Triangulation and how it has Undermined and Marginalized the Progressive Movement

[Totally Committed]

I found this excellent article about the DLC and how their policy of triangulation not only rides rough-shod over the Party, but is designed to cut Progressives out of the political dialogue of the Democratic Party altogether. I wrote none of the stuff below, only rearranged it a bit so as to provide an outline for discussion. This does not bode well for the coming elections and the policies and issues we all care about: Healthcare, Social Security, War & Peace, Poverty, Tax Relief, etc.

In the article, Driving Triangulation “Over the Dead Bodies” of the Progressive Movement, the term "triangualtion" in politics is defined as "a set of leaders trying joining with their opponents to pass measures that run counter to those leaders’ own supporters. Typically, triangulation is practiced by presidents against their own parties in Congress, with the master of triangulation being President Bill Clinton who, among other things, rammed welfare reform and NAFTA 'over the dead bodies' of rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and the progressive movement. Can congressional leaders can pull the same move? Unfortunately, we’re going to find out very soon, as congressional Democratic leaders are very clearly attempting to triangulate against their own party on the three issues the party ran on to win Election 2006."

In the article, three examples of issues that were triangulated by the DLC, are given. The outcome of each example of that triangulation follows:

(1) TRADE - TRIANGULATING WITH A SECRET DEAL IN PURSUIT OF WALL STREET CASH

On trade, Public Citizen has shown that the Democratic Party relied on candidates who ran against lobbyist-written trade deals in order to win many of the crucial conservative-leaning districts that were necessary to win the congressional majority. Yet, as we’ve seen over the last week, a handful of senior Democratic leaders are joining with the Bush White House in an attempt to ram an ultra-secret free trade deal through Congress, acknowledging that in order to be successful, they will rely on all Republicans and just 25 percent of Democratic lawmakers. As rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and organizations representing millions of workers, farmers and small businesses have raised objections to the deal, Reuters reports today that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is digging in, saying that if he knew what he knew now about how serious rank-and-file Democratic opposition to lobbyist-written trade policy was, he would have tried to negotiate the deal in even more secrecy than it was negotiated in in the first place.

This drive to triangulate on trade has now reached a point where the handful of Democrats who made the deal are publicly attacking those rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers, labor, environmental, health, human rights, religious, consumer protection and agricultural groups raising questions about the deal. On Friday, Reuters reported that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) “offered no apology” for negotiating the deal in secret or for continuing to conceal the legislative text of the deal. Instead, he went on the attack, saying the only thing he would do differently would be to “ignore a lot of people that really were just wasting my time.” He claimed innocently that “I cannot see how anybody would be upset” by the deal, even though as Public Citizen shows today, the list of reforms to current trade policies that fair trade groups forwarded to Democratic leaders many months ago was almost entirely brushed aside by Rangel, as were proposals for a whole new framework for global trade deals.

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership and less than half of all Democratic lawmakers (as during NAFTA) join with all Republicans to ram a free trade package through Congress over the objections of the progressive movement and rank-and-file Democrats who ran against lobbyist-written trade policies in 2006.

(2) LOBBYING - TRIANGULATING TO PERPETUATE THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Most observers agree that outrage at the Republican’s corruption scandals and Democrats promise to clean up the “culture of corruption” helped Democrats win in 2006. Yet, late last week, The Politico reported that Democrats on the House Judiciary committee yesterday “scrapped a beefed-up provision of the Lobbying Reform Bill that would have prohibited former lawmakers and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues during their first two years out of office.” The original bill would have extended the revolving door ban from one to two years, but the amendment eliminating that provision passed by a unanimous voice vote. AP reports that “several days of backroom deal-making where some of the toughest proposed reforms were left on the cutting-room floor.” The shenanigans come just as freshman Democrats announced their demands for a much stronger anti-corruption bill.

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership would join with all Republicans to ram a sham lobbying “reform” bill through Congress potentially over the objections of many of rank-and-file Democrats and the progressive movement.

(3) IRAQ - POTENTIAL TRIANGULATION TO KEEP THE WAR GOING

Finally, Iraq - the big issue that helped Democrats win in 2006. The Associated Press reports that congressional Democratic leaders may be backing away from using their power to oppose the war, floating the possibility of an Iraq War supplemental bill that “would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals.” The New York Times says that the “likelihood that any final agreement will specify no withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq raised the possibility that antiwar Democrats will not support it, particularly in the House, and that the measure will need substantial Republican support to pass.”

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership would join with all Republicans to ram a blank check Iraq spending bill through Congress potentially over the objections of many of rank-and-file Democrats and the progressive movement.

Where is the motivation for triangulation coming from? The article goes on further to explain:

MONEY: at least some of it comes from money - especially the issues like trade and corruption that deal directly with Wall Street’s power over the Democratic Party.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF "BI-PARTISANSHIP": psychology of those who the Democratic Party elders in Washington have grown used to listening to. Remember, Washington is a place dominated by David Broderism - that is, the religion that says bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake should be the ultimate goal of politics, regardless of the policies being pushed in bipartisanship’s name. The Democratic Party - far more than the Republican Party - often seems to play to the opinions of the David Broder, rather than the opinions of the vast majority of the American people.

That has more than a little something to do with the kinds of people who have dominated the Democratic Party: Washington insiders, many of whom are former Clinton officials. Many of these people really do believe that making David Broder happy is more important than making America happy, and thus that making any deal, even a bad one, is better than fighting for things.

Who are these triangulators? The article cites two examples of DLC Clintonites, who, in their own words display what the article calls "vomiting up a rancid bucket of Broderism":

We see this with, for instance, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) - the Clinton aide who helped triangulate the White House against congressional Democrats to ram NAFTA “over the dead bodies” of the progressive movement, as American Express’s CEO bragged at the time. He is running around bragging about working to pass the secret trade deal over the objections of 75 percent of congressional Democrats, and he has been using his position as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus to try to prevent an open debate on the still-secret deal.

Then there is Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff to Clinton. “Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that “an awful lot of blood in the water” would prevent the parties from coming to terms on ‘low-hanging fruit’ like immigration and trade. In Mr. Panetta’s view, the talks are a good sign. ‘Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,’ he said. ‘But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you’re going to try to come to a deal.’”

As you can see, Panetta doesn’t care about what’s being talked about, or the substance of whatever deals are made on issues - all he seems to care about is making a deal. This same kind of attitude is spewed by the Beltway press, as evidenced by its trumpeting of the secret trade deal without ever having seen the actual legislative language of the deal. It is a psychology that prioritizes any deal on any issue - even one that sells out the Democratic Party’s agenda and the interests of the vast majority of the American people - is good.

Thus, we get Democratic leaders who just months after election to the majority are attempting to triangulate against their own party and the progressive movement. That this strategy helped destroy the progressive agenda, the Democratic Party, and Democrats’ electoral prospects for the better part of a decade seems of no concern to the people trying to perform these acrobatics - all they seem to be focused on is bringing a smile to David Broder’s face and a truckload of Wall Street cash to their campaign coffers. Whether their triangulation defies political history and brings them electoral success in 2008 is less important than what the actual real-world consequences of such behavior is for the country - and if the current trend continues, those consequences could be severe.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/18/1349/

TC

[babylonsister]

1. Your name says it all-thank you, and bookmarked. nt

[IChing]

2. kick nominated n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. K & R. If right wing extremist Neocons can completely hijack the

...the Republican party over the span of a few years, why can't true Kucinich progressives do the same thing, using the same tactics, to the Democratic party?

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Part of the problem of the progressive left is that we have fragmented into dozens of organizations, each of which must struggle for funds and email addresses and all the rest. We need to fold ourselves back into the Democratic Party and thoroughly invigorate it. Do not worry that we will cause the Party to marginalize itself. If the Party can base its actions on good science, effective governance, and efficient delivery of the programs the people need, it will prosper across all the left and all the middle of the American political spectrum. But by splitting ourselves off into all these good government organizations we have left the party to the selfish elites, and they don't know how to serve the people or the truth, and that means they do not know how to win."

--Doris "Granny D" Haddock

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0531-24.htm

[eridani]

5. That will never happen unless we commit to long-term organizing within the party

If you go away every time you get pissed off, that won't happen.

[billyoc]

18. Well, the Neoliberal and Neoconservative supporters

are the same people. Big money behind them both.

[dmr]

86. One thing, though, the grassroots has thrown a monkey-wrench

in to their plans.

The combination of grassroots and the means to educate, communicate, organize, raise money and more on the internet is a huge blessing for all of us.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. excellent. I see the major problem this way

Since 1980 we have had one democratic administration which was deeply tied to the DLC and establishment. The biggest of the triangluators. Since then, the progressive movement has risen quickly with the coming of Howard Dean. But, aside from many of the newer people on the scene since 2002 or 2004, they have not gotten entrenched yet. The main power brokers of the democratic party are out of the DLC and The Clinton Administration.
Even in the media. How often do you see someone out of the Clinton adminstration as a stragegist or someone who is talking about the democratic side of things and how often do you see those that are non DLC Clinton cronies?
Until there is a new power structure with a totally new democratic president the party will continue to be in the vice grip of the DLC Clintonites.

[dionysus]

6. *woot woot* excellent post!

let's see the toadies try and discredit that!

K&R

[AX10]

7. K & R!

The "Excellence in Posting" award goes to: DRUM ROLL PLEASE:

TOTALLY COMMITTED!

[bonito]

8. Kick & R

:thumbsup:

[welshTerrier2]

9. when will this bashing of Democrats stop ?????????

the DLC, the triangulating Clintons and their corporate friends better cut it out !!!

oh my, what a great post, TC ...

i'm giving this one 104 recommendations ... 104 thumbs up ... way up ... let's have a "guess how many recommends this thread will get" contest ...

vote early and often ...

[Totally Committed]

10. That title! --- You managed to make me laugh out loud!

This thread is going totally opposite to how I thought it would be at this point! LOL!

Thanks for the kudos!

TC

[Totally Committed]

11. Kick for my own 'bad' self!

:rofl:

TC

[OHdem10]

12. Is saying the truth, really bashing.Democrats???

We can vote with our eyes wide open.

Recognize what we are up against, once the election
is over go for Reform in a big way. That is work
to make changes. At some point people will either
be Democrats or not Democrats.

[LWolf]

15. If truth makes the Democratic Party, or particular Democratic

politicians, look bad, then we've got work to do. It's time to clean house.

A strong, vibrant, healthy, party has nothing to fear from truth. That's when we win.

So, let's get to work!

[MuseRider]

13. Excellent post!

K and R.

Hey TC! Nicely done.

[pberq]

14. Great job T C !

[AtomicKitten]

16. Liberal Democrats

... like myself feel caught in the crossfire between the so-called progressives and the so-called moderates that still claim to be within the Democratic Party.

I don't feel either faction represents my point of view and neither seems interested in subscribing to the notion of inclusiveness which is the glue that holds the party together.

[Totally Committed]

24. I appreciate you feel caught in the crossfire. I do.

But, there comes a time when Liberals and Progressives HAVE to stand up for what they believe is right, not only for themselves, but for all Americans. For me, I feel that time is now.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope...." -- RFK, Capetown, South Africa, June 1966

I saw this article, and it spoke to me. It spoke to my sense of urgency over the welfare of my Party, my country, and my fellow American citizens. I decided to share it. I knew it wouldn't be for everybody, but I'm gratified that it has been so accepted so far.

I'm sorry you feel it is another case of throwing you into an untenable situation, and wish it weren't so.

I honestly do.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

70. Hi TC.

I work with all kinds of Democrats on various projects and have for many years. I don't know anyone that belongs to the DLC per se but I have had the occasion to discuss politics with what I would consider moderate Democrats. I have come to know the very people that are vilified here for simply having a different point of view. It is the personification of these people as inherently evil that I have trouble digesting.

It also is in that type of milieu that I have made my most persuasive arguments, i.e., equal treatment under the law for all Americans which spills out onto other social issues. I have an ear for all sides of issues, have changed minds including my own :) on many occasions, and it is that give and take of ideas that in my opinion is the lifeblood of the party.

I do wholeheartedly agree that America has for all intents and purposes ceased to be for the people, of the people, and by the people, and I understand the urgency and fully support remedying that. I just want to be able to face the GOP as my enemy without worrying about being stabbed in the back simply because I'm not interested in waging war within my own party.

And you remain hands down my favorite progressive. Cheers.

[Virginia Dare]

46. I'm right there with you AtomicKitten...n/t

[ulysses]

60. the problem is

that triangulation is essentially an act of aggression against one's own. Truth be told, much as I use the term "progressive", my views used to make me, simply, a mainstream liberal. Even more, a liberal who, in 1992, wanted the first Dem president in 12 years, and the most gifted politician of our age, to regain at least some of the ground we lost under Reagan/Bush I, not lose more at a slower rate.

I'm fine with inclusiveness, but I'm interested in politics because I care about issues, not because I have a particular interest in party labels. If the party chooses to change its stance on issues, either through triangulation or straightforwardly, then I have a couple of choices - but simply putting up with that change quietly isn't going to be the one I pick.

editted 4 speling

[OHdem10]

17. As the country undergoes some grim changes

40, million job dislocation due to Nafta and yes some
Technology advances, but more due to Globalization and
Free Trade, Remember this article and most of all
remember to thank our dear Triangulators.(DLC)
Free Trade is a Republican Issue but DLC assists
so you know where to lay the blame.

[bvar22]

19. So, "Triangulation" is a euphemism for

sSelling out your Party and its supporters to pass the Republican Agenda and rake in Corporate Dollars!

Sounds like the triangulators I have come to despise.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Virginia Dare]

47. "Selling out your party"..

yes, it seems that after the Dukakis debacle and 12 years of Reagan/Bush the Democrats decided if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It has certainly helped us win some elections, but at what price.

I think that overall the Clinton years were vastly better than the Reagan/Bush/Bush years for liberal Democrats, but as you say, it came at a pretty price, especially with regards to NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Of course I have no answers to these quandaries, but I do know this. I truly believe we're facing an imminent crisis unlike any we've seen since the Depression/World War II eras. I don't know about you, but I would rather have a Democrat at the helm when all of this comes to a head, so I will continue to work toward that end.

[mopinko]

20. this is not triangulation. this is good old fashioned corruption.

triangulation is just the cover story.

[dmr]

85. You can say that again -

If I had it in my power, I would eliminate all money that flows from corporations and lobbyists - and maybe even impose term limits. We don't need "professional" politicians in this country who put their re-election war-chests and their private bank accounts above their constituents.

In theory, lawmakers are to represent their district or state's interests; in practice, their priorities are about themselves, the money, the sense of entitlement and even their party - at least for many of them. That sense of entitlement reminds me of former Rep. Rick Santorium (R-Pa) who not only lied about his Pennsylvanian residence but suckered his district's school system to pay for his big family of kids to be schooled privately in Virginia! Luckily, they caught on to that scam. Yea, he cared a great deal about his district, didn't he? (sorry for using an off-topic example, but these "professional politicians" irritate the hell out of me!)

I'm proud of the lawmakers who are resisting the uncaring DLC'ers. I wonder how many can hold out; and the sorry thing is these money-men triangulators will sabotage the working-man Democrat in various ways including the next time they are up for re-election. This is why I will only donate to individual candidates around the country in lieu to the national party. Those who do stick to their principles will certainly receive a donation from me.

Yup, you're right, mopinko, triangulation is just another word for corruption.

[loudsue]

21. Charlie Rangel needs to be UNelected. We need to get rid of his slimey ass.

That burns me up. I posted a thread a couple of months ago about what he was doing with this "secret trade deal", the one he's working on WITH BUSH, and keeping SECRET!! Very few people responded to the thread.

But this is a BIG DEAL!!! And it's in Charlie Rangel's committee to do this!!! He needs to get calls until he can't even sleep at night. We need to do the full court press, and let EVERY news agency know we're after him. We also need to write letters to the editors concerning this....especially in his home district.

It just burns me up and I'm SICK OF IT. And there are still people on this board that want Hillary Clinton to be president?? She's the poster girl for the DLC, and we DON'T NEED THEM!!! ANY of them.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Demeter]

30. He's Not the Only One, Alas

And sometimes someone I trusted seems to go right off the rails...and suspicions of blackmail and extortion creep into my mind.

The Democratic Party is sick. It really ought to listen more to the Good Doctor Dean and less to the Clintonistas. I think Bill and Hill have turned, like sour milk.

[Totally Committed]

36. A big thank you to all who have replied and recommended so far!

This thread has far exceeded my expectations.

I really thought I was going to need a Kevlar suit by now.

Awesome!


TC

[bvar22]

49. This "secret" deal troubles me more than the Dem capitulation

on funding the Iraq War. I expected our Dems to lay down on the WAR.
I didn't expect secret "Free Trade" Deals.
Rangle was a big player. So was Rham Emmanual (DLC) and Nancy Pelosi.I didn't expect to see Nancy Pelosi sucking up to bush*, and gloating about their success. This deal was written by K-Street lobbyists, negotiated directly with bush*, and kept secret from the Democratic Caucus, Labor and Human Rights represenatives.

When Charley Rangel was asked why they decided to keep the deal secret from LABOR, Human Rights, and the Democratic Caucus, he replied that,"They would only get in the way"!!!!!!

[Totally Committed]

53. This bothered me, too.

I used to really like Charlie Rangel (thought he was an okay guy), but I have to say his behavior in this matter has chnaged my mind.

Haven't there been eneough "secret deals", and aren't a lot of them reasons why this country is in this mess? I think so.

Too bad.

TC

[NoFederales]

22. kicked

NoFederales

[Perry Logan]

23. I notice you give virtually no evidence for this theory.

NAFTA makes sense. But NAFTA was some time ago, and is only one case.

On lobbying, you give only ONE example--of the Democrats scrapping a bill.

On the Iraq War, we have only a PHRASE from an AP article to the effect that the Democrats in Congress "MAY be backing away from using their power to oppose the war." (And it's a conditional phrase, to boot.)

The third point, about money, gives no facts whatsoever. It's just pure speculation.

I would need a whale of a lot more evidence before I start believing in "triangulation."

[kenfrequed]

39. Well I suppose

You could always just look at the positions of the DLC on these issues and uhm I dunno maybe extrapolate their motives from these stated positions, their voting records, and the results?

[ProudDad]

55. How about the news for the last 6 months that they've been in power

The lobbyists are still slithering around the Halls of Congress.

The Iraq was is still going along, fully funded by the Dems.

ObamClintWards still awash with corporate money.

None of the "top tier" talking about changing the system ... merely making it more "user friendly"

Have you not been paying attention?

[Totally Committed]

103. That's the way I feel about it, too.

It's depressing.

TC

[Progressive Friend]

65. As others have suggested, just read the DLC websites

Their chief ideologue, Will Marshall, actually has a slogan called "Stay and Win" (for Iraq).

[Totally Committed]

66. See... maybe you didn't understand. This is an ARTICLE.

As I said up front, someone else wrote it, and I reassembled it in a sort of outline form so people could see the progression of the idea and talk about one point at a time if they wanted.

There is no "evidence" to provide, although I linked to the entire article if people needed to read it as written for context.

You either agree or disagree with what's written. I'm not surprised you disagree.

TC

[truedelphi]

69. Are you ignoring the importance of the Trade Bill that

Rangel now wisheds had passed in total secrecy??

Shheesh!

It may be only one deal - but it is huge.

[dickbearton]

74. Pure Speculation...

Perry Logan, you say it's just pure speculation. The
politicians are bought and paid for by corporations. Does the
name Tom Delay ring a bell? How about K Street? You don't
think Democrats are bought by corporate lobbyists. Perry Logan
I'll give you a whale of a fact. Your post is pure Bullshit.

[mmonk]

25. A most excellent article.

Dead on the money. Speaking of David Broderism, he is the new "left" for my newspaper which has collapsed as far as journalism goes since McClatchy bought it out.

[Totally Committed]

26. Wow. You know how f*cked up the political axis is when Broder is considered "Left"!

That is stunning. We should all be warned.

TC

[mmonk]

27. Yep.

I don't even read it anymore. I still get it for local information purposes and my sons like the sports section. There is no competitition in my hometown unless I take the Durham paper. That's why I get The Nation to keep me sane.

[Totally Committed]

28. I feel for you, I do, but even here in Boston, the Boston Globe has even drifted to the Right

seemigngly irreverseably. I try staying online and getting my info from places I can rely upon to be at least in the ballpark with me, politically.

Keep on keeping on, my friend!

TC

[Totally Committed]

29. Kick for the morning crowd.

:kick:

TC

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Virginia Dare]

48. But yet labor continues to support the Democratic Party in a big way..

it's a very dysfunctional relationship at this point. I've often wondered, with the big money labor has been able to raise lately, why don't they run their own candidate? That would truly wake the Dems up, don't you think?

Welcome to DU!!

[ProudDad]

56. Probably because most union "leaders"

are indistinguishable from their corporate capitalist masters...

Some are trying but the ones who control the big money aren't...

[Virginia Dare]

89. There are a few who would fit that description..

but I wouldn't say "most". Andy Stern certainly doesn't, and controls a good chunk of the money right now. I think that they are probably using every ounce of resources they have right now to get the Republicans out of power, then they can go to work on the Democratic Party. First things first.

[ProudDad]

92. Stern is one of the exceptions

He's got one idea right -- recruit new members into unions instead of the old useless, wasteful method of trying to buy politicians, especially since unions are consistently outbid by the corporate capitalist masters.

Unfortunately, he's pretty much a voice in the wilderness of a still deeply entrenched labor union "leadership" in bed with the masters of the universe.

He's also deeply hamstrung by that anti-labor abortion called Taft-Hartley. There will be NO successful Labor Movement in this country until that impediment is removed.


The Employee Free Choice Act is a nice small step in the right direction:

H.R. 800 .... Employee Free Choice Act
S. 1041 .... Employee Free Choice Act of 2007


A general strike would go further but in a country where the majority of the Working Class don't believe they're "working class" it's not likely to happen.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. I suspect it's the system of election that is rotted.

If running for office in this country DID NOT require the blessing($$$$) of corporations (read that as "the rich"), there would be no Nixons, Reagans or George Bushes, and the Democrats would be brave, unafraid, and wouldn't have to even so much as look at the corporations.

[RFKJrNews]

63. well said, camusrebel!

You wrote:

"Now is not the time for fear of arrest, torture or death.
Now is the time for heroic warriors of peace and love."

My thoughts exactly!!!

It is time for a second American revolution in this country. It is coming like a tidal wave and can't be stopped.

The only question is whether it will be a peaceful revolution or if the people will have to take up arms as they did in 1776.

So far, we have tried every peaceful, constitutional method we know to work with our representatives within the bounds of the system. We write, we call, we email, we talk to them in person. We petition, we post to blogs, web sites, message boards, etc... but they are not listening to us.

So, how can we get the message across that our patience is wearing thin?

How do we send them an ultimatum that they will understand? To remind them that THEY work for US, not the other way around?

Perhaps we should start sending them boxes of tea.
I mean, MILLIONS of boxes of tea.
If every disgruntled American sent their representatives, their senators, and their White House just ONE box of tea, it would send them a very powerful message indeed.

Celestial Seasonings, anyone???:)

Great thread, TC. I will meet you for tea in Boston and see you on the barricades!


Please SIGN THE PETITION to Draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for President!
http://RFKin2008.com

[salib]

32. This is why the primaries are so important and why

We need to support progressive/liberal candidates NOW. It does no good to simply write to your congressman and/or senator, while still simply sitting back and letting that person "triangulate." I will vote for whoever wins the Dem primary. It is easy at that point, as the decision has been made and I will be down at the campaign office working my butt off trying to get them in office.

HOWEVER, I will pick and choose NOW. I will donate to the Dem who best supports my cause.

I keep hearing that only the "viable" candidates need to be "taken seriously." Isn't that just another extension of the "Psychology of Bipartisanship", only in pseudo-partisan clothing?

We need to make it clear that if they do not support our policies, we will oust them from the position as candidate in the primaries. They can even all pull a Lieberman, for all I care. At some point, we have to take a BRAVE (which in this case always means risky) stand. Our Republic, our founders, our country's sacrifices demand this of us.

Choosing a candidate, supporting that candidate, and actively participating in the primaries is the most democratic thing we can do (and one of the most difficult and frustrating) as Democrats.

[stimbox]

33. K&R

Excellent post TC!

[stimbox]

34. How many triangulators are among Pelosi's advisors?

I wonder...

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (DLC-IL) is one.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/19/MNGVHN29211.DTL

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. This perfectly outlines...

what I see to be a cancer on the Democratic Party. I have come to expect such crap from the Republicans -- it is in their nature to be corrupt and self-interested. When the modern day Democratic party does it, it chills me to the bone.

When both parties suck off the same poisoned, corporate tit, it is the American people who suffer.

And that is what this new breed of "democrat" is all about, all about the honeyed tit. Suck suck suck. Tastes so good.

A pox on anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- who sells out the American people and American principles. Ya here that DLCers?, New "Democrats"?, Third Way "Democrats"? A POX!

[Lerkfish]

37. well, we've certainly seen that in practice here at DU

the DLC-CLinton proponents spend a great deal of time trying to marginalize what they call the "left fringe" of the party.

then they pull a parlock and accuse others of a "purist purge".

[Totally Committed]

38. You can say THAT again!

Great point. :thumbsup:

TC

[stimbox]

40. Totally

Did the DLC hire a bunch of interns to co-opt this board or something?

[Totally Committed]

41. I don't know. Seriously, I don't.

But they are certainly getting their money's worth if they did.

Then again, maybe they're just a group of corporatist-loving DINOs with lousy tempers and bad taste in candidates. Who knows?

TC

[ProudDad]

58. As others have posted

polls show that those of us on the "loonie left fringe" are guilty of nothing more than voicing out loud the true sentiments of the majority of the People.

Too bad the only "leaders" who do so are called "unelectable"...

Strange isn't it. Folks like Kucinich reflect what most people feel and he's called nuts.

Folks like ObamClintWards reflect the corporate party line and they're "top tier"...

It's strange living in Bizarro world...

[Mythsaje]

62. That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Edwards...

I think he captures the best of both. He's a figure America can get behind and he isn't afraid to assault the status quo.

[dmallind]

71. Yes this thread is a great example of all that bashing

from the DLC and Clinton backers. Gosh we moderates have just been absolutely nasty and vicious haven't we?

[ulysses]

73. do you back triangulation as defined in the op?

If not, then maybe this isn't about you.

[dmallind]

98. Well I disagree with the definition

But I DO think triangulation is a perfectly valid political tactic.

Half of the country wants A, a plurality or majority of them will grudgingly accept B but almost all will fight to the political death against C

Half of the country wants C, a plurality of majority of them will grudgingly accept B, but almost all will fight to the political death against A.

Triangulation to me is finding a way to get B done whether you (and your base of support) are in the first half of the country or the second.

[ulysses]

104. then we disagree there.

I don't see triangulation, under Bill Clinton anyway, as the achievement of a (un)happy medium, but as the selling of A and the delivery of C. NAFTA and welfare "reform" were not middle-ground appeasements to both ends of the spectrum.

[emmadoggy]

42. Love this post. K & R!

The bipartisanship crap really chaps my ass, and this post really pulled that into clearer focus for me. Makes total sense and I hate it.

[tnlefty]

43. Thank you!!!!!

Harold Ford, Jr. had a DLC 'conversation' in Nashville recently. I have a meeting tomorrow night and I just might have to inquire about who attended and if those white papers are available for viewing by us commoners who weren't invited. :hi:

Great post! :thumbsup:

edit: typo :blush:

[hfojvt]

44. Why did you say 'tax relief'?

That's a Republican theme, and the article does not mention it.

Excellent article by Sirota, but I do not put welfare reform in the same category as NAFTA. Congress was controlled by Republicans at the time, and Clinton may have had an election coming. (An election where I did not vote for him because I did not think he was progressive enough and because he was expected to beat Dole handily anyway.) But I clearly remember Clinton twice vetoed Republican welfare-reform bills, and I remember they were gnashing their teeth about that and foaming at the mouth. Presumably the third bill was better, but I never got details on the different bills.

[sybylla]

45. Thanks so much for posting this - it's what I tell my lefty friends all the time

The progressives and far left liberals are being purposefully marginalized by the centrists in charge. And every time someone bails on the party because they disagree with it, they are playing the game the way the centrists want it played.

The only way to get the Dem party back on track and away from the corruption of the corporate money is to join it until there is enough of us to TAKE IT OVER. The Democratic Party is a democratic organization and the majority RULES.

If we want the Dem party to reflect our beliefs, then we damn well better get in there, park our backsides on the front line and hunker down for the long term until that shining day when we have put progressive leaders in charge top to bottom.

[mnhtnbb]

50. The candidate who is speaking up about this is Edwards.

[Totally Committed]

52. Do you have a link or a place for me to look? I'd love to see what he has to say about this!

If you don't want to post it (but, I hope you do!)... PM me, would you? I'd love to read what the candidates, themselves, are saying about this.

Thanks!

TC

[mnhtnbb]

87. Several links

I first heard him mention it during the CNN/youtube debate. He's been following
it up in other interviews/speeches

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/24/111717/206

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/24/182124/179

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065656

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/category/john-edwards/

[Totally Committed]

91. Thank you very much.

I will check these out!

TC

[redqueen]

51. Brilliant...

I'll be passing that one around for sure.

[KoKo]

54. Thanks....K&R...

[ulysses]

57. #66

:applause:

This is excellent stuff.

[ProudDad]

59. K&R

More information about the two-right-wings of the Big Business party...

[Mythsaje]

61. This post actually motivated me to write my "War!!!" post.

So I thank you for the motivation.

[Totally Committed]

64. I'm so honored!

You are such a wonderful writer. I'm so glad you felt motivated after reading this.

Awesome!

TC

[bvar22]

67. Wellstone Democrat here.

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


"Error: You've already recommended that thread."

[Totally Committed]

68. I miss him more and more with every passing day, don't you?

Can you just imagine what he'd be saying about our Party right now? About our country? About the government? When I want to smile, I imagine him talking about Bush. His head would've exploded! LOL!

We miss you, Paul!

TC

[Larry Ogg]

72. Triangulation sounds pretty much in line with the goals of the Trilateral Commission.

<:http://afgen.com/trilateral.html>Trilateral Commission: World Shadow Government]

I’m surprised no one brought this up yet, but then I brought it up in a previous thread I was accused of bashing democrats (in particularly Hillary) and there for I must be a Republican. Like WTF! Well I am no republican.

Any way, here’s a link too encarta.msn which also sheds light on some things about the Trilateral Commission that if not true, the world might be a little better off. :http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=Trilateral+Commission.html
I know a lot of democrats are aware of the Trilateral Commission I just thought it important to bring up for those who are not.

[Totally Committed]

75. I thought I'd post this here because it is so perfect for this conversation:

This is the text of a rant from George Carlin. I just posted this in another thread, but upon re-reading it, I realized how perfectly it went here in this thread, and thought you'd appreciate it.

My advice is, save this to a file, and whenever you feel particularly jaded or cynical about politics... when you're fed up to the teeth... read it, and you will feel chastened. Trust me! LOL!

Anyway, here they are, the words of George Carlin:

"There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.

Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.

Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your social security money.

They want your fucking retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.

The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged.

Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about…give a fuck about you! They don’t care about you at all, at all, at all.

And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday. Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

TC

[Larry Ogg]

82. Gorge Carlen certainly has a way with the truth.

I am reminded of this letter that might be truer than most people like.


A note of appreciation from the rich http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

[ProudDad]

83. George Carlin is a worthy successor to Lenny Bruce

Another great one I miss is Bill Hicks...

http://www.billhicks.com/

"I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again. If you're interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It's kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is make one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once.

"Here's what we do.

"You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense every year? Trillions of dollars.

"Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for MANY TIMES OVER, not ONE human being excluded...not ONE...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever."

[Totally Committed]

97. I adore Bill Hicks. Carlin is the last of these great political comedians left.

They all die so young.

I happen to agree with him about taking our money and feeding and clothing people instead of bombing them. To me that doesn't sound as much like a comedy routine as it does a great idea, and just plain common sense.

TC

[Kip Humphrey]

76. Look no further than the Holt Bill and its effect on the ER movement

Lesson learned. Until we stop "compromising" and start demanding that our democratic principles and underlying structures are sacrosanct, those principles will continue to be eroded by "bi-partisan" compromise serving powerful, privately held interests.

[baldguy]

77. It's called lying.

Republicans do it better, and the corporate media rewards them for it.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

80. I assume you mean my post upthread with the rant by Carlin in it, right?

I said right in that post that there are days when I feel positively negative and cynical and jaded about the political situation in this country. I went on to say, evidently not clearly enough, that one read-through of this piece by Carlin, and I feel like a chastened soul. I realize I'm not as jaded or as cynical as I thought I was, because his cynicism is so shocking.

I don't necessarily agree with what he said, but it does help me put my own feelings in perspective from time to time. I posted it because I thought it might help others to do the same.

Sorry you were offended.

TC

[ProudDad]

93. You are aware of George Carlin's

method of trying to prod people into action by satirizing the opposite of what he wants them to do, right?

[creeksneakers2]

79. That's not what is meant by triangulation

Triangulation is just a fancy way to say compromise between the two sides.

Here's the way Pig Morris described it:

He describes it as "a strategy that moves to a higher place, a third place, above either of the two parties by adopting the best of each and discarding the worst."

None of the examples I've seen of triangulation were above anything. Welfare reform and free trade were policies Clinton advocated from the beginning.

Its easy to describe triangulation as a sell out but often there is no better alternative. Bill Clinton won running as a moderate. He went to the left with health care. In '94 the party lost big.

I agree with the other posters on this thread who want to change the Democratic Party from within. If the ideas of the far left are popular, their popularity can be established through elections.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. Where did Democrats pull this idea out of that they must get along with Repukes?

Did that idea come from the rich? From corporations? Or did it come from somebody else that stands to gain by making the Democrats strive to get along with the #1 lackeys of the rich (the GOP)? Are Democrats THAT stupid?

Oh and by the way, GREAT ARTICLE! Thank you.

[ProudDad]

84. It comes from those

who supply "leading" Dems with their money, money, money...

[Totally Committed]

88. Not to mention their

advisors, advisors, advisors... they don' just give 'em all that Corporate $$$ without one of their "advisors" (sometimes, many) on a candidate's team.

Just saying.

TC

[ProudDad]

95. You've got that right!

Just an example:

"As Hillary Clinton bashed corporate America for union-busting this week at a Washington convention of labor-schmoozing Democratic politicians, her chief campaign strategist and pollster, Mark Penn<, must've been grinning at the rich irony. He's the Worldwide President and CEO for Burson-Marsteller, an international PR conglomerate known for, well, busting unions, The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt notes.

"Beware the Evil Labor Bosses, Burson-Marsteller's website warns. "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns."

"There's more where Penn came from, and they're not just limited to the Hillary campaign. Russ Baker exposes the little-talked about dark side of the Democratic Party with a long list of paid Democratic campaign consultants who simultaneously shill for union-busters, tobacco-peddlers, and other assorted underworld characters."

Hillary Clinton -- friend of Labor, friend of Labor's foes
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50009/

"A little digging reveals that, for well over two decades, both Penn and his opinion polling company have advised the tobacco industry on how to counter the campaigns of the tobacco control movement. Based on internal tobacco industry documents, it is clear that Penn and his colleagues have little personal sympathy for those promoting policies that put public health ahead of the interests of the tobacco industry."

Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton and Big Tobacco
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6213

In the interest of fairness, I tried to find an Obama anti-labor/pro-tobacco advisor but couldn't...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. Sen. Clinton's chief strategist is a UNION-BUSTER? How nice. nt

[Virginia Dare]

90. Maybe out of history?

the entire history of our government has been based on compromise. The last time a compromise couldn't be reached, we went into Civil War.

Of course Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and company wiped all of that away when they barnstormed into Washington. The Democrats seem to still cling to it, maybe in the (false?) hope that we can even the playing field again, and get back to the way things were. Perhaps those bridges have all been burned. We'll see.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

106. Should one compromise with Nazis? I think not. nt

[NativeTexan]

94. OK, someone define "PROGRESSIVE" for me......

...there is much in this post that any Democrat would have to agree with. However, I keep hearing "Progressive" used as it would be a new term for "liberal".....a new term for "moderate".....and many other things.

Please, seriously....someone who actually knows what "progressive" means IN THIS CONTEXT please explain. Not what the movement is.....what the WORD means in the political context in which it is being used.

Thanks

[Totally Committed]

96. Personally, to me (and some will disagree here), Progressive = Liberal

To me "Progressive" is a noun that people use in place of "Liberal" because "Liberal" has been so soiled by the other side. I, myself, am proud to say I am a Liberal, and refer to myself as a Liberal or a "Leftie" without a second thought.

That's how I see it, anyway. Hope that helps.

TC

[NativeTexan]

99. Thanks, really...

I was not trying to denegrate the term in any way. I am from Texas. I am an OLDER Texan at 52. I have always been open-minded and I am liberal on somethings, somewhat conservative on others. That has always meant to me...moderate. But I will ALWAYS have more in common, as a whole, with LIBERALS!

And your definition is what I always assumed it meant...until lately, anyway. And YES, there is NO MORE WRONG with the term LIBERAL than there is to the term CONSERVATIVE. The difference is, the NEO-CONS have soiled BOTH TERMS!!!

I hope for the return of REAL CONSERVATISM so at least we know that they are serious about GOVERNMENT and not PERSONAL GAIN!! Goldwater was a REAL CONSERVATIVE. I disagree with so much of what he stood for, but at least what he stood for was heartfelt and he meant well for his country. HE was a conservative PATRIOT! Edward Kennedy is a LIBERAL PATRIOT!! Neo-cons only know the term "un-patriotic" and throw it around as if they actually know what PATRIOTISM really is!!

Thanks again

[Progressive Friend]

108. Liberal actually means "right-wing" in most other countries though...

It is really only in the USA, Canada and the UK where it has a "center" or "center-left" connotation. In Australia for example, the right-wing party is the "Liberal Party" and in Japan the right-wing party is the "Liberal Democratic Party". Far left parties in France consider themselves "anti-liberal." Liberal, in most of the world, therefore is associated with "neo-liberalism" (i.e. a move back towards laissez faire economics). This is why I think the word "progressive" is much better than "liberal", because it doesn't have that same negative baggage.

[LWolf]

100. I'm really enjoying reading this again today.

Seeing all the different perspectives on "triangulation" is eye-opening.

It's pretty obvious where I stand, lol.

I stand in opposition to the corrupt power holders that have, in my opinion, diminished political discourse, the political process, and the Democratic Party in the U.S..

I don't care how they want to spin what they are doing, and I don't care if they carry a "D" next to their name or not. I stand in opposition.

[Totally Committed]

101. This thread was a real surprise for me.

The dicussion has, for the most part been civilized, informative, and POSITIVE! I'm still pinching myself.

Thanks for coming back to re-read it!

TC

[LWolf]

102. All constructive conversation deserves another look,

and another :kick:.

It's too often in short supply.

:hi:

[Meldread]

109. This is Hillary's strategy.

Just like her husbands.