Third Way; Six Dem Senators and From form Senate Advisory Board

We should keep up on the shifting pockets of power and alliances like these. From and some of these Senators have held positions on progressive issues that are unimpressive.

Landreau is one that has exhibited a taste for the fight- in the overnighter on judges she held her ground, dramatically refusing to yield the floor three times. Her last reelection was a good fight; smart and sure, under direct bushie assault. And she has a good handle on treating the enlisted military well, which I approve of, as long as space sized defense programs aren't part of the bargain.

I'm not very familiar with Pryor, but I seem to recall him stepping up to the plate frequently, as well.

The others are Bayh, Lincoln, Carper and Salazar- partnered with Al From, "Reforming and Rebranding Progressives to Build a "Moderate Majority" in America":

America is a nation divided that has drifted sharply to the right. Middle class voters increasingly are supporting the conservative agenda, on both economic and cultural grounds. This profound change in the political landscape has entrenched conservative control in Washington and, unless progressives can seize the center and fashion a "moderate majority," threatens to keep them in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

Two factors have contributed to the decline of progressives: First, we are losing the war of ideas to conservatives — particularly the ideas that capture the imagination of middle-income families. Second, progressives have allowed conservatives to define and capture the cultural center. Progressives are now regarded by a significant percentage of Americans as wedded to old dogmas and out of touch with mainstream values.
...
Third Way was conceived and developed in close cooperation with Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Mr. From, who pioneered progressive centrist thinking in the 1980s and helped forge the Clinton presidency's governing philosophy in the 1990s, is committed to helping Third Way become an effective and aggressive advocate for progressive centrist principles in the Senate.

http://www.third-way.com/overview/

"Rebranding" may be a good idea (tho it's distasteful, imo, to use advertising terms about things that are basic to the public good -and I disagree entirely that our "old dogmas" (read: PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE) are "out of touch with mainstream values". But this alliance will create a pocket of power that could either help the dem image or erode it further.

I have a hunch that this group will have "traditional" funding available to them:

http://www.third-way.com/action/

Lobbying to Promote New Ideas: Third Way is not simply an idea factory or another think-tank. Indeed, we spend time on the nuts and bolts of promoting these initiatives, helping move our policy ideas through the Senate. We engage in some traditional lobbying, seeking out co-sponsors and support for the legislation in other offices. In addition, we do grassroots lobbying, through public education projects. This work helps explain to the public the importance of our legislation (or the dire need to stop right-wing initiatives or nominees that we might be fighting). Finally, we help move (or stop) legislation with “grasstops” work, finding crucial supporters and community leaders who can weigh in with key Senators in support for (or opposition to) legislation that we are working to pass (or defeat).

And here (also at previous link), it looks like their "playbook" is lifted from their opponents last battle-

Handling Cultural Hot Buttons and the "New South" Project: Election 2004 demonstrated yet again the power and peril of the so-called "cultural" or "wedge" issues like gay marriage, abortion, guns, and religion. Third Way will conduct a series of meetings, conferences, and analysis to help develop a long-term strategy in this area. This work will include drafting and regularly updating a "playbook" on these cultural hot buttons, with new ideas, messaging and other tools that will form a new progressive centrist approach to these issues.

"Progressives"--cause they ain't that.

:eyes:

Rebrand this, Al.

This really pisses me off. These whores for the ruling class are doing their damndest to co-opt OUR word. :grr:

sw

They sure are eager to roll over and get their Good Doggy Bones from the Repugs.

I'm a Liberal, therefore I'm a Democrat!!!!!!!!!

to the War on Iraq and call for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq now, they are just Trojan Horses.To say that the American people have rejecetd our message when a full 49% of the elctorate has voted for us is to make us believe in ghosts.They have no courage, no backbone and would not even participate in any discussion of voting frauds.Yet, they come to us proffering advice on what to do. I suggest that we tell these people to take a hike and let true Democrats lead us.


BTW, who the hell is Al From? How many electoral offices has he won?

but I believe the reverse is true: Clinton himself (personal appeal, political and intellectual genius, tho not without fault) was responsible for any DLC success.

And IMO any possible gain from that is long since over, if it was positive to start with which is highly debatable.

.

voting with Bush over 90% of the time.

Before you spout off, it's a good idea to know what the heck you are talking about.

Let's look at Blanche's voting record:

Americans for the Arts: 100%
National Taxpayers Union (right-wing): 20%
Leadership Conf. on Civil Rights: 89%
NAACP: 88%
Christian Coalition: 16%
Eagle Forum: 11%
NEA: 91%
Nat. School Boards Assoc.: 100%
Children's Defense Fund: 91%
Peace Action: 70%
Friends Committee on Legislation: 78%
Brady Campaign: 77%
IBEW: 73%
UAW: 83%
Boilermakers: 86%
Machinists: 100%
AFSCME: 91%
Americans for Dem. Action: 70%
NCEC: 73%

Project Vote Smart, for the most part.

Didn't everybody say he won on a populist, move left, class warfare type campaign??? Now he's teamed up with Third Way Dems? Too funny. I told people they didn't understand Rocky Mountain Democrats. Leftists DO NOT represent the Democratic Party or the mainstream of America.

They're doing a mighty fine job of it, too. If you like republicans.

Salazar proved that. That was the common wisdom a couple of weeks ago. I'm not supporting the DLC, I'm just saying people who use candidates like Salazar and Schweitzer to prove Dems can win if they move left are full of shit. That's all.

Presdidents Gore and Kerry can attest to that.

Gore did win the popular vote, and would have been president but for the punch-card fiasco (or, frankly, his inexplicable inability to win Tennessee).

Let's not mention Salazar's win in Colorado. Let's ignore the fact that Obama utilized a number of New Democrat themes in his campaign. Let's pretend that Blanche Lincoln didn't crush her Republican opponent in a red state.

...election fraud? It's as if it doesn't exist in their world. They're simply lying when they say America has swung to the right. Yet here you are...a 'new dem'...saying that Gore's populist campaign actually won.

That's the problem with the third wayers....they go in any direction the wind blows them.

See how far that gets you. My point is that Salazar DID NOT run a leftist/liberal campaign like people around here tried to say. You can't use these Democratic wins to promote moving further to the left, have to find a new angle. Kerry and Gore did a hell of alot better than Dem Presidential candidates in the 70's and 80's, that's a fact too. America does not hold the political views of the far left, that's just the way it is.

Kucinich has way too many apostate votes on abortion in his past. Can't pass the litmus tests. Sorry.

The problem with saying that liberals loose because America is a conservative, is that it's not 100% true. When you think of Dukakis, what do you attribute to his loss? Social issues and national security. Bush associated Dukakis with all of the "evils" that were associated with liberalism and beat him on national security. These alone probably would've attributed to a Bush win but it probably would've been much closer. Dukakis' massive PR blunders are probably what gave Bush a landslide. No historian or political strateigist that I know of has ever explained Dukakis' loss by saying, "his healthcare plan was too radical." Kerry's situation was the EXACT same as Dukakis' except Kerry ran a better campaign than Dukakis, hence Bush only won by a small margin and not a landslide like his father. Bush still won on national security and social issues, again, nobody said that Kerry should've been more conservative on fiscal issues.

America is pretty evenly divided on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. The problem is that when Republican voters who would benefit from democratic policies constantly hear, "baby killer, ultra liberal, anti American, weak on national security, etc," they vote for the Republican candidate.

Now, let's look at a winner and how he won. Clinton won the election in '92 because Carville and his other strategists were very good at letting their side define the issues that would be talked about. As Carville put it, "It's the economy Stupid!" He was right, people voted for Clinton because he championed the middle and lower classes and helping them improve their economic status. He won four southern states Louisiana, Tennesee, Arkansas, Georgia, along with semi southern states Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia while championing a woman's right to choose and allowing gays to serve in the military. How did he do this? Because the debate in the 1992 campaign wasn't about gays in the military and abortion. It was about the fact that under George Bush, the middle and lower classes were being cheated out of their chance at the American dream and Clinton was going to fix that. People who were socially conservative overlooked "social issues" because they didn't turn on their television sets every day and hear, "Clinton is an evil gay loving, tree hugging, baby killing liburl."

Fast forward 2 years later to the 1994 congressional elections. Newt Gingrich attributes his victory to the corruption of the democratic congressional leadership and his "Contract with America". This is about the biggest crock of shit ever. Most Americans claimed that they had never heard of the "Contract with America". There are two reasons that the Republicans had a big victory here. One, people were angry with Democrats because they didn't deliver on their promise for healthcare reform. Basically, they were angry with democrats for being too moderate and not passing an agenda that would benefit millions of Americans, and yes this agenda was liberal. With the Democrats having nothing to show and thus no winning issues to campaign on, they left the door wide open for the Republicans to define the agenda for the campaign, and when the Republicans define the agenda, they always define it by talking about... family values. And what was the family values issue in 1994? You guessed it, "we cannot allow those faggots to serve in our armed forces!" Suddenly, Clinton and the Democrats, who were two years ago champions of the common man, were corrupt gay loving, tree hugging, baby killing Washington liburls who wanted to destroy the moral fabric of American society and had gotten into office by promising to help people but failing to deliver on that promise.

Democrats win when we can define the debate. This year, Rove won the define the debate game. Kerry tried to avoid this by running to the center somewhat and agreeing with Bush on a lot of things. But for every compensation that Kerry made, Rove found another way to have Bush yell Terra and Faggots and make Kerry look bad on these issues.

The fact that Bush didn't win a landslide victory like Raygun is actually somewhat remarkable when you think about it. Not only do you have a "hero" wartime president, but the GOP had a great ability to use the element of fear because of 9/11. Bush BARELY squeaked by with 9/11 and if it hadn't been for 9/11 he would've lost in a landslide. It goes to show that America is not "conservative" when it comes to improving the lives of the working and middle classes. A traditional liberal democratic agenda is a winning agenda. It's when we let the GOP paint us as anti family values and weak on national security, that America's conservative side takes over and conservatives win elections.

I never said liberals lose because America is conservative. So I didn't bother to read the rest of your rant when you put words in my mouth with your first sentence.

I said, Salazar didn't win on a leftist/liberal platform. I said leftists are not the mainstream of American politics. Which isn't the same thing as concluding the entire rest of the country are conservative bigots.

There's a wide array of political views between leftist and bigot. It would be helpful if leftists would figure that out.

When you ask where the mainstream of American politics is, you have to determine on what issue. Let's take fair vs. free trade, for example. Free trade is very much a DLC issue and fair trade is very much a leftist issue. Here in Louisiana, a red state BTW, David Vitter, Republican senator-elect, HAD to take a leftist stance in support of fair trade and oppose CAFTA or he would've had his ass handed to him because sugar farmers (who would be hurt by CAFTA) would've voted democratic in mass numbers. Another example, in the third congressional district here, before the Tauzin vs Melancon runoff, there was another Republican named Craig Romero running. Craig Romero's campaign commercials start off with him talking about liberal activist judges are threatening the moral fabric of society then go on to talk about how he is an ultra conservative pro family values candidate. Somewhere in that mess of "I'm a bigger fascist than the other guy, vote for me," there was a little note about how he was against privitizing social security and preserving it. Romero almost beat a better funded and establishment backed Tuazin, who also had the advantage of stupid people thinking that they were voting to re-elect his father. Point being, that keeping social security the way it is, is a leftist issue and a very popular leftist issue, so much so, that even fascist Republicans will support it.

I could name numerous examples, but the point is that much of the popular democratic agenda, like fair trade and social security, doesn't come from the DLC/Third way people, it comes from traditional democratic LEFTISTS.

The problem with the DLC is that the are dismantling the POPULAR part of the democratic agenda and are replacing it with things like welfare reform, free trade, and tax cuts for the rich, all of which are Republican issues and all of which are LOOSING issues, hence the reason that the GOP doesn't talk about them, and they talk about guns, god, and gays instead.

Again, I apologize for the way I phrazed my first sentance in the earlier post. I'm just trying to argue my point that the "leftist" agenda that you seem to think that most Americans shun, is actually quite popular, at least certain aspects of it are.

And being screamed about by alot of people of all political persuasions. No trade is leftist. It's not enough to say anti-NAFTA and let the rest of the world go to hell and stay stuck in complete starvation and poverty. Welfare reform was desired by almost EVERYBODY, including most women on welfare. The main thing opposed by Democrats was time limits, most of the rest of it was long overdue. Many Democrats in western and southern states want tax cuts because they believe it is for their own small business, farms and ranches. They want decreased regulation for the same reason. Those are the people who create their jobs as well. It's what they truly believe. And to an extent, they're right. They just miss the part of the equation where corporations get subsidies they could never dream of getting.

It's just not as simple as leftists, and I use leftist with purpose, believe. When leftists listen to all kinds of Democrats, then they may become liberals and progressives, and then we may get some solutions.

Again, my point is that people like Salazar and Schweitzer did not run on a leftist or liberal platform. My own very liberal Congressman doesn't even run as a liberal. But every time a Democrat tries to frame the issues in a way that will appeal to these voters, the leftists scream DLC and chase away all these people who are voting against their own economic interest.

It isn't even as simple as I'm saying it is, Reaganism has brainwashed alot of people. But we have to start winning and recognizing what people are really saying to win. Pretending people like Salazar and Schweitzer won being liberals is ludicrous. That's the main point I'm trying to make.

"Liberal". However, my main point is that the agenda that you speak of as "populist" is something that self-described moderate and conservative democrats should champion more, if anything, because it is a winning agenda. If democrats in red states run to right on certain things, I don't mind. Take the Oklahoma senate race this year for example (I know this is about the 10th example I've used on this discussion). A lot of people, instantly dismissed Brad Carson as a Zell Miller clone. But when you consider that it is Oklahoma, a very dark red state, the idea of putting somebody like Brad Carson in the US Senate from that state seems pretty appealing, especially when his opponent is a hompophobic douche bag like Tom Coburn. Yes he's pro Iraq war, yes he's pro gun, and I think that he was for restrictions on abortion. I can live with all of that, because he's running in Oklahoma. However, what people like Brad Carson SHOULD do is preach an economic agenda which you describe as "populist". The leaders of the DLC, which are basically Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, and Al From, don't preach a "populist" agenda and that is why liberals are always up in arms when democratic senators decide to identify with the DLC.

Again, I know nothing about the Colorado senate race, and really nothing about where Salazar fits on the political compas and whether he ran a liberal or a moderate campaign. So basically, I'll let him start casting votes in the Senate before I make any judgement about him.

One of the six mentioned in the Third Way post, Third Way being DLC. Which was what I responded to. Just two weeks ago Salazar was some kind of proof Democrats could win running to the left, now he connects up with Third Way. And yet you insist on believing these candidates can win running left when you don't even know what they did to win. Left, by the way, isn't populist. And the left doesn't own progressive or liberal politics either, they don't even own the correct solution to every problem. Criticizing US aid because people in huts might be happy that way, is just one example. I guarantee they can be just as happy with running water and enough food to eat every day. The idea that they should be left alone rather than be tainted with US anything is pretty stupid in my book. I'm really tired of rigid politics wherever it comes from, and it's not liberal, progressive or populist.

His main criticism of Pete KKKoors on their Meet The Press debate was that Coors wasn't homophobic enough. Yeah, some liberal :eyes:

Some people are just never left enough for the leftists. Not liberals, not progressives, not populists, LEFTISTS. I guess you missed the articles that the west had the answers for the Democratic Party and that wins in Colorado and Montana proved Democrats could win without running centrist campaigns.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8917


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-20.htm



there were some big threads on both of these a few weeks ago.

I didn't read them thoroughly (I'm getting tired), but I think sometimes labels get in the way.

Since I live in Colorado and have good friends in Montana, I'm going to go out on a limb somewhat. The "right" or "left" or "centrist" arguments get muddled pretty fast because so much has changed in national and local politics. Both the Montana governor's race and the Salazar win were due to some smart politics and some incredible support, both nationally and locally--but primarily locally. I know Salazar got money from DLC, but he also got support from DFA. He is hugely popular in Colorado, especially recently because he saved us from a pretty nasty gerrymandering attempt on the part of the right wing. DFA money also went to the Montana governor's race.

You could call some of these decisions "progressive"--or not. They were just smart in that they involved a lot of local activity and input.

He really seems to be going out of his way to bash the DLC, based on some pretty flimsy reasoning.

I'm completely ok with both the DLC and the DFA helping to get Democrats elected.

Especially here in Colorado!

I can't tell what you mean by leftist, liberal, populist, moderate, or third way anymore, so I'm just gonna quit. And BTW I have no problem with non-military foreign aid, most liberals champion it.

not even the most radical of the radical leftists. Okay, maybe North Korea is no trade, but the furniture I see in pictures from there looks a lot what I saw in China, so maybe not even them.

Kucinich was widely branded as a "no trade" advocate by the corporate wing of the Democratic Party (when they condescended to mention him at all), but he was for replacing NAFTA (and the CAFTA and other broad regional proposals) with bilateral trade agreements that include environmental and labor protections.

Well said. I don't understand why the democratic politicians can't see this is what is happening. The biggest compliant I heard about John Kerry from people who voted for Bush was that he was wishy washy on Iraq and they felt he'd say anything to win. But at least with George Bush you new were he stood on the issues.

Chaning your stance on whether a war was worth it or not when you learn that there were no WMD's which is the reason that you supported the war in the first place is by no means flip-flopping. The problem is that he had bad strategists who allowed the GOP smear machine to define him as a flip-flopper. He didn't have people explaining to him that he was giving complicated answers to a simple question. What his people should've told him to say, is yes I supported the war because the President told me that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. So no, I don't think that it was a good idea to go into Iraq because THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION like we were told.

Salazar won that way. He's centrist. I was awfully glad that he got Nighthorse Campbell's old seat.

BUT--he's going to hear from me about this. From is the kiss of death, from all I've read about the guy. He doesn't represent most Dems at all, let alone Dems west of the Ohio River (let alone the Mississippi)...

He represents enough Coloradans to win. Maybe you'd do better to focus your attention on changing the minds of the people of Colorado or coming up with solutions that Coloradans would get behind. Then you could run a more liberal Democrat the next time, or Salazar could more easily move left. The people have to change before the candidates can.

I don't understand what From should have to do with anything, frankly.

Salazar clearly ran as a moderate/conservative Democrat. he attacked his Republican opponent for OPPOSING the death penalty. he also favors some restrictions on abortion rights. and he was always talking about his religion and values. he also stayed away from Kerry for much of the campaign because Kerry is seen by many as too liberal and Salazar didn't want to be associated with him.

Salazar was helped by the fact that Coors lost some conservative support due to his opposition to death penalty, his support for lowering the legal drinking age, and his companies support of gay rights. so some conservatives ended voting for Bush and Salazar.

I was referring to articles that tried to paint these guys as more liberal than they were. And some here on DU that said Kerry would have won if he'd run a more liberal campaign like these western Democrats did. They pick one liberal stance, like a quote on the environment or something, and ignore everything else. They did the exact opposite to Kerry, pick one thing that isn't totally left, and ignore every other thing he did in his lifetime. It irritates the hell out of me.

Pete Coors?

He's not an elected official, and he tends to try and play kingmaker. A lot of the support for these candidates came from their states, and rightfully so. I sincerely hope that Salazar isn't doing this out of some kind of payback for the support he got from the DLC.

that a lot of liberals voted for him, too.

Hey - I write Allard all the time, maybe Ken will send me back something other than a form letter!

Above all, Landrieu comes from a political family and is a career politician. It's very obvious that winning comes first for her. Landrieu will often vote for some things that I find disgusting, but of course they are popular in a red state like Louisiana. On the other hand, she does sometimes remember her democratic roots and does several things that I like to see. I don't mind her as my senator, especially since Louisiana just elected Puke Vitter, but I would never support her for national office. She's too concerned about her own political career and she's also pretty much a lightweight.

NT

<crickets chirping softly in the distance>

But he was also a corrupt sack of shit, so it's a two edged sword.

I'd say a third way sounds pretty damn attractive.

what *is* the DU agenda?

I'd say the DU agenda includes (1) immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, (2) sharply reducing the size of the military, (3) ending our alliance with Isreal, (4) removing all sanctions against the Castro regime, (5) eliminating all references to God or religion in public life, and (6) eliminating all legal restrictions on access to abortion.

Adopting a policy of economic isolationism (aka protectionism);
Imposing litmus tests upon every Democratic candidate (except Dean);
Apologizing for dictatorial thugs if they spout lefty rhetoric

people who think that there are values other than guaranteeing high returns for shareholders.

"Apologizing for dictatorial thugs" can refer only to to those of us who are puzzled as to why Castro is considered uniquely evil and deserving of everlasting sanctions while the dicatatorial thugs who spout "business-friendly" rhetoric (China) are just fine

It's really threatening when people think beyond conventional wisdom, isn't it?--especially when those of us who were against the Iraq War were correct in our predictions of disaster.

"Apologizing for dictatorial thugs" can refer only to to those of us who are puzzled as to why Castro is considered uniquely evil and deserving of everlasting sanctions while the dicatatorial thugs who spout "business-friendly" rhetoric (China) are just fine

Yup.

It's really threatening when people think beyond conventional wisdom, isn't it?--especially when those of us who were against the Iraq War were correct in our predictions of disaster.

Yup again.

having fewer interventions and less military influence on our foreign policy is a BAD thing!

I follow Robert Kennedy in thinking, "I see things the way they could be and ask 'Why not?'"

that a large number of DU'ers, quite possibly a majority, wholeheartedly embrace pacifism as a central component of American foreign policy.

Because that is exactly the foreign policy that the war criminals in PNAC, and the war criminal wannabees in DLC/PPI, are supporting right now!

No more Iraqs!

Sorry, but just because you believe that the only alternative to pacifism is global armageddon does not make it so.

to people that hold views similar to yours? We all know that war doesn't work. Just look at how many have died thanks to Bush/Cheney, and all the other war enablers from both parties that voted for the Iraq War Resolution. What was all that for? Why did we have to unleash such savagery? Our thirst for war has been repaid in kind, and will continue to do so until we choose to turn the instruments of war into plowshares!

Ok, so you thought that World War II was a waste of time. I suppose you thought the Korean War was a waste of time too, and that we'd have been better off letting North Korea invade South Korea. I suppose you thought it was foolish of JFK to make it perfectly clear that American forces would remove the nuclear weapons from Cuba by force if the Soviets didn't. After all, if war doesn't work, then it makes no sense to threaten war either. I suppose you thought we should never have pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I suppose you disagreed with the decision to send troops into Afghanistan.

One of the reasons the Democratic Party is so ineffective when it comes to challenging Bush's policy in Iraq is because so many Democrats are so deadset against the use of force under ANY circumstances that they have absolutely no credibility with the American public.

Unfortunately, Dolestein, that's exactly what some of these characters are advocating. It's the return of the Henry Wallace crowd.

or even a whole region, I'll say military intervention is fine, but only if the regional allies agree to it. Note that the entire Arab world was against the Iraq invasion. If they didn't feel threatened, why should we?

But the Vietcong, the FMLN, the Sandinistas, Castro, Maurice Bishop, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Lebanese factions, the factions in the Dominican Republic, and the Haitians were not trying to take over the world. In those cases, we should have minded our own damn business.

So you agree that it was wise to defer to Neville Chamberlain's judgement regarding the threat Adolf Hitler posted to Western Europe?

Implicit in your assessment is the view that America would be better off letting other countries decide what is in our national security interest. While you are hardly the only Democrat who believes that, I don't think it is a view that the majority of Americans would embrace.

In my lifetime, it's been whatever the military-industrial complex thinks is necessary to ensure American economic hegemony. Tens of thousands of young Americans and millions in other countries have died essentially to keep the world safe for major corporations or, more recently, to satisfy Bushboy's ego.

And your sense of WWII history is off, dolstein. Neville Chamberlain had nothing to do with U.S. reluctance to enter the war. At the time that Chamberlain made his notorious "peace in our time" statement, the U.S. was still consumed with its own domestic problems, and while Churchill was against Chamberlain's policies and was already in correspondence with Roosevelt, most people in the U.S. were still feeling "burned" by how World War I had turned out, and there would have been no popular support for intervention in Europe before 1941. I dare say that if Roosevelt had intervened in Europe unilaterally in 1938 or 1939, Wendell Willkie would have won the presidency in 1940.

After this Iraq fiasco, I think we should all seriously consider repealing the "Commander-in-Chief" Clause in the Constitution. It has been abused by Presidents seeking to get around the Constitution.

Along those lines, WWII was good. We were attacked by an imperial power allied with the most evil regime in history.

Korea was wrong! Truman should have gone to Congress and gotten a Declaration of War. Instead, Truman paved the way for other "undeclared wars" such as Greece (under Truman), Vietnam, Lebanon (under Ike and Reagan), Panama (under Bush I), etc.

BTW, the Cuban Missile Crisis was totally contrived by Kennedy and was a disproportionate response to the Soviet's response to the US own aggressive moves against the USSR.

...the Krushchev Wing of the Democratic Party!

And we wonder why people have doubts about our ability to handle national security issues.:eyes:

and not the propaganda you were probably fed in our glorious educational system.

Start with Truman's intervention in Greece, on the side of a pro-Nazi faction, under the pretext of protecting the Greeks from the evil "Stalinists."

Same pretext was used by Truman and Eisenhower for their intervention in Vietnam, and by Ike for putting the Shah back in power in Iran, and toppling the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

As to your characterization of progressive views as the the Krushchev Wing of the Democratic Party, it is the typical propaganda line of discredited Cold Warriors such as Joe Biden and Gary Hart.

<< . . . it is the typical propaganda line of discredited Cold Warriors such as Joe Biden and Gary Hart.>>

Geez, get a load of this! IG actually considers Joe Biden and Gary Hart to be representative of the "cold warrior" wing of the party. Newsflash -- Gary Hart managed George McGovern's presidential campaign in 1972, which repudiated the tough foreign policy of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. And sorry, Joe Biden's no Scoop Jackson.

Pretty soon you'll be telling us that Dennis Kucinish is a centrist.

the interventions in Iran and other places, which is the substance of her remarks.

of sending troops around the world for every reason and no reason hasn't exactly been a roaring success, not to mention all the people killed unnecessarily and all the money wasted that could be better put to use improving this country and helping the world's poor.

I developed an antipathy to unilateral military intervention during the Vietnam era, and NOTHING I've seen in the intervening years has changed my mind. In fact, this Iraq debacle has only strengthened those feelings.

One of the worst aspects of American culture is the equation of patriotism and militarism.

I'd go for variations on the rest - not end our alliance with Israel, but look for an equitable peace in the ME; and clearly mark the boundary between church and state and defend it against all attempts at theocracy.

So radical, I know. :silly:

That'll win LOTS of elections.

:eyes:

You will receive a rude awakening when you realize just how out-of-touch much of what passes for rhetoric around here actually is in the real world.

a platform of de-emphasizing militarism, using the savings (remember the peace dividend, which was squandered in further military adventures?) to do something constructive domestically (living wage jobs rebuilding the domestic infrastructure), and concrete proposals (as opposed to vague promises) for keeping jobs in the U.S., your assertions are just as theoretical as ours. Maybe more so, since the past two elections, which should have been landslides, given the pathetic candidate the Republicans put up, were much closer than they would have been with a more appealing platform.

You're probably correct in saying that the Beltway types and the corporate board members would hate a more populist platform, but so what? Whose country is this supposed to be, anyway?

Sorry, but the suggestion that the Democrats have never run on such a platform is flagrantly untrue. The fact is, we HAVE run these kinds of campaigns, and we've gotten destroyed.

using the "peace dividend" to rebuild the infrastructure? They ran on platforms of preventing job exports?

Gee, I would have been on the front lines volunteering if I'd known that. :eyes:

Sorry, but this isn't exactly breaking news.

your analysis of McGovern and Mondale being "too liberal" does not make sense.

I'm not going to go through it again.

However, I've yet to hear a convicing argument that the liberalism of George McGovern and Walter Mondale in no way contributed to their historic landslide defeats.

explanations I have given countless times.

McGovern: Eagleton affair, portrayed as "hippie candidate" in media to the extent that few people knew of his economic platform, reaction to the social changes of the 1960s, Nixon was promising a "plan" to end the war anyway and was more liberal on the social front than the current DLC

Mondale: ran the second lousiest campaign of my lifetime against Mr. Congeniality. Once he said, "I'm going to raise your taxes," that sound bite was played over and over, and he never did anything to counteract it. Seemed wooden against the relaxed Reagan. I cringed through that whole campaign and asked myself if the Dems had been bribed to throw the election, a question I asked myself once again after the first lousiest campaign of my lifetime in 1988.

Show me a true liberal who's a halfway decent campaigner, and then we can talk about the broad appeal of economically liberal positions.

and every fuck who has said that's the way to go comes to the rude awakening that there are no longer any people willing to answer the phones, walk the precincts, or donate cash to the fucks who pass for Democrats these days.

i just love self appointed advisors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1450826

Same author and opportunity to actually help the liberal cause.

The third-way movement's work now would either be to stay with the democratic agenda it's established or it should be called the fourth-way.

way. It's official. I am the butt of a cosmic joke.

"Middle class voters increasingly are supporting the conservative agenda, on both economic and cultural grounds."

Voters haven't been offered an alternative economic vision since FDR. Their "support" for a conservative economic agenda is predicated on their not being told the truth by EITHER party of how the real economic interests of the People have been sold out to the corporate ruling class.

The "Third Way" is just more smoke and mirrors designed to protect the interests of the plutocracy.

sw