Bull Moose Marshall Wittmann sounding very Republican today.

[madfloridian]

I think his Christian Coalition lobbyist roots are beckoning him back to the GOP camp. You think?

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/12/big-brother-w.html

The Moose doesn't think it's 1984.

However, as of yet, there is no clear evidence that they broke the law. Lawyers will endlessly debate the legitimacy of the Administration's citing of the Al Quaeda force resolution for authorization. Moreover, there was a legitimate concern that an open debate about modifications in the FISA law could have alerted our enemies that their calls were detected. And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats? There is absolutely no evidence that this was a "Nixonian" enemies list witch hunt.

Now that the controversy is out in the open, Democrats and Republicans should work together to improve and clarify the law rather than seeking retribution for past misunderstandings. The bottom line should be strengthening our national security while maintaining our liberties to the fullest extent possible.

What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats.

..."If the ACLU is upset about the Patriot Act, fine, It is their job to push the outside of the envelope. But it is another thing when a Party almost unanimously obstructs its reauthorization over minor objections after significant compromises have been achieved. And it does not provide any solace that Larry Craig and John Sununu were on the Democrats' side.

..."On the political front, in the past month, there has been a systematic effort at self-branding by the Democratic Party, and it is not good. From the defeatist Iraq talk to the obstruction on the Patriot Act, the donkey is effectively "rebranding' and "framing" itself as weak on national security. George Lakoff should be proud! Rather than the 2006 election being about the GOP' s weak ethics, it may be about the Democrat's anemic defense credentials.

Wittmann's blog is part of the DLC blog page along with the New Donkey.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252975&subid=900094&kaid=86

I don't like this attitude of caving into this administration. I don't like when they try to shut down those who speak out.

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. So there weren't any anthrax attacks after 9/11, "moose"?

I'm still suspicious about AA flight 587. I don't buy that the tail just "ripped" off all by itself. The crash preceded Richard Reid, the shoebomber, by a couple of months. That crash and the NTSB report smell.

[Inland]

8. Isn't it funny how the anthrax attacks on the Capitol never count

as terror attacks? Guess Bush doesn't want to list a domestic terror attack carried out in the mail and for which he has no suspects.

[AX10]

2. The DLC as well as the "New Republic" alllow this crap to be...

associated with them because they are all Repug/Neo Cons at heart.

[madfloridian]

4. The New Republic held a conference for Third Way DLC Dems

at Aspen this year. Apparently they are part of their new media outreach. Not for sure...just looks that way.

[MrBenchley]

3. Yeah, no one has a right to disagree with you

[depakid]

5. So now you're defending unconstitutional domestic spying?

Is there any length you won't go to defend the losers at the DLC?

[MrBenchley]

6. No, I'm defending free speech, silly....

[depakid]

7. And this is a classic example

of why we need to excise these types from the party if we ever want to regain power (or even relevance) again.

[MrBenchley]

10. It's a classic example of the Junior Joe McCarthy Club

launching another cheesy witch hunt....

Your attempt to smear me by gratuitously misreading my comment also fits the bill admirably....

[depakid]

12. I think it's Wittman who's sounds like McCarthy

and he and others like him who legitimize patently illegal Republican policies should be made decided unwelcome at ANY Democratic function. That's just common sense.

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah, but I consider the source of that comment

[depakid]

14. It's on the DLC's site!

It's the same kind of appeasement crap that's lost us 6 elections in a row.

I don't think condoning this violation of civil rights is all that different from condoning overtly racist statements.

Sure, he has the right to make them- but it's not acceptible (or shouldn't be acceptible) in the Democratic Party. If he wants to post that on a Republican site- OK then- that's where garbage like that belongs.

[MrBenchley]

18. And so the Junior Joe McCarthy Club launches another lame witch hunt

"but it's not acceptible (or shouldn't be acceptible) in the Democratic Party. "
Because a handful of progressive purists get to dictate what Democrats may and may not say...in a pig's eye.

[madfloridian]

21. The McCarthy wing of the party is calling names again.

I would rather be a progressive purist than a Democrat who insulted everyone just because they can.

[jackbourassa]

26. MrBenchley can't defend the comments or the DLC

So he does what DLCers do best...insult liberals. (These guys sure can't win elections).

When was the last time Al From (or this idiot Whitmann) write an article proposing a policy that was positive? That could actually (how about this for a crazy idea) UNITE the Democratic Party.

Instead we get these jerk offs writing articles about why supporting Bush is such a good idea and why liberals are such idiots...blah, blah, blah.

Then Mr. Benchley comes in and defends them without fail or any kind of embarrassment.

"Centrism" is not whatever the Republicans say divided by two.

[MrBenchley]

27. MrBenchley doesn't have to defend anyone's opinion...

But he can point out what malignant tactics the Junior Joe McCarthy club is up to.

[jackbourassa]

29. Junior Joe McCarthy club

Is that the new nickname the irrelevant turds at the DLC give each other these days?

[MrBenchley]

31. No, that's the progressive purists here....

The ones whining and sniveling about the DLC...

[Moochy]

44. Hey we Snivel but we draw the line at whining

"WAhh *sniff* those mean ol DLC'ers they is just not pure enough I tells ya!"
- signed Petey Progressive

Can you end one fucking post without the ellipses? or do you get paid by the period?

[jackbourassa]

46. So how exactly are they like "Joe McCarthy?"

McCarthy wasn't a purist. He went on witch hunts against alleged communists - and never found one. So far I don't see a connection. If anything, I think McCarthy's tactics are similar to those of the neocons and the DLC against anyone who oppose the war - whom they accuse of being "un-American."

This reminds me of when Al From accused the grass roots of being "elitists." This coming from someone who believes that the party should listen only to the think tanks and "strategists" from DC who lose us every election, and ignore the people on the ground all together.

McCarthy never "snivelled" or "whined" about anyone. He used his position as a committee chairman to violate people's rights and make unfounded accusations which ruined lives and careers (a little like the GOP and DLC do with this war. Learn some history. I know it's impossible for you to admit that there's a legitimate gripe against From and the DLC, who are the most disruptive force within the party. But perhaps that's your problem. Not ours.

[MrBenchley]

47. The Junior Joe McCarthy Club drawing up enemies lsits

and smearing people who criticize them....

"Learn some history."
Been there, done that.

[jackbourassa]

50. Who are drawing up "enemies lists"?

I think your paranoia is taking over again.

The only time anyone says or writes anything about the DLC, is usually when one of those pinheads writes something divisive and negative about us.

I remember when Hillary Clinton went to the DLC convention and asked for a truce. Then the DLC came out and began attacking those who opposed the war as being "inheritantly un-American." That sounds pretty McCarthyesque to me.

Maybe the DLC should try to come up with a policy or two, and stop worrying so much about the liberals within the party. Maybe people wouldn't be so bothered by them. Because simple fact, without the liberals - Democrats won't win anything.

Second point, the DLC position on the war will ultimately destroy the Democrats politically. This might come as a surprise to you Mr. Bench, but the reason I, and many other Democrats, opposed the war was not so we could piss off Al From and his blind followers (all 12 of you). So if a Democrat comes into office in 2008 and maintains this same policy, my prediction is that the party will split.

How about this for history?

Remember what happened to the Liberal Party during World War I in Great Britain. The Liberals competed against the Conservatives in every election with more or less parity in electoral victories. In the 19th century the Liberal Party (made famous by the Leader Gladstone - among others) were for expanding Democratic rights and economic equalities. The Tories (under Disraeli - and others) were about expanding Empire and issues of foreign affairs. Then the Liberals split in 1917 over the issue of World War I when Lloyd George (Liberal leader) forged an alliance with the Tories to create a "unionist" government. The disaffected Liberals joined with a small third party called "Labour" and the rest as they say is history. The Tories won every election from 1920 to 1945, and won all but three from 1945 to 1997 (Labour actually formed a minority government in 1919). The Liberal Party never formed a government again. Remember Vietnam and what it did to the Democrats. Remember what Wilson's decision to join World War I, after campaigning against it, did to the Democrats in 1920. Remember what Korea did to Truman. When people want war - they vote conservative, Likud, or Republican. When people don't, and want economic and political equality or stability, they vote Liberal, Labor or Democrat.

That's the way it's always been, and the way it will always be. No amount of posturing will change that. What the DLC is proposing is pretty much unnatural. The only thing it accomplishes is dividing the left-wing party. In this case the Democrats. Why? BECAUSE WE DON'T SUPPORT WAR. Not because we want to spite that arrogant shit Al From, but because we don't support this aggressive war. Never have, and never will. Regardless if a Republican or a Democrat is President. I would argue that the most united group in America about the war in Iraq, are rank in file Democrats - who overwhelmingly oppose it. So I think Al From (and his dozen merry men) should be allowed their opinion. But what they must realize is that THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY! A very small one at that. So everytime they pull a Joe McCarthy and write in the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal about how "un-American" we are, they should probably keep that in mind. Otherwise, they will recieve the kind of negative statements against them that you seem so thin-skinned about.

So yes Benchley, learn some history.

[MrBenchley]

51. Who do you think are drawing up enemies lists?

There sure as shit are lots of them drawn up here...always by the progressive purists.

"Maybe the DLC should try to come up with a policy or two"
They got 'em--hence this aimless sniveling.

"Second point, the DLC position on the war will ultimately destroy the Democrats politically."
Sez you.

[jackbourassa]

53. MrBenchley, sez history

Read all about it. Wars and left-wing parties don't mix.

As for DLC policies. Well, if they got 'em, smoke 'em. Otherwise shut your traps.

Give me some of those lists...i've yet to see one.

But since when have facts been important to the Joe McCarthyite wing of the Democratic Party (aka the DLC and their twelve merry men).

[madfloridian]

52. Good post. Well-said.

:hi:

Trouble is, though she asked for a truce she did take her stand with them pretty unequivocally.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. PLEASE ! Mr. Benchley

Not every critique is a witch-hunt. Some are legitimate criticisms.
I have tried to point out the positive side of Democratic Senators who happen to be members of the DLC. Frankly, I think I helped get that message across-at least to some. But is every DLC operative above criticisms?

This comparison to McCarthy is not fair.

No one is denying Mr. Wittman's right to free speech nor are they demanding purist adherence/

Joe McCarthy undermined the U.S. Constitution. Just like Marshall Wittman is advocating.

Joe McCarthy smeared Democrats for being less than enthusiastic about hegemonic wars. Just like Marshall Wittman.

Joe McCarthy accused those who wouldn't march lock-step in his radical form of cold war ideology of harming America. Marshall Wittman is doing the same by implications to opponents of the radical ideologues of the new cold war.

Joe McCarthy divided America. Marshall Wittman is dividing the Democratic Party and weakening our voice.

[MrBenchley]

48. Balls....

"No one is denying Mr. Wittman's right to free speech nor are they demanding purist adherence"
Sure they are. Of course, they haven't got the power to do either one...hence this constant whining and sniveling.

"This comparison to McCarthy is not fair. "
Actually, it's right on the money.

[madfloridian]

49. Benchley, who are you accusing of McCarthyism?

QUOTE:"No one is denying Mr. Wittman's right to free speech nor are they demanding purist adherence"
Sure they are. Of course, they haven't got the power to do either one...hence this constant whining and sniveling.

"This comparison to McCarthy is not fair. "
Actually, it's right on the money."END QUOTE

Are you accusing me of McCarthyism?

[gratuitous]

15. Hey, I can misread your comment all by myself!

The nerve!

[400Years]

9. do you condone this attack on our liberty?

for the record.

[MrBenchley]

11. No I do not condone

MadFloridian trying to dictate what a Democrat may or may not say....

[400Years]

16. Again, do you condone this destruction of our liberty that Bush and

his enablers are waging via the Patriot Act?

It's a simple question.

[MrBenchley]

17. No...I personally do not...

But I recognize that others have the freedom to feel differently, and the right to speak their beliefs aloud....

[madfloridian]

20. Did you just compare me and others to Joe McCarthy?

Did you really?

[ulysses]

22. who is calling for Wittman to be silenced?

:shrug:

[Moochy]

40. and dangle ellipses all other the place...

[madfloridian]

19. Who said that? You disagree all the time...with me.

If I say the sky is blue, you say I am not telling the truth...but you never say what color it is.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. That's because he has to wait for a memo from Big Al

And not even God Himself knows what color the sky is in the DLC alternate reality where From's brain resides.

[Moochy]

41. I thought he *was* Al From

:shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. Benchley? Al From???

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.:rofl:

Nah, he's just an hourly employee in some DLC boilerroom. Although he's wasting his talents there. With all of his fantasies about McCarthy, he could ghost write Ann The Man's next book.

[Moochy]

45. The mouth of Sauron

He seems to be the mouth of DLC around here, so I figured from the mouth of Sauron...

on edit...
added more ellipses...

never ... can have too many...

[radio4progressives]

23. Goebbels and Mein Kempf?

There seems to be a certain level of acceptance in "giving up our freedoms" for the "sake of our security", and this acceptance of such notions appear to be permeating our culture with frightening rapidity.

The problem lies in the fact that the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations implemented policies which engaged in secret domestic spying, in the name of fighting the "terrerrists" .

If the time should arrive when the majority of American citizens are willing to embrace any rationalization for such policies, we will have lost even the myth of a democracy entirely, and it will give a rare truth to a recent quote (attributed to W.) that "the constitution is just a piece of paper".

And yes, we should be very concerned.

When the Media seeks to give inordinate deference to the notion that domestic spying is anything other than a gross violation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as partisan pundits invoke "9/11", and "In a Time of War" etc. in their attempt to excuse or even exonerate a sitting President for violating these principles, well yes, we should be afraid.

We should be very afraid.

Because the bogeyman is no longer the "terrerriists" who "hates our freeedums", if it ever really was.

The bogeyman becomes our own government and all it's enablers (who "hate our freedoms") and the Goebbels who promulgate "they hate our freedoms and our democracy" canard along with the "we live in a very different world" rubric, when all the while what the media should be doing, is pointing out the contradictions, the false premises and false dichotomies if not the absurd irrationality of such notions.

When we see members of our own party involved in the promotion of these mind boggling contortions of facts and willingness to justify these kinds of policies (such as domestic spying)- well... suffice it to say, we should be very outraged to put it mildly.

For me, there are no choices, really. For me, there are only one of two options: "Fight or Flight".

Since this is my country and this my home.. i choose to stay and fight.

[jackbourassa]

24. Why doesn't Marshall Whittman go back to the Christian Coalition

Where he belongs...this prick is no Democrat.

You got to love these former Republicans who become "Democrats" and expect US to change to accomodate them.

[mmonk]

25. Its about the constitution

you jerk Wittmann. If the constitution is not adequate for you or your kind, start another country that you, the republicans and DLC turncoats can run and the hell with you. This is my country too and my rights you think can be violated.

[Cha]

28. Recommended! this should

be out there on the Home Page for all to see!

If it sounds like a republicon lackey, smells like one, and acts like one..is it one?

If Dean weren't so busy fighting back the neocons..I would love to hear his rebuttal to this neowannabe!

Democrats ARE STRONG ON DEFENSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FUCKING SENSE OF SANITY ON WHAT'S RIGHT TO DO FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD. SORRY I USE FUCKING SO MUCH BUT I CAN'T SEEM TO STOP!

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. now this is an example of what drives me crazy about that ilk

I have tried my best to point to the positive side of the voting record of some Senators who happen to be members of the DLC.

But, I can only condemn and deplore the antics and underhanded tactics but the likes of Marshall Wittman, Al From and Will Marshall. The Democratic Party would be a lot better off without them and their back stabbing-Democrat bashing. Does the Democrat Party have to change to adopt their extremist crackpot ideas?

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. he acts like the U.S. Constitution is just an annoyance

and as oldleftylawyer put it on her post on the thread below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2329283#2329300

post # 2

"With access to the FISA courts, and with the right to conduct the spying without a warrant, with the right to go to the FISA court and request a warrant retroactively, there was NO reason - NONE - for Fuckface to do this"

[RazzleDazzle]

34. Damn good thing this conversation takes place in cyberspace

because after reading just the first three paragraphs, I'm ready to personally rip the head off anyone defending the DLC, and reach in and pull out their livers, just for good measure.

Behold, DLC aplogists: one of the so-called Democratic Voices of PNAC.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. I am anti-DLC -- But their are several Senators and members of Congress

who are DLC members (some of them just nominally)who have relatively liberal voting records. Even the worst (many people here think Lieberman) have far, far, far better voting records than even the most "liberal" or "moderate" Republicans. I always keep this in mind.

[Clarkie1]

37. Opposing the inproper provisions of the Patriot Act makes us stronger

not weaker. Democrats need to stand for something, or we will never have respect.

I understand his point re: "Defeatist Iraq talk"; it would concern me if all Dems were only saying "get of Iraq now," but they aren't. There is room for many voices, in fact it's better that way. We do need to offer a better strategy. But even the best strategist (Clark) has said there is only perhaps a 4 month window to stabilize the political situation, and he's said he's not optimistic it can be done.

It benefits the Democratic Party to have many voices on Iraq, because that way the Republicans can never paint all Dems with a broad brush; there is a potential danger in that. think of the benefit of those Dems you disagree with on Iraq as "hedging our bets," because in the end we aren't making the policy anyway, and no Dem would have gone in there in the first place, despite what some senators voted to authorize. We are united in the conviction the war was wrong from the beginning and wrong in its aftermath, and that is what is most important.

[madfloridian]

38. I disagree about the defeatist Iraq talk.

I think it is important to have many voices. But the only way we will win is to keep killing Iraqis and having our own die.

The sheer numbers are against us unless we continue with the bombing and the white phosporus kinds of tactics.

Call me an innocent and naive, but we just don't have a right to do that, to keep killing civilians and destroying the villages. If we use bombing, we can destroy the whole cradle of civilization.

Then we can turn it into the neocon paradise and experiment...not in Democracy but in industrialism.

[Clarkie1]

39. We can't win in Iraq militarily, and any chance of winning politically...

is rapidly fading.

I am certainly not advocating using bombing to "destroy the whole" cradle of civilization and I resent the implication in your post.

That kind of attack doesn't help any more than what this Bull Moose character is engaging in on the other side.

Democrats need to look for what unites us on Iraq, because WE AREN'T THE ONES SETTING THE POLICY!

[Jade Fox]

43. I've never understood what people see in Bull Moose....

He seems like one of those "moderates" who fancies himself ever so much more rational than us wild-eyed radicals. The stuff he is saying in this post is appalling. Given the Bush Administration's history, we would be idiots not to assume the worst about them. And when Democrats and Republicans "work together", Democrats get screwed.

As for the "miracle" of having no more attacks on the US (anyone who uses the word Homeland seriously gives me the creeps), that is due primarily to the fact that Al Queda is/was a small group which simply took advantage of a President asleep at the wheel on Sept. 11, 2001. The Administration has subsequently woken up, so no more attacks.