(...fill in blank...) Is DLC! Let's Strip Naked, Paint Ourselves Blue ..

[Mark E. Smith]

... and run around in circles yelling EEE! EEE! EEE!

Is it just a coincidence that all the Dem bashing going on here has ramped up now that we're into the 2006 election season?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. DLC is Democrat? Only in the minds of DLC apologists.

[acmejack]

3. !

[MrBenchley]

4. Which means in the minds of pretty much every Democrat

except a handful of ratfuckers on the internet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Ratfuckers? Oooh..been loading up on your testeronios, Benchley?

You might try sharing some of your bravado with the pantywaists in the DLC.

[acmejack]

6. That comment may require some elucidation

Edit That means explain just who you are calling what Benchly! Name calling is beneath even you.

[MadHound]

8. Oh, and in the minds of the majority of liberals

You know, that overwhelming majority of people who don't vote anymore, since they see it as pointless to vote in our two party/same corporate master system of government.

And I just love, love, love, how you gratuitously slam an entire group of people the Benchley:eyes: Way to build up party unity and cohesion in an election year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Cohesion? When has the Democratic Party been cohesive?

We've been fighting the conservatives in the party for decades. The same fight was going on when I registered in '65 and opposed Humphrey and the pro-war wing in '68.

[Atman]

9. Amazing...

Just amazing...

[MrBenchley]

11. Yeah, it's amazing how far out of touch with reality

some people on DU are....

But then it's an article of faith among some of our bobos that Hillary Clinton isn't a real Democrat, but Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are.

[SaveElmer]

16. You know what...

You should maybe just speak for yourself. Apparently the constituents in the states of the 20 or so DLC Senators believe they are good Democrats...are they all DLC apologists too?

[MrBenchley]

20. According to some here, EVERYONE is an evil DINO

except for "true Democrats" like Ron Paul (not a Democrat at all) and Bernie Sanders (also not a Democrat at all).

But then I don't need to tell you that some of these folks are crackers.

[SaveElmer]

24. It's true...

I think every Democrat in the U.S. Senate has been called a traitor, or whore, or corporatist at least once on this board.

[MrBenchley]

2. You will notice that just about every Democrat under attack

--is up for election/re-election in 2006, and
--walloping his or her Republican opponent by a large margin.

Of course, none of this matters to our "progressive purists" who hate hate hate every Democrat you've ever heard of. That's because they're focused squarely on winning (unless we actually are on the way to doing so, in which case we have to jettison the popular choice to make way for some reject from the Green party).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. If they're "walloping" the Pugs why are you upset?

Afraid they might be exposed for the rollover, pandering, worthless, politicians on the take, that they are?

[MrBenchley]

12. Geeze, you mean I should sit around and smile

while "progressive purists" run down Democrats? Fuck that noise.

"Afraid they might be exposed for the rollover, pandering, worthless, politicians on the take"
Don't let the door hit you in the ass. If you don't want to be a Democrat you can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. You certainly expect the left to sit around and smile while the DLC

wrecks what's left of the party by making it a Republican clone.

[MrBenchley]

14. Nobody's MAKING you be a Democrat

It's not like the "far left" is bringing anything to the party but bile, hypocrisy and dishonesty as it is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Even better. Nobody is making me support the fauxDems of the DLC.

[MrBenchley]

18. None are pure enough to stand with thee......

(snicker)

[Atman]

15. Hmmm...Check out this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=428112&mesg_id=428112

A prize for the first person who can point out which person here is conspicuously absent from the list of respondents.

[MrBenchley]

19. Hmmm...you mean I'm supposed to take the time

to point out every crackpot piece of gibberish here IS a crackpot piece of gibberish?

Hahahahahaha....

[Atman]

22. Who said I was referring to YOU?

Hmm?

[MrBenchley]

23. Nuff said.

[SaveElmer]

21. I replied to that thread...

And I usually agree with MRBenchley. First, the DNC, DSCC, DCCC or any other national organization has absolutely no authority to get rid of primaries, it is up to the state party to decide that for themselves.

Second, Schumer said absolutely nothing about getting rid of primaries. He said the DSCC will intervene to back the stronger candidate sooner to prevent a bloodbath. I have no problem with this.

Of course, in the Presidential race, many states do not have primaries, Iowa being the most famous example. Selecting a candidate is a matter for the party to decide. Whatever rules the party decides to set up for that purpose is perfectly legitimate. If enough within the party do not like those rules, they will be changed, or a third party will be formed. In my memory this has happened many times. Before 1972, the rules were changed to encourage primaries. After the 1972 debacle this was dialed back to give party leaders more say - thus super delegates. The rules were changed to stipulate how many delegates had to be women. These changes were all made within the party.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing less primaries and more caucuses. Primaries are divisive and get played out in the media, often weakening the eventual winner. Folks going to causcuses (of which I have attended many), have more intelligent rational discussions about the candidates merits and then make a choice. Not to say there aren't plenty of arguments, there are, but they are in house.

[cascadiance]

25. But primaries are supposed to offer us a *democratic* choice!

Second, Schumer said absolutely nothing about getting rid of primaries. He said the DSCC will intervene to back the stronger candidate sooner to prevent a bloodbath. I have no problem with this.

He's saying this is to prevent a bloodbath, but is that what is really happening here? When those like Schumer are trying to manipulate the system to take away that choice, they are taking away Democracy from us! The battle for who represents the party ideals should be the primary. It should be the voice of the people (the CONSTITUENTS) who help carve that direction, not those in charge, especially when there's a general feeling that the party is infected with undue influence that distorts its accountability to its constituents.

Normally a primary wouldn't be a "bloodbath" if it was just a contest where each of the different folks running for the party's office in a given area can best articulate the ideas that that community wants to represent them. It can be a very healthy and non-brutal exercise that is what Democracy is all about. It is the DLC's influence and our perception that the DLC as a large entity that is infecting a lot of positions they control and hold that is what WILL make it a bloodbath. There are many folks passionate like myself that see this battle as THE battle to be fought for the health of this party and the country! True Dems shouldn't be afraid of this "bloodbath", they should welcome taking a stand that it should either be a "bloodbath" or it should be a time to SHUT DOWN the DLC instead for it not to be a bloodbath!

[SaveElmer]

26. It has NOTHING to do with the DLC...

And no, party decisions do not have to be a Democratic process. That has never been true. The party's job is to select the strongest candidate for each race.

It is laughable that you think Schumer is trying to manipulate the system. This is the system, every election cycle, in virtually every state this is how candidates are chosen. This is how they have always been chosen. Unless you want to eliminate Party support for candidates, it is their job to allocate their resources to the candidates most likely to win the general election.

And as to your last point, sorry I do not agree...the DLC is not the enemy, the Republicans are. There have been bloody primaries since there were primaries. Show me any evidence that they have become more so since the DLC was formed.

[Atman]

27. "...the DLC is not the enemy, the Republicans are."

Perhaps you can offer us a primer...how do we tell the difference? The little donkey thing doesn't seem to offer many clues anymore.

[SaveElmer]

32. Do some research...

Take a look at the voting records of DLC members...they differ dramatically from those of Republicans. Even the hated Ben Nelson votes with the party 60% of the time.

[MrBenchley]

33. Worth noting that "Deport 'em all" Paul Hackett

is virtually indistinguishable from a racist turd like Tom Tancredo on issues like immigration and gun control...whereas Sherrod Brown is exactly the sort of progressive candidate folks hereabout tell us ought to be the ONLY type the Party "allows."

[Atman]

34. It's the 40% that kills us, though!

That percentage means nothing, especially when republicans vote with republicans over 90% of the time. It does the American people no good to have representative who'll vote for the touchy-feely stuff 60% of the time, but sell us up the river when it comes time to vote on matters of national importance, like the Medicare bill, the Alito confirmation, the Patriot Act, etc, etc. You can't vote away our rights on Monday, then expect praise for voting to approve National Muskrat Day on Thursday.

[SaveElmer]

36. Of course...

The rest are significantly higher...merely pointing out the worst. Hillary, Feinstein, Kerry etc 95% and above...Lieberman in the 80% range...

[cascadiance]

28. Who IS the party though? Charles Schumer or US?

That is what this is about! I vote US! I want US as party members to have a voice in who gets nominated. That's where WE have a choice of who runs our government! Yes, I can see that primaries only count those votes of those who are registered, because it isn't about what those outside the party feel is who they want representing them. But we have to be clear that the primary is the chance for US to say who should represent them, NOT just people like Charles Schumer. If he feels that HE is the Democratic Party and HE should be the one to make this choice, then we've lost Democracy, even within our own party!

It is not a Democratic vs. Republican control thing. It is a people versus corporate interests battle. The Rethuglicans and the DLC are about maintaining corporate control over the agenda of the government. The rest of us Dems want the PEOPLE to be the boss, not corporate special interests! That is why WE as Democrats want to be able to vote those who we feel answer more to corporate special interests OUT of the party. I say DLC, since I feel that the DLC is the nexus of this problem, since they emphasize collecting money from corporate special interests and also feel the need to dictate policy on their behalf. If other Dems are being corrupted by corporate special interest money outside of the DLC, then I have a problem with that too. But most of all, the Democratic Party members should be given the opportunity to tell the party what they want, not just those in charge. The primaries (and caucuses) are the place where they can do this, if given choices.

I also voted in caucuses in my first presidential election in Iowa. There's something to be said for caucuses in that it promotes dialogue with other members, I will agree with that. On the other hand, it also discriminates against those that have time at a premium these days and can't make it to caucuses these days, which is a big segment of Democrats now with this race to the bottom that corporations are doing that force people in our party to work multiple jobs. I want those people to be able to vote too, as many of them are THE MOST affected by corporate America's takeover of our government! Until we have a national holiday where EVERYONE can participate in something like a caucus, or at least have an opportunity to have some form of absentee representation there, I do feel that primaries help make sure everyone is given more of an opportunity to be represented that is a member of a party.

[SaveElmer]

31. You know...believe it or not...

We aren't disagreeing as much as you'd like to think. If you're feelings represent a large enough segment of the party, then that is how candidates will be chosen. Fight on! If you can convince the party that is the way to go, then that is the way it will be.

Charles Schumer is a great Democrat, and a fighter for our cause. And right now he is fighting for a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate. Nothing more...and he is doing it by the book, by the rules, and how party's have chosen their candidates since the founding of the Republic. In this case the DSCC has decided to back BRown, a premier progressive and an excellent candidate. Take a look at the Nation today. Seems Hackett's true motivation for getting out was his poor showing in recent polls.

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree on the DLC, but this thread is not really about the DLC, and I have had the same argument about them innumerable times on DU. So will defer it to a thread about the DLC, which I am sure there will be plenty

[cascadiance]

35. But don't you see that the DSCC ISN'T US?

That is the problem here! He's taking the decision away from US, the Democratic Party members/constituents, by pressuring Hackett out of the race! In the case of the Hackett/Brown race in Ohio, I might actually find myself more in line with what Brown wants to propose, and might even vote for him over Hackett if I were a Ohio resident. It isn't about who's our ultimate choice. May the best person win. It is about trying to show that we stand for a Democratic process up and down that will attract those in the middle for this AND other elections, if they see that this party is about representing THEM and not special interests that wield their power through party leaders or certain politicians in ways that take away our choices.

I say that I'm for public financing and want to institute it at a national level, to take control away from these corporate special interests who are doing most of the financing now. I have more in the middle ask me (make that challenge me!) on whether I would take away union special interest financing too, and whether such a system would do so. Many of them are distrustful of such schemes, thinking that it can be manipulated to just allow certain special interests such as unions to have more power than those that they might feel represent interests on the right. I tell them that YES, I would like to take away union financing too, and ANY other special interest financing that might happen in such a race IF we could get corporate money out of the mix more as well. Ultimately, if we can get public financing that is untethered and only decided on how to distribute it is through the process that clean elections now have (which is collecting enough signatures and small $5-10 contributions to qualify). I truly believe that at some point when we go to this system, and the Dems fight to get it in place, that THAT is what will make us a majority party. And that takes Democracy and representation of all of us to an extreme! That is the party ideal we should be putting at the forefront of the Democratic Party in the future. We need to pave the way for that now. We have to show that we are the party of PEOPLE representation NOW. What Schumer did, no matter how well intentioned (whether he's in the DLC or not), is taking us a step back from that!

[Der Blaue Engel]

29. I find it very telling that I can only read two of your responders

Everyone else is on ignore. (I routinely click ignore on people who do nothing but bash Democrats.)

[Cocoa]

30. I've also noticed the campaign to withhold money from the dems

something I find odd on a site called Democratic Underground.

[dogday]

37. Please not another naked protest

my ass still stings from the last one. Note: when protesting naked, bring a towel to sit your butt on.