to see how much of a crisis their party faces.

[Placebo]

57. I don't accept your labels.

I am a Democrat, and proud of our collective political heritage.

I love Clinton, I love Kennedy, I love FDR, and there's nothing anyone can spat out to take that away from me with their black & white narrow minded thinking.

[Zhade]

66. So, is Clinton's sell-out on NAFTA "black and white thinking"?

He promised worker protections on the campaign trail, then dropped them to pass NAFTA. We've all seen the results. Are the slave laborers in China and the disappearing jobs in America "black and white thinking", or actual problems?

[KoKo]

104. I "love" all the same people you do! But they had Ideals, Values and

Conscience....what "Q" seems to be getting to is that our own Dems have sold us down the river and that we are riding on some "MYTH OF DEMS" from the past.

I'm not necessarily referring to "this post" of "Q's" but to the "body of his posts."

Nevertheless...we Dems can't keep talking about the "Ghosts of Dem Glory in the Past" and ignore the "Sell Out, Cop Outs" of what's come after them. :shrug: That's all I'm saying...here.

[RealDems]

69. I'm a Real Democrat

www.realdems.org

[LittleClarkie]

192. That, is an interesting site.

Thanks!

[RealDems]

193. Thank you...

[ClassWarrior]

71. I'm sure the Radical RW is happy that there are DUers willing to...

...help them try to divide us.

NGU.

[Zhade]

79. They're likely just as happy to see Dems ignore problems with their party.

If Dems ignore the corporatism, the selling-out of labor, and the lack of support for civil liberties and fundamental human rights in their own party, Republicans win either way.

[ClassWarrior]

83. Please keep your words out of my mouth.

NGU.

[Zhade]

88. Please show me what words I put into your mouth in the first place.

I don't believe I said you were ignoring any of those things, nor did I say you advocate ignoring those things.

I simply pointed out a parallel truth to your own.

[cestpaspossible]

99. Your reply reeks of sincerity

NOT

[Zhade]

112. Wow, you really got me.

Such stunning wit!

[cestpaspossible]

117. I pointed out your insincerity.

Should we highlight it even more with a pointless flame war?

[Zhade]

121. Let's see - I was sincere, you were rude.

ClassWarrior's point, while IMHO wrongly aimed at Q, is a valid one, just as my own point was made to remind CW that avoiding the issues Q mentions is likely to make Republicans happy, too.

I don't mind if you think I was insincere. I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over an opinion from an anonymous poster on a message board. As far as any flame war, you're the one who jumped on my point to CW with no clear reason except to attempt to slam my sincerity. I'm not interested in a petty exchange of words with you; there's no point in wasting our time. If you'd like to continue, it'll be one-sided - heck, you can even "win" if it makes you feel you've accomplished something.

[cestpaspossible]

127. You're welcome to believe it is rude of me to point out your behavior.

Have a nice day.

[ClassWarrior]

135. Ohhhh... a "parallel truth"... that's very different.

And that parallel truth means that "Republicans win either way." Now I fully understand.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

138. For a minute I thought you were pulling an "Emily Latella"

"Oh... that's very different... never mind."

It's all so pedantic, isn't it (said Little Clarkie, trying to sound intellectual)

[ClassWarrior]

139. LOL... You're showing your age, Clarkie...

What's all this I hear about VIOLINS on TELEVISION!!??

NGU.

[Zhade]

145. Well, is it not true that ignoring those things means Republicans win?

Does it also not follow that intentionally dividing Dems (a charge which Q's posting history does not, IMHO, support) also helps them win?

It's not either or, and I was trying to make that point to you. Feel free to ignore it as you wish.

[ClassWarrior]

148. Thanks for revealing that you feel the RepubliCONs will ALWAYS WIN.

It's good to get to know you better.

NGU.

[Zhade]

161. How in the world did you get that out of my post?

Are you trying to intimate something? If so, at least have the courage to say it out loud.

Again, my point was simply that Republicans are happy both when we're divided and when Dems accept their policies as their own. That's a far cry from feeling the Republican party will always win. I don't believe that for a second. I'd have to be insane to think so, since Dems do win elections.

[ClassWarrior]

163. Go back and re-read your post #79.

Your last four words are "Republicans win either way."

NGU.

[Zhade]

166. Yes - they win if Dems sell out, and they win if Dems are divided.

That's the "either way", which again is far from saying Republicans always win.

The answer, of course, is to stop selling out the interests of rank-and-file Dems on things like equality, living wages, corporate accountability, illegal wars...well, you get the idea. That way the Dems aren't divided. There's room for differences of opinion, but you can't have a coherent, viable party if your leadership backs the war and the grassroots doesn't.

Seriously, I don't think we're that far off.

[ClassWarrior]

167. I agree with your analysis completely. But you can't get there if you...

...demoralize, marginalize, and divide the party on the way. Which was my original point.

NGU.

[Zhade]

171. What would you propose we do?

Should issues like those Q brings up be ignored? I doubt you'd advocate that.

Criticism must be spoken where necessary. Just because there are Dems who don't want to hear problems, it doesn't follow that we should remain silent.

When someone like Q mentions a very real concern, what good does it do to automatically say "Divider! Republicans win when you divide us!" as if his points have no merit?

If he were just saying "Dems suck, vote Green or yur a lo0zer!", okay, he's just being divisive. But his concerns are valid, IMIO, and shouldn't just be shouted down because it might divide us. Clearly, there are many issues that the rank-and-file view entirely different from the Dem leadership (I doubt I have to name them).

[ClassWarrior]

174. There are ways to address our problems without going...

...straight for divisive language. As in "To what Democratic Party do you belong?" C'MON. The last time I saw something that fat and juicy, it was in the bait shop.

And there you go putting words in my mouth yet again. WHO THE FUCK SAID WE SHOULD REMAIN SILENT? WHEN THE FUCK DID I SHOUT HIM DOWN?? WHEN DID I EVER SAY IGNORE ANYTHING???

Or will you try to justify this as another little "parallel universe?"

Now - it's your turn to tell me what YOU'D do. I have a moderate Dem Senator of the kind you like to trash up for reelection in '06, as well as an extremely nasty RepubliCON Congressman in a nearby district. Which one do you think I should work to defeat? Huh??

NGU.

[Zhade]

182. Um, I didn't say those were your words. Never even implied that.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY IGNORE ANYTHING???

Me: "Should issues like those Q brings up be ignored? I doubt you'd advocate that."

So right there, I'm saying you WOULDN'T say that. How you get that I'm putting those words in your mouth is beyond me. The rest was not aimed at you, but asked in general.

Now - it's your turn to tell me what YOU'D do. I have a moderate Dem Senator of the kind you like to trash up for reelection in '06, as well as an extremely nasty RepubliCON Congressman in a nearby district. Which one do you think I should work to defeat? Huh??

Well, it all depends on where you are, but if possible I'd try to go for a Dem who actually represents common democratic ideas and replace the moderate senator in the primaries. Barring that, I'd say you're stuck, either vote for the Dem or convince a Republican not to vote for the Republican.

Best I can do with limited info. :shrug:

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

252. So you'd rather defeat the Dem than the Republicon?

Hmmmmm... enough said.

You ARE aware, aren't you, that incumbents win some 95% of the time? So "replacing" a moderate Dem would be a major uphill battle in itself. Not to mention the fact that the resulting nasty primary battle would probably seriously damage whichever Dem wins, leaving him or her open and vulnerable to a Republicon challenger in the general election.

So instead of a Dem Senator and damaged - if not overturned - Republicon Congressdrone, we'd end up with the Republicon Congressdrone and a Republicon Senator.

NGU.

[Q]

261. If I may jump in here...

...the problem is not 'moderate' Democrats. The problem is and remains Democrats that have strayed away from traditional Dem principles and values AND have supported the Bush WH agenda in ways harmful to our party and country.

There is nothing wrong with moderation in and of itself. But moderation in response to extremism becomes capitulation or worse...betrayal.

At some point we're going to have to draw a line in the sand. Should we vote for a Dem politician that supports 'choice' but also supports the Bush Doctine of 'preemptive' wars against countries that pose no threat to our security? Does his support of abortion override his deceit in supporting illegal wars and ignoring international law?

There is no such thing as a perfect politician. But at the very least we should expect and demand that at the very least they protect and defend the Constitution and follow the rule of law that every 'commoner' is expected to obey.

[ClassWarrior]

262. Agreed. But that "line in the sand" needs to be drawn...

...behind the scenes, at the party level. That means BY US. I think we're quickly learning that we just screw ourselves when we draw lines in the sand in front of the voting booth.

NGU.

[Placebo]

81. Agreed.

[0007]

92. I want a President that is Called A Democratic Liberal,

a person that will Bring the Troops Home, Bring the jobs back to the US, strengthen the social services to the unfortunates and is serious about getting the US out of the hole.

[Lexingtonian]

96. This is a false choice; there is a unity to accept

Rather than starting off by defining an internal enemies list, it would be far wiser to start with a conception of the central alliance.

I see the story as Liberals forming one wing of the Party and Progressives/Leftists as the other.

Liberals are socially liberal; in economic policy they're about incrementalism and adaption of both labor and corporate management to the best justice and forms that economic reality permits. They don't see the point of sacrificing prosperity to economic ideology and think corporations are merely the present best adapted organizational form of economic endeavor- no use killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. But Liberals certainly admit that the managerial class is overprivileged and escapes social responsibilities for the workers in its employ at present. The Liberal political formula is that of the relatively educated and is defined by a 'postindustrial' economy.

Progressives/Leftists are socially centrist or conservative (despite the Left pretending otherwise); they want radical change in the power structure of corporations and radical increases in benefits given workers, but they aren't sure how to balance that properly against the demands created by global economic scales. The P/L political formula was created/implemented by FDR and is defined by the industrial/industrialized agricultural economy.

What all the noise inside the Democratic Party is about, the OP included, is which wing's aims to prioritize. That is, a decision about which wing gets to lead and the other one accepts that its aims are secondary for the time being. 'Genuine Democrats' and the like labellings are just rhetoric and anger speaking.

Historically the country reaches some kind of decision about the social justice issues first, and only then fixes the economic injustices. Until the social justice issues are settled decisively they get employed, in radicalized form, as "wedge issues" to prevent progress on economic ones.

I don't see any way the opposite is plausible this time around. This means the Party has to run Liberal first and, while that wins (believe it or not), Victory isn't secured until the Progressive agenda is also implemented. The OP is simply wrongheaded.

And there is a false either/or to the OP. The central idea of the Party is both economic and social, there is a unity to both things in the idea of governmental "equal protection" due groups. But the Party is too wimpy and its factions still too selfimportant (again, see the OP) to accept that strong enforcement of the 14th Amendment guarantees is the heart of what all strong Democrats stand for and need and want in the present.

[Q]

107. A well-thought out response...

...and thank you. But I'm not talking about an 'enemies list'. Nor is there any kind of 'unity' that can be reached as long as one 'faction' of the party is determined to control the party and set the agenda.

Instead of compromising with the 'old' Democrats and finding common ground...the New Democrats have simply rejected social Democrats and their party of the people.

I never used the word 'genuine' in any form in my premise. I DID describe some of the differences between the new and old Democratic parties. The New Democrats haven't made any effort to find a common ground with Liberals and Progressives because they don't believe in the same things. They say they're 'modernizing' the party but it's clear that they're simply moving it closer to those who finance their careers and aspirations.

The Republican party went through the same motions as the Neocons took over their party and exiled the true conservatives. Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives have been put out to pasture in a New American controlled by Neocons and Neodems. The New Deal and the Social Safety Net are dead...they just haven't been buried yet and no one has had a chance to mourn. They are not simply in a coma as the Neodems would suggest.

There is no 'false' anything. There are literally two Democratic parties with two separate agendas. It's not a matter of Liberals or Centrists taking turns in power. The Neodems want full and permanent control of the party. They won't allow anyone but their chosen 'third way' candidates to make it past the primaries or assume any kind of position of power within the party. It's rather ironic that the New Democratic party no longer actually practices democracy.

[Lexingtonian]

160. okay...

On rereading you're clearly upset at a phenomenon you call Neodemocratic...in which I see rather more in the way of opportunism/fealty to New York/Hartford's financial industry (Lieberman) and unbelievably clumsy attempts to find a political center from which to mount a national political effort (H. Clinton).

I agree its a sign of confusion and dissolution. I just don't agree that the blame is properly one way.

Somehow you're drawing a great moral distinction between on the one hand supposedly principled people at the grassroots who, for all their imputed virtue, can't get their sh-t together about the relative priority of their desires and (as a result) settle on wallowing in defeatism and despair and witchhunts, and on the other hand the leaders who drift off to the center/Right and their most solid supporters because going more Liberal upsets too many anxious Social Democrat chickens in the henhouse in struggle with their latent conservatisms and hysterical inability to face what hard larger social facts must be accepted and what hard work must be done.

Btw, the meaningful translation of "modernizing" into common English is "kicking out the obsolete and the hacks". That's a way of admitting that assumptions that went into the campaigns and the ways of winning elections between 1968 and 1992 have been repeated for too long and aren't working anymore.

About the New Deal...the society and its economic organization are no longer the same thing as in the 1920s. The New Deal was not a plan designed for all time, it has to be renegotiated at some point and, undoubtedly, adjusted. When it was implemented there was a controversial fiction of human dignity and social caste equality to it that was created and accepted but far from social reality at the time. Right now the country is polarized around the decision whether to discard exactly this fiction entirely or realize it, convert it to earnests and facts. The question isn't whether the New Deal gets battered and greatly gutted, pared down to its absolute functional minimum in the process, but whether we're serious about building something better on its foundations and courageous enough to do it.

In the end it's all a matter of moral courage and giving up resentments, and being able to accept what is likely already lost. True Modernizing, on all levels of the Party. There is no looking back that will do any good. We are the Party that is tasked with ushering in the Modern Age. The other Party is about plundering and burning down the Past, and- you have to admit- is doing its part of the job a lot better at the moment.

So I guess I excuse the seeming perfidy of Clinton and Lieberman for the time being- so long as it doesn't have real consequences, of course. But it's part and parcel of the dissolutions and struggle for renewal and organization around a better set of ideas and methods inside the Party. They are wrong, yes, but it's because they see the dissolution further down the ladder and see their preservation in stepping away from it in what seems the safer direction.

I think you also overestimate politicians a bit. As a professional matter they learn not to have very strong personal opinions in most things as not worth the trouble; they do become mirrors of the influences on themselves and the strength and determination of their supporters. When they are incoherent, it has a lot to do with their constituents lacking coherence.

[Zhade]

119. This makes no sense to me - did you mean to say this?

Progressives/Leftists are socially centrist or conservative (despite the Left pretending otherwise)

I don't know WHERE you get that bit from. I don't recall the left being conservative on human rights, or equality for all, for example - I see the right and DLCers being so.

[Lexingtonian]

144. that's the public line, though

The Left isn't conservative on human rights or 'equality for all'- in its demands. In my experiences in/with the Left that is the public line, but the driving emotion if not rationale has everything to do with the way the violations demonstrate the power/powerlessness balance and a great deal of the public posturing is about the power that accrues from finding and occupying the moral higher ground.

There is (in my view/experience) no actual deep belief in human dignity in the pure Left activists of the present- real Leftists just show very little real commitment to it beyond an initial demonstration of the range of their power when they do gain real money and power. Some of it is also as Joan Didion has said: in the politics of revolution everyone is expendable. The political places I've personally found bigotries and chauvinisms most tolerated internally are in the Left and in the Right. And the problem with internal PC codes is that they compose a group chauvinism of sorts that distracts from and smothers debate about the real kinds internally via groupthink.

Ralph Nader is an excellent example of this phenomenon- look at the disparity in things he said he favored and then overtly avoided committing to on the campaign trail. The story is similar with ANSWER, and Counterpunch, and folk like Christopher Hitchens are sort of the conclusion.

[lojasmo]

102. I'm a member of the democratic wing of the democratic party.

a' la Wellstone and Dean.

I am a member of the party of the people.

[Cuban_Liberal]

124. I'm a Democrat who doesn't believe in creating false internal divisions

:)

[Massacure]

137. Me too!

FDR did a great deal economically for the United States during the 30s. If I hold Bush's feet to the fire for Guantanamo Bay, however, I have to hold FDR's feet to the fire for the internment of Japanese.

[LittleClarkie]

156. Not to mention Woodrow Wilson, apparently a bigger asshat than Bush

during WWI, or so I'm told.

[Q]

201. I keep seeing this word 'false'...

...and I simply can't believe that there are Dems out there that can't see the ever widening divide in the party. I can only conclude that you're choosing to ignore it because it somehow supports your point of view.

How can anyone believe that the 'common folk' of the Democratic party are actually behind the party's move to the right on so many issues? None of this benefits them in any way.

[Padraig18]

206. The divide has always been there.

We've always been a coalition party. People keep using the word 'false', I suspect, because of your attempt to make it seem that this is somehow a new phenomenon.

[welshTerrier2]

155. the "divisive" label

pointing out very real, very deep differences that exist under the "big tent" is NOT divisive ... what is divisive is labelling those who highlight the differences among Democrats as being "divisive" ...

if the Democratic Party continues to bury its head in the sand, we are all in for very bad times ... pretending deep differences don't exist does NOT make it so ...

we cannot continue to have elected Democrats ignoring the majority will in the Party ... there is always room for individual variations ... no one should expect all elected Democrats to robotically follow the will of the grassroots ... but neither should elected Democrats be free to ignore the grassroots ...

what is needed to build unity is massive reform in all aspects of how the Party conducts itself ... significant efforts must be made to give ALL Democrats a real voice on key issues ... in the end, we may not be able to reach a consensus on the great issues of the day ... but without improved communication and without a much more open process, the rifts that exist over policy will continue to weaken the Party ... the goal should be unity if it's achievable ... to criticize those who are merely pointing out how far apart we really are is totally counter-productive ...

[DaveinMD]

159. I belong to the big tent Democratic Party

the party that doesn't try to divide its members against each other.

[Zhade]

162. Could you please tell that to the DLC, then?

After all, they're the ones whose leaders publicly trash liberals and agree with Republican policies that rank-and-file Dems HATE.

[DaveinMD]

164. I don't believe in trashing dems

Its wrong when From did it. And I said this to Mark Penn a few years back. Its also wrong when liberals do it. We win elections by running together.

[Zhade]

168. Agreed. However, what is bashing?

What From did (calling Michael Moore "unAmerican") is bashing. Is criticizing the DLC's pro-corporate (over pro-citizen) policies "bashing"?

Where do you think the line is drawn between criticism and bashing? If I mention that Clinton sold workers out on NAFTA by promising worker protection while campaigning and then ditching it once in office (while he had a Dem congress), is that "bashing", or criticism?

[DaveinMD]

169. Like I said

I called them out on that in person. HOwever, there it a tendency here to try to run moderates out of the party. Calling anyone who disagrees on any issue a DINO. There is a tendency to try to sew the seeds of division. This is what I criticize.

[Zhade]

178. Thank you for your in-person efforts. I appreciate them.

However (isn't there always one?), there is a big difference between the DLC leadership that advocates, say, the war in Iraq, and sane moderates who realize the war was and is wrong and does nothing to keep us safe or provide the Iraqi people with real democracy.

Calling someone a DINO just for disagreeing with them is childish, of course. But calling someone like Zell Miller a DINO is just recognizing reality. Likewise, calling someone who consistently votes against their Dem constituents a DINO is not unreasonable, if their record shows this to be true.

[DaveinMD]

180. Zell Miller is a DINO

but others who are called so aren't. Miller voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. Where most other Democrats didn't top 30. Miller should have been thrown out of the party. Lieberman disappoints me as much as others with his rhetoric and I've written to his office to voice displeasure. Still, he has a 75 percent ADA record. I think the problem with Lieberman and others like him is more tactical than policy. They need to understand we at war with Republicans. They are trying to destroy us and we need to fight back in kind. I hope this makes sense.

[Zhade]

183. It makes a certain amount of sense.

It's a very weird thing - Lieberman is fairly okay on some domestic issues, horrific on foreign policy. He's clearly a DINO in that regard.

I don't know the answer to that dilemma. What do you do when a Senator is okay in some areas and advocates and supports illegal wars that breach the Constitution?

[DaveinMD]

185. I'd have no problem

if a good Democrat ran against him in a Primary. I'm fairly confident we'd keep that seat because it is in Connecticut. A liberal state.

[Zhade]

188. That's what really puzzles me about Lieberman.

He's in no danger of losing by being more liberal, and unless his Dem constituents favor things like censorship, illegal wars, bills that favor corporations over people, and the like, he should be replaceable. So why HASN'T he been? Do his Dem constituents really like what he supports, advocates, and votes for?

If so, it worries me.

[DaveinMD]

189. its really tought to beat an incumbent Senator in a Primary

and Connecticut shares two expensive media markets--NY and Boston. It would have to be a very wealthy person. I'd like to see it happen.

[Zhade]

190. Man, we REALLy need public-financed campaigns.

Cut right through the corporate sponsorships.

[DaveinMD]

213. as a Citizen

I fully endorse that. As a political consultant, ... :-)

Actually, I could thrive on a publicly financed system since I'm cheaper than the big boys.

[LittleClarkie]

196. Is he our "What's the matter with Kansas" Senator

He should be beatable, so why is he still there?

But then, much as folks hate his foreign policy decisions, I guess the rest of his votes are progressive enough to keep him in the, dang what was that number, somewhere in the high 60s or low 70s I think.

So maybe his constituents are not concerned with war issues at all. Perhaps somewhere in his other, more progressive votes is an issue or two that they care about more.

Or it could just be that damn incumbent thing again, the one that says that unless you royally screw up, you have a seat for as long as you want it normally.

[welshTerrier2]

170. Will you acknowledge that there are deep divisions on the issues?

When the new Chairman of the Party has used the phrase "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party" and Ted Kennedy criticizes part of the Party as republican-lite (see my sig line), we have to face the reality that there are some serious differences under the "big tent" ...

my view is that we have to seek unity but we won't achieve it by pretending there aren't very real frictions that need to be addressed ...

the DLC and the Clinton wing have had a stranglehold on the Party for far too long and many on the left are really pissed off ... the Party needs to be "reformed" so that the grassroots and ALL Democrats have a reason to believe that they are being represented both by their elected leaders and by the Party's platform ...

the concern I have about those who see acknowledging our differences and acknowledging that they are deep and significant is that I believe they lack an honest introspection ... those who are happy with the status quo can easily dismiss the "democratic wing" as "divisive" ... i'll go even further and agree that the Party's left wing may also actually be "divisive" ... we have to provide a framework to get these differences out in the open and create a real discussion and a real negotiation ... but i don't agree with those who deny deep divisions exist ... that is only going to further piss off those who feel they are being ignored ...

this past election, the left joined in under the ABB banner ... the Party would make a foolish mistake if they expect this kind of support to occur again ... if the left, especially the activist left, does not feel they have a real voice inside the Party, the divisions that exist today will cause a much more serious rift ... obviously i can't speak for the entire "left" ... i'm speaking only for myself but expect others would feel much the same way ... if the Democratic Party continues to support the PNAC agenda, and they have been, I will not continue working for and funding Democratic candidates on the national level ... this isn't a threat ... it's what i believe in and it's what i plan to do ...

[DaveinMD]

179. this is what I think

I believe there is so much that unites us. I think the arguments between the left and the right of the party right now are largely tactical. I was a Wesley Clark supporter, but I supported Dean for DNC Chair. I believe we need to be more aggresive in challenging the Republicans. We can't be afraid to go negative. After all, telling the truth isn't really negative. I believe in vigorous primary campaigns. I just don't believe in kicking people out of the party. That is all.

[welshTerrier2]

186. fair enough but we disagree

first, i agree with a point you made ... i think there are two categories to be examined here ... one is tactics (as you pointed out) and the other is the issues themselves ...

i also supported Dean for DNC Chair not so much because I thought he would impose his views of what tactics should occur in Congress but rather because he promised reforms on the Party's internal processes ... and not only do i agree with you that we need to be more aggressive challenging republicans but i have faith that this will happen ... at this point, there is no viable alternative to doing so ...

HOWEVER, i don't at all agree with you that the differences within the Party are largely tactical ... at least not only tactical ... i think there are deep divisions on issues ... one such issue is the entire PNAC agenda ... the Party needs to hear from ALL Democrats on this issue ... and elected Democrats need to show a greater degree of responsiveness to the grassroots on this issue ... this could easily be achieved by holding town meetings all over the country to let the grassroots and elected Democrats dialog about Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc ...

i don't believe in "kicking people out of the Party" either but that's exactly what i feel is happening when i see Democrats voting more money for bush's PNAC war ... the message to the left is "we know many of you don't agree (or at least we suspect you don't) and perhaps it's even a majority of Democrats, but that's how we're voting and we're not going to be influenced by your opinion ..."

btw, i'm a die-hard Yankee fan living in Massachusetts ... originally from NY too ... Merrick to be exact ...

[DaveinMD]

187. I think the money for the war

is because people don't want to cut off money for the troops even if they disagree with the policy. Its a timid way of thinking, which gets back to tactics. We need to stop being afraid and start fighting back.

[welshTerrier2]

191. i'm afraid it's not just tactics

here's a quote from Kerry regarding continued funding for the occupation in Iraq:

"I'm going to vote for this ... I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

Kerry, as you correctly pointed out, made all kinds of other comments about supporting the troops and veterans etc ... but, and i see no other way to interpret this, he seemed to clearly state that the Iraq war could be "won" ... that's a whole lot more than just disagreeing over what tactics we should use to deal with the republicans ...

it seems to me this is a very clear statement of Kerry's beliefs on the occupation itself ... i can't begin to tell you how alienating it is to me, and probably to many "on the left", to see any Democrat give bush more PNAC funding to "finish the job" ... we watch the daily deaths, we know deep down that no matter how much money bush is given to continue his "war" that he will never have the best interests of the American people or the Iraqi people at heart, and we know this "war" has already been lost ... more money will only prolong the insanity and make us, and the rest of the world, much less safe ... supporting the troops is a noble cause but continuing a "war" that holds no hope makes no sense at all ...

so it is policy, not tactics, where deep and bitter differences exist ... the solution to this intra-Party conflict, if one can be found at all, is to call for more communication via some type of Party-wide summit process ... if Kerry just keeps voting like this and all i can do is call his office to express my views, the grassroots really has no voice at all ... this isn't about bashing; this isn't divisive; this isn't kicking anyone out of the Party ... it's an acknowledgment that we have deep differences and that if we bury our heads in the sand and don't resolve them, the gap between left and center will widen and we will all be weaker for it ...

[Q]

208. RWingers and their allies have always said that they would never repeat...

...the mistakes of the Vietnam 'police action'. They didn't think the Vietnam war as a mistake. The 'mistake' was allowing the free press to cover it uncensored. The TRUTH finally ended the Vietnam mistake.

So began the censored media during the first 'Gulf Conflict' and Senior Bush's 'bloodless war'. If the People don't see the blood...it doesn't exist.

Then came Bush II's 'embedded' media where the truth about the reasons for the Iraq war and the war itself became a 'state secret' and gave political cover to supporters of the 'Bush Doctrine' in both parties.

We MUST acknowledge our differences with the conservative/corporate side of the Democratic party. They want to shut us up and take away our voice with the help of the corporate media...but we can't allow that to happen.

[elshiva]

172. How can you live in MD Dave, if you're a Yankees fan?

Around where I live, you'd be out on a rail for loving the hated Yanks!

[DaveinMD]

176. I was born in NY

and moved down here after graduating from American University. I live in Montgomery County. I root for the Yankees in baseball, Giants in Football and Knicks in the NBA. You never give up the teams of your youth.

[elshiva]

236. Thanks for the explanation!

[Q]

211. I have to disagree...

...the 'centrist' DLCers went out of their way to launch negative campaigns against the liberals and progressives that were running in the 2004 campaign. The 'tactics' they used were deplorable. The campaign wasn't about a difference of opinion on the issues...it was about the DLCers insisting that the 'other' candidates couldn't win because they were too LIBERAL. This played to the stereotype used by the right against more progressive Democrats and Dean, Kucinich and others found they had to defend themselves against both Republicans AND DLC Democrats.

We've had this particular problem since 2000...where DLC candidates have lashed out against others in their party for not supporting the 'third way' and being too liberal. Is this how Democrats should treat other Democrats? You had the DLC trying to divide the party using the tactics of the right. How is this NOT trying to divide party members against each other?

[DaveinMD]

214. no its not

and I have confronted the likes of Mark Penn about it directly. Penn is the DLC pollster. I don't like Dems attacking Dems whether from the left or right.

[elshiva]

173. I belong to the Democratic Party, not the Perfect party.

I am your typical liberal centrist extremist (being silly here).

[DemocracyInaction]

177. Maybe it's the party of the "funded" vs. the "unfunded"

It's becoming obvious in this country that under all the goddamn yelling about morals and God that there is no respect nor future for morals or true religious principles in this country 'cause those things don't generate "da' money". I feel that it's what has made the divide in this party. Poor people and the average middle class person either cannot afford to give to the Party or can only give a limited amount. There is no money to be had, in essence, by standing by the working people of this nation and fighting for them that was our legacy. In order to even get into the ring, a party needs tons of money. The New Dems are good a getting that money because they are basically as much whores to the corporations and the rich as any good, self-respecting Repbulican. Some of our leaders of this ilk, I believe, are like actors-----someone has to play 'the other' part in the play--and in the end both actors go home with a big pay check in their pockets. Sadly, it's as if Old Dem is doomed because as it's true base falls further and further into the economic gutter, even less can be raised. I find people like Clinton, Lieberman, et al, to be nothing I remember following all these years. I've had more respect and like for some of the old time Republicans than I've had for them.

[Q]

205. Well said...

...and nothing need be added to your post. You nicely point out the divide in the party and the reasons for it. Now if only we can get more Democrats to recognize what you have already concluded.

[Hippo_Tron]

184. Your logic is flawed, I'm a progressive and I totally disagree

I'm all for the progresive ideals and am pretty much against a lot of the New Democratic agenda but when the GOP are 5 Senate seats away from absolute control of the federal judiciary and the ability to rip the constitution to shreds, I'm not much on the idea of kicking anybody out of the party.

Man-on-dog, was on C-Span recently and he was asked by a conservative group why he supported the re-election of Arlen Specter over his primary challenger, Pat Toomey. He replied that the NRSC simply decided that it was more pragmatic to have a safe seat in Pennsylvania than have to fight a tough battle. When there are more Republicans in the Senate, the easier it is for the Republican agneda to be passed and the NRSC very effectively got a lot of Republicans elected to the senate. And I can't believe that I would ever say this, but I agree with man-on-dog 100%. That simple vote for who should be Majority Leader makes more difference than any vote than a senator will usually cast in any session (with the exception of a few votes that will have great historical significance). I disagree with Joe Lieberman on a number of issues but the fact is that Joe Lieberman is not democratic leader, he's a backbencher who had a disasterous presidential bid and he provides us a great service by caucusing with US and NOT the GOP.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go wash my mouth out with soap for saying that I agree with man-on-dog 100%.

[Q]

204. Well then...if you're a progressive and you disagree...

...then I MUST be wrong. But I'd like to remind you that even the DLCers call themselves 'progressive'. Strange how that word is so often misused.

I've never suggested 'kicking anyone out of the party'. Where did you get that idea?

I'm saying that we can't afford to allow New Democrats to maintain their control over the party's platform and agenda. The problem is that...like their Neocon buddies...they're not interested in sharing power with others in their own party.

And you're not even entertaining the thought that the New Democratic Agenda could be the CAUSE of the loss of so many seats.

You may think Lieberman is a 'back bencher'...but along with Clinton and Al From...he and the DLC are literally writing the party's platform and steering the agenda. It's a mistake to believe that someone has to be a high profile politician to have any influence.

This is exactly how the DLC has pushed their agenda behind the scenes. They have Democrats whipped into a frenzy...believing that winning is more importaht than traditional principles and values.

[welshTerrier2]

209. "they're not interested in sharing power"

It seemed to me that this was what Howard Dean was all about ... while I think DFA has never articulated a real anti-war position, I supported Dean for Chair because I believed he would open up the Party to the grassroots ...

He's new in the job and deserves a reasonable amount of time to layout his agenda to create reforms that will encourage shared power between Party insiders and the grassroots ...

But i am very concerned this will never happen ... I did not understand why he detached himself from DFA when he became Chair ... was DFA only a political vehicle for his next campaign run? perhaps there is some kind of Party charter that required this detachment but it is disconcerting that he stepped away from a group of people whose primary mission seemed to be shared power within the Party ...

In his first days as Chair, it seems Dean's mission is to sharpen his own debating skills enroute to helping to shape a Party message and Party talking points ... i suppose that's an admirable goal ... but it seems to me part of shaping the message has to include a new infrastructure that gives the grassroots a real voice ... it's not clear to me why, even if a formal plan will take time to develop, Dean has not stated that this will be a very high priority of his Chairmanship ...

so, even with Dean as Chair, i'm afraid that "shared power", which is THE ONLY HOPE FOR PARTY UNITY, is not going to happen without a very bloody confrontation ... and that's too bad ...

[Hippo_Tron]

225. Okay, to clarify

I'm very much in favor of single-payer universal healthcare, dislike Clinton's welfare reform bill, 100% for gay marriage (I would actually support a federal law to legalize it on a basis of civil rights), I am totally against any and all restrictions on a woman's right to choose, I am against the Iraq War, and I'm against the Patriot Act.

The question I have to ask is, what exactly are you proposing? How do you propose that we keep the DLC from controlling the party's platform and agenda (which I'd BTW argue that they really don't because our party doesn't even really have a united agenda).

BTW had Clinton been steering the Democratic Party's agenda during the 2004 election, we would have WON. Kerry couldn't decide between the DLC message or the populist message and wound up with an unclear agenda.

[Sugarbleus]

195. GREAT and Brave post! I am an OLD DEMOCRAT

I've said that in here before. An "old" democrat from the Civil Rights era w/an affection for FDR, that is. While there's always room for improvement in any ideology, any policy, I LIKED the way things were going before the Neo Liberals (then neocons) took over.

Frankly, I didn't pay as much attention to the political scene until 2000. Silly me, I just assumed the democrats were like they'd always been. I wasn't a political junkie..I didn't keep up or get seriously involved until I started watching the fiasco of the Iraq invasion.

After this recent presidential bid, BOY was I stunned to learn how uninformed I was about my own party!! I didn't even know there was a DLC. Wasn't familiar with the term "Neo Liberal" until this past year, and then only understood it vaguely.

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps this New Democratic movement is why some people have been heard saying: 'I didn't leave the party, they left me'...

I'm not anti-capitalist, not even a pacifist but I do believe in capitalism with a conscience and war as a last last last measure, not pre emptive, not imperialistic, not illegal.........ONLY as in self defense and/or at the request for help from another close ally.

I'm anti globalism in it's present form. I'm anti the build up of our military industrial complex--thank you Eisenhower for the heads up. I'm pro civil rights, human rights, quality education at all levels, sharing the bounty to the citizens of America--including access to quality health care for EVERYONE, level playing fields so everyone has a chance to earn his/her own way, fair taxation, regulation of all business, and charity for the weakest among us.

In hindsight, Clinton was a let down, a joke, a bit of a turncoat. If we could put him in office right now, to replace Bush, I'd say yes. But if we had to go into the future with Dems like him I'd say NO WAY.

Check out the "Progressive Policy Institute" and the "New Republic", to name just two, for some ideas of where these "New Liberals" are going.

If the majority of Dems today are determined to go along with this "New Democratic" way of thinking that is far too similar to the corporate, globalist, anti-redistribution right wing then............I'M OUTTA HERE. They will NOT get my vote.

[Q]

203. You're not alone...many Dems knew nothing about the DLC before 2000...

...and I count myself among them. I too had assumed that the party may have been in flux...but not that unelected factions were steering the agenda.

"I didn't leave the party, they left me". I think you may be right in assuming that this sentiment came along about the same time as the DLC became more vocal about their influence on the party. It stunned many 'old fashioned' Democrats to realize that the party of their ancestors was moving to the right in such an unabashed manner.

We could probably say that most 'old Dems' aren't 'anti-capitalist'...they're against unrestrained and unregulated capitalism.

We should recognize and accept the fact that the Neodems have two goals: move the party to the right AND to discredit the faithful followers of the Old Democratic Party. And we shouldn't forget that the New Democrats helped the right make 'liberal' a dirty word.

In the Bush era...it's difficult to say that Clinton was a let down. Hell...I'd prefer Nixon to Bush right now. But Clinton DID do a lot of damage to the Old Party and allowed the Right too many advantages and chances to nuke our agenda.

I'd prefer to call them 'New Democrats' (or Neodems) because that's the term they use for themselves.

And I'm not so sure the New Democrats even WANT your vote. Their plan is to replace YOUR VOTE with votes from those who would normally vote Republican.

[welshTerrier2]

207. "not so sure the New Democrats even WANT your vote"

this is just NOT true ...

it would be a huge mistake for those of us on the "left" to believe this statement ... whether the Neodems (Democons?) want our votes or not isn't the issue; they need our votes ...

where I agree with you is that they are not going to try to win our votes by catering to our views on the issues ... the strategy, as long as they hold power in the Party, will always be "ABB" ...

you saw this right here on DU ... the center will pressure and "guilt" the left into believing that nothing else makes any sense ... "third parties have no chance"; "we have to stick together to get rid of bush"; "you should work for change WITHIN the Party" ... they don't want you to leave ... they want you and need you to stay and vote for them ...

they are not trying to replace your vote but you are correct that they are steering the Party to the right to go after the mushy center ...

what's amazing to me in this thread is that the Party loyalists and centrists seem to be in total denial about the divisions we face ... I'm all for building Party unity but we are facing a serious crisis if our differences are swept under the rug by those currently controlling the power ...

[Q]

218. From and Rosenberg...

...have outright stated that they no longer intend to represent the ideals of the 'old' Democratic party or their traditional base. Although they may EXPECT many liberals and progressives to vote 'ABB' in the next election...they know there will come a time when that support disappears in response to their transparent move to the Right. By the time that happens and enough Democrats finally realize what's going on...the New Democrats expect to have replaced their votes with enough of the 'mushy middle' to make up for the loss.

The New Democrats want nothing to do with the 'labor left' and plan to completely disassociate themselves with most of the 'liberal' issues and groups that have historically voted Democratic. Eventually they will have to find someone to replace the groups they're intentionally disenfranchising. This is where their new stance on issues like abortion, religion and guns come into play.

Unity can't be a one way street. The 'with us or against us' mentality of the New Democrats prevents any real dialogue from taking place.

[welshTerrier2]

220. completely agree

the interesting "caught in the middle" players are Dean and Kerry ...

I think Kerry is still "keeping his powder dry" ... he will not be able to walk down the middle much longer ...

and Dean? i have no idea ... he talked a good game about reform ... his followers believe he's the real deal ... when i see real reform that gives the grassroots a real voice, then i'll know ... Dean has not yet passed the test ... I'm willing to be patient for a while longer ...

[Sugarbleus]

232. Very Well Stated!

This is chilling: Their plan is to replace YOUR VOTE with votes from those who would normally vote Republican. From the mouths of some Dems, this DOES appear to be the exact trend they want to follow... I don't want to be a democrat just for the "title", I'm in it for a particular agenda and that "agenda" seems to have been chipped away to almost non existence. Chilling indeed.

I do believe I see the handwriting on the wall. :scared:

[CWebster]

198. The ideal would be for the Clintons to switch parties

and pull the Republicans back from the brink, rather than pulling the Democrats down too with this unity party crap - with Clinton and Poppy, Kerry courting McCain,etc. The Clintons appropriately on the Right would put things back into the proper balance, bringing the center back on the mark.

The Clintons would be great for the Republicans, since they never know when to leave, they could be the ball and chain on that side of the aisle.

[Q]

200. What got me to thinking about...

...this divide was Lieberman's four year love fest (and recent french kiss) with Bush, Al From's seething hatred of what he calls the 'labor left' and Mrs. Clinton's public displays of appeasement to the Bush regime (probably meant to make her look more 'conservative' before 2008).

So then...where IS the public face of liberalism / progressivism in the leadership of the Democratic party? There are Kennedy and a few others...but they are virtually tied to a party leash and the Centrist Leadership rarely if ever backs them up on any issue of import.

I believe that what we're seeing is the Leadership of the Dem party appeasing the criminal Bush white house to please what they think has become a more conservative electorate. They're hoping to replace the Dem base they're abandoning with white, conservative, middle class voters. The mythical 'swing voter'. In other words...they know they can't sell the New Democratic party to the 'swingers' with 'big government' programs like welfare and social services or by associating with the likes of the Labor Movement, anti-Iraq war activists, women's rights, civil rights or supporters of the wall of separation between church and state.

The traditional base of the Dem party (Old Democrats) have been left to fend for themselves. Clinton's 'welfare to work' made a lot of RWingers happy...but it left many families in poverty and without substantial earning power. His trade programs pleased Bankers on Wall Street...but labor was left powerless against corporations that no longer had to trouble themselves with collective bargaining or fair trade.

But all this wasn't enough to pull the votes from the supporters of the Neocons. After 2000...the New Democrats allowed civil rights to slip through their fingers when they ignored the BLATANT election fraud and purging of Black voters by Jeb Crow. Still not enough to please the Bush voters...they decided to back an unprovoked, illegal war against Iraq and lash out against those Democrats who objected. Now on a roll...the Neodems went flaccid on support for CHOICE and the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE...seeking a 'dialogue' with those trying to criminalize abortion and blend the church with the state.

Old Democrats were simply left out of the picture. The few remaining Liberals and Progressives were marginalized, given placeholder status and told to shut up. The Clinton/From party apparatus made it clear to them that they wouldn't be supported for a WH run and to make way for their Chosen DLC candidates.

So here we are...two parties pretending to be one. The New Democrats want us to keep pretending and not to make waves as they assume control of the party and agenda. In 2008...the battle cry will be 'anyone but a Republican' as the New Dems once again try to convince the Old Dems to vote against their own best interests.

[Sugarbleus]

233. BINGO, BINGO, BINGO!!

Damn Q, you're hitting on all 8 cylinders here!

There's so much I could say about why this division disturbs me, but I'm certain you already know.

My next question is: What do we "old dems" do about this? Where do we stand? (besides out in the cold)

[Q]

250. We have to heal our party...

...and talk about our differences. But most of all...the DLC has to recognize that there must be a consensus before they make changes and decisions for ALL Democrats. Isn't this what democracy is supposed to be about? It's pissing off a lot of Democrats that a small group of (mostly) white men are deciding...not only the direction of the party...but what our 'new' principles and values should be.

What can the 'old dems' do about it? Since the 'new dems' won't share power or find common ground with 'old' Democrats...the only power we have is to not support their candidates or agenda in any way. We must STOP trying to win for the sake of winning and move to change our party in fundamental ways.

I believe that if we build a party that represents the interests of ALL Americans and lead by example...the grassroots will rise up in tremendous numbers and support us. We've become robots stuck in a cycle of voting in order to win seats of power and not to improve our party and country. We've become so much like the GOP in this regard that all perspective of right and wrong has been lost.

It's a difficult thing to admit...but Dem representatives that DON'T speak out against Bush criminality and corruption have become part of the problem. It is a crime in and of itself to have knowledge of a criminal activity and not report it. It's even worse if LAWMAKERS know of crimes being committed against the state and do nothing about it.

We can't heal our party if we're living a lie.

[welshTerrier2]

258. give voice to ALL Democrats

this post is dead on !!!

i've been using that capitalized "ALL Democrats" in every post I make that deals with this issue ...

the one difference i've seen between your posts and mine was that you very effectively highlighted the differences but didn't seem to go the next step of "spelling out the process for building unity" ... as a result, you get all the naysayers sticking you with the "divisive" label ... but it's only divisive if your solution is that we should split into two or more parties because of our differences ... and of course, being divisive is neither inherently good nor bad ...

so, this post was dead on the money ... it's exactly what the "out of power" left should be calling for ... we need to make major changes in the Party's infrastructure ... we need to make the Democratic Party "democratic" ... we need to ensure that ALL Democrats have a voice in setting policy ...

the "Dean" thing is especially interesting ... Dean and DFA have been much more focussed on REFORM than on issues ... frankly, without getting into a whole thing about it, i've never liked Dean's Iraq position ... but i supported him for Chair (not for President) because he was preaching grassroots REFORM ... well, it's time for him to put up or shut up ... i'm willing to be a little patient and give him some time to formulate a new direction ... on the other hand, i've been disappointed that he has not made loud and clear pronouncements since he became Chair about opening up the Party to the grassroots as one of his top priorities ... i'm still hopeful he'll push for this but i am a bit concerned he will be swallowed up by the insider power structure ...

finally, there is one issue that i hold as a litmus test ... i am no longer willing to compromise on this issue ... no more ABB selling my soul ... you either join the "NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR" chorus, or i'm done with you ... non-negotiable ... you cannot vote for bush's $81.9 BILLION supplemental to continue his insane global conquest ... if you want my support, you cannot continue to enable bush's corporate hegemony ... you must understand that America's great military might must only be used in two ways: one to defend this country from "imminent threat" and two to join with the community of nations under the auspices of the U.N. for humanitarian purposes ... if you vote to fund the U.S. role as policeman to the world, i will not vote for you ... you either stand opposed to PNAC or you are funding it ...

it is this single issue that will likely, in the end, drive me from the Party ... and that's too bad ...

anyway Q, great thread, great post ... thanks ...

[Sugarbleus]

299. Q, so very well stated again!

I'd love nothing better than to "Heal"......the very idea gives me such comfort. The only way this little "pea picker" can envision accomplishing that is to continue to decern who the centrists and DLCer's are, then go to them CONTINUALLY with our ideals and vision. Tell them how unwise it is to just kick us to the curb.

In my view, the "old dem" party was truely endeavoring to address the needs and issues of all Americans. A few toes from the far right were bruised but we were making progress and would have continued to do so if deregulation with unbridled Greed and Corporate "Progressives" hadn't gotten in the way.

Somewhere along the way, this country lost it's moral compass--I don't mean gay marriage,abortion, or porn issues either. I'm talking about ETHICS/civics and humanitarian values.

There is always a wee bit of corruption in governments, but THIS, what we see today, is way, way over the top. Blatant too. I've listened to talkshow hosts on radio speak to this issue over and over. People call in and ask why can't these people be impeached or put into jail..etc.. The conversations go back to WHY are our Dems allowing the obvious lies and crimes go UNADDRESSED?????!!! I ask that question too. Oh, there are a few that try to make a stand but they are usually out numbered by the crowd who "goes along to get along"..no doubt thatcrowd has it's hands in the till along with everyone else on the right.

It's sad, it's frightening, it's infuriating. Nevertheless, we MUST keep these issues alive and pound them home to whomever will listen; write, call, fax, email CONTINUOUSLY to your representatives and those I mentioned until the "squeaky wheel" gets some oil. If we have to go out into the street, then so be it on that score too.

Be well... SB

[Arkana]

219. Let me tell you something.

I belong to the party that dug this country out of two world wars and the Great Depression when the Republicans were too lazy serving the ruling elite to do it.

I belong to the party that finally trashed the Jim Crow South once and for all thanks to sweeping civil rights legislation.

I belong to the party that brought hope back to America after the cynicism, suspicion, and mistrust brought on by the Nixon and Ford years.

I belong to the party that boasts FDR's political savvy, Kennedy's and Johnson's popularity (pre-Vietnam, of course), Carter's grassroots appeal, and Clinton's message of hope, not fear. ALL of them are Democrats, and I think we would do well to remember that. There are only Democrats, none of this "Old" and "New" shit. That's divisive crap that the Pukes love to see.

[Q]

249. I don't care about what the 'pukes love to see'...

...and neither should you. It's disturbing to see our party become so paranoid that they fear having discussions because of what the 'pukes' would think.

And in fact...our party is in the worse shape it has been in a century because too many people seem to believe like you that it doesn't matter what a Democrat believes...as long as they're a Democrat.

I'm sure that's what the Republicans used to say...as they watched their party being taken over by those who called themselves Republicans...but didn't believe in the same things. Bush and the Neocons pretend to be Republicans...but they have literally destroyed their party by moving it in the wrong direction.

The same thing is happening to the Democratic party. Perhaps not as extreme as the takeover of the other party...but there is a takeover going on nonetheless.

This discussion isn't the cause of the 'divisiveness' that you're ranting about. It's the unelected 'officials' and think tanks of the DLC that divide our party. They are changing our platform and agenda without any kind of mandate or consensus from the majority of those who vote Democratic.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

221. a paleodem here...the party of Kucinich, Jefferson, FDR and Kennedy

[John_H]

223. I reccomend reading a book now and again in order to avoid

posts that are utterly devoid of any hostorical accuracy. The party of FDR and Truman was heavily influenced by and often dominated by the party of Russell and Bilbo. LBJ spent most of his career doing the bidding of uber-corporaatists named brown and root, of halliburton, brown and root fame. The party of Bobby Kennedy wiretapped MLK. The majority of democratic senators supported McCarthy until if was far too late. More than half of Democrats succeded from the union in 1860. Jefferson would have been right of Scalia on premption issues.

If anything, the Democratic Party of today would have been on opposing sides of most of those issues. I know facts tend to hamper ideological pidgeonholing and intolerance, but that's just the way it is.

[Q]

231. It could be...

...that you're trying to make too much of a simple comparison in ideology. The 'old' party referenced is that of the 'New Deal'. The 'new' party is that of the 'third way'.

I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned ANY presidents because they don't necessarily reflect the nature of the party at that moment in time.

Do you mean 'historical accuracy'? If so...this thread is not a thesis or meant to be 'accurate' in the sense of strictly defining the ideoloy of every character involved.

You can blather on all day long about FDR, Truman, Kennedy or McCarthy...but this thread is about the demarcation point where the 'new' leadership of the party abandoned any pretense of being the 'party of the people' and support for labor, minorites or civil rights. This change came about during the Clinton years when a group of 'Dixiecrats', Blue Dogs and Reagan Democrats...well-financed by corporations...took it upon themselves to redefine what it meant to be a 'progressive' Democrat.

The point of all of this is that the party has been manuvered in a rightward direction without a mandate or consent of the majority of rank and file Dems. The Neodems simply decided that liberalism was dead...along with the New Deal and everything that it implied. Coincidentally...this is exactly what the corporate state demanded...the end of social democracy and the 'big government' that came with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

241. 'Dixiecrats' all went over to the GOP

Dixiecrats were the anti civil rights wing of the party led by people like Strom Thurmond. They went over to the GOP long before the DLC was even formed. Also, Dixiecrats don't necesarilly stand against left wing economic principals, like the DLC does. The DLC wing of the party has for the most part, until recently, has been fairly good about things like abortion rights. The Dixiecrats are the DLC antithesis because they are social conservatives who are very anti abortion and are also economic populists, William Jennings Bryan democrats per se. Dixiecrats don't even exist anymore, though, because they all swallowed their economic populist beliefs in order to form an alliance with the GOP, because racism and gay hating were more important to them.

[Q]

246. Perhaps you THINK...

...all the 'Dixiecrats' went over to the GOP? It couild be that many of them simply fell silence after the Civil Rights Act. Many of the Dixiecrats that stayed in the party joined other 'groups' with similar causes...like the Blue Dogs and the DLC.

Look at Zell Miller. He was thought to be a good Dem all along...but finally 'came out' when he was about to retire. His display at the GOP convention showed what he had been all along...but couldn't admit and still win as a Democrat.

The DLC hasn't been 'good' on any issue. They simply play the same game as the Right...using issues when they're needed to destroy an opponent...usually another Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

267. Zell Miller is a nothing more than an opportunist

If you believe otherwise, then you are buying into his bullshit. Zell was sore about the fact that Clinton never game him a cabinet position and that he never emerged as a prominent figure in the party. He came out at the GOP convention because he knew that he could write a book and sell it to millions of stupid freepers and get his face on national TV for a week.

[Tinoire]

224. The Old Dem Party- part of POAC

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are endangering not only the world, but ourselves. The right wing extremists who came to power through media manipulation and questionable elections have begun an assault on our nation from the inside. Our main points of focus are:

* The democratic process

* Foreign policy

* Media

* Civil liberties

* Environment

* Separation of church and state

It is a time to call for the way things were planned by the Founding Fathers. They way things were planned in the Old American Century.

The project for the OLD American Century represents no one political party, as they have all sold out to the highest bidder; but stands for the Bill of Rights; the Constitution; the working class, as well as all those the new religion of free market capitalism leaves behind; and the people serving in our armed forces if and when it is serving the people of this nation and not just the corporate interests it now paves the way for.

We believe the only imperial stance this great nation should take is that of peacefully encouraging freedom, equality, and civil liberty here at home and around the globe. Not just in words, but in deeds. The ideals of the OLD American Century knowing that those ideals were not then nor have they ever been achieved—but were at least, before now, strived for and what we at the Project for the Old American Century strive for now.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace and profits over people cannot be allowed to continue. The cost has been, is continuing to be and will be, much, much too high.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/principles.htm

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."

-- H.L. Mencken

[Sugarbleus]

234. Tinoire!!!!! Right On!

Hey Friend, are you a member/subscriber to POAC? I'm going there right now to check it out.

A group of friends who left the US last spring, told me, in so many words, that this New Democratic movement wasn't any better than the right wing...I didn't understand them then. I DO NOW.

GOOD TO SEE YOU! :hi:

[Tinoire]

237. Lol only in spirit ;)

It's their graphic I love the most. When I went to grab it for this post today, I realized I had better start scratching around in that site though.

I hear you. Two years ago, I didn't follow the fuss either- thought we were one happy family and that the few people talking about the issue were just being grouchy. After 2 years of looking into it and learning so much at DU, day in and day out, I'm simply appalled.

Good to see you too :hi:

[Sugarbleus]

242. I went, I looked

Signed up for a newsletter. We shall see what they have to offer in real terms.

Like I've said many times before; there are so many issues/problems under this admin. but I can only focus on one or two at a time. In other words: I've had to pick my fights. Currently, my concerns are with the state of our country in practical terms. Social security, housing, poverty, healthcare, meaningful jobs--STABLE JOBS, decent wages, the aging, the disabled, decent education from K up.

Certainly there are other issues that concern people; pre emptive wars, illegal, immoral wars. Special attention given to the aristocracy at the expense of the rest of the country. Women's rights, nuclear proliferation, pollution/environmental issues. Corruption in Government etc.. But my focus is with the needs of everyday people in EveryTown, USA.

For the most part, I must leave the heavier issues of foreign policy (Wars, wars, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Korea et al) and conspiracy theories to loftier minds than mine. Although, these issues do dovetail with those issues that concern me in that Warmongering is EXPENSIVE therefore facilitating the bankruptcy of our treasury so that DOMESTIC programs are being cut and underfunded!! :grr:

Well, you've probably read in my other post where I stand on domestic issues. I'm finding that a goodly portion of this country is suffering because of 'George the Vulgar's' insanity. That's where I get exercised and angry. My fight is to forestall, where possible, the cuts to programs that help our citizens who find themselves falling between the cracks ...sliding down a slippery slope.

Tomorrow, Feb 23 thru 24 I and others begin a call in protest to Bush's FY06 Budget. Our protest is to stop the gutting of housing subsidies and block grants. I posted some info on it in the DU sub forums...if you're interested.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x338

I found the program in my own area. The facts therein are from my area but the budget issue/housing issues are for the entire country...all needy citizens are affected.

[applegrove]

226. The Democratic Party that believes in getting Good Information and applyin

that to problems of all people.

[Zynx]

229. It's really not that simple.

Within the so called "Old" Democratic Party, there were many more conservatives than there are today.

[ChiciB1]

235. The RealDemocrat Site....

That would define me! EVERY TIME, this topic comes up, no matter HOW it's worded we see a torrent of arguments. It makes me wonder if you just like to argue, or if you really want to make valid points.

Personally, I prefer the Democrats from before because to me at least they were willing to get in there and fight for what THEY REALLY believed in. Not just something that will pass the smell test.

We simply weaken ourselves with all this food fighting! I will admit that I have refused to donate money again until I see our Democratic Representatives & Senators willing to take on the Idiocy of the Idiot!!

Does that make me old or new?? We must start with a little cohesion and stop all the back-biting!

Unfortunately, it probably ALL just comes down to M-O-N-E-Y! And that's the Root of What????

[Q]

245. I have to grin when I see someone...

...suggesting that we're only 'weakening' ourselves when we have THESE discussions. But I submit that our party is already at the weakest point it has been in OUR lifetimes and it will only get worse if we continue to pretend there's not a problem.

Yes...I like to 'argue' and stir shit. But in another time and place it would have been called a debate in the public forum. I believe we have a responsibility to speak up when we believe our 'leadership' isn't doing their job. And I would call their losing everything not doing their jobs.

And PLEASE note that I've never once mention that some Dems were 'real' and others were not. It's a matter of disagreement and division over which agenda will prevail.

[ChiciB1]

314. I Suppose It's My Turn To Grin...

I was just commenting on how several of you were going back and forth and back and forth.

I have NO problem "debating" and I'm probably MORE Liberal than most. But every time this subject comes up, I see a certain amount of division between us all.

And for whatever it's worth... DLC IS NOT where I would say I was at. I wasn't trying to put you down, I just saw all the posts between several people and the thought crossed my mind.

Didn't mean to defend you at all.

[greenohio]

238. What a waste of cyberspace.

Still trying to divide us eh? Sad. Disgusting. But sad.

[Q]

253. Yes...Q the Divider will magically and single-handedly...

...tear apart the party with his bare hands. I see that 'green'ohio of hyperbole land has joined us for a brief moment to spout...literally nothing.

I find it telling that you don't even have the time to offer an opinion beyond 'sad' and 'disgusting'. That in itself is indeed sad. But not surprising...since you have always defended the 'New Democrats' and their 'modernizing' of the Democratic party.

What really divides our party? Is it me? Or is it those who enable Bush, cooperate and vote in support of his corrupt agenda? What divides us? Could it be a small group called the DLC that has followed the lead of the Neocons in taking control of their party using corporate cash and media?

What's 'disgusting' is any Democrat willing to overlook all of this. Forget honor and integrity or just simply doing the right thing. But I'll tell you something...I WILL NOT sit down and shut up and watch our country go down the shitter because the Democratic leadership is too afraid or complicit to do anything about the fraud and corruption that has engulfed our government.

[greenohio]

259. Your strategy of purging

as you have posted on other threads "vote against DLC democrats" is a LOSER. Go on, continue attacking other Dems. Call them traitors. Do it in the name of unity. Many of us find it amusing.

[Q]

263. I'm glad that you find this amusing...

...but as Jon Stewart once said to a corporate media whore: "I'm not your monkey" and I won't play the tune you want to hear.

As a defender of the DLC...I expect nothing else from you but to defend the status quo. Not that you do it that well...but at least you're consistent.

Perhaps the DLC's campaign to Neocon the Democratic rank and file would have been more successful if they had actually tried to form a consensus and get them behind their New Agenda? But that's not the case and you know it.

Do you really believe that MOST Democrats wanted NAFTA and the New Party's move to abandon unions for their corporate sponsors? Do you think most Democrats want an illegal, aggressive war in Iraq that enriches friends of Bush/DLC and takes much needed resources away from social programs, education and the country's infrastructure?

It matters not to me if you think I'm 'bad' for calling those who enable and work with Bush traitors. That they're (D)emocrats makes them no less traitorous or responsible for the damage done in our names.

[Zhade]

266. And thus Q layeth the smackdown.

Well-said, my friend.

[wyldwolf]

278. To which Democratic Party do you belong?

TO which Democratic Party do you belong?
To WHICH Democratic Party do you belong?
To which DEMOCRATIC Party do you belong?
To which Democratic PARTY do you belong?
To which Democratic Party DO you belong?
To which Democratic Party do YOU belong?
To which Democratic Party do you BELONG?

Same post by Q week after week, worded a bit differently each time, but the same.

[Patchuli]

239. I'm a JeffersJacksonian

because I believe that the backbone of the country, the average citizen
has a right to become a member of the educated elite. I'd like to see
all citizens become equally educated at least to a certain level. I also
admired FDR. I have a problem with Kennedy due to Viet Nam and Bubba
can kiss my ass for the flipper-flopping repug ass kissing he's been
doing. Hillary likewise.

I'd like to see an end to war-mongering, corporate butt-kissing rich old
white boys. aaacccckkkkghhhhhhhhh!!!!

I am a Green Democratic woman sick of the bs. Did I answer that ? ?

Oh and I'd vote for John Kerry again in a heartbeat. He is a rich white
boy who grew up knowing it's not all about him. He has served this
country since he was 22 years old. He has morals, ethics and genuinely
gives a shit about the rest of us.

All right, that about covers it.

:dem:

[Carolab]

243. I'm a Dean Democrat. Following his lead. Like this guy says here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1617569

[Q]

247. Although some don't agree...

...especially the Centrists and those who like the status quo...we MUST have this conversation. There are many Democrats who feel disaffected by a party that is not only moving to the right...but won't fight against the most right-wing, extremist government this nation has ever seen. To many it appears as if the leaders of the party are either afraid of Bush or are actually cooperating with him and his cronies.

Either way...this spells bad news for a party that needs to fight. To make things worse...there is a divide in the Dem party itself. These are dangerous times...for our country and party. Centrism and moderation seems like appeasement in a time that calls for courage and sticking to principles.

The Democratic Leadership (DLC) must stop acting like tyrants with their 'with us or against us' mentality. They've had two presidential election cycles to run THEIR candidates and it has been fully demonstrated that the rank and file isn't interested in their platform or agenda.

We didn't come all this way just to abandon the millions of Americans who chose to be Democrats because it was in theirs and the country's best interest. Blacks and other 'minorities' no longer trust us to protect and defend their civil rights. Women no longer trust us to fight for their CHOICE. Worker's can no longer depend on us to fight for their unions and worker's rights.

Is this where you want to go? Better think about it long and hard before you vote in the next election.

[erpowers]

255. Old Democrat

I am an old Democrat. I believe in the party of FDR and JFK.

[Q]

256. There were good and bad things about...

...FDR and JFK. What part of their ideology/ideals would you like the Dem party to keep?

I believe the party was at its best when they gave Americans the New Deal, Social Security, civil rights act...and supported 'choice' /equal rights for women and the working class and their unions.

Can we keep all of these things and still complete against the Neocon/religious Right? I say we can...but we must believe in the good they will bring and...mean what we say and say what we mean.

[erpowers]

257. New Deal and All

I supporte FDR and JFK because of the new deal, Social Security and civil rights. I support JFK becuase he seemed to want to bring out the best in Americans. I want to see the Democrats fight back again. I want the Democratic Party to fight for right of every American to get a good education. I want them to fight for the right of people to form unions and not have their jobs threatened. I want them to fight for the middle class.

[Q]

260. I agree...

...but where is the 'middle class' you refer to? It seems to me there are two classes remaining: the ruling class and the servant class.

We're witnessing the beginning of the end of the grand experiment started over 200 years ago. The middle class simply doesn't fit in the plans of those who have mucked up the experiment with their bold corruption and creation of the corporate state. And it should go without saying that the poor will be left to fend for themselves in the Neocon, Neodem 'new world order'.

The New Deal was also an experiment. That is...sharing the bounty and resources of the country with the commoners. Social Welfare was put on an equal footing with corporate welfare and a government of, by and for the people was charged with protecting the environment and the rights of workers and the 'have-nots'.

But the 'welfare state' became the corporate state. The president became a King and the people's representatives no more than Barons only interested in protecting their turf and careers. The people were encouraged to 'just eat cake' as all the nation's resources were taken to feed the Pentagon and its needless wars against faceless enemies.

All the things we wish for will never exist again until the Democratic party wakes up and smells nationalism, fascism and our new corporate state.

[erpowers]

268. It is There

There is still a middle class; however, it is declining. I think the Democratic Party must begin to fight for unions and fight to make sure that people have good jobs that pay good money. In addition, they must fight to make sure that everyone can get a good education.

You mentioned that "social welfare was put on an equal footing with corporate welfare". I think the Democratic Party should go after the corporate welfare system. I am against corporate welfare. I think you are probably against corporate welfare and were just using it to make a point and show how much Democrats cared about the welfare of the people.

In order to stop the decline of the middle class we (the democrats at the grassroots) must be willing to take a chance at losing and vote for Democrats like Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, and Barbara Boxer who are willing to stand up to the Republican Party on the issues we care about. In addition, I guess we have to make noise about how fascism and nationalism are seeping into our country and demand that it is stopped.

[Commendatori]

265. I'd be a "default Democrat."

There are a lot of things about our party I don't like - a lot (I am, for instance, extremely pro-gun and want to throw up every time I hear Schumer speak), but the alternative is simply unthinkable. I'm a Democrat by default because my contempt for Republicans is just a shade below "endless."

[Trish1168]

274. I am a new-old democrat

I just switched parties, which technically makes me a new democrat, but I support the old-democrat philosophies.

FYI...I have nothing against Kennedy, but he was a hardline-hawkish type when he first entered office, and the neo-cons use him as the starting point for when the democratic party started going down hill. I know that Kennedy figured out during his presidency that the hawks are crazy and untrustworthy, and I can't fault him for starting out hawkish, after all the humiliation his dad took over the appeasement of Hitler. I know he had a change of heart and aimed to pull his advisers out of Vietnam. But still, I hate how the republicans use him as a symbol, because he was hawkish and cut taxes.

Kennedy turned out to be a good man, who fought hard for civil rights. But, I think that FDR, more than Kennedy, should represent the old-democrats.

But who am I to talk. I'm a new - old democrat. Formerly a moderate republican (the type that supports gay rights and likes having social programs.....I used to vote republican for moderates who were fiscally responsible, and they don't seem to exist any more).

[Q]

264. Please think about THIS:

"...Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using religion and war as tools to keep power: "fas-cism (fâsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, bust up unions, and create an illusion of prosperity through government debt and continual and ever-expanding war spending.

America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

--- Thom Hartmann (www.thomhartmann.com) lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, is the Project Censored Award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and is the host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk radio program. This article, in slightly altered form, was first published in 2003 by CommonDreams.org and is now also a chapter in Thom's book What Would Jefferson Do?, published in 2004 by Random House/Harmony.

###

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm

[Illinois_Dem]

269. I don't buy your 'two parties' nonsense.

I'm old enough to have voted for Lyndon Johnson and to have worked for John Kennedy's campaign, and you're very much mistaken with your fairy-tail analysis of our party. The fact of the matter is that this party has ALWAYS been a coalition party representing a wide array of interests. There have been times when our party swung to the liberal end of the spectrum, and there have been times when our party swung toward the more conservative end, but at the end of the day our party has always come back to being a centrist party. It is the Republican Party who have always been conservatives, the only difference being whether they were reactionary, or not.

[welshTerrier2]

270. "representing a wide array of interests"

welcome to DU, Illinois_Dem !!!

i would suggest to you that many in the Party do not feel at all "represented" ... we can't just pretend that all is well in our Party ... the issue of representation is exactly the problem ... there are millions, actually tens of millions, of Americans who no longer vote ... and millions of these are registered Democrats ...

some have reacted to the Party's tight insider control by dropping out and others are fighting back trying to gain a greater voice ... either way, things have got to change ... the Party is badly in need of reform ...

we must not continue to have elected Democrats supporting bush's PNAC agenda ... there's no room for coalition here ... bush's pro-corporate, PNAC hegemony must be stopped now ... we are either the good guys in the world who support a humanitarian foreign policy or we are a Party that serves a greedy, multi-national, corporate master ... i see no room for compromise on an issue like this ... you either support the school bully or you don't ...

i think a majority of Democrats oppose spending more money in Iraq (and beyond) ... it doesn't look like those who "represent" us agree ... and i'm sure they haven't taken the time to ask ... btw, speaking of "representation" (regardless of what you thought about Kerry's IWR vote), I was told by a staffer in his office that the Senator's calls were running better than 20-1 against the IWR ... trust me, i didn't feel very "represented" when he voted "Aye" ...

[Padraig18]

272. I don't disagree at all about the party needing reform.

[LSdemocrat]

271. Why the need to oversimplify? We have a vast spectrum of opinions.

Why do some people (Bush and overzealous ideologues on all parts of the political spectrum) insist on dividing the world on clear cut black and white divisions, when nearly everything is just countless shades of grey?

We have a vast and diverse spectrum of opinions in the Democratic party, this is nothing new. People like Cynthia McKinney to people like Charley Stenholm to George McGovern to Scoop Jackson. Many people, like Howard Dean, defy nearly all labels. Diversity of opinion is a good thing.

[Padraig18]

273. You're absolutely correct.

I've tried to make the same point.

[Q]

275. True...but not everyone in the Democratic party...

...wants to CONTROL IT and push their own narrow agenda.

Do you see a group of Liberals trying to take over the party and push a liberal agenda? How about Progressives? Populists? No...but there is ONE faction of the party that wants to set the agenda for the entire party: The New Democrats.

Ask yourselves why they call themselves 'new' Democrats instead of plain old Demcrats? Read their websites and see their disdain for anything liberal or progressive. Listen to their words and how they reject other Dems that don't agree with their agenda.

It's not an oversimplification to say that the New Democrats refuse to work with other 'factions' in the party. They have a different and separate agenda.

But it IS a simplification to say that we dealing with a mere difference of opinion. Posters on DU may have a difference of opinion...but none of us have the means, influence or money to steer the direction of the party. But the DLC and their think tanks use their 'opinion', influence and money to make changes in the party platform and agenda that affect ALL of us...without even considering the opinion of the rank and file.

[Padraig18]

276. The liberals 'controlled' the party from '72-'88

The fact of the matter is that the extreme left wing controlled the party apparatus from 1972-1988, Q, during which period we were routinely beaten like red-headed step-children, Jimmy Carter's election being the sole exception. Quite frankly, I'm sensing less concern for the party from your posts, and far more whining because those who don't share your exact ideology are in control.

[Q]

292. Your opinion reflects that of the DLC and their 'winning' strategy'...

It's not always about winning. Sometimes it's about what is accomplished for the people when the Democratic party holds high office. And if you want to talk about winning...the DLC doesn't exactly have a shining record in that regard. The 'old Democratic party brought us the New Deal, Social Security, support for unions and workers, civil rights, public education and choice for women. The New Democratic party brought us...welfare 'reform', NAFTA and a telecommunications bill that allowed media monopolies.

The Democratic party was in control of congress for over forty years. THAT's where the power really lies in DC. They were in control until Clinton's DLC weakened the party's credibility and everything when downhill since 96. The DLC has essentially been in control of the party since Clinton took office and they pushed their big hit welfare 'reform' that the Right had wanted for so long. What a wonderful record they have to offer: Democrats have lost more seats than under any 'liberal' administration.

And then there's election fraud. You'd think the DLC would at least use that as an excuse for THEIR candidates losing. But they can't even admit to that...they're rather blame Gore for his 'populism' or Kerry's swift boat liars than admit that their agenda doesn't go over well with social Democrats.

I'm glad you finally admitted that the DLC doesn't 'share' my or the old Democrats ideology. I hope you understand what you're saying. The DLC has taken control of our party much like the Neocons did with the GOP. They don't 'share' either and their smug and arrogant my way or the highway leadership turns most Democrats off.

[Padraig18]

298. Let's talk about historical realities, shall we?

Fact #1: The rightward drift among the electorate began in the mid-60's, the first truly visible sign being the nomination of Barry Goldwater for President. This was long before the DLC was even dreamt of.

Fact #2: With the election of Ronald Reagan, the rightward drift among the electorate gained 'critical mass'; this rightward shift further stregthened with the loss os the US Senate. Both of these events while the Democratic Party was being led by 'traditional' elements, e.g., classical liberals.

Fact #3: The DLC/Third Way wing of the party came into existence in response to the disastrous leadership our party was saddled with from the period 1972-1988. The first candidate nominated by the party after the DLC became the domnant faction went on to win 2 sucessive terms as POTUS, something no Democrat has done since FDR.

I am not overjoyed with each and every policy position that the DLC has adopted, but I am neither blind to the historical record nor will I engage in a debate which arbitrarily ignores the above 3 facts. The DLC is not solely responsible for the Democrats losing control of Congress or the Presidency, Q; if anyone is 'responsible' it is an electorate which has shifted rightward.

[LSdemocrat]

279. Every faction wants to control the party to a certain extent

Just because the DLC has worked to build up an infrastructure over the past 20 or so years doesn't make them sinister or un-Democratic. I generally don't agree with the DLC, but I think they are a perfectly legitimate Democratic faction. I personally think there are plenty of key differences between the DLC and Republcans, notably on taxes, the deficit, and social issues.

Again I think it is a gross simplification to make a clear distinction between "New Democrats" and the rest of the party. People who identify with the DLC don't necessarily agree with everything they do. Some politicians adopt some DLC positions (maybe on trade) while taking more a more liberal stance on other issues (perhaps education).

Also keep in mind, the political strategies of the DLC are pretty much the whims of Al From, and are not necessarily the views of DLC members, which is one of the reasons why New Democrat Simon Rosenberg left the DLC to form the New Democratic Network.

[Padraig18]

280. Well said, yet again. n/t

[Q]

281. Of course...but not every faction CAN control the party...

...and the DLC was formed over the last two decades to do just that. Are they sinister or unDemocratic? Only to the extent that they're trying to do an end run around the 'old' party and push their agenda without a consensus.

I would never suggest there are NO differences between Republicans and DLCers. I would submit that they have more in common with a faction of the GOP: the Neocons. The most relevant thing they have in common is the Bush/PNAC Doctrine of 'preemptive war' and using 9-11 and the war on terror to advance an agenda of military/corporate dominance. It was this administration's 'Pearl Harbor'. You'll find signatories of the PNAC in leadership/advisory roles in the DLC.

It's the New Democrats that have distinguished themselves from the rest of the party by calling themselves 'new'. Why would they do that if they didn't want to separate themselves from the rest of the party?

The strategies' of the DLC are indeed the efforts of From...and the Clintons...and all the think tanks they've constructed using millions in corporate cash. Coincidentally...the same corporations that donate big bucks to the Neocons/GOP also give it to...not the Democratic party in general...but the DLC.

[Q]

282. There are no DLC 'members' persay...

...expect those who sign up on their website and THEY have absolutely no input into policy or agenda. They're simply cheerleaders. The DLC consists of Al From and the other leadership and their 'advisors'.

You make it sound as if there is an actual difference between the DLC and the NDN. Rosenberg was moved to lead that group...but they both share think tanks and agendas. Do you think it's an accident that they call it the NEW DEMOCRATIC Network?

[Q]

284. Since you brought up the NDN...I have a few questions...

First of all...who elected or appointed the DLC or the NDN to 'nurture a new generation of leaders' for the Democratic party?

They refer to spending 'tens of millions of dollars' on ad campaigns and to 'provide money' for the next generation of Dem leaders. Where do they get this money and to whom are they beholden as to how they spend it? Do they work in concert with REAL Democratic organizations like the DNC?

The NDN's address is 'newdem.org'...so please stop pretending that they're not party of the New Democratic Coalition...aka as the DLC.


NDN

The core of the NDN mission since its creation in 1996 has been to support of the very best candidates running in the toughest races across the country. We've acted as a venture fund for modern Democrats, supporting hundreds of candidates at all levels of government with our money, our networks, our policy expertise and our strategic counsel.

Working closely with our members, our network has been instrumental in promoting and nurturing a new and better class of leaders for the country.

Our commitment to nurturing a new generation of leaders is grounded in our belief that the modern Democratic Party must do a better job at making long-term strategic investments in our future. For eight years, NDN has been developing a national capacity to pick and choose from the very best emerging leaders from across the country and have provided the type of support that can it more likely they can succeed.

And it is working. We've helped teach and train dozens of elected officials on learning trips across the country and working sessions in Washington on the tough issues of the day. We've provided day to day policy and political counsel. We've helped build the New Democrat Coalitions, groups which now have one-third of all Members of Congress as members. Through frequent events, members of our network can meet these emerging leaders and choose which ones they want to support on their own. And, of course, we provide money. Tens of millions of dollars over these eight years.

The best way to be part of our work is to join NDN today. NDN Members are privy to special member-only materials, meetings and conference calls that will help you get to know and support the very best of the next generation of leaders.

Investing in New Leaders: NDN promotes a new generation of political leaders, which includes elected officials, progressive entrepreneurs, and strategic investors.  NDN members support federal candidates through NDNPAC, and state and local candidates through the New Democrat Network.  Since 1996, the New Democrat Network and NDNPAC have raised tens of millions of dollars, elected hundreds of candidates at all levels of government, including 50 new members to the House and Senate, and been instrumental in the founding of the Congressional New Democrat Coalitions.

Who We Are

Management Team

NDN is led by President and Founder Simon Rosenberg.  Mr. Rosenberg has nearly 20 years of political and media experience, including work as a television news writer and producer and a political strategist for the Dukakis and Clinton Presidential campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Leadership Council.  NDN's management team includes Vice President of Development Allison Griner, Vice President for Communications Gil Meneses, Vice President of Policy Cynthia Rice, and Vice President of Operations Buck Owen.  

Advisory Board

NDN receives important counsel from leading New Democrat thinkers and strategists who form NDN's Advisory Board.  These Advisory Board members include former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty; former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry; former U.S. Representatives Vic Fazio, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Dave McCurdy, who was the Democratic Leadership Council chairman; former Dallas Mayor and 2002 Texas Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ron Kirk; former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew; former Federal Trade Commissioner Christine Varney; economist and former Under Secretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro; economic and family policy expert Karen Kornbluh, a former Treasury and Federal Communications Commission official; former Commerce Department Chief of Staff and private equity investor Rob Stein; pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen; Founding Partner and Managing Director of the Westin Rinehart Group Morris Reid and Internet pioneer and political strategist Jonah Seiger.

Our Network

NDN's members are the driving force behind its success.  Each member brings a unique perspective and a distinct set of talents to NDN and its initiatives.  The organization relies on its membership to bring much more to the table than financial resources.  The professional capabilities of NDN's members can make the difference between a successful venture and an unsuccessful one, and NDN's nationwide membership plays a critical role in each and every project the organization pursues.


Paid for by the New Democrat Network. --- http://www.newdem.org/

[Q]

277. And incidentally...

...the Democratic politicians you mentioned have NOTHING to do with why the right wing of the Democratic party is so dangerous and KEEPS US from uniting.

I guess I don't understand why more Democrats...in DC and here on DU...don't get it.

There is no other era that can compare to what we're experiencing right now. Democrats and the American people has never been confronted with the type of corruption and criminality in the execute branch AND in the 'free' press. Yet...so many Democrats are still stuck in the Politics as Usual Mode and can't seem to respond in an appropriate manner to the threat that confronts us and our nation.

Believe me when I say that many Americans...including loyal Democrats...have been wondering for the last four years what the hell is wrong with the Dem leadership and lawmakers when they won't do their DUTY and investigate and push for prosecution of wrongdoing in OUR government. Every American has the right to question this inaction and demand answers. That some don't seem concerned is disturbing to say the least.

[Illinois_Dem]

283. A party needs two wings.

Having read through this thread, I get the distinct impression that what you're most unhappy about is that the left wing of the party doesn't hold the whip hand. While you are certainly entitled to be unhappy about that, if you wish, that doesn't make the DLC, the NDN or any other faction of the party evil incarnate. One must understand that a coalition is neccessarily composed of disparate elements,and the mere fact that your particular favored element does not dominate the party at the moment does not make every element to the right of you the enemy.

[LittleClarkie]

285. It appears to be easier to beat up on members of one's "fam"

than it is to go after the enemy.

[Illinois_Dem]

286. That much was clear from the opening post.

It's a bit late to turn squeamish.

[Q]

287. Actually...it's not 'easier'...

....as you can see from yours and other responses. Speaking of families....have you ever heard of an 'enabler' of a drunken spouse or parent? They make up all kinds of excuses for their family member's behavior when they're drunk. That's how some Democrats act when they excuse the bad behavior and decisions of Dem politicians. There's always an excuse...a reason not to take action.

It's fine by me if you consider the DLC to be part of the Democratic family. But in truth they're not even related. No one voted for them. No one adopted them. They exist because corporations fund them to move the party to the right and to destroy the liberal elements still stuck in the social welfare mode.

I've 'gone after' the enemy since Clinton took office. I concentrated on Bush alone until I realized that some Democrats were actually WORKING WITH HIM to advance his agenda. Are you saying that it's not right to criticize Democrats when they work with the 'enemy'? Or are you suggesting that we should simply close our eyes and pretend it's not happening? Would that make you happy?

[Illinois_Dem]

288. Again, the 'us vs. them' thing.

Before you post again berating everyone else for not 'getting it', you might want to take an objective look at the language of your own posts. Their tone has a distinct 'everyone else is out of step but me' ring to them.

[Q]

290. Tell you what...

...you write whatever you want and I'll do the same. I don't need an editor or a word nanny.

And...there you go again. What is it with some posters that prefer to inject words not used instead of trying to think and debate on their own? You bring up abstract things such as 'tones' and imply that it's the sound of 'everyone else is out of step but me'.

If there is a point to your posts...I wish you'd get to it.

[F.Gordon]

291. Welcome to DU !!!!

I was going to offer up a few suggestions for you but you seem to be doing damn well all by your lonesome. I like the short simple responses. Keep the discussion focused on a narrow field. Well done!!!

:thumbsup:

On behalf of all the "NeoDems" :eyes: here at DU I'd like to present you with a "I responded to a Q thread and all I got was this stupid T-Shirt".

Hope you can hang out at DU for awhile. It's nice to "hear" a new voice. All the usual suspects, including myself, get boring after awhile.

[Q]

293. Funny that you and other 'Neodems'...

...like to come to this thread and trash the messenger...but have nothing to say in defense of the DLC and spout generalities about 'unity' and other things the DLC has no interest in participating.

As far as responding to a thread and getting a t-shirt. Anyone with opposable thumbs can peck at a keyboard. I'd love to see a Neodem actually debate the issues instead of using tactics from the 'Al From' school of doublespeak playbook.

[F.Gordon]

294. I wasn't responding to you. I was welcoming a newbie

The "T-Shirt" reference was a little old fashioned....humor. And I don't have a fucking clue what a "NeoDem" is so it was a little humor as well.

Can we talk Q? Here's the problem with your "messages". You see the division in the Democratic Party as some kind of anti-matter vs matter thing and if they touch all of your points.....every single one of them will explode. So, you don't bend. If you did all of your arguments would crumble into dust.

I, and others have tried, but damn it....you're stiffer than a morning erection. Guess I can't fault you for that. You're focused like a laser beam. I would just like to open ONE of your threads some day and see a little compromise on your part. See you willing to entertain just one of the dozens of very reasonable responses thrown at you.

But then, maybe I'd be disappointed as well. Seeing Q being something other than the Q I've grown to know and love might throw off my entire world...

[Q]

295. Don't use my handle in your post...

...and then expect me not to respond. New Democrat = Neodem.

You define a 'problem' with my messages that many on DU and 'old' Democrats in general don't seem to see. Could it be that your perspective is a bit slanted against my 'message' because you're a DLCer? You act as if it's your 'duty' to be the champion of the oppressed DLC. What is YOUR interest in this debate?

You're either being obtuse about my message or you're trying to deflect attention away from the main premise. It's not about me or whether I can 'bend'. It's about the way the Democratic party used to be and what it's becoming. I'm not alone in saying that we don't like what we see.

What about compromise? Where is the compromise from the DLCers? What about their utter disdain for everything liberal, progressive or populist? It's a stunning display of arrogance when the DLC demands compromise when they have no intention of returning the favor. Their concept of compromise is like the Neocon calling bipartisanship 'date rape'.

By my casual count...there are about a dozen DLCers on this board and they all seem to have the same 'message' and NEVER like to discuss what their organization means for the party or where they're trying to take us. What's up with that? You should know that the DLC isn't very popular within the Democratic party...and for good reason. Hell...they're not even PART of the Democratic party and they presume to know what the party needs and how to 'win'. The DLCers must know by now that WE are not willing to give up what they want us to give up in order to win.

Perhaps you're taking this thread too seriously? It's based on an opinion meant to provoke discussion. Will the DLCers debate the premise? Can they? Time will tell.

[F.Gordon]

296. Pick an issue. Any issue

I have a little free time. Let's chat. Pick an Issue of your choice and let's discuss how the "old" and "new" differ on the issue.

Oh, and I'm hardly the one taking this thread too seriously.

[Illinois_Dem]

312. Thank you.

I'm not easily intimidated in real life, and definitely don't plan on being intimidated on a message board in cyberspace. I like DU, from what I've seen, and plan to stick around.

:hi:

[Q]

289. No...I'm not 'unhappy' that the 'left' isn't in control...

...If you're really interested...I'm concerned because the right wing of the Democratic party has taken control and won't SHARE POWER with the left. Do you see the difference?

For all the talk 'round here about a big tent party...we don't hear much from the Moderate Centrists about the DLC's failure to follow through with this ideal.

And I frankly don't like your tactic of interjecting 'evil' into the discussion...implying that I've used that word or believe it to be the case. "Evil" is a religious concept that only politicians like Bush use to manipulate the masses.

You're right when you say that a 'coaltion' is necessary. But shouldn't a Democratic coalition include representatives from different points of view in the party?

You say my 'favored element' as if this is a personal vendetta or something. But I'm talking about what many or most Democrats accept as traditional Democratic principles and values. These principles are the very target of the right wing of the party and they intend to weaken or drop them from the platform altogether.

I can only conclude that some Democrats are unaware of what the DLC is up to or are DLCers taking advantage of the fact that the DLC is a shadow organization working under the radar and outside of the party structure.

[Illinois_Dem]

297. I'd swear that these were the first two lines of your opening statement

There is an 'old' Democratic party and a 'new' Democratic party. A party of Liberals and Progressives and of Conservatives and Centrists....

In the post I'm responding to, you wrote,"...I'm concerned because the right wing of the Democratic party has taken control and won't SHARE POWER with the left. Do you see the difference?...."

I don't have to be a mind reader to see from the opening post and your other posts in this thread that you are clearly a member of the left wing of the party, for starters, nor do I need to be one to see tha you're upset that the dominant, centrist/conservative wing of the party won't 'share power' with your wing of the party. This is not at all a unique situation within our party; from 1972-1988, the left wing of our party controlled the party apparatus and refused to share power with the centrists and conservatives. Why is this suddenly a crisis of some sort?

The facts of the matter are that the same DLC you complain so bitterly about has produced the last 3 winning candidates our party ran for President (yes, I include Gore) and also nominated the candidate who got more votes for President than any candidate we've ever nominated. Clearly, then, the DLC has been doing a much better job of offering the electorate candidates they like than did the extremely liberal element of the party in the period 1972-1988. As I said previously, you're entitled to not like it, but you're not entitled to pretend that the DLC in no way represents the majority of people who make up the Democratic Party; the facts say differently.

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

306. You shouldn't attack posters based on post count, Q.

Of course, it beats addressing the legitimate arguments they raise, I suppose.

[Q]

301. In case you didn't catch my drift...

...through all the blather of my last post...the crux of the matter is this:

I would think differently about the DLC if their leadership was a group of ELECTED Democratic officials or representatives using the stature and influence of their elected office to change the course of the party by seeking a consensus. But they're not. Although their membership may include elected Dem officials...the DLC doesn't provide them with money or support if they're not 100 percent behind the DLC 'message'. This is an organization that doesn't accept just anyone in their club. They in no way reflect the 'big tent' ideal of the party. Elected Dems that want to be a DLCer and get some of that corporate-ready cash must 'qualify' by pledging loyalty to the New Democratic Principles. Liberals, Progressive and Populists need not apply.

I hope that you can understand the difference.

[F.Gordon]

303. Since you avoided my "issue invitation"

:cry: I'm hurt.

I just have one question. Why do you leave out the DNC and the DFA? For that matter, why don't you just direct your angst toward the entire Democratic Party?

While I'd like an honest answer, I know I won't get one. And I'll save you the trouble of a response because it'll probably go something like this...."because the DLC doesn't represent the Democratic Party. The DLC is a covert organization consisting of Al, Joe, and Hillary who are meeting secretly with Corporations plotting the takeover of the Democratic Party."

Your main argument is such a simple one I don't know why you feel the need to compose it with so many words. Why don't you just start a thread like... "Democrats Suck". For you it's not about issues, it's not about what the Democrats (including DLCers) have done, it's not about your concern :eyes: for the common person.... it's all about what you think the Democrats should be doing.

Do I agree with everything that the Democrats do or don't do? Hell no. You see, I understand what it is to be a populist. Everything that may be important to me may not be important to my neighbor, and their neighbor, and so on.

Ahhhh...fuck it. (Doing my worst Night of the Living Dead Zombie impression)... MUST-KILL-DLC-EAT-THEIR-BRAIN

[Q]

305. The DNC and DFA...

...are under the control of ELECTED Democratic officials. Get it? ELECTED. That means that a democratic process was used to CHOOSE which leaders would best represent the party through that organization. Dean is an elected official. What is Al From? The only 'election' he was involved in was being chosen by corporations to represent their interests.

I'm not so sure you could accept an 'honest' answer. It's a fact that the DLC isn't an official or unofficial part of the Democratic party. And their quest to take over the Democratic party is no secret. They've come right out and stated this goal as if they're proud of the fact. Of course...they don't call it a 'takeover'. They call it a transformation or modernizing the party.

I deplore your tactics of trying to accuse me of 'hating' all Democrats because of my concerns about the DLC. But that's what DLCer's do. They've accused Dean and Moore of the vilest of things for instance and implied that they were traitors, unAmerican and not representative of the Dem party's 'values'. And THEY are? I haven't met a DLCer yet that was willing to defend the 'new' Democrat's principles or agenda. When cornered...they lash out and accuse critics of 'hating' or 'bashing' the Democratic party instead of the DLC.

You know damn well this isn't about all Democrats. It's about the DLC and their corporate backed agenda. Deflect all you want...but that won't change the truth.

[Padraig18]

307. Evan Bayh isn't elected, Tom Carper isn't elected, etc., etc. .

The fact is that most members of the DLC are eleceted, Q, although it suits the purposes of your argument to continue misrepresenting that fact. Those interested in the TRUTH about who the DLC is may check for themselves:

http://www.ndol.org/

[Q]

308. You must have missed something along the way...

...I was talking about the LEADERSHIP...the head honchos of the DLC not being elected. Bayh or any other elected Democratic 'member' of the DLC don't make the policy decisions or kiss the asses of the corporations. They let Al From do that for them. From is the founder of the DLC and he leads the way.

It's also TRUE that the DLC is neither an official or unofficial arm of the Democratic party. Care to try to refute that fact? Show us where the DLC is in any way connected to the Democratic party. In this way...they are very much like the Neocons...who control all the branches of government through Bush and his allies in congress.

And let's not forget the point that not every Democrat is welcome in the DLC or can get the filtered corporate bucks for their campaigns. The DLC website also makes it clear that they will only accept those who agree to be 'new' Democrats...which is why Obama told them to take his name off their website lists. The 'big tent' of the DLC isn't open to social Democrats or their New Deal. It's the third way or nothing.

And once again...why can't the DLCers defend their agenda? Wait...I know why. It would be very hard to explain why the DLC is funded by the same corporations that fund the Neocons and Republicans. It would be even more difficult for them to explain why they support so many Bush policies...including his illegal war(s).

- Edited to correct erroneous and misleading information.

[Padraig18]

309. Al From is just the CEO

This is the leadership, Q; if anyone continues to misrepresent things here, it's you.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[Q]

310. I stand corrected on this issue...

Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Bruce Reed is president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is Chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is chair for Best Practices; Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chairman of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network; U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh is chairman of the DLC; and U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher is vice chair of the DLC.


If you look at the DLC website, the Blueprint rag, New Democratic Network and the Progressive Policy Institute...it's clear who is running the DLC. And it isn't the 'elected officials' on their 'board'.

Please don't make it sound as if Al From is JUST the CEO. He is and has been the leader of that organization from the beginning. That only makes sense since he founded it. He is the voice and makes the policy decisions. One only has to read his 'memos' to understand that fact. And non-elected official Bruce Reed...the president...also has a lot of pull in the organization. He and From bascially run the operation.

Having corrected the record, I'd like to get back to the main premise of the thread. The old Democratic party versus the 'new' Democratic party. I would like to delve into policy issues and public statements of the DLC....as opposed to the positions and stances of the other side of the equation...the Social Democrats.

[Padraig18]

311. There is no 'old' vs. 'new' Democratic Party.

The party has always been an amalgam of disaparte elements, and it remains so.

[Q]

313. If you don't mind...

...I'm going to continue this discussion on a new thread. 300 posts means that dialup folks won't be able to participate.

And yes...there IS an old and new Democratic party. That you won't accept that fact only means that you're on the side that wants to change the party into something else.

See you on the new thread: entitled:

DLC's Will Marshall: "the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

Bring your rationalizations and don't be late.

[wyldwolf]

315. sooo... when do we get this thread?

DLC's Will Marshall: "the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

[lonestarnot]

302. Something old, something new, something borrowed something BLUE!

WETHEPEOPLECRAT!

[WLKjr]

304. I proudly say I am an FDR Democrat

To me, that man is the model all dems should base thier core beliefs on and keep a progressive mindset at all times.