Kneejerk DUers and counterproductivity

Yesterday I posted an article written for the DLC on May 2000. It called for greater governmental funding for education, positing this as both good for our economy and as a national security issue.

This should be relatively non-controversial among Democrats. The vast majority of the party is in favor of better support for public education. And we're on the right side of the issue. As I put it to my Republican friends - We can't win by being cheaper than the Chinese. We have to be smarter, more educated. And that requires taxpayer funding.

Yet the response from the D.U. was almost uniform: derision. The message isn't important. All that matters is who says it. If it comes from the hated "DLC"... well, as bemildred puts it "I'm not following them anywhere N/T".

Which is sadly amusing, because the author of this article - the person for whom most DUers refuse to agree-with, even if they happen to agree - is none other than Rep. John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania. You may remember him. He made quite a stir recently by putting his considerable non Michael Moore credibility on the line coming out in favor of plan to withdraw from Iraq. You would think something he wrote deserves more than a kneejerk dismissal.

Now of course, I don't expect anyone to worship the Congressman, or agree with every position he takes. We all have a right to our own opinions. (And, if I know anything about this party, it's that Democrats will differ.) But just as it is offensive for Republicans to call Murtha unpatriotic, it is equally offensive for anyone to call into question whether he is truly a Democrat, as many or most DU posters do of all members of the DLC.

I'm not telling you, my leftist friends, this because I really care about being flamed here on the DU. This isn't the real world; it's just a website. Rather, I'm trying to help you. As Bush has proven time and time again, in politics it is often better to be persuasively wrong than angrily right. And that anger, and the inability to find common cause with people you may otherwise disagree, is the left's greatest handicap; it keeps many independents who agree with us on the issues from identifying with us as a party.

Right now, much of the country is turning away from the Republican party. But they are not yet turning towards Democrats. It is critical in your day to day conversations with independents and moderate Republicans, that you help them do so. The key is to be magnanimous in victory. These Bush voters need to save face, and instead of counterproductively venting at them, you must instead console them by casting blame up, not just at Bush but at Republicans in Congress.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

that in some sense, politics can be seen as an opportunity for self-development. Because you are correct: anger is NEVER seen as an "attractive" trait especially by those people at whom you are directing the anger. However, this can be seen as an opprotunity to learn how to control and direct your anger. Rants and knee-jerk reactions are quite often the sign of -- well, I hate to say it, but I will -- immaturity. If you recognize that you are doing this, well, it makes sense to figure out how to productively channel it into energy and reaction -- instead of pointless bloviating.

Nope, I didn't. There's a world of difference between blowing off steam when you're among friends vs. letting your dialogs with conservatives degenerate into wild-eyed Bushbashing fests IRL.

Have a nice day.

I read it.

I took the use of terms like "kneejerk" to indicate emotional content.

We should learn from them. :sarcasm:

Tell me you can mentally picture a rational human being sitting on their couch watching Ann Coulter on TV thinking "I used to consider myself fairly liberal, but damn, that woman sure makes a lot of sense!"

No? Then howcum Dems are always distancing themselves from comparatively sane people like Michael Moore?

from the flamethrowers as I write this.

BTW, I agree with what you wrote. I believe it was an experiment on your part, but a telling one.

dealt with the fact that the party conservatives once again have offered a bandaid solution to a symptom without addressing the underlying disease causing the symptom.

Perhaps instead of being defensive, it might be better if the conservatives in the party take note of what critiques of its positions are posted by thoughtful people on this forum and others.

After all, shooting the messenger is what they do, isn't it?

participation. I am a liberal democrat, however I believe we need to find our common ground.

Stick around and keep on pushing buttons. We need that here.

:hi:

I wish more people shared that sentiment. I welcome all viewpoints as long as they are made in good faith.

Why isn't there a website for them?

not liberaldemocraticunderground.com.

All people who identify themselves as Democrats or are interested in joining the Democratic Party, and act in good faith should be welcome here.

that is the problem I have with the DLC.

They are not interested in good faith. They want the liberal portion of the party (which I would argue is the majority, if only just) to shut up. They have made it plain that they would like nothing more than for the left most portion of the party to leave.

Sorry, we were here first!

They spend more time (and press!!!) attacking members of their own party than they do opposing this administration. To think that an organization whose membership vocally supports Bush (still!), now shares members with PNAC, and attacks members of it's own party would get any substantial support from the vast majority of DUers is, well, a bit silly. And yes, unfortunately that means some of us will skip reading anything the DLC puts out, even if they may occasionally have a good idea in it. That's unfortunate I suppose, but that bad taste in my mouth just makes it too hard to take anything they say seriously. And I dread supporting anything they put out on the fear someone might misinterpret it as supporting the DLC itself. Sorry.

So here's my suggestion. Have an idea you think is good and would like to see debated here on DU? Post the idea. Point out the parts you like and raise some questions you would like see discussed. Bringing up the DLC, at this time, in this place will just distract from working on real solutions.

"are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=register

Just a couple

BiggerTent


New Donkey


Remember until you are the candidate, you are never going to agree with any candidate 100% of the time.

:hi:

and want to destroy it.

Sheesh.

C'mon...I won't tell anyone.

and admit the reason you posted such a flamebait piece. You're the one being counterproductive. You're not gonna unite people by this way. :(

at the militaristic tone of the article?

Nevermind, you go on "creating reality" with the rest of the chessplayers...

And if you think that the country wants the DLC to institute or have the power to instititute anything on the order of a "Marshall Plan" for ANYTHING .... oh well, enjoy your reality.

..."authoritarian." "Condescending" is another one. But "militaristic" works just fine.

Kinda hard to convince me to meet anyone halfway with a phrase like "my leftist friends," too.

Sign me,

Unapologetic Leftist

Right now, much of the country is turning away from the Republican party. But they are not yet turning towards Democrats. It is critical in your day to day conversations with independents and moderate Republicans, that you help them do so.

Though I'm not sure how we help them? I don't want to become them to attract them. I do believe we need to be PROUD of our differences with the Republican Party and we should claim the moral high ground. They've been getting away with that for far too long.

But I do notice that it comes and goes. Look at Harry Reid--he gets kudos when he tells the GOP to STFU, and his conservative politics (he is a pro-life Mormon) are forgotten in the joy that he brings by slapping the crap out of the idiots in the Senate.

We claim to be the party of the BIG TENT. That means that conservative Democrats, moderates, liberals, and uber-liberals all have a voice. When I see posts along the lines of "If Candidate X does not agree with my views on every damn stance, I am taking my ball and going home," I too, feel a sense of dismay.

Right now, Murtha is the Big Deal, because he stood up and slapped the ever-loving crap out of the GOP. Knocked 'em off their feet, got a debate going that could never pop up above the waterline until "conservative Jack, friend of the Pentagon and longtime associate of Cheney" threw down. However, a lot of people might not agree with his other stands on issues, but that cannot get in the way of a good smackdown--not this week, anyway.

The DLC is not evil, it is pragmatic. Look at what the Monkey did--he ran well to the right in some venues, ran closer to the center on the national stage, and governed incompetently. His strategy was "tell 'em what they want to hear, and throw code words like red meat out to the fundies."

Unless there is debate, the best ideas will never rise to the top. Censoring the DLC, or the Al Sharptons, for that matter, is not the way to do it. And the name-calling never helps, either. It makes us, as a party, look childish.

Of course, there are some who just like a fight for the sake of fighting...ya gotta take the keyboard commandos with a grain of salt, or you will go mad!

I listen respectfully, even if I do not initially agree. And I am not so set in my thinking that I cannot look at issues from the perspective of others, and weigh what they are saying.

The open mind learns!!

is very conducive to diverse opinions on DU.

As I said above, we are a big tent. And hopefully, we can disagree without being disagreeable, or demanding it ALL our way. I believe in discussion, debate, and compromise--that's my "ANYTHING TO WIN" strategy. A little something for everyone...

From the OP:
I'm not telling you, my leftist friends, this because I really care about being flamed here on the DU. This isn't the real world; it's just a website. Rather, I'm trying to help you. As Bush has proven time and time again, in politics it is often better to be persuasively wrong than angrily right. And that anger, and the inability to find common cause with people you may otherwise disagree, is the left's greatest handicap; it keeps many independents who agree with us on the issues from identifying with us as a party.

It starts off rediculously condescending. Then we get to the tired stereotype of the left as angry reactionaries.

As I said above, we are a big tent. And hopefully, we can disagree without being disagreeable, or demanding it ALL our way. I believe in discussion, debate, and compromise--that's my "ANYTHING TO WIN" strategy. A little something for everyone...

Which is why I wonder why you applaud this thread. This thread is not a call for inclusiveness. This thread is an attack on the so called 'leftists' at DU that shouldnt even be its own thread since it is simply commenting on an argument from a previous thread.

Attacking your opponants, as a group, as knee jerk reactionaries in a seperate thread because you dont like thier responses to your post in another thread is hardly an action that inspires diverse inclusive discussions.

As a Left-Coast Leftist I'll just keep trying to keep the DLC types from reframing everything in 1950's anti-communist rhetoric.

But can you blame them? sure i can. But hell "It works" look at the way this thread is recommended. bash away!

They are pragmatists, realists, and um centrists? any other ists we can sling at eachother. I'm over here in the extreme left end of the tent.

Near the bearded lady and the midget. :hi:

Like, say, at least a verbal commitment to real universal (everybody in, nobody out, no exceptions) universal health care? We do more than our share of doorbelling and phonebanking, after all.

What I don't get is why the Repubs have such success treating their own whackjobs (many of whom are in favor of the complete destruction of our current world by war and environmental devastation, from which they propose to be exempted by "Rapture") with tender care and red meat, while the Dems condescend to and bully their own extremist nutcases, who merely want stuff like renewable energy, fair trade and universal health care.

Why can the Republicanites get by with catering to their right edge in every way, while the Democratic powers that be tell their left edge to shut up and give money and support whoever the Beltway boys come up with?

DLC is satan!! Hillary should just become a repug!!! Kerry lost the election on purpose !!! You are really a freeper!!!!

Blah, blah, blah! Blah, blah, blah!!


:sarcasm:

Sweety darling!

The fact that people chose to judge the DLC based on thier overall record and not one cherry-picked position paper hardly shows anyone to be a reactionary.

All you are doing is perpetuating anti-leftist propaganda. People on the left are just angry reactionaries... yada yada yada. Weve heard this silliness before.

Being nice to republicans and understanding their perspective is one thing, buying into thier lies about the left is another.

Or just keep it a cheap shot, whatever you want.

And now it is "closed" and we are "trapped" and "exposed".
That's why this 5 yr old piece by Murtha was dug up.

No sense of irony at all. I said I'm not following the DLC
anywhere, and that makes me a "kneejerk DU-er" and "counter-
productive", and a whole bunch of other stuff. In fact an
amazing amount of "meaning" was dragged out of those few words.
Projected into them, you might say. But it is fine and not
ironic at all that I get these labels cast on me, THAT is
productive dialog and wisdom and good taste incarnate. And it
is certainly not any sort of rant, at all, uhhh uhh.

Bake

I'm laughing to keep from crying here...

Or is this just a cheap shot echo chamber?

defend your charge that the OP is a knee-jerk by calling him simply a dupe for RW propaganda without really arguing his points.

It's easy to write people off as falling for the other side. It's harder to actually debate on the points.

I actually never called anyone a dupe for anything, youve invented that part yourself.

I accurately pointed out that the stereotype of the left as angry reactionaries is a very old smear(and not exclusive to the right), that is all.

It proves that the OP is a reactionary because of his stereotyping. If people dont approve of the DLC it cant be because they have formed valid opinions, it must be because the left is full of angry reactionaries who lash out at the DLC out of habit.

It's easy to write people off as falling for the other side. It's harder to actually debate on the points.

My point exactly. The OP is arguing that critics of the DLC are just angry reactionary leftists. Does this sound like debating the points to you?

I am not sure about the reactionary part, but about how those of us on the left are willing to fight other people on the left about either power in the organization or tactics or ideology, etc.

The OP was not really arguing the point, it was more like he demonstrated that some of us here will call names rather than discuss issues.

I am not sure about the reactionary part, but about how those of us on the left are willing to fight other people on the left about either power in the organization or tactics or ideology, etc.

Well the reactionary part is mainly what I was referring to.

As far as disagreeing over tactics and ideas... of course people on the left have had disagreements over tactics and ideas... how is that a problem? If we didnt have disagreements it would probably mean we were facists.

Of course people on the left can be disrespectul, rush to judgement, irrational, they are human beings, but all human beings do these things, its got nothing to do with the left.

The OP was not really arguing the point, it was more like he demonstrated that some of us here will call names rather than discuss issues.

Well yes, by smearing his opponants with a tired leftist stereotype the OP did demonstrate that some of us here will call names rather than discuss issues.

You are quite good at your game tx_dem41, you've been at it for a LONG time, but if you think nobody's noticed it you are mistaken

I couldn't have said it better myself.

have varied opinions because it's a melting pot of ideas. We don't follow, we think. We don't accept an idea on the face of it; we delve into the issue & make up our own minds. That's mainly what separates us from the Republican sheep, imo.

But I do agree that I've seen some pettiness going on when it comes to putting permanent labels on our party leaders when they say something contrary to DU "group think". I don't subscribe to that, although I do have exceptions (Liebermann immediately comes to mind).

And some forums are worse then others.

:dem: :kick: :dem: :kick:

When I realized it was acceptable practice to put me down for (admitting, though I NEVER had to) being a libertarian, and for being HERE to help the Dems win because I believe they are right, in this fight...all I have to say to you is good luck. I was an ultra-conservative willing to lend my anger and my support to the Dems, and they pissed all over it.

Just like the repubs. They don't like me either. That I was used to. I bet you're mostly Christian here too. Aren't ya. Yeah. America. Always the lowest price. Always quick with a label.

seen your posts, don't think that all DUers (or even a large majority) aren't willing to listen and conduct a productive dialogue with others that we might not necessarily entirely mesh with politically.

and it sincerely ticked me off, because it's happened enough now that it could happen any day, about just anything. It's NOT okay. BAD trend.

I just wanted you to know that others act differently.

Welcome to DU, whatever4! :hi:

Take it with a grain of salt. I don't always agree with the group think; when I do, I choose to skip over those posts, which is often. Although I'm not a confrontational person, I do enjoy an argument now & then, but, personally speaking, I'm here to learn more than sway opinion.

I find that I still seem to gravitate here. Seems you folks ARE the good guys.

What can I say? At this point, it's all those not nazis. We've GOT to band together, is how I feel, and have so little patience for anyone that can't see that.

Even if we don't group ourselves together, they most certainly group us. All undesirables, and it can be anything from your skin color to your fill-in-the-blank ideas about life. Head-bashing irritation for anyone that can't SEE that now. I, as a libertarian, am equally grouped with any liberal, just for being outside the mainstream.

I'm just saying. It should go without saying, it is NOT cool to put down all parties other than the Democratic Party. Greens, and others, there ARE other parties, and it's ridiculous to hear that rude stuff HERE.

Don't like some/any libertarian positions? Get over it; libertarians didn't put us where we are any more than democrats, did they?

Don't like having other parties represented on DU? Or the people coming from those directions? Cause we, what, sow discontent? Oh, and sure, having US around is going to hurt your positions? On anything?? Yeah...we're a real threat. Hear it all the time. Third-party strong-arms, they're everywhere, growing daily. Subversive.

Yeah, we're, like, taking over. Like me here. I carefully made you all forget I'm libertarian. 'Cause I'm taking over. It was my prime motivator for posting on DU? Sure! I'm all about the subversive assumption of power, it's the libertarian in me for sure.

There, that feels better. Thanks :)

on what brings us all together. We're well-informed about what's going on & we've all come to the same conclusion: This misleadership has damaged our country to a level that we would never have been able to imagine & we are all united in seeing justice done.

The Democratic Party is made up of citizens of all stripes who are joined by simply knowing the difference between right & wrong. The Republican Party, which uses the low tactic of blatantly projecting their bad qualities onto the Democratic Party, will tell you they are the party of "moral values", but as the last 4 years have shown, they are anything but moral.

Try to remember the frustration we're all dealing with in the anticipation of seeing * get his comeuppance. Let opposing views roll off your shoulders & keep things in perspective.

I believe I and others actually defended your position. Don't paint with such a broad stroke, my friend.

LTH

or moved, or all other manner of stuff that happens? I thank you very much, but I have to say, it hasn't only been one or two threads. I don't really know by how many, but it's been my personal experience. Here. It's accepted to be very rude, to libertarians at least.

Don't know who all else

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

Yes, after much soul-searching I finally found where I belong. Libertarian Democrats!!! Like Russ Feingold, the only Senator brave enough to vote against the USA HATEriot Act and put forth a bill to reign in out-of-control lobbying. Democrats like Feingold and Republicans like Ron Paul are independent thinkers in a town of lemmings.

Fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, responsible free enterprise, and personal freedoms...and you can destroy the corporate conservatives at their own games.

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: I WILL be posting this information later today as a separate thread. Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:



The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.







summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!

. . .the DLC move to the middle right is not really providing the sharp choices you describe. That's why many here don't support that membership. Many here (IMO rightly so) consider the DLC Republican-lite. It's TRUE compassionate conservatism, yet i've seen no evidence over the last 30 years that conservative principles have helped any americans, except those needing the least help.

So, the gut reaction against DLC'ers is natural in a community of liberals and progressives. It's not reactionary. It's disappointment that the leadership in the DNC hasn't realized that the "country has moved to the right" is simply unsupported by the facts.

The sharp choices you demand would be a good step in the right direction, but none of those will happen with a focus on the middle-right. That blurs the distinctions and makes people believe there is something about being a liberal that makes dems feel guilty.

A lack of pride in one's position is certainly no way to sell it. Vero?
The Professor

At this stage, Democrats should spotlight "TRADITIONAL ISSUES" (LABOR, Small Independent Business and Farms, Middle Class, Support for the Needy) These ane NOT issues supported by the DLC.

:toast:

Thanks for posting.

That's what people want. They want their real needs to be addressed: health care, their rights as workers, etc. They're sick of the fat cats taking everything and taking away from the middle class, working class, and poor. They don't want their money or their kids being stolen for illegal wars. They don't care how it's labeled (liberal, left, DLC, moderate). They just want to know that someone will fight for them!

blow off steam. A lot of the people jumping all over the DLC will still work their asses off for the Democratic nominee in any election, even if that Dem is a DLCer. And there is no one of any political slant who escapes without getting blasted by someone around here. Heck, you're blasting the anti-DLCers, and most of them probably just hear the insult, not the wise advice. DU is not for the faint-hearted. The lion-hearted of all persuasions enjoy it though. A good battle amongst friends can be quite invigorating.

I get blasted for saying this, but John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter could not gotten elected if DUers had been in charge. Both campaigned far to the center, even to the right. Both are now liberal icons, and deservedly so, but many DUers wouldn't have tolerated them.

Well written post. I didn't see your Murtha thread, so I can't say whether your criticisms are fair or not, but you make a lot of great points in this post. IMHO.

I consider myself a diehard liberal/progressive. But I also consider my core beliefs to be very mainstream and even conservative in some respects.

In fact, my conservative traditionalist side is EXACTLY WHY I am a staunch liberal, and critic of the "centrist" Democratic approach.

Why? The answer is real simple. The right-wing, conservative corporatist ideology is destroying everything I believe in -- both liberal and traditional. The middle class is being decimnated, the economy has been concentrated and reoriented towards the interests of the elites at the expense of everyone else. We don't give a damn about the poor and struggling anymore. And -- in a strictly pragmatic sense -- The United States is pissing away our very prosperity and international influence.

And I am mad as hell that Democrats did not do everything in our power to stop this over the last 25 years. I don't see this as some arcane ideological discussion. Nor are the basics complicated. It is simply a recognition that we have lost our way.

And it should not matter whether one is a conservative or moderate Democrat or a raging liberal or socialist. The truth is as obvious as the nose on everyone's faces.

I'm not looking for a revolution. But I am looking for enough moxie on our side to put the concept of liberal and progressive values right back in the center of the spectrum where they belong. Anbd where they used to be.

I would prefer that we discuss these matters and ask the difficult questions without getting personal or insulting from eitehr side. What is wrong should not be a bone of contention, even if different segments of the Democrat/Left half of the sperctrum might have differing ideas about how to fix it.


As for any disillusioned Republicans I might have contact with, I'm not going to gloat or beat up on them. But I do think we ought to make it clear that it is not some abberation but the logical extension of the callous anti-worker agenda they have supported all these years.

Here's a relevamnt speech I posted that explains it better than I.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5427317&mesg_id=5427317

to be in. Keep in mind oil will be $200 sometime in the future. Do you want to be selling software and giving licence to nanotechnology & drugs around the world (obviously with some drugs - like aids ones - given in a public good way to stop epidemics and to needy & poor countries at a discount). These things don't take oil.

I think of that. That a country really should decide what area to be experts in and push that. That means good public schools and science classes everywhere.

It will have to come from someplace, and we are nowhere close to really inventing a post-oil economy, which we will have to do.

At what point has the DLC demonstrated any kind of effectiveness, competence or ability?

They seem to be exceptional at doing nothing whatsoever, but other than that...

....to the GOP who created them.

to specialize in. Do you want your kid to go to school and learn tool & die making when there will not be factories (and no oil to run them) in 20 years?

Ralph Nader will talk about the environmental crisis and the oil crisis. But he will not tell you what that means in terms of where to send your kids to school.

DU is a very progressive community--much more so than the Democratic party at large. If DU had choose the Democratic nominee in '04 it would have been Dean or Clark with Kucinich as a strong third, not Kerry.

Goes both way dude. Know why I didn't start a thread like this though - cause it's counterproductive! You know you're not gonna change some people's minds into liking the DLC, and the DLC fans will of course KICK and NOMINATE your thread just to shove it in the face of the anti-DLC peeps. Congratulations - you're post accomplished exactly what you claim to be against - dividing, not uniting. Oh and good luck winning an election should the far left decide to "Go Green".

:applause:

Woops - replied to wrong message. My bad. :P

economically as moderates. That is just the reality. Where they govern differently is social policies.

That is just the truth. A third party from the left - that managed to get itself elected (and it is hard for the wings in any three party state to get elected - one party dominates) then the same thing would happen. The left party would govern economically as moderates.

The left parties in the rest of the world get into power and govern
economically as moderates. That is just the reality. Where they govern differently is social policies.

I dont know about that. If you mean relatively moderate for thier country, of course, parties with large support arent on the fringe by definition.

But if you mean moderate by US standards, that isnt true. A moderate economic government in Finland would be extremists in American politics. In some countries socialism is moderate, in ours its left wing.

That is just the truth. A third party from the left - that managed to get itself elected (and it is hard for the wings in any three party state to get elected - one party dominates) then the same thing would happen. The left party would govern economically as moderates.

It depends entirely on the circumstances.

what I mean.

that all leftist governments are economically moderate.

Again, how do you explain that in some countries socialism is moderate and in others it is far left?

world the left is just the left and they govern from the middle when it comes to budgets & interest rates and trade. But govern from the left on social policy.

spend even a damn dime to further Americans' education?!

LOOK AROUND and stop drinking the k00l-aid while you're at it.

In theory you make a good point about education...

But education is not the problem.

Reality is the problem.

Lack of opportunity is the problem.

Showing our youth there is no future is the problem.

Our youth is more interested in the new portable game boy game than it is a decent paying job.

And then read this.. THAT is the truth. And it's only getting worse.

I'm sorry, but what am I supposed to believe?! I'm not even in the late-teen/20-something category. I'm a mid-era Gen X'er. (Now rechristened "Generation Screwed".) The difference is, we know the score. The young ones out there don't. So much the better to them; ignorance is bliss.

If the DLC is as greed-ridden as the rethugs, that's fine by me. I refuse to vote for them either until they show us they care for infrastructure more than they do short-term greed whose distance seems to get shorter every day.

it for what its worth. Some people here will jump on your butt if you don't kiss ass with everything a person does. If you have an opinion about something, say Kerry did or didn't do during the election, you get your head handed to you. Same with Hillary. I hate that more than I can say. The pigs do that, demanding uniformity of thought. Its not us.

You can criticise Kerry, Hillary, etc and not be a traitor. You can accept Mr. Murtha's gutsy move without 'selling out' your 'purity'. Think for yourself and have some sense.

moderate. Not at all.

The DLC is about corportism.

Moderate means that you're pro-choice, but, hey, you don't think abortions should be available on-demand after 19 weeks or something. Moderate means you think education spending is important, but you don't want to see a bad budget lay waste to the military, either. Moderate just means you're a bit right of center.

What the DLC stands for is letting the corporations run rough-shod over the working men and women of this country to line the pockets of DLC politicians and their cronies.

In the real world, I have no problem electing a moderate Democrat - just not a DLCer.

I will not vote for a DLCer either and for the same reasons.

"We can't win by being cheaper than the Chinese"

Same ol' same ol'. Globalism is a race to the bottom for workers. And it is an effort to replace the US middle-class oriented economic model with the a third world model, a handful of rich lording over masses of poor.

that is what i am feeling like. we have left the adult world and are in a world of tantrum driven 4 year olds.

i agree with your post, thank you. i really dont care where and who healing comes from to fix some of this nations problems, but it is much easier to do if we all start adopting our rightly role of adults. and it would be a good example for our children

and attribute disagreement with the DLC to reactionary anger are the adults, and people who dont like the DLC are children? Is that how it works?

example of what i am talking about

The original post in this thread is an attack on DU leftists for being too angry and reactionary. You responded to this by saying you agreed with the post and wished we lived in a more adult world.

Exactly how am I supposed to interpret this?

As far as my interpretation being an example of what you were talking about, are you calling me immature? Care to explain how I was being immature by trying to square your post with the original post?

I'm feeling surrounded by idiots and 4 yr olds a lot lately. But I'm staying positive and trying to think that they are just a loud minority.

:evilgrin:

:party:

I kept asking everyone..."Where the hell is AZBlue?"

:shrug:

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

unfortunately though, i am seeing it in my real world too, not just on the board.

Thank you for the above post! This is an excellent point and a problem I see often on DU. If you say anything regarding the DLC or Hillary Clinton or a few others, the back is turned, the arms are crossed and the ears are closed. It's a foolish thing to not listen and see if someone has something worthwhile to say, regardless of whether or not you like them. As painful as it is, I even still listen to Bush when he speaks. Who knows, even he might just say something some day that makes some sense. Miracles do happen.

I'm so sick of the Democrats defeating themselves and this is just one of the ways in which this happens. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la la" leaves you out in the cold when a good idea does come along. It alienates voters who are sitting on the fence and divides the party. And, simply put, it makes you look like an idiot.

Not everyone has to think alike or even agree. That's for the lock-step Republicans, isn't it?? Difference of opinion, debate and discussion are not only good things, they are the cornerstone of a democracy. But immature and petty "conversations" without substance or factual basis are a waste of time and belong only on the grade school playground.

Several times recently I've posted something that got a reactionary response, i.e., a one or two line reply full of rhetoric or someone's version of talking points that didn't really address my post and didn't include any substance to it. So, I have responded, asking for an example, more information, facts to back up what the other person said, anything more...and I get nothing. Silence. Not a single one has replied. Sadly, this tells me a lot about those DU'ers.

Thank you for the above post! This is an excellent point and a problem I see often on DU. If you say anything regarding the DLC or Hillary Clinton or a few others, the back is turned, the arms are crossed and the ears are closed. It's a foolish thing to not listen and see if someone has something worthwhile to say, regardless of whether or not you like them.

Unless you are a psychic, I am hard pressed to figure out how you know this.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that people have considered the issues and arguments and have come to different conclusions than you have, and the fact that they arent receptive to your arguments might simply mean they disagree with you, not that they are flawed people who dont listen to arguments.

I'm so sick of the Democrats defeating themselves and this is just one of the ways in which this happens. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la la" leaves you out in the cold when a good idea does come along. It alienates voters who are sitting on the fence and divides the party. And, simply put, it makes you look like an idiot.

But you arent sick of people attacking the left?

And again, how did you come to this knowledge that leftists on DU are ignoring arguments?

Not everyone has to think alike or even agree. That's for the lock-step Republicans, isn't it?? Difference of opinion, debate and discussion are not only good things, they are the cornerstone of a democracy.

Unless of course that opinion is that the DLC is bad, in which case it means you are an idiot?

But immature and petty "conversations" without substance or factual basis are a waste of time and belong only on the grade school playground.

Then why did you call this thread an 'EXCELLENT post!' When it is nothing but an attack on a particular segment of DU without any substance?

...but at least you did back up your statements with some original thought and substance!

As I stated already, I'm fine with anyone who doesn't agree with me - personally, I love a good debate. What I don't like is those, and there are many on this site who fall into this category, that hear one word or phrase, be it "Kerry" or "DLC" or "Hillary" or "Cindy Sheehan" or "Iraq war" and that's all they hear. They stop listening. And, no I don't have to be psychic to know this because their responses make it more than abundantly clear.

Am I sick of people attacking the left? Well, sometimes the left should be attacked. They do some pretty stupid things too. I am sick of people attacking just for the sake of attacking - and that goes for everyone and all issues. Again, it's just a waste of time.

And, when did I say that agreeing with the DLC is good or bad???? Where in my discussion was I defending or even discussing the DLC itself?????! This I'd really like to know.

And lastly, I happen to feel that the post - not the thread, you've gotten them confused - was excellent and did have substance. Even if I didn't agree with it I'd still say it had substance, just as I've said above about your post. Substance can be one line or several paragraphs - it's not about the length. It's about saying more than "you suck" or "your opinion isn't welcome here."

... a wise Rabbi once said "It is better to be silent than to speak the truth without charity."

Or, as a friend used to say "don't start nuttin, won't be nuttin'."

The thread invites - no waves a red flag at - those who don't like the DLC. I accept all components of the Democratic Party, left and right, but I wish those on the left who obsess over the DLC would find something better to do with their time. I wish they'd put all that energy into canvassing, working voters, and doing the grunt work of getting people elected.

Those who complain about the DLC are wasting their time, and those who start shit with those DLC detractors are likewise wasting their time. Once a week, I'll make my plea for party unity. NONE of us has any business telling someone else what they have to do to be a Democrat. This ain't no church! It's the Big By God Tent Party.

Remember that the next time someone urges pushing someone out of that tent.

--last year? Most of the people who put in 12 hour days tracking down Dem voters with absentee signature problems were lefties who were seriously disgusted with her milquetoast campaign. We closed ranks, raised the money to get the recount, and got her elected anyway.

How does that change my approach, that intraparty fighting is counterproductive?

You may recall that us Greens did a LOT of grunt work for Mr. Kerry. And we did and are still doing the grunt work in the train wreck that is Ohio.

Looking back, it was the DLC sponsored decisions that paved my way to the Green party, with the disgraceful abandonment of the CBC -- footage I'm sure you recall -- being the last thing I could tolerate in good conscience.

peace,
B.

/geezus I cannot type

.. from abandoning Al Gore, who is better on enviro issues than any Dem likely to get the nomination.

Politics is always compromise. You never get what you want, but if you get half a loaf, you take it.

If I had to describe my history in the party, the first 12 years were being driven by candidates and issues. Like many, I had causes I wanted to press. But as time passed, I was influenced by what I call the REAL party activists - not just people who affiliate as long as they are happy with the nominees - but those who have transcended all that in favor of being a PARTY devotee.

For over 20 years, I have been a true party activist, one who will support the party, no matter who gets the nod. I would never have chosen Mondale or Dukakis, because I knew both were too liberal to win, but I still worked my ass off for them and their tickets.

Every major election comes down to which side has their cause activists best in tow. If ours bail out, like in 2000, Bush gets the presidency and all sorts of evil follows. Why? Because Gore wasn't left enough? That simply defies logic.

I've been a part of this drama for over 30 years, and in the early years, I was one who didn't like those guys in those smoke-filled rooms. Well, time passes and when you get into those rooms, you don't feel like you're doing anything more than getting Dems elected the best way you can.

Everyone is a critic, especially in the Dem party.

Yes! Some of us even have degrees in criticism. lol

Re Gore: The logic works like this for me in my limited understanding. The DLC had some notion of using the successful Thug PR tactics. But, that involved doing uglies in service of PR -- like not wanting to press the issue in 2000.

Am I wrong on this point?

I will work with the Devil and all his minions to get these people out of power. But, I just don't see them working where it would really count -- against the voting machines for example. Until we really engage that, progressives are toast. And there was Donna Brizille, issuing a ridiculous report that took none of it seriously, that was essentially a place holder, a sop.

My grampa was a habitue of smoke filled rooms, a successful one. That doesn't bother me much. Not with these stakes.

As a conservative democrat, I'm alarmed by the number of people who say they won't vote in '08 unless the party nominates someone left of Marx.

If you look at his programs (and overlook some of his flaky language) Dennis Kucinich's economic and social positions are pretty much a duplicate of the fellow who you honor in your user name, FDR.

Howard Dean, to the left of Marx? Surely you jest.

Ralph Nader has become a kook personally, but his positions on issues are nothing but traditional Democratic Libral Populism.

Maybe Joe Lieberman is the one you are referring to as left of Marx. That makes as much sense as your general labeling.

Hold on to the night, Dems!

He was here two years, then he disappeared.

I'm a Groucho man, myself.

I'm a Democrat. I vote for whom I want in office, I read things with health skepticism regardless of the source. I think the DLC vs. non-DLC is sometimes fueled by people who aren't not democrats at all. But, I know enough to tell you all that this stupid infighting is guaranteeing that we'll never get power back in D.C. Republicans may suck, but at least they're united.

A little over 20 years ago, in the wake of the 1984 Mondale beatdown, short, fat, balding Al From created a group he and the founders called "The Democratic Leadership Council."

In 1972, the new Dem rules blew the smoke-filled rooms away and made party activists the power in the party. By 1984, some of the elected officials in moderate and conservative states felt the national Dem party was killing them every 4 years. Those elected officials lined up to join the new DLC in 1985.

The DLC helped produce Clinton and Gore.

As time passed, the party progressives and activists came to resent the DLC, for a variety of reasons, principal among them the practice they have of taking corporate money from anyone.

I'm a yellow dog. I don't care if you go home and slap your mother, just vote the straight Dem ticket first. I say we take EVERYONE. We've gotten our asses kicked majorly. Time to wise up and stop the extremely wasteful intraparty warfare.

The problems is, if you want a democratic party, how can you not want party activists? The party "leaders", once in power, HATE grass-roots activism, and do everything in their power to thwart it. If WE rule, how can they? Hence the dilemma. Some of us who dislike the DLC do so BECAUSE they are enemies of grass-roots democratic rule; and of course our politics are to the left of theirs too. That is also why we like Mr. Dean, he is trying to open things up.

So to clarify, we don't like the DLC because they are elitists, with them self-appointed as the elite, rather than servants of the public will.

Just my 2c.

It takes both sides to win, and forging that coalition on election day is always the tricky part. I always wonder "which part will stay home or flake out?"

Will it be the elderly, the hispanics, the gays, the blacks, the feminists, the conservatives, the business types, the atheists, the labor types, the vegans, the peta devotees? Who will bail and how badly will they bail?

I wrote a cartoon about this a couple of months ago, but it wasn't funny so I stuck it in my NEIL LISST LOST COMICS file. But I have written another one that IS funny. And it will run next week.

See, this DLC v. NOT DLC debate finally moved me to write something on it, something I think the DLC haters will absolutely LOVE!! Hey, I'm looking for laughs. I'll defend them as part of the big tent, but I'll still skewer them. If you want to hate Al From, get in line behind me. I was here first.

They attack "outsiders" like Mr. Dean in egregious ways.
And you can always start a yelling contest here with a pro
or anti-DLC topic.

But it is notable that Mr. Dean chooses not to reply in kind.
And we should probalby ignore them for the most part as well,
while taking care the keep the reins of power from their hands.

The right did to him what they did to Bill Maher when he made his comment following the 9/11 attacks.

That scream really did him in, because we are a nation that loves bloopers and out takes.

They are basically a bunch of congressional party hacks, who care far more about themselves than either the american people or winning Presidential elections.

If he had not "screamed" the state propaganda organs would have found something else. He was not attacked for what he did, but for who he was, i.e. a candidate not beholden to the national party hacks.

Instead we got Kerry, and while I like Kerry, he ran the worst campaign since Mondale, and still won, and then would not fight for it.

But I did nothing to favor any candidate in the primaries. I believe in the process, and the process is a gauntlet that shapes the successful pol who will win the nomination.

I thought Kerry did a bad job running his campaign from the convention on, and I was also unhappy that he chose to stand down instead of fight over Ohio and Florida. I am particularly upset about his sitting on 10-15 mil of money he was given to run THEN, not NOW. I consider that a serious breach of faith.

I will oppose him as the party's nominee in 2008. He broke faith with all who gave time and all who gave money.

I was sorely disappointed when Kerry walked away from making the challenges. I've studied all the reports done, and my conclusion is that Ohio was definitely stolen, and Florida was probably stolen.

We have to stop these damn paperless machines or all this effort will be for naught.

Getting a paper trail for every vote should be our priority, and it would be if John "reporting for doody" Kerry had done what he owed his supporters in November of 2004. I'd support Gore over Kerry in a heartbeat, because Al fought. Kerry decided it was best for HIM personally to not fight, thinking that would give him the position to run in 2008. Guess again, you unphotogenic prick! You're done in this party as a presidential candidate.

I'm a yellow dog. I don't care if you go home and slap your mother, just vote the straight Dem ticket first. I say we take EVERYONE. We've gotten our asses kicked majorly. Time to wise up and stop the extremely wasteful intraparty warfare.

I am certain that we all agree many of the most important issues - like Budget priorities for example. Our common ground is far greater than our differences.

Everything else is way back there.

As a party, we have failed our country by our party divisiveness. We must have one of the three listed in my Subject line to do our job. The whole mess we are living today is rooted in this imbalance.

With just one house of congress, we would have the ability to turn the WH upside down, to answer for all their lies. Right now, we have layers of foxes guarding the hen house.

I'm completely focused on the short term goal of our winning either the House or the Senate. Since we're a number of seats back in the Senate, and only a third of them are UP in 2006, the HOUSE is our best bet.

We must run qualified candidates in House races and properly fund them. To get there, I'll take anybody.

:toast:

First we WIN, then we fight with each other over who runs things!

yourself from your opponent.

Voters want to know what you have to offer them that will make their lives better, not what kinds of mealy-mouthed position papers on "free" trade and censoring video games you can put out.

Voters don't want pissy leftists in office, period. They want centrists.

It's that attitude that kills Dems every two years, not your allergic reaction to economic issues.

And voters don't want leftists?

Ask the Minnesota farmers and VFW types who voted for Paul Wellstone.

Ask the Oregon lumberjacks and fishermen who vote for Bush--and for Peter DeFazio.

Ask the blue collar workers in Ohio who vote for Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur.

Ask the residents of poor areas of Minneapolis where Dennis Kucinich won the caucus votes.

We get a Wellstone and a Kucinich ONLY where their constituencies allow it. The problem is you hate democracy. You can't stand it that people who disagree strongly with you on almost every issue are the majority in this country, and always will be.

It's not some sell-out. It's representative democracy at work, and it doesn't pick a Kucinich often. That is because the population knows what it believes, and it believes different from you, hence, it elects officials you find repugnant.


If there is one myth that our left most party members simply love to promote, it's the one that says we aren't far enough to the left, if only we would get over there in Eugene Debs territory. It's a myth, a fairy tale told around WTO protest campfires.

:shrug:

Yeah, okay, if you want to believe that I hate democracy, I can't stop you.

It's been real.

... then you don't respect representative democracy. Every congressperson, evey Senator, is the best judge of what will get a Dem elected in their area. It's the height of arrogance to condemn elected Dems because they don't agree with your views, IF they represent their constituencies appropriately.

Too many on our side feel that all elected officials who are Dems should agree on every major point. Bull. Every elected official has a duty to represent his or her constituency the way they want to be represented. If they do that, they're doing their job, even if it's voting for war, against abortion, for free trade.

THAT is the way it's done.

Happy Holidays.

:hi:

King Lear

Ok, I changed "bastards" to "Democrats."

:)

continually since 1981 by not standing up to Republican attacks on farmers, organized labor, the poor, and everyone else who's not a corporate contributor.

When you sit over to one side, confident it's the OTHER 90% of the populace to the right of you that is confused, you relegate yourself to being a nonfactor in the party.

The Democratic party is NEVER going to be what those who speak as you do want it to be. You want a Dem party that has never existed, and never will. It's a small part of the party that constantly wants to enforce its dogma on anyone else who is a Dem. Of course, those are also the ones who jump ship and vote Green.

Why do you think the Democrats who are elected as Democrat know less than you about what the Democratic party is? I've never understood why individuals who have never run and seldom done more than grunt work for the party think they know how to get elected. It's NOT done by running to the left, except in a handful of urban areas.

But I know that won't stop you. No, everyone to the left of Kucinich thinks he or she is the moral compass that we all should follow off the cliff.

stand up to Reagan on some very important issues.

Apparently it's more important to you to try to convince other Dems that Americans are 90% Republican at heart, and if we can't lick 'em, we'd better join 'em so that "our" set of Beltway socialites can run the country instead of theirs.

It's important to me to try to convince other Dems to get down off their high horses and stop trying to make every Democrat follow their views.

The elected officials have more right to define what a proper Democrat is than one who is not elected to anything.

It's too bad you have such a comical view of politics. I love those lines you used. They always make me laugh when I hear someone who hates most of the party inveighing against everyone in the party who doesn't have a tattoo of Che.

hardly know where to begin, you have ridiculed my heartfelt concerns, and you seem to think that only DLCers have the right to "make every Democrat follow (your) views." That what you ARE saying, isn't it? "The Beltway Boys know best. You activists out in the sticks are useful idiots to be called on when we need money (especially money!) or door knockers, but otherwise, you can just shut up and accept whatever turgid position paper we churn out and whatever ways we cave in to the Republicans or allow them to frame the debate."

It's not about me. It's about a lot of activists, who gave money and volunteered for countless hours for Kerry, being belittled because we see the Democratic party as too concerned with, as the saying goes, "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

I've been on DU since February 2001, and I have never before put anyone on Ignore, but I'm going to make an exception in your case, because I refuse to argue with anyone who argues like a Republican.

to name a handful of progressive Dems I've helped win important races. Or are you going to call those people Republicans, too?

I know that life is easier when you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican.

I'll be with the party in 2006 and 2008, no matter who the nominees are. Can you say the same? Or will you turn GREEN if you don't get your way in the primaries?

I actually LIKE Tom Harkin, Lloyd Doggett, Ann Richards, and Jim Hightower.

They are PRECISELY the types of Dems I like.

So what are we arguing about?

I want more Tom Harkins and fewer Joe Bidens. I want Dems to stand up for the common people and never cave in to the Republicans unless it's one of those rare instances when the Republicans aren't taking the country to hell in a handbasket. Is that so much to ask?

but still somehow,

it's politicians' illusions I recall ....

(Judy Collins tip of hat)

That's my way of saying that I've argued before that the big wigs and the fat cats and the country club Democrats need their asses kicked. But in the end, I'll take whoever gets us past 50%. If that's being a whore, then roll me over. I want to win.

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

I want to get the best candidates elected we can get elected. I think Al From is a toad, but he's a toad I can live with if he helps us win ANY elections.

When it comes to the Party, I feel like dad driving in the front seat, and the kids are the various warring factions in the party. Someone's always yelling about someone else and what they're doing.

Next week I will have some cartoons that address this very topic, and I think they'll be more progressive than you might have imagined. I'll be discussing the DLC, their corporate sponsorships, and the disdain with which some in the party hold them.

My very first post on this thread was an admonition to the original poster that he shouldn't be starting trouble with in-your-face attitudes.

You haven't been watching the polls concerning control of congress in 2006, have you?

http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm

Thanks a bunch oh airborne pasta ogre!

God forbid! It might challenge your ideas. :eyes:

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

I hate to post a me too, well mabye not, but its great these threads serve some purpose, to grow my ignore list!

I think what you're saying makes a great deal of sense, and I'm also very impressed indeed by the fact that you managed to post something longer than three paragraphs which wasn't a rant - it's civil, well-reasoned and persuasive - which is, depressingly, practically the first time I've seen that happen on DU. Don't let the idiots flaming you get you down.

And for those who disagree, always remember, the people we need to argue to are the ones who *don't* already agree with us.

Hmmm--also continuing a flame war from another thread, calling out a DUer by name, and characterizing an entire subset of DUers as "kneejerk."

Terrific.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Have a cold one on me.

:toast:

IS scattered at best by now. Partisan rivalry, factionalized loyalty and...well, stupidity are most to blame in my eyes. I don't think we necessarily need to have a uniform consensus about who our nominees are for next year, or '08, or the overall philosophy of the party for the future just at the moment, but people DO need to regroup. Stop caring about the non-essential shit for a while. Remember Downing Street? Still there. Remember Conyers? Still needs your support. Alito? Still a threat. FOCUS. We still have a lot of work to do.

at the same time.

I admire many who are DLC inspired, and who are members. But when I stop and look at where we are now, totally out of power...our economy in the toilet as it affects the average man....then I remember their goal when they formed their think tank:

"We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win." (Simon Rosenberg)


I am all for unity, and I respect many who belong. But now the corporations control our country, we are in the middle of a disastrous corporate war in Iraq, and the people are hurting badly.

They need to change more than the checker players need to change.

Can you say flamebait anyone? Very irresponsible of the OP and not nice. :(

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

It was a great post. Is there a rule about having to respond to every idiotic follow-up?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He didn't respond to anyone there either. For that matter, did you read the original post in this thread? His complaint was that DUers refused to enter discussions with DLCers in that original thread. And yet it was ConservativeDem who actually refused to enter discussions in both that thread and this one.

Furthermore, if you read the original thread you will find that only one post rejected his point solely because it was from a DLC source. All others argued the point. Many included a tossed off "Typical DLC" or something, but they DID argue the point.

For that matter, he received more POSTIVE replies than negatives. Of course, he only got a total of 23 replies to the original post. So even if they had all been negative, it was not exactly the piling on that he seems to be making it out to be here.

So, yes, this appears to be nothing more than flamebait.

He was saying listen to the DLC's arguments before you slam them. Didn't strike me as flame bait.

Posting flamebait then not replying to ONE SINGLE post is out of line. You say "who cares" now, but if it were the other way around, with a DLC-hater as the original poster saying conservative Dems are the problem and then not responding, I bet you'ld have a problem then. I know your type and I've seen your posts - It's either your way or the highway right Mr. Dawson? Whatever dude.

Thank you!

Some might say, downright counterproductive.

For example, someone will post a link to a CapitalHillBlue article that claims something like "Secret documents show Bush is planning to seek a third term - by force if necessary", and almost immediately, there's a bunch of responses from people who actually believe it. "See, I told you he would try to pull something like this," etc., etc.

It's generally the left who buys into and perpetuates the conspiracy theories that turns sensible discussions into something that you might hear on Art Bell's "Coast To Coast".

Name calling while purporting to lecture on critical thinking and mannerly discussion is actually comical.

And from the left, I can assure you that your generalization would not hold water were it a sieve.

"Idiot", "fool", "freeper", etc. That is namecalling.

In general, it's a mistake to walk on eggshells and behave in a ridiculous PC manner when trying to put the finger on the kind of problem discussed by the OP. Best to call it what it is, directly.

the fast track to consensus, as this thread demonstrates.

I am also a member of the reality based community.

There are many ways to put across the same message without being condescending and offensive.

If you or CD want, I will delineate them for you. It's nothing to do with PCness and everything to do with effective communication.

Do you routinely consider common courtesy "walking on eggshells"?

Intentionally disruptive?

of our intentions. :)

the "Reality Based Community", inferring that the rest of us here (or, judging by your tone, at least most of us here) are not.

Smug much?

First, this is DU, not the floor of Congress. This is where we rant, rave, and flame. I consider that the second most important function DU serves (the first most important is a place to gather information), providing a place for a gather of mostly like-minded a people a place to vent.

But lets get to the meat of your post. Yes, I loath the DLC. Can't stand them, want them gone, the sooner the better. Not because I think all their proposals are bad. I'd agree with you that would be silly to blanketly refuse anything they propose just because. A few things they have proposed are excellent.

But being right occasionally does not mitigate the fact that they are usually wrong, frequently disastrously so. I think most here at DU were like me. I didn't like a lot of the policies the DLC presented. I didn't like that they seemed to be overly cozy with the business lobby. But so what, I don't expect to agree with every Democrat 100%, as long as we are moving in the same basic direction, thats fine.

When I started to loath the DLC is when they started trying to drag the whole frelling party to the right with them! When they started to really piss me off is when they started going off in the press against members of THEIR OWN PARTY!! And with more frequency and vehemence than they criticized the administration!!! :mad: That is when I, and I think most here at DU, got fed up with the DLC and decided that the party was better off without them!

I'm glad to have a wide range of voices in the party. I like a healthy debate. But I can not conscience the actions of much of the DLC's membership. Particularly now that they are cozying up with the PNAC!!! They do not speak for me, or my party. It's past time they were exposed publicly for the malignancy that they are.

As for Murtha's education proposal, it sounds fantastic (not having studied it in detail). It sounds like something I would be proud to support. But I WILL NOT support the DLC, just because they supported one good idea, out of so many poor ones, and amids such reprehensible behavior.

The report indicates that the people they are not talking to, who have no voice in the plans, are the people on the front-lines, the educators--real educators not those cozied in Washington offices.

I teach in a very rural, and a very poor school. Every student in my school has their own computer that they take home at night. We are tech cutting edge. Our problem is not tech savvy youth, our problem is humping along with plans laid out by those politicians who think that money is the answer and running education like a business is the best cure.

They haven't a friggin clue. Not one.

Thank you DLC for voting for NCLB and pretending that you're making a difference.:sarcasm:

No one has ever told me why we need a party inside the Democratic party. What is the DLC afraid of: mingling with the unwashed masses?

And in '08.

:banghead:

if it is to challenge each other with well thought out opinions and gain a greater plurality (plurality which is by the way the essence of liberalism-not being pro choice) of views on issues important to our country. When its nothing but hurling shibboleths and flaming people for disagreeing with sacred cows, it is not productive, and BTW is very Coulterlike....

Where does thumb amputation for people found guilty of graffiti lie in your estimation?

A shibboleth or a sacred cow?

schools and the Pentagon. Kudos to Murtha for calling for more education funds, sure, but at what cost?

As for DU reaction to our dear friends at the DLC - go gripe at the ones who started this fight.

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

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

The rest resulted from this thread's resurrection of the original post of Murtha's 5 year old essay.

This thread was started in Editorials and moved here.

...anger, and then use that anger to pursue/promote their political points of view while disparaging all other political points of view?

Are you really telling us that the Left must continue to be meek and submissive, as we have since the end of the Vietnam War, for fear that someone will call us names?

By all means, let's continue to turn our collective cheeks, the ones that have been slapped down to the bare bone for the last twenty years. Let's all try not to upset anyone by being angry about what's being done to our country by the fascist NeoCon Junta.

DLC, democrats

my mind is spinning.
:popcorn:

... that anger isn't going to win anyone over, this board is not a venue for winning anyone over anyway.

I'd just ask you this - let's say that George Bush floated a proposal. He got on TV and spewed his usual happy shit talk that, on the surface sounded fine, nothing you would disagree with.

But wait. You've seen George Bush in action before. You know that 99% of the time he proposes ANYTHING, when you get to the fine print you find that he's merely wrapping another giveaway to the rich in some sort of palatable clothing.

So, at some point - you just don't want to hear his bullshit any more, you don't trust him and you are tired of getting taken.

I'm not necessarily claiming that the DLC is analogous to Bush, but I wouldn't rule it out either.