Censorship on the left.

First, a creep called Al From opines that Michael Moore should not be allowed to speak for the Democratic Party.
Second, another creep called Peter Beinart says no one from our side should be allowed to make anti-war statements.
Third, even some bloggers supposedly on the left ( Matt Yglesias,Kevin Drum and Brad DeLong) joined the amen chorus cheerleading the war.

It has not occurred to these AH's that the last time I checked, the Democratic Party is filled with people of conscience and they have every right to speak their minds.Also, the last time I checked, the war on Iraq was based on a foundation of lies.

Why are these people even allowed to call themselves Democrats let alone spout opinions about other true Democrats?The one about Michael Moore should not be tolerated.

Al From, Peter Beinhart, and the bloggers you mention (as much as I disagee with them on this point) have as much right to say what they have as Michael Moore has.

If what Al From, Peter Beinhart, and the bloggers you mention are doing is censoring then your post here is doing the same thing.

Why are these people even allowed to call themselves Democrats let alone spout opinions about other true Democrats?The one about Michael Moore should not be tolerated.

Censorship from the left! Great example!

Republicans they aspire to be.

Fortunately for us, you don't have the power to remove people from the party you disagree with.

He is in a position to enforce his viewpoints and has an array of toadies saying yes.

In any case, their viewpoints will find a rousing welcome in the Republican Party.By saying the Republican mantras while pretending to be Democrats, they are undermining our Party.That is why I want them to express their opinions in a different forum.That is far from the censorship Al From is trying to impose.

Who the hell is he, anyway?

He is in a position of leadership in the DLC - which isn't a part of the DNC.

Your form of censorship is exactly like his (if we are to use your definiton of the word.)

and he is not a censor on the left but has gone over to the side that DOES censor out of fear and hate.

What he really wants to censor is talk of kicking him out personally and the DLC out generally.

acquaintances of that persuasion. The folks on CSPAN and those who act *dominant* here, at times, are seemingly exposing the viewpoints that my moderate republican buddies promote.

I would have much more respect if the DLC and a few of these "if you disagree with us you're leftist anarchists" type, what they term themselves - centrists - would kind accept the liberal democrats as we are, OR consider migrating over to the republican party.

Those of us who believe ourselves Liberal Democrats don't deserve to be redefined as "outside the party principles." We fit right in before the election, we should be welcomed as part of the "big tent" Democratic team. The centrists are more than welcome by me also, but not when they denigrate those of us to their left on the political spectrum of our party.

the left has been soundly and roundly attacked for years now -- not just from repukes -- but centrist/free-markets dems.
why be less aggressive in defending yourself than your attackers?
that's a lousy way to hold a conversation -- if you want their respect and attention don't roll over and give them your throat.
stand up -- be counted.
peter beinart and al from are dangerous folk -- they are destroying the democrats as an entity different from the republicans from the inside.
so why be polite?
they aren't.

... and argue the point. I don't differ with him on the war.

In his initial post, he declares anti-war dems "have every right to speak their minds" then two sentences late states about the others, "Why are these people even allowed... to spout opinions ... should not be tolerated."

Sounds very republican-like to me.

How will they enforce this? Wanna throw me out? No problem. Green is looking good.

...

your post.

speaking as a Democrat. Especially someone like Michael Moore.

that they aren't speaking for the party.

The DNC's position was as vague as can be: war is an option; let's not rush into things. I mean, our own Presidential nominee was "sorta" for it and was certainly not going to pull us out of Iraq.

The author of this thread is not calling for anyone to SHUT UP like the pissants he mentioned in this thread. He is saying...and many would agree...that From and others are trying to 'censor' the opinions of others with which they disagree. He's saying that they shouldn't presume to speak for anyone but themselves. Their opinions are not representative of the Dem party.

It IS censoring someone's opinion when they're called 'anti-American' in a effort to discredit and dilute their message and free speech.

You'll seemingly say anything to cover up for the traitorous behavior coming from the right side of the Democratic party.

What he is doing is exactly the same.

You'll seemingly say anything to cover up for the looney behavior coming from the far left side of the Democratic party.

They're saying that people advocating a strategy they don't agree with should not be allowed to call themselves Democrats. The way I take this is that anyone who doesn't take the "party line" would be ousted from the Democratic party.


I consider myself a moderate. I'm even in favor of pre-emptively passing gay-marriage amendments while preserving civil union potential. But I don't believing in making a DLC platform item sacrosanct.


The Democrats have painted themselves precariously into some corners. Perserving diversity in the party means there is someone there to go on when the "official line" fails.

He/she's saing that anyone saying anything he/she disagrees with should not be allowed to speak and should not be tolerated.

It's the same thing.

And since the DLC is NOT the Democratic party as a whole or the DNC, those who take the positions that were posted in the first post have as much right to do so as Moore, and the first poster.

Most congressional Democrats voted against the war resolution in 2002. 95% of the DNC delegates opposed the war and poll after poll shows that most rank and file Democrats oppose the war in Iraq by solid margins. To suppress that point of view from being expressed by Michael Moore and Hollywood celebrities would not only be censorship, it would be suppression of a point of view shared by most Democrats in the United States.

Last time I looked, Moore had infinitly more influence over the public than Al From.

Free speech, by the way, is to protect the minority opinion (in this case, From) from the majority.

Michael Moore is the man. Pure and simple. But look on the bright side. We get to see who the lurkers are in the Democratic Party. We need some populism and this will point out that fact. Don't despair, repair. We need to take our party back. This just shows from whom.

are a real buzz-kill for the Rethug wannabees that you mention. I say let the right wingers in the party speak so that we who are not Dem posers can point at them when looking to demonstrate what exactly is wrong with the party today.

Julie

And there is no litmus test for being a Democrat either.

account for leading us into a bogus War.Instead, they have become cheerleaders for a War based on lies and now want to purge our party of people of conscience? Spare me your technicalities.

You're being hypocritical.

If you want our leaders to do something, lobby them to do it or work to change the leaders. HINT: Bitching on a message forum ain't gonna achieve it.

And all can be Democrats as far as I am concerned.

posing as a Democrat while supporting the PNAC Doctrine. I do not want anyone who supports the premise of Supply Side Economics on our side.I do not want anyone who does not support the inviolability of Social Security and Medicare on our side.I can add more but you get the drift.

... loud and clear.

And fortunately, you don't get to make that decision.

This is the doctrine that calls for American Global Hegemony without even so much as a debate in Congress.It also calls for developing space based weapons and genetic warfare techniques. Should our party be for those things.I hope not.

He's saying that there is not test to be a Democrat and no one can tell you whether you are or are not one.

on their members.We should not let people who espouse Republican beliefs to have a free run on our Party's platforms.

Party platform is determined by a majority of the party. Having a veto over who is or is not a Democrat is completely over the top.

and Donna Brazile, are also members of the PNAC. They are the fifth column within the Democratic Party that is sapping our will in calling into question the basis of the War on Iraq. I hope no one in our party gets a free pass for being supportive of the PNAC.

...and party insiders. Hardly the 'majority' that you talk about.

As long as they are in, they represent the will of the party or the majority.

You really have no say on what they might decide to say or do. The DNC and Democratic primaries are where you have a say.

...if there are RWing Republican shills in the party spouting THEIR talking points and supporting their agenda.

Shouldn't someone at least have to share Democratic principles and 'values' in order to be called a Democrat?

Republican Wannabes.The PNAC Doctrine. I think anyone who is for the PNAC agenda of endless wars, genetic warfare and space based weapons does not belong in the Democratic Party.

Most of us will agree on some things and disagree on others.

That is the position of someone who is not willing to understand the issues and what they mean.

Tell us why PNACers should be tolerated. Tell us how PNAC is compatible with the values of the majority of the people in the party?

And fighting PNAC is the test. Now tell us why it is wrong to have that as a standard?

do "fight PNAC". I think the ignorance behind wild charges is one problem with any "standard".

I am sure From does not. Who in the DLC is fighting PNAC. Explain your position plz.

Three bloggers mentioned are far from current (or even past) supporters of PNAC. So, this makes me ask the question: Who sets these standards of yours? Who sits on the jury?

And change my registration from Democrat to Independent??? I am not so hard over on the Iraq war (though I disagree with how it was conducted), supply side economics (did well for Kennedy), or taking a bi-partisan look at Social Security. You have no more right to cast me out of the party than I have to cast you out of the party. Obviously if either of us get unhappy here, we can leave (as I did in 1972 and 1984).

I'm very concerned with what the rips into Michael Moore means. It probably just means that the DLC wing of the party doesn't want the more liberal parts of the party to get any more power, but it's still troubling.

On the other hand, I don't know what you are ripping into the bloggists for, but from what you say, you are ripping into them for having a different opinion on the war. Am I reading that right? Because that I couldn't agree with. I think that how we got into the war was BS, as you say, but as for how we should react now, when there are troops in the field and all--I think this is an area where honest men can disagree on how to react.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

He speaks out for himself and a lot of people happen to agree with much of what he says. Not everyone, but as we used to say, "It's a free country."

So what does From propose since he has no power or authority over Moore or any other private citizen as far as I'm aware?

As for From, he doesn't speak for me. And too often neither does the party. So who speaks for the party, the Chair of the DNC? Members of the DNC?

Guess I've just missed the Dem leadership speaking out and taking stands against the Administration and its policies. Guess I've missed the Dem leadership leading. Too busy with their inside baseball and politics and hitting up big donors to do anything like leading, seems to me. And, most importantly, seems I've missed them following through with action. Occasionally I have heard talk about what they're gonna do but it's usually accompanied by asking for money. Later on I wonder, oh but what about all the talk about what you were going to do?

Just my jaded perspective. Don't mind me. ;)

any taint of anti-War sentiments will hasten the day when the two parties are nothing but facsimiles of each other.To a certain extent that has already occurred with the DLC members joining the PNAC chorus.

The aim is to wage endless wars for supremacy, imperialism and resources. Unless we step up and remove them, the Democratic Party will not give our people a choice, but an echo.

be just such an attempt.The absence of any questions regarding the WMD fraud by the DLC would constitute another one.The claim by Lieberman that the Iraq war is a just war even after discovering that it is based on lies would be another one.

The biggest attempt is the alignment of the DLC traitorous group with the PNAC criminals.That alone has produced a unanimity of opinion supporting the War and no calls for the withdrawal of our troops.

How have they attempted to silence him?

Did anyone on the left try to ban his movies? His books?

Has anyone tried to blacklist him?

No... someone just expressed an opinion about him.

Sorry. But I expect that kind of reactionary crap from the looney left.

and hope he'll be heaped with scorn and just go away.

I think you are being intellectually dishonest here. Like the good old days of primary season. Some things just never change. *yawn*

Julie

...like the good old days of the primary season, you rationalize away... some things never change.

You even still use that tired unoriginal *yawn*

Any attempt to marginalize my a viewpoint shared by most democrats is offensive.

Hmmm...possibly a telling typo.

..though, for a Democrat to say someone shouldn't be allowed to say something.

Is PNAC just a figment of the loony left's imagination?

Or has From & Co signed onto it?

I saw From on CSPAN Book TV last week. He not only defended the PNAC doctrine of "muscular" US power projection, he repeatedly claimed we haven't been "muscular" enough. Right now the party "leadership" is busy trying to drop reproductive freedom and protecting social security as planks of the democratic party platform. When they have accompished this, will they be better representing party members?

From the Right or the Left.

Call a scumbag DINO a scumbag DINO, but don't pretend you can "allow" anybody do to anything or tell us what to "tolerate.

I and many others will be out of here and join the Green Party. And I am saying this as a life long Democrat.

believe that the Democratic Party should support the premise of that document? List your reasons for doing so.

in the PNAC doctrine do not belong in the Democratic Party.If you support such people's presence, by inference, you do support their position with regard to PNAC.

In any case, why not spell out exactly where you stand with respect to the PNAC?

...he doesn't speak for the DNC or the party.

I can differ with people in the party on policy. I can even work to cnage policy without throwing a hissy fit and threatening to "purge" or join another party.

That is grown-up politics.

In any case, why not spell out exactly where you stand with respect to the PNAC?

Why not stick to the original argument?

our party stands for. Any one who supports that and blurs the distinction between us and the Republicans is enabling a War based on lies.These people like Lieberman who have one foot in the PNAC and another one in our party are not run of the mill members like you and me.he is a U.S.senator.His voice carries more weight by the nature of things.I just want him to clearly state his position on some of the tenets of that document and I have also called on you to state exactly where you stand.If you continue to avoid that question, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

the poster's premise is that PNAC is against all principles our party stands for.

No, his premise was whether we should "allow" someone to say something.

These people like Lieberman who have one foot in the PNAC

Lieberman, really? How so?

are not run of the mill members like you and me.

Well, no one elected to Congresss is a run of the mill member like you and me.


I just want him to clearly state his position on some of the tenets of that document

How did this become about Lieberman? It is about everyone's right to say what the want to say.

have also calle don you to state exactly where you stand.If you continue to avoid that question, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

First of all, YOU don't set the guidelines of this discussion. This discussion is about supposed censorship on the left, NOT the poster's opinion of what makes a democrat a democrat. If you continue to avoid that, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

... an act that called for the covert removal of Saddam, NOT a preemptive invasion.

But still, this isn't about PNAC or your Lieberman fetish. It is about one's right speak.

http://www.newamericancentury.org and tell me if Joe Lieberman and Donna Brazile are not listed as signatories of the PNAC document.

What you call a Lieberman fetsih is actually a well founded fear that people like him, Donna Brazile and others who are Democrats in name only, trying, by stealth ( look at your own ignorance of Lieberman's presence on the PNAC) to bring in a viewpoint that is clearly Republican inspired.The motive for suppressing genuine Democratic voices like Michael Moore comes from his impact on ordinary Democrats with his documentary F911.

People like the ones on the PNAC want the Democratic party's agenda coopted by the warmongers among us. The best question we should be asking is why is the Democratic party not calling for an investigation of the lies that led up to the war instead of trying to stifle the voices of protest.

On Edit: Also see John Emerson's excellent article about the concerted effort to stifle Democratic Voices against the Iraq War on
seetheforest.com.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

No Lieberman or Brazile

Maybe you can give a direct link?

I need proof that Lieberman and Donna Brazile are cosigners of the PNAC document as has been asserted.

Or perhaps it is your ignorance showing?

including Don Rumsfeld,Dick Cheney, paul wolfowitz, Bill Kristol and, yes, Joe Lieberman, donna Brazile, James Woolsey ( all supposedly Democrats).

...you'd think that by now you could come up with something more original.

I'm beginning to believe there are 'plants' on DU...sent here for the express purpose of defending the indefensible. To excuse the inexcusable. To smear and discredit those who are finally fed up with Democrats who condone illegal wars, government corruption and election fraud.

There is no rational defense for the Iraq 'war' and the 'Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war. There is no excuse for the Bush* enablers...who have allowed him and his band of thugs to get away with the worse crimes against the state and humanity in American history.

You should be ashamed to defend the enablers.

...each time someone threatens to leave the party.

...as for the rest of your post?

More of the delusional paranoia some here just can't seem to shake.

You say that concern about people threatening to leave the party is what spurs you to action. Then you do everything you can to show them the door.

I have absolutely NO power in keeping them in.

I'm tired of this little faction threatening to leave everytime they get pissed off.

It's like a marriage when one partner keeps holding divorce over the other's head. Eventually he or she will say, "fuck it, just leave."

There is no rational defense for the Iraq 'war' and the 'Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war.

in response to a post that contained, among other things, the above line, you responded:

...as for the rest of your post?

More of the delusional paranoia some here just can't seem to shake.

what you failed to respond to is that the Democratic Party, as a party, has taken no real position on the invasion of Iraq ... some are pro; some are con ... but as a party, no position ...

and to refer to the clear statement that there is no rational defense for the Iraq "war" and the "bush" doctrine of aggressive war as delusional paranoia is a most unfortunate characterization to say the least ...

perhaps instead of wrapping yourself in a Democratic campaign banner, it might be worth showing a little tolerance for those who feel alienated by the Democratic Party ... gaining more supporters is your objective, isn't it ??

..but will whine that someone else is name calling?

I point, of course, to the post that prompted my reply, in which Q declared there were "plants" on DU.

Hysterical and deluded paranoia.

Notice I said, MORE of the deluded paranoia?

And, as it relates to "name calling?"

How about the label "fascist" and "traitor" Q throws around, including "Bush enablers" in that very post?

Why not go preach to him about name calling?

what you failed to respond to is that the Democratic Party, as a party, has taken no real position on the invasion of Iraq ... some are pro; some are con ... but as a party, no position ...

What you have failed to realize is that this thread isn't a rehash of the Iraq war. It's about "censorship." Look again at the first post.

and to refer to the clear statement that there is no rational defense for the Iraq "war" and the "bush" doctrine of aggressive war as delusional paranoia is a most unfortunate characterization to say the least ...

Wrong again. I said that his paranoid assertion that there were plants in DU is, well, paranoia.

first of all, your reference to "people on the far left" is a generalization ... your create a negative impression of "the far left" because you observe certain improper conduct by a few of its members ... nice generalization ... that's the very underpinning of racism, sexism and all the other isms many on the far left disdain ...

secondly, whether the base post was about censorship or not, the post you replied to commented on the Iraq war ... you make it sound like it's some kind of burden for you to have to continually listen to people objecting to the "invasion" ... the attitude you convey is "are you lefties going to bring that stupid old war business up again?" ... i still haven't heard you directly respond to the statement that was made in Q's post ... why not just clearly state your position on the invasion instead of saying that only statements that 100% relate to censorship are worthy of your reply?

and finally, we come to the bullshit part of your reply to me ...

you wrote:

Wrong again. I said that his paranoid assertion that there were plants in DU is, well, paranoia.

what you actually said, contrary to your convenient effort to distort the facts, was, and I quote:

...as for the rest of your post?

More of the delusional paranoia some here just can't seem to shake.
note that included in the REST of Q's post was his statement about Iraq ... that's what i commented on but you chose to try to squirm away by referring to only a portion of his post ... how about telling the truth??

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

the paranoid part is that there are "plants on DU," the rest of his post is predicated on that paranoia

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

He speaks often but he always speaks as an independent voice.

his F 9/11 clearly shows.

but he never spoke as an offical voice of the Democratic party

Are you sure about that? He voted Nader in 2000 and I believe is registered as an Independent.

strongly in support of our ticket.His F9/11 was a great effort to gather support for our ticket.

...he is still an independent.

He disavowed Nader and supported the Dem ticket because he was pragmatic.

F 9/11 was an effort to expose Bush, not gather support for our party.

critical juncture than that wimp Lieberman in his socalled debate with the arrogant Cheney during the 2000 elections. If what you say is true, that Michael Moore is an independent, I prefer him that way so he can continue to speak on our behalf.

... that he didn't do it for the Dems (who he criticized in the movies as well), but rather to expose Bush.

And Damn, you do have some hang up with Lieberman!

Some might think you have the same hangup with Dean :shrug:

Anyone's post and any conversation could be ripped to shreds by going at it the way you have here. That adds more heat than light to the subject for me.

I understand your opposition to the opinions that others have expressed here, although, ironically, while you seem to be calling for a big tent your method of communicating would chase people out of this big tent, and then you cap it off with a "don't let the door hit you" remark.

My sense is that you have an objection to something, or see a problem with something beyond the remarks of the posters here. Can you spell that out for us?

Thanks.

please explain yourself? Funny.

I understand your opposition to the opinions that others have expressed here, although, ironically, while you seem to be calling for a big tent your method of communicating would chase people out of this big tent, and then you cap it off with a "don't let the door hit you" remark.

The problem here is you obviously agree with the first poster, who essentially said "Al From (and certain bloggers) shouldn't be allowed to say________________. It's censorship. So we should censor them!"

THAT is ludicrous!

A certain part of the "big tent" here hates debate, doesn't like to be told, "they're wrong," resorts to name calling when their arguments lose steam (yeah, I know I "name call," too, but I've made a conscience effort to only do so to those who do it first - just to show their hypocrisy), and generally behaves like the hard right - we're right, you're wrong, end of discussion.

And I'm tired of this little faction threatening to leave everytime they get pissed off for not getting something they feel is "owed"to them.

It's like a marriage when one partner keeps holding divorce over the other's head. Eventually he or she will say, "fuck it, just leave."

My sense is that you have an objection to something, or see a problem with something beyond the remarks of the posters here.

Sure. But I'm trying to stick to the issue the first poster raised, and trying not to go off on the side shows some of the other posters want to veer the thread into.

...so let's try again:

"It's like a marriage when one partner keeps holding divorce over the other's head. Eventually he or she will say, "fuck it, just leave."

Perhaps the 'partner' keeps talking about divorce because the 'other' keeps committing adultery? The partner keeps giving them another chance but the unfaithfulness continues.

You're suggesting that there is no grounds for divorce. That one must stay in a bad relationship as a sign of loyalty.

You're also mistaken in believing it's a 'tiny faction' that's tired of the adulterous behavior of the party leadership. Politicos like Al From wants to jump from bed to bed and sleep with both sides. That is simply unacceptable to many Democrats.

Perhaps the 'partner' keeps talking about divorce because the 'other' keeps committing adultery? The partner keeps giving them another chance but the unfaithfulness continues.

So? Completely irrelevant as to why the partner keeps threatening divorce.

Perhaps the two disagree on financial matters?

You're suggesting that there is no grounds for divorce. That one must stay in a bad relationship as a sign of loyalty.

How did I suggest that? I suggested the opposite - if you feel the marriage is bad, don't keep threatening to leave. Either make it better or go ahead and leave.


You're also mistaken in believing it's a 'tiny faction' that's tired of the adulterous behavior of the party leadership.

Where were they election day and why wasn't one of your kind of guys running against Bush?

Truth is, your tiny faction only associates with each other, and thus you're all convinced more must feel as you do.

So show us a poll somewhere (no, not a DU poll) suggesting that anything more than a little minority is tired of the party leadership.

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

is it any wonder that people like you give the far left an even worse name?

I continue to ask for some proof, Q, of the absurd assertions you make.

And whether or not I support the PNAC doctrine is completely irrelevant to this thread and is just an attempt by you to veer the discussion off to a side show.

Rated Y

...

...since they were deleted.

You've improved in your demeanor. Usually you would call me part of the 'looney left'...but it seems I've graduated to the 'far left'. What positions identify someone as belonging to the far left? Government accountability? Wanting an opposition party instead of a party of enablers and appeasers? It seems to me that labeling someone as far left would mean that they're an extremist or radical. Is that what you're trying to imply?

But I have noticed one thing: you tend to throw the weight of the discussion on someone else when you find yourself backed into a corner.

It's telling the way you avoid answering the question about whether you support PNAC by calling it part of a 'sideshow'. It's part of the overall 'fly under the radar' agenda of the DLCers to keep from answering any direct questions that might expose their true intentions for the Dem party. Labeling traditional Dem values and principles as 'far left' makes the DLC seem more 'moderate' as opposed to their true status of being part of the right.

You've improved in your demeanor. Usually you would call me part of the 'looney left'...but it seems I've graduated to the 'far left'.

You're the far left. You become the looney left AFTER you start name calling.

... example is in the next section of your post - underlined for your convenience...

What positions identify someone as belonging to the far left? Government accountability? Wanting an opposition party instead of a party of enablers and appeasers? It seems to me that labeling someone as far left would mean that they're an extremist or radical. Is that what you're trying to imply?

It isn't necessarily issues, Q, but attitudes. The far left shares several traits with the far right, chief of which is an unwillingness to compromise and an overwhelming feeling that your are right and everyone else is wrong. A tendency to blame someone else (they have "liberals," "commies," and "terrorists,", the far left has "DLC," "The 'government,'" etc.)

But I have noticed one thing: you tend to throw the weight of the discussion on someone else when you find yourself backed into a corner.

Hmmm... several examples would be nice...

It's telling the way you avoid answering the question about whether you support PNAC by calling it part of a 'sideshow'.

It's telling how you hijack threads, try to veer them from their original point, then demand people answer irrelevant question to that point.

part of the overall 'fly under the radar' mentality of the far left to change the subject once they're backed into a corner.

I think you have a misguided view on the Democratic party's history.

What president(s) do you suppose have lived up to what you believe are "true democratic values?"

Just trying to be polite.

You say that the problem is that I obviously agree with the first poster. Then you say that the first poster is calling for censorship. I will let the first poster speak for his or her self, although I don't see how anyone could stop From from speaking. Where does censorship come into this? It seems to me that anyone expressing any left wing opinions brings an aggressive and hostile response from you, which certainly has a dampening and divisive effect on the discussion. That is as much censorship as anything the op called for, is it not?

I don't care what he says about Michael Moore, but I disagree with him, and I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask what is and what isn't compatible with being a Democrat. Can anyone call themselves a Democrat and say anything they like and still be considered to be on our team?

I understand that you are tired of hearing people say that they are leaving, but I don't see it as a marriage, so all of the feelings about "owing" and the other things you say seem inappropriate to me in a political discussion. You can apply this romantic relationship template to complete strangers if it helps you to gain some understanding, but don't be surprised if not everyone shares your desire to use that approach to the problem. Since I don't feel married to you in any way, I reject being accused of threatening to divorce you.

I see that you are upset about something that seems hypocritical and abusive to you, and that you feel that you have been enduring it for too long. I don't know what any of us who happen to disagree with you could possibly to to help you with that, nor do I see how we could discuss or differences when you have already determined that anyone who disagrees with you is unworthy of consideration.

Do you doubt the oft reported experience of older Democrats that the party has moved away from them? Can you not understand the resentment of a person being accused of being a fringe element when their positions of the issues haven't changed and 40 years ago they would never have been attacked the way you attack them? Are you secretly a left winger and so it makes you uncomfortable when people remind you of how much you have to compromise now? Your tone and language strikes me as that of one who has lost their own dream and so feels a need to stomp on everyone else's.

Or are you a conservative? If so, can you present your case without criticizing and attacking others?

The first poster blasts Al From for what he/she calls "censorship" (which it wasn't) then states that From shouldn't be allowed to say what he did (which, if his/her wish came true, WOULD be censorship.)

Yet, there are people piling on in this thread who either cannot see the obvious - that KlatooBNikto wishes to remedy her mistaken notion of censorship with TRUE censorship - or who are so blinded by their hatred of the DLC and moderates that they feel censorship is OK in this instance.

Regardless of whether I believe in PNAC, the Iraq War, Peter Pan, of Jesus Christ, censorship is censorship and any other direction this thread has taken is a mere sideshow to avoid that fact.

Do you doubt the oft reported experience of older Democrats that the party has moved away from them?

Actually, my experience is quite the opposite. In fact, I know Dems now in their 60s, 70s, and 80s who fear the Dem party will be overun by extremists.

So, when you say "oft reported" do you mean real, actual news items or what people claim on DU?

I find your entire analysis off base. As I said in an earlier thread, the far left on this board have no problems criticizing and attacking but can't seem to take it when it gets thrown back.

We don't so much have a different opinion as we have a dramatically different view of reality. We can't really reach an understanding.

You see the "far left" as the cause of the problems here. I am the far left by your definition, so of course I won't ever agree to being the problem. Why you would argue a point of view that requires people to see themselves as the problem and then wonder why they can't understand that still seems pretty mysterious to me.

I am not sure whether or not agreeing to disagree is possible with you, and since you see people trying to censor you and people who think like you and eliminate you from the party and I see the precise opposite situation, and since it is irreconcilable, then this is a pretty good indication to me that there is a split coming. As to who will turn out to be right, time will tell. You can't expect others to be any more willing to knuckle under to your ideas than you are to theirs.

It seems to be a situation of mutual intolerance and irreconcilable differences. So be it. Battling over it serves no purpose. Your mind is made up, and so is mine.

... Juoe Lieburmuun guave uos Jeuo-Meutuum.

dont get all freaked out about the attacks on moore or other anti-war types by the quislings of the democratic center. they are just "bidnizz as usual types" who are threated by the influx of populists moore and howard dean brought into the party. the al from's of the democratic party see that their place at the feed trough will be taken from them if grass roots activism replaces his ilk; those who traffic in influence and power instead of doing the people's business.

they would attack moore even if he rose from the dead on the third day.

and the louder the cries, the closer moore is to the truth.

one thing i would mention is that any journalist writing on political matters has a personal agenda of promoting his/her career within the power structure under discussion, and some on the left participate actively in campaigns for politicians and as such they are not immune to making statments that fulfill subjective and personal needs rather than objective and impersonal national needs.

the likes of Matt Yglesias,Kevin Drum and Brad DeLong all will get a small gift in their christmas stocking over the next year from the centrists in the party, be it a consulting gig, some writing work, or even some intros to powerful people who can make the life of a journalist easier.

count on it. their allies have deep pockets and need mouthpieces on the left to hide their own whoring ways.

am i missing something? when did he say he was speaking for democrats?

I want you to go get a dictionary, and I want you to look up the word I-R-O-N-Y.

which would also marginalize Al From.

The NDN (New Democratic Network) is another centrist/triangulating/moderate organisation, but I think the leadership there is much much much better (and easier to work with) and they don't seem to bash liberals even though they are pushing their own moderate viewpoint.

There is going to be a moderate organisation within the Democratic Party. I'd rather the dominant one by the NDN rather than the DLC.

They are repug operatives.

Yglesias, Drum and DeLong are Republican operatives? Have you read their blogs? Can people be wrong and ever be forgiven?

...you are NOT a democrat.

As I said, if you can't tolerate dissent, you're no democrat.

If those guys don't tolerate dissent as is implied by the OP, they are DINOS.

If not, they are not. Either way, I see no reason to start reading them because the OP slams them and you defend them.

My original response was about Al From and the DLC, not the obscure bloggers.

None of those three are obscure in the liberal blogosphere. And, Yglesias writes for The American Prospect...one of the premier liberal magazines.

Beinart by the way writes for The New Republic. His last two articles have been quite interesting.

I read DU and Buzzflash, and I have a subscription to the American Prospect, but I never caught Yglesias' name.

You've yet to address the accusations of whether or not they are Moore-bashing war cheerleaders. And I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned enough about their individual opinions to research each one.

that "they" are not. I read their opinions before I make judgments about them. Doesn't that seem like the correct thing to do?

And, I wonder what you mean by the use of the term "troll". Since when is reading an array of opinions "trolling". I try to read opinions that not only might reinforce my beliefs, but also ones that might challenge them. That's how one grows, and that's how ones beliefs might become even sharper.

I meant in the sense of "trolling for fish" IE browsing the opinions on every other various and sundry blog - I apologize for using a term that could be construed as meaning "troll".

And I respect your position about the writers in question.

I may very well read their columns from time to time, but not remember the name as I would if it were Paul Krugman or Robert Reich - somebody whose writing and career I'm familiar with. I seriously don't have time to keep up with every column or every writer's name. And I do read pieces by people like Safire that I may disagree with.

I'm not sure if we're really arguing over any salient point other than the obscurity of the bloggers in question, which really seems outside the original point. If you take that much offense at my calling them obscure, I'll take it back.

But I still don't think that a person who would squelch dissent against ANY president, ESPECIALLY the most extreme right-wing president in memory, can legitimately call themselves "democrats". That kind of suppression is antithetical to what the party is supposed to be about, IMO.

I did take a look at the three blogs, and found nothing there to provoke my ire. But I don't know what these guys have been saying for the last year.

I wish the OP had included a link to back up his claim that these three bloggers are indeed calling for "censorship on the left" as he implies - it would have saved the two of us a lot of empty argument. My criticism was not of the three bloggers, as I'm obviously not qualified to comment on their work over the past years - just a blanket statement of what I think is an unacceptable attitude on the left - that truth-tellers should be shut up.

Again, I was in a horrible and confrontational mood yesterday, I apologize for my choice of words, and would be curious to know whether YOU think it's acceptable for "democrats" (in general) to call for the ostracizing or censorship of other democrats who not only do not support the president, but do so in a loud, confrontational way. You seem to deftly avoid the issue in all of your posts.

Makollig Jezvahted and Levdaroum DeBahzted.

i am becoming more and more convinced that they are all trolls.

Only the gov't can censor anyone.

1. Al From did NOT say Michael Moore should not be ALLOWED to speak for the Democratic party. He said Moore does not speak for the party - perfectly acceptable thing to say. I don't think Zell Miller speaks for the Democratic Party either.

2. Peter Beinert did NOT say no one from our side should be ALLOWED to make anti-war statements. He just encouraged the party to be more pro-War on Terror.

3. "Some bloggers" are allowed to say anything they like.

This is a phony thread, IMO, setting up the straw man of people trying to silence others, when they said no such thing.


edit:clarify

So I'm not sure what the fuss is about.