Do you like the DLC or progressives?

Let's say there was a hypothetical race between a DLC type congress critter and an up-and-coming progressive. Who would you rather see representing you?

The DLC is too corporate for me to like that much.

We're going to have these things called primaries in 2008....

and send some private messages to all your DLC friends on DU to help the DLC end of this poll.

Because you and the DLC are losing.

We progressives are stronger.

You are out of power.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

instead of voting for individual candidates. Of course distinguishing between candidates requires more critical judgement. Voting in mass for a faction is so right wing republican

when does a group that really IS stronger have to spend so much time wailing about anyone else?

By the way, there's an actual progressive group of Democrats that is analogous to the DLC...notice it's NEVER mentioned around here.

what's the name of that group that is never mentioned around here?

I'll wait right here while you check with google.

DLC is aligned with Republican foreign policy and, I'm sure, has the support of major lobbying groups like AIPAC.

It is a characteristic. DLC is a faction. It also trends statistically to voting against the Democratic base much more than non-DLC. I have proven this already in previous posts showing the mathematics.

This question is definitely not about factions.

Even funnier, the progressive faction has its own organization just like the DLC...and not even the progressives here give a rats ass about them.

Hence the e-wailing about the DLC by the useless brigade.

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

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

Progressives with an "s" at the end are a faction as they are people.

not once has he been interested in an actual discussion and debate the issues. never has he ever engaged in that manner. not once.

his M.O. is to disrupt any and every discussion topic by flaming and baiting period, just like a typical rightwing reactionary.

It's especially rich considering how often you've been caught just making shit up....or running away when confronted with facts.

Let's see an example of ME making shit up.

Here's a swell example of you doing so...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2294423#2297155

You even threw in a gratuitous smear to make it seem like the DLC was allied to Scooter Libby.

Adn when confronted with the facts, you made up YET ANOTHER BASELESS SMEAR out of thin air.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2313108#2313518

Last paragraph:
By the way, as a registered Democrat, I'm much worse off due to the leftist lunatic fringe than I am due to anything the DLC did or didn't do. The leftist fringe has alienated voters and sought to split the party at every fucking opportunity for 20 years.

Still waiting for you to back that up.
:hi:

Who was running around saying Gore was as bad as Bush and pimping for Ralph Nader, for a start?

:shrug:

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

So how much have you donated?

I'm a long time member and supporter of Progressive Democrats of America.

http://www.pdamerica.org/

"We progressives are stronger."
Yeah, it shows.

I'm proud to say the word LIBERAL and LEFTIE.

I like to choose a canidate on their own personal records and not necessarily who they associate with. Their own deeds and actions speak for themselves. The DLC does have Kerry and he's pretty progressive in his career. And Warner for example has a lot to offer as well. So I'm mixed. I don't like how the DLC is "in bed" with corporations like Enron and Exon but I think there should be a place for everyone to go because we as democrats are a big tent and that's what I love about the democratic party. We're not all lock in step like the republicans are and I can be who I am while supporting an individual. :)

and an independent thinker as well.

n/t

:woohoo: Looking for the progressive liberal and it ain't her!

The labels used for each tells me very little. I'll watch both candidates and make my choice based on what I see and hear.

I need candidates, not factions.

I generally support the progressive candidate. I even got raked over the coals here on DU for supporting the progressive in the Colorado Senate race. That being said, I do like to evaluate the candidate as an individual, rather than as a label.

I'm currently in New York state, and I really like Eliot Spitzer, even though he is apparently affiliated with the DLC. I really don't care for Hillary, and would happily replace her with a real progressive it were possible. It's really about the individual and what they stand for though.

:popcorn:

I want my Democrats to clearly distingush themselves from the Republicans. Not go along with them!


John

its about change versus more of the same.

And I am afraid the DLC is wrong. The Democrats must change tactics and come up with a bold, fresh strategy that will appeal to the voters! It must be packaged smartly and drives the point home that the Repubos are ruining the country.


John

Our message should be pitched at all Americans, not CEOs

Most americans are against this war and feel that corporations have too much power and are probably a malevolent force in our society. The DLC says these people are moonbats and pitches its message to CEOS.

DLC = Elephant in Donkey's clothing.

Look where the New Democrats' change has brought us: we've been changed from an opposition party which represented the interests of the people to a docile prostitute who spreads her legs for any passing corporation who flashes a little cash. Great "change" alright. Frankly, "more of the same" is starting to sound pretty damn good by comparison.

Attacking other Democrats. You don't win elections by purging our party of those you deem to be impure. You can have a pure party or you can have a party that can win. Its your choice.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but ours is a competitive, conflictual political system. Which means that, for it to function, there has to be more than one point of view being advanced. If one side abandons its role as an opposition party and limits its positions to "okay, fine, whatever you want works for me," it's no longer a democracy; it's a single party dictatorship.

about not standing for anything. But on this website, every Democrat gets pillored from one day to the next when they don't vote exactly as people here wish. I believe aggressive politics from our side. That doesn't mean that moderate Democrats should not be welcomed in our party.

Are we about protecting the poor and underpriviledged? Sorry, our centrist kin supported the welfare destruction act, tax cuts for the rich, the new bankruptcy law which invites credit card companies to prey upon the poor while allowing the rich to get off scott free. About sane foreign policy? Nope, some of our more "moderate" members support illegally violating the sovereignty of other nations and slaughtering their civilian populations, so much for that moral high ground. Do we champion immigrant rights? Nah, not really, centrist DLCers pushed through the Illegal Immigration Act which allows the INS/USCIS to expediently expel, without any of that pesky mucking around with due process protections, anyone whom they happen to dislike for whatever sane or insane reason. We now have innocent children languishing around in general population with murderers and rapists because their parents had the unmitigated gall to be victims of persecution and seek the protection of the US. No, I don't think we can say that centrist Dems are about protecting immigrant rights. I know, how about civil liberties? Oh, that's right, you guys supported the Patriot Act too. Well, it was worth a try. So help me out here, throw me a bone, what exactly do you guys stand for other than being just like the Republicans only maybe just a teeny bit nicer?

because I don't believe in purging? I am a labor Democrat. My first job was working at the AFL-CIO. Centrist Democrats and progressive Democrats both agree with opposing tax cuts for the wealth and protecting social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Moderate and Progressives agree with making college more affordable for everyone. Moderates and progressives both agree with raising the minimum wage to make work pay. Moderates and progressives both want to rein in the power of HMO's and make health care more affordable for all. Moderates and progressives agree that we need to protect our environment and that we shouldn't roll back workplace protections. Moderates and progressives largely agree on opposing school vouchers so that money stays in our public schools. Moderates and progressives agree on so much that is different from the Republicans. And that's what its about. Opposing the Republicans.

Labor is one area where Democrats and centrists probably do have something in common.

I am personally a very liberal Democrat. People who know me know this.

section lately, but you have yet to chime in on any of the topics. Howard County has a turncoat democrat, Ehrlich has hired another political hitman, O'Malley has selected Brown.

Work has gotten busy. I'm launching a State Senate campaign and working on some other projects. The Anthony Brown pick was top notch.

I join the others in wishing you good luck. What district, and against whom?

I am a political consultant. I am launching a State Senate campaign for one of my clients in Maryland. I'll post in the Maryland forum about him soon.

So where do you stand on the environment? On the curtailment of due process protections and civil liberties contained in the Patriot Act? On the detention, torture, and murder of persons in our government's custody? On the ever-widening rift between rich and poor? On the proposed teaching of creationism in lieu of science in our schools? On a foreign policy which transforms us from a respected member of the international community to the world's pariah? On corporate welfare? On no-bid contracts to party cronies? On the abuse of congressional rules to allow a handful of powerful leaders to overrule the better judgement of the majority of members?

Labor's a nice start, but it's the tip of the iceberg. When are we going to hear centrists stand up for those other values and priorities which define the pantheon of liberal thought and vision?

Of course these are my personal beliefs.

So where do you stand on the environment?

Of course I'm for protecting the environment as are most Democrats. Even the one's we'd call moderate. This means investing in alternative sources of energy. It means giving tax incentives to drive hybrid's instead of SUV's. It means strict enforcment of regulations dealing with the releasing of pollutants. It means taking strong actions to keep our air and our water safe.

On the curtailment of due process protections and civil liberties contained in the Patriot Act?

Civil Liberties must be protected. Let's be honest about the climate under which the Patriot Act was passed. 99 Senators voted for it including liberal stalwarts like Sen. Wellstone and Kennedy. It needs to reformed in a manner that reflects the Bill of Rights and constitutional history. The right to trial by jury in a timely manner cannot be compromised on.

On the detention, torture, and murder of persons in our government's custody?

Of course I'm against such things as are almost every Democrat not named Joe Lieberman. We need to obey the Geneva Conventions. Prisoner's of War must not be mistreated. This is not only philosphical but practical. If we mistreat prisoners, our men and women will be mistreated. And we must always keep the moral highground.


On the ever-widening rift between rich and poor?

We need a tax code that softens this gap. This means raising taxes on the wealthy to fund tax cuts and programs that help the middle and lower classes. President Clinton did a good job of this as President and most Democrats agree with this approach.

On the proposed teaching of creationism in lieu of science in our schools?

I think most Democrats, myself including believe in teaching science only.

On a foreign policy which transforms us from a respected member of the international community to the world's pariah?

Like most Democrats, moderates as well as liberal, I am appalled at our loss of standing in the world because of this go it alone foreign policy.

On corporate welfare? On no-bid contracts to party cronies? On the abuse of congressional rules to allow a handful of powerful leaders to overrule the better judgement of the majority of members

Like all Democrats, I am against these things. And I believe you are trying to create division in the party where it doesn't exist. Most Democrats agree on just about all the issues you asked me about. Start attacking Republicans instead of Democrats. We don't win elections by attacking each other.

So if we're in such congenial accord, why are members of Congress who identify themselves as Democrats voting for things like the Patriot Act and the curtailment of civil liberties and basic legal protections you assure me we all equally abhor? Why did Democrats forsake their constitutionally-mandated authority (and responsibility) to declare war and write George Bush a blank check to wage global terrorism in our name? Why did Democrats support the bankruptcy bill which allows predatory credit card companies to go after poor creditors while shielding wealthy creditors? Do you really want me to go on? It's not difficult, you know. Many of the administration's most disgraceful coups have been accomplished with the acquiesence, if not active support, of so-called Dems. And you admonish me for creating divisions where none exist? How do you figure?

explained the patriot act. Were you ready to run Paul Wellstone out the party. He wasn't liberal enough despite that vote days after we were attacked? Context is important.

Some Democrats voted to give President Bush the threat of force. We haven't actually declared War since WWII. This is true under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Some Dems supported the bankrupcy bill. Most didn't. I disagree with that vote, but I won't run out good Democrats who had that one bad vote. Most are still with us on most issues.

And let's be clear, many of these issues never get voted on with Dems in control. Those in control determine the agenda. If Dems are in control, we'll be talking about a patient's bill of rights. We'll be talking about raising the minimum wage. We'll be talking about making health care more affordable. We'll be talking about making college more affordable and so on and so on. Go after the Republicans. They are the ones responsible for the current mess.

... but I think you're too quick to dismiss the role played by Dems in getting us to where we are today. Yes, the majority party sets the agenda, but minority members can sponsor and co-sponsor legislation as well, in addition to which, they can lend legitimacy to a majority measure by giving it the "bi-partisan" stamp of approval. The extent to which they zealously advocate on behalf of their constitutents or just go with the flow for the sake of preserving the peace and not making waves also can play a major role.

Dave, I'm not trying to create rifts within Democratic ranks, but I do think we need to take a serious look at where we're going and what kind of party we want to be. Repukes have more than amply demonstrated the effectiveness of having tight party discipline. Do we want to follow that example and ride close herd over our party or do we want to have a looser party in which members go their own way and do their own thing? Either's okay, but there are trade-offs with each, it's probably something we ought to be looking at and considering. Where do we stand on corporate sponsorship? Do we want to follow the DLC's example and sell board memberships to the highest corporate bidder? It'll mean more money, but you can bet there will be strings attached.

Agreed, Republicans are the assailants, but the extent to which Dems are able to defend themselves (and their constitutents) from the assault is, to at least some degree, a matter over which we have some control. A divided party with a vague, ambiguous, wishy-washy set of priorities is going to be more vulnerable than one which shares a compelling vision. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems to me that the Democratic Party is more divided and directionless than it has been at any time within my memory.

columnists!

THEY'RE the "leaders" PUBLICLY criticizing us dems!

If its Lieberman, hell no

'Nuff said.

"For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

-FDR, 1936

Today we have Hillary and Holy Joe joining hands with the very people Eisenhower warned against in 1954:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Sad that all these years later our DLC Dems are far to the right of Eisenhower and unrecognizable to FDR Dems.

Sometimes the DLC critter can be quite progressive. Sometimes the Republican is more progessive than the DLC type. And sometimes the progressive candidate is a fraud.

This is too hypothetical for me.

about any democrat for congress or senate. But for president I support Mark Warner. It really just depends on the candidate and the situation.

... Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Mark Warner...

There are many fine progressive candidates in the DLC...and I will be glad to vote for them...

Isn't that like saying "there's some great ham at the Kosher deli"??

I certainly believe Hillary Clinton and John Kerry among others are well within the prgressive wing of the party...and any honest reading of the totailty of the record would lead you to that conclusion.

Was it Hilary's pro-life views, her support of fusing church and state, or her support for an illegal war which has killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilian men, women, and children which first led you to perceive Hilary's progressive character?

Your post is wrong in so many ways I am almost tempted to think it is satire...

Of course as I am sure you well know...Hillary is strongly and consistently pro-choice.

She is a strong advocate for the seperation of church and state...

And as most members of the DU Hillary Haters Club invariably do, you distort her views on the war...

But don't let the actual facts stop you from looking foolish...

On Abortion

"I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and must remain vigilant."
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 Jan 22, 2000

"We come to issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century. "
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999

"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard. "
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC Jan 22, 1999

On Seperation of Church and State:

Opposes vouchers:

"I’ve been involved with schools now for 17 years, working on behalf of education reform. And I think we know what works. We know that getting classroom size down works. That’s why I’m for adding 100,000 teachers to the classroom. We know that modernizing and better equipping our schools works. And we know that high standards works. But what’s important is to stay committed to the public school system, not siphon off money, as my opponent would, with vouchers. "
Source: NY Senate debate on NBC Oct 28, 2000

On Religious Inteolerance

"In every religion, there are those who would drape themselves in the mantle of belief and faith only to distort it’s most sacred teachings -- preaching intolerance and resorting to violence"

On Morning After Pill

Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray put a hold on the nomination of FDA official for refusal to approve the morning after pill for religious reasons.

And I would say her 0 Rating from Focus on the Family also speaks volumes!

... how tails get tucked between legs when the facts speak.

Of course, the "proooogreeeessssiiivesss" reading your post will pretend it was never written so their "Hillary is evil" belief won't be spoiled.

I don't remember any post ? ;-)

Please note that the quotes you provide date back several years. Please look at what she's saying this year.



Please note the reaction of the Christian Coalition:




Strange that the ring-wing fundies should be so overjoyed by such a progressive stance on abortion.

There is nothing wrong with being pro-choice and anti-abortion. Abortion is not a "good" thing. It is not good for a teenager to become pregnant and have to go through one. There is every reason to reduce them...hence her original statement that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Absolutely no contradiction.

And even in your second quote from the Christian Coalition, they note that "While Clinton reaffirms her support for Roe v. Wade, she quickly adds that she wants to reduce the number of abortions."

No change in position whatsoever, no contradiction with earlier statements. Still solidly pro-choice.

You will have to do better than that.

But she's feeding the animals. She's basically saying "alright, you have a valid point, abortion's not a good thing and I respect those who want to see it outlawed." In doing so, she made herself the poster child for the anti-choice movement, who are one and all crowing that even "Democrats" are beginning to see the light, glory be! Once again, I repeat, politics is not about people trying to come together to find a reasonable solution, it has never been about that, not ever, not once, it has always a trial of power, a way in which competing interests can hask out their differences and arrive at a mutually semi-tolerable solution without having to resort to armed conflict and bloodshed. For that to work, you cannot represent your side of the equation by fighting your opponent's battle for them. Do you really imagine that the Christian Coalition will make any concession in exchange for Hillary's "Okay, you're right, I respect where you're coming from"? Please tell me you aren't that stupid. Of course not, the wingnuts will take it as a gift and run with it. Sure, I agree, abortion's no picnic, but the abortion debate is a gun fight; only an idiot, or someone who wants to lose, goes to it armed with a water pistol, praising her opponents, and passing them ammunition whenever they run out.

Has it occurred to you that Hillary maybe, just maybe, would like to see the number of abortions reduced in this country...and maybe, just maybe, she realizes the domination by the groups on the extremes of the abortion debate are preventing that. And maybe, just maybe, she is appealing to those in the sensible middle, who I believe are a majority in this country, and who are by and large pro-choice, but who view abortion as a societal problem and would like to see it reduced.

Abortions will not become "safe, legal, and rare" when one side of the debate wins...it will be when folks in the middle take control of the issue and silence the extremists.

Hillary Clinton is not trying to attract the Christian Coalition to her side, nor is she fighting their battle. Only the lazy media would interpret a wish to reduce abortions as a anti-choice position, or substantially different than the vast majority of pro-choice voters, both Democrat and Republican would take. She is trying to appeal to those folks in the middle, where the solution to the problem lies. And she is certainly not becoming ant-choice as you imply in your original post. To come to that conclusion requires a dishonest reading of her position and her statements.

The "middle" consists chiefly of the politically apathetic, who don't know enough or care enough one way or the other to make much of a fuss either way. And yes, that is precisely the audience the "extremes," as you call them, i.e., interest groups who have chosen to specialize in a certain policy are, are trying to swing over to their way of seeing things. The anti-choice community will never accept any solution which involves any abortion ever, under any circumstances - it is a black and white moral imperative for them and nothing less than total abolition will ever satisfy them. They will consequently continue to pitch their case, year after year, decade after decade, until they achieve that end, or die trying. The only reason there is a mainstream middle of the road majority of Americans who see both sides of the coin and are prepared to arrive at the sensible, moderate approach you embrace of allowing abortion but trying to keep its frequency to a minimum is because there are opposition groups, excuse me, you call them "extremists," who are busting butt to make sure that the the mainstream public hears a voice to counterbalance out that of the anti-choice community. If those groups were to throw in the towel and say, "well, you know, I guess you really do have a point there," you would see that mainstream opinion change overnight to one which was intensely intolerant of abortion in any form, as they would only hear one side of the equation and would assume that, since both ends of the spectrum seemed to have settled their former differences of opinion, evidently there was no longer anything to argue about. You don't think so? Look at how passively that moderate mainstream in which you place so much faith has accepted unlawful detentions in the absence of anyone standing up to point out that maybe there's something a little iffy about kidnapping and indefinitely detaining people up who might or might have anything to do with terrorism.

"The anti-choice community will never accept any solution which involves any abortion ever, under any circumstances - it is a black and white moral imperative for them and nothing less than total abolition will ever satisfy them."

No doubt...but the fact is most people view pro-choice groups as extremists as well, opposing what they view as reasonable restrictions on abortion, such as parental consent laws. However you come down on that issue, most parents cannot see how their school cannot give out an aspirin without permission, but it is ok for their child to have surgery without their knowledge.


"If those groups were to throw in the towel and say, "well, you know, I guess you really do have a point there," you would see that mainstream opinion change overnight to one which was intensely intolerant of abortion in any form, as they would only hear one side of the equation and would assume that, since both ends of the spectrum seemed to have settled their former differences of opinion, evidently there was no longer anything to argue about."

This is a red-herring...no one has suggested that pro-choice groups throw in the towel, or that pro-choice politicians bow to anti-choice extremists.

However the fact is, with this gang in power, the other side is getting the upper hand. A third way has to be presented. The debate as it is now is at best a deadlock, and at worst a slide toward the day when abortion is no longer considered a right. In order for the Democratic party to get back in power, we are going to have to begin speaking for a majority of people. We are beginning to do that, but in areas of the country where our economic message has legs, issues like abortion are going to continue to kill us.

Its the same argument as gun control but reversed in ideology. Most progressives cannot see how the NRA and other pro-gun groups can be against resonable restrictions on their ownership and use, while the NRA takes an absolutist position. Fact is, most people would accept some restriction on ownership if it were presented to them a different way. But it is always debated on terms defined by the Pro-Gun crowd, with pro-gun control advocates seen as trying to ban guns altogether, and so little headway is made.

We have to redefine the debate which is what I believe Hillary is trying to do. Make clear that we believe abortion is a fundamental right, but don't make that the center of our argument. Recognize that most anti-choice voters are not extremists, and that there really is alot of common ground in the two groups (for example I believe most anti-choice voters are not against use of birth control). Once convinced that this third way could work, those voters will become more amenable to a pro-choice Democrat.

I agree with you completely, it is a recipe for deadlock. But don't underestimate the value of deadlock: it may prevent you from taking the country in the direction you want, but it's also preventing the fascists from taking the country in the direction they want at the same time. Tell me you don't wish 1930s Germany had suffered from a bit more deadlock! Well, there you go.

Believe me, I would love to see a third way emerge; I so wish, with all of me heart, that it was possible for parties to come together as reasonable individuals as opposed to players and arrive at some happy compromise solutions that took into account everyone's best interests. But I'm sorry, my ten years of studying politics at universities both in the US and abroad, and my fifteen years of living and working in DC's public policy community, have left me with very, very few illusions that our political system is, or for that matter, ever has been, about people coming together to arrive at reasoned compromises. The dynamic is far more like that of a court room, in which the parties are the "attorneys" and public opinion is the "jury." It is an inherently confrontational environment, a constant, ongoing tug-of war with both sides doing their damndest to shift the balance of power in their favor. And the very instant you stop tugging with all your might on your end of the line, the opposing side will immediately seize upon the weakness and pull harder.

For the kind of compromise third way of which you speak to function, both sides have to agree to a ceasefire, both sides have to lay off pulling for a bit, and both sides have to come to the bargaining table and enter into negotiations, open to the notion of compromise. Answer me this: have you seen any indication whatsoever that Republicans are willing to do that? Maybe I missed it, but I sure haven't seen any willingness to compromise or moderate their views one iota. So what makes you believe that, if Dems back off their positions a bit and concede that, alright, maybe they've been a bit too rigid in their thinking, Repukes will make a corresponding gesture of good faith and acknowledge that maybe they too have gone a bit overboard? Will Faux News suddenly pull its upcoming expose on the liberal plot to murder Santa Claus? Face it, it's never going to happen. Repukes will take it as a sign of weakness, they will smell blood in the water, sense ultimate victory within their grasp (or, at the very least, a fabulous opportunity to shift the political spectrum in a direction favorable to their way of thinking), and will re-double their efforts to drag you and your team in their direction.

Look around you. We are now having serious discussions about whether or not to teach our children science or religious mythology. We're having debates about whether or not torture and kidnapping are acceptable tools in the war on terror. This is what one-sided compromises achieve: a strengthening of one side at the expense of the other and a resultant shift in what constitutes the mainstream political norm.

Again, believe it or not, but I'm actually with you insofar as I too would love to see politics come to be characterized by the reasoned negotiations you describe, but ask yourself, when in history, either our own or the entire world's for that matter, has politics ever been anything other than a bloodsport? Do you imagine the Roman Senate was an oasis of calm, rational thought? The French General Assembly? The British Parliament? I'm sorry, but your and Hillary's hoped-for "third way" is simply unrealistic and the costs, if you're wrong, of gambling that the Republicans will meet you halfway if you adopt a more conciliatory position, are too far-reaching to be risked.

How in the hell did we ever rise to the top of the food chain?

I've always thought of myself as an idealist, and longed for a world that can never be simply because of the selfish nature of man. Our political landscape is proof positive. I weep for the future of this republic and the future of this planet with us as the stewards.

and all that hooey you are saying that they are right. If it is our civil right to do it, why should we have to be ashamed and run in a closet? Why can't we have as much right to it as you do to any surgery you want?

It is OK to be "pro-abortion." Sometimes it is the best possible outcome and you are "pro-the best possible outcome." No shame in that: no shame in saving the future of a 15 year old girl.

:silly:

:spray:

If I had only read your post sooner, I could've saved time posting my own. You said it in fewer words and more effectively!

Flame on.

Take the average DLC vote and that is how the hypothetical DLC'er will represent you.

Take the average progressive Democrat vote and that is how the progressive Democrat will represent you.

....you have to choose Progressive....they're smarter, kinder, more generous and frankly, they smell better.... :)

Let the fun begin!

democratic party, even those that aren't by redefining the word.

I've changed my mind. I hate all of those crazy labels, I'm a LIBERAL.

let's take some bets on whether or not we'll get a progressive candidate when the primary dust settles.

My bet is no; not because they don't represent what people want, but because the corporate powers that be are setting up to ensure their defeat.

I'll bet no matter who we get, we'll have "progressive purists" pissing and moaning about him or her.

A poll of a few people on DU doesn't indicate anything outside of DU.

FWIW, this thread is as unproductive as I thought it would be.

Democrats, and those would be the ones that are at the far left end of the spectrum. This place is so far left of progressive it's just about off the map!

Early on, I would have agreed that DU was "far left." That designation was "left" behind along time ago; DU is no more "far left" these days than GWB is "compassionate." As the board grows, it simply reflects the greater population's steady march to the right, and re-defining center as "left."

It's true that there are still some die-hard lefties here; I'm one of them. We sure as hell don't make up the majority any more here at DU, and probably never did in the Party.


So what do you think? Should the party purge us, or acknowledge us?

The only time I get dismayed by anything far left of progressive is when I hear some of the rhetoric that is so self-serving that there is no room for compromise. If a candidate strays just an iota from being the perfect candidate in that poster's mind, it seems that the posters who constitute the far left thinking are the ones who are farthest from reality and the least willing to compromise.

If we can't compromise we can't win. If people are so concerned about moving our party a little more to the left, we better realize that we need to win, PERIOD, and after we win, we can THEN work on moving to the left however much is necessary. First and foremost we have to get a Democrat in the WH, no matter what.

This is what I think Hillary is up to, only so many of her naysayers don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Should she get the nod and ultimately win the election, I am confident that her image will be that of a progressive president and the neocons' worst nightmare, as she is right now. Some of the things she's perceived as doing right now are just whatever she thinks it's going to take to get a Democrat into the WH. She's just playing the game....for us, though.

In my 45 years on the planet, I've voted for exactly 2 candidates that I actually wanted to see in office. They weren't perfect, but they were worthy of my vote. I got one, and have been happy with the way she has represented me. I didn't get the other, and am still disappointed.

I've never missed an election. Every last one of the rest of my votes have been for people whose overall platform or record did not exactly inspire me. I voted for them because the other choice/s was/were worse. If that's not compromise, I don't know what is.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, after a lifetime record like that, to draw some lines in the sand and say "Here's where I stop."

gave us a president who was Democratic in label only.

If we can't elect anyone to the left of Clinton, there's no point in even bothering.

Another "centrist" Democratic president equals another eight wasted years, eight years in which working people, the poor, and people of conscience are left further alienated and American politics are left even more meaningless.

It isn't compromise if we're the ones always giving ground.

Every time the Democrats say okay we'll give up this, the Republicans say okay thanks, what's next? They don't give up anything.

The public is moving to the right not because the right is "right", but because the right's message is all they hear. The Dems aren't standing up for anything, and haven't been for some time. So the right has ju=st been gaining momentum and the only thing that's slowed them down is when they've reach too far too fast and the public isn't ready yet.

Look how they've used 9/11 to manipulate the public mindset. Did anyone ever think in their lifetime that the United States of America or it's representatives could argue in favor of torture while the populous sat idly by?

I truly pray that it's not already too late to save this great expriment. and I'm a freaking atheist.

or someone willing to tow the line until the next big Republican comes along?

If you know something about how she plans to actually disrupt the neocon agenda, please let us know.

Most of the people here wouldnt vote that way according to their own posts...vote progressive, that is, if it just happened to be someone other than the person who fits their bill perfectly.

For example, if one looks at her track record when it comes to how she votes on the issues, Hillary is one of the most progressive Democrats going, whether she's considered DLC or not.

There are some fine politicians, Hillary included, who are progressive, yet many here would consider them to be DLC at the same time. People like her fit both choices.

There are very few dems that I would label progressive right now, and Hillary is definitely not one of them. JFK, 45 years ago, was more progressive than at least 75% of the dems in office today - that really says something.

when it comes to her track record in Congress.

More progressive than Kucinich? Not in any way, shape, or form.

As for how you can be for this war and also be progressive, I seriously have no clue. I guess if I were patriotic enough I'd overlook her support of killing people in another country and see what she was doing for the chosen people here in the good ol' US of A.

progressive than Kucinich when it comes to her track record in Congress, like I said in my post, you can check out her "progressive" score when it comes to her votes on all the issues. She ranks 9th out of 100 senators with a "progressive score" of as 92%, ahead of Kucinich in the House and way ahead of Kerry in the Senate. Check it out:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=49&y=12

In the House, Kucinich scored 85.88% "progressively".
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=House&party=All&x=23&y=11

by what is allowed to come to the table to be voted on.

Since Kucinich will never get to vote on Dept of Peace or Universal, Single Payer health care (at least not so long as the current regime prevails), that won't show up in his rankings and yet because of these stances we KNOW that he is more progressive that Hillary.

She is a WAR HAWK and for some kind of creepy, fucked-up managed-competition health care (which is code for "leave the money-grubbing insurance companies in charge"). Neither of these are progressive ideas.

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 75 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.
____________________________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 93 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 25 percent in 2004.2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 85 percent in 2003.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 90 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 50 percent in 2004. 2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 102 percent in 2003.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 100 percent in 2004.

2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 100 percent in 2003.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 25 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 14 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 17 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004."

...they (and their supporters at places like DU) attempt to delegitimize each other. Which seems to be most of the time.

So anyway, I refuse to vote.

A pox on both houses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5567638">What kind of democrat are you? (DU poll)


As i said before, on several separate but similar occasions.

"That settles that then."

But no. As soon as these polls have sinked, at very first opportunity the DLC-er's, centrists and moderates (notwithstanding those who identify as such merely out of political correctness) will recommence claiming that they represent the mainstream on DU. But hey, it's a big tent. It's just that what people call the center of the tent isn't really the center.

...I've NEVER seen the DLC-er's, centrists and moderates claim they represent the mainstream on DU. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and claim they NEVER have.

demands by the DLC supporters for a "purge"

or

enemies lists of Democrats who are not centrists

or

any posts by centrists running down the Progressive Democrats of America (Hell, even the Progressives here don't give a rats' ass about THEM)

or loyalty litmus tests like this thread....

as you do fighting conservative democrats.

may think there is no difference between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, or Coors and Salazar, or any of the crappy republicans that ran against the democrats on your "enemies list," but fortunately for America, most democrats disagree with you.

agree with me. And we are working to secure our stolen elections, to get us out of a misbegotten war and to bring Bush to justice.

"Enemies list"? What piece of paranoia is that, exactly?

lol

Instead you clog up the DemocraticUnderground forum, pissing all over Democrats instead.

and I object to your characterization of my activity here at DU.

Perhaps you are used to bullying people and perhaps you find that a useful strategy. In my experience, it is not. It doesn't lead to fruitful partnerships. And, in the end everyone loses.

You may want to rethink it.

So "collaboration" is an apt term.

"Perhaps you are used to bullying people"
If I wanted to do that I'd start up an enemies list, put up loaded polls, and demand ideological purges.

"You may want to rethink it."
Or I may not.

Good luck!

this is what benchley does day in and day out.


;-)

aren't you?
:eyes:

I am saying that I disagree with you and Nader that there is not substantial difference between GWB and Gore or GWB and Kerry etc.

The fact that Nader saw his support decrease by 85% from 2000 to 2004 would lead me to believe that most Americans disagree with you guys too.

Don1 created an enemies list in a previous thread, I was refering to him.

first you'd have to find one or more points of agreement between me and Nader, which would be difficult.

And, Nader was not invited to run as a Green in 2004, nor did the Greens endorse him.

The larger issue: Nader is a red herring. Mind the voting systems, MIND them. Because, Gore won in 2000, and more and more there is evidence that Kerry won in 2004.

It's just sily to keep harping on Nader in view of these events. Gore won. What message do you take away from that?! Damn Ralph Nader, Gore won?!

And it's not useful to discount the party that was willing to challenge the theft of your victory in 2004. The Green Party is STILL working it in OH.

I'm a liberal before I'm a member of any party. But, that's just me.

trying hard to separate themselves from the Republicans.

Even Noam Chomsky admitted there was a difference when he explained why he voted to reelect Bill Clinton back in 1996 and voted for Kerry in 2004.

There are still countless votes on countless issues that get almost no attention a the time but still affect countless millions of lives. For me that difference is worth it. The primaries-not general elections are the perfect opportunity to totally vote our conscience and apply whatever litmus test we have. We do not have a parliamentary system with proportional representation. However desirable it may be (and I would certainly prefer it) we will NEVER EVER have a parliamentary system with proportional representation. For me that means to work with what we do have.

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2003-2004.
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 8 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004."

______________________

for McCain link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

for Clinton link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

for Lieberman link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

I am dubious that Chomsky voted for Clinton in 96. I already know about Kerry in 2004, though. Can you provide evidence that Chomsky supported Bill Clinton in 96? I will be open-minded, though dubious.

from: Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky page 337

"I mean, I'll vote for Clinton, holding my nose--but the reason has nothing at all to do with big policy issues; there I can't see too much difference. What it has to do with are things like who's going to get to appoint the judiciary happens to have a big effect on people's lives....
They may be small policy differences when you look at the big picture--but remember, there's a huge amount of power out there, and small policy differences implementing a huge amount of power can make a big difference in people's lives....Okay, that makes a lot of difference for people whose kids are hungry in downtown Boston"

Of course that was in 1996. Since the first administration of Bush jr. it is clear that Dr. Chomsky considers the current Republican Party with its fundamentalist base and its influence on domestic policy and neoconservative influence on foreign policy to represent a significant departure from what had been bi-partisan consensus into a whole new and much more dangerous direction thus increasing the differences between the two parties

But what about accountability? Say a Zell Miller or a Lieberpuke goes and does something really unspeakably awful, like appear at the Repuke National Convention to praise the shrub or rebuke fellow Dems for not supporting the shrub's imperialist agenda, what way do I have to express my extreme displeasure with their choices? If such so-called Dems can continue to rely upon my unswerving fealty, devotion, and support no matter how egregious their choices are, what mechanism exists for providing accountability in ones public officials? And what's to stop a Lieberpuke wannabe like Hillary concluding that there's nothing to prevent her from taking campaign funds from DLC board member DOW Chemical in exchange for a little environmentally unfriendly consideration once she's in office - after all, Dems are going to support her no matter what, what alternative do they have? Vote Repuke? Is that really the best we can hope for from our "representatives"?

Party. I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not there ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to to the longterm agenda of the right wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

I appreciate your candor. Have a good one! :hi:

Maybe that's their problem!

on this board. Kudos!

TC

involvement with doma, or backpeddaling on gay marriage -- pretty puts you outside my tent.

but freak freely, ya know?

(Pssst-- I'm making a reference to my genitals)

I point this out at the hypocrisy of some folks here who assume that all DLC is just like Joe Lieberman. It's not, it's also like John Kerry because he too is DLC.

DLC has some bad leadership, namely Al From. Get rid of him and the DLC could possibly be a good group within the Democratic Tent

Imagine that. He wants to expand the military when we can't even afford to pay for the one we've got going now. Great!!

You seem to be assuming that all the DLC are good except Lieberman. Nope. Half the guys are just as bad. Yes, Kerry is definitely one of the best out of the DLC'ers.

So, don't go claiming that I am hypocritical. You think the whole problem is Al From. No, the problem is PPI and the Third Way and the PNAC connection and the corporate funding. Take that away and they will be more progressive. Eliminate a couple of the jerks, like From, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson, and it will be a little better, too.

Let us not forget that the DLC is a not-for-profit corporation.

Here are a few lists of their Governors, Senators, and Representatives:

New Democrat Governors

Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
Gov. Michael Easley of North Carolina
Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware
Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia

Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusets
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Democratic_Leaders ...

Here is a Wikipedia list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats#Members_of_t ...

Members of the House New Democrat Coalition

Rep. Jim Davis of Florida
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington
Rep. Tom Allen of Maine
Rep. Joe Baca of California
Rep. Brian Baird of Washington
Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois
Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada
Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas
Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon
Rep. Lois Capps of California
Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California
Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii
Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky
Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee
Rep. Bud Cramer of Alabama
Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York
Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama
Rep. Susan Davis of California
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
Rep. Anna Eshoo of California
Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez of Texas
Rep. Jane Harman of California
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas
Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey
Rep. Mike Honda of California
Rep. Darlene Hooley of Oregon
Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington
Rep. Steve Israel of New York
Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island
Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington
Rep. John Larson of Connecticut
Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York
Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York
Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine
Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California
Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas
Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia
Rep. Grace Napolitano of California
Rep. David Price of North Carolina
Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas
Rep. Steve Rothman of New Jersey
Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California
Rep. Adam Schiff of California
Rep. David Scott of Georgia
Rep. Brad Sherman of California
Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas
Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan
Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee
Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California
Rep. Mike Thompson of California
Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico
Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida
Rep. David Wu of Oregon


This list does not pretend to cover all of the DLC membership throughout the federal government's three branches.

Also, local politics are not exempt from the influence of the DLC either, though I lack the links at this moment to illustrate the #'s.

Let me make it clear that I am a progressive and certainly no friend of the DLC. But a comparison of records to see if there is a difference between a DLC Democrat and a Republican. Now I don't think I would vote for most of these in the primaries. But the general election is an entirely different story.

I don't have time to go through all of those on the list but using Vote Smart's Interest group rating--let's compare Senator Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana with Mr. Moderate Republican himself, Sen. John McCain. I chose Sen. Baucus because he was the first Senator on the list and I have heard little of him and therefore have no bias:

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can...
_____________________

"2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.
____________________________________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 73 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 50 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
___________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 29 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004."

_________________________________________

Now I will end with a 1996 quote from Noam Chomsky on why he was voting for Clinton's reelection and not for Nader:

from: Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky page 337

"I mean, I'll vote for Clinton, holding my nose--but the reason has nothing at all to do with big policy issues; there I can't see too much difference. What it has to do with are things like who's going to get to appoint the judiciary happens to have a big effect on people's lives....
They may be small policy differences when you look at the big picture--but remember, there's a huge amount of power out there, and small policy differences implementing a huge amount of power can make a big difference in people's lives....Okay, that makes a lot of difference for people whose kids are hungry in downtown Boston"

Of course that was in 1996. Since the first administration of Bush jr. it is clear that Dr. Chomsky considers the current Republican Party with its fundamentalist base and its influence on domestic policy and neoconservative influence on foreign policy to represent a significant departure from what had been bi-partisan consensus into a whole new and much more dangerous direction thus increasing the differences between the two parties

She originally voted against the war and she also supports Rep. Murtha's resolution. She has joined the "Out of Iraq" caucus. She is not a PNAC loyalist!

Has nearly every DU'er been declared an enemy combatant already and shipped out to Hungary to be held there secretively without due process?

That should get the rest of them to fear being next.

DU members have seen, more clearly than some of the rest of you, that the Democratic Party needs to bring back on a permanent basis the voters that drifted away from it(or essentially felt that THEY had been "purged" from having any real say in it)during the Clinton "Anti-Progressive Era".

To do that, the party needs to be a place where idealists and activists are welcome. They weren't welcome under Bill and Hillary. They were tolerated at best and scorned and insulted at worst.

Another DLC nominee, in addition to guaranteeing another electoral disaster(as in '00, 02, and '04)will drive those voters away for good. And the Democrats will never recover from that.

That's the reality, Benchley.

(BTW, I am a PDA member. Why are you going on and on about PDA not being mentioned here?)

LOL!

"They weren't welcome under Bill and Hillary. They were tolerated at best and scorned and insulted at worst."
Geeze, that's sure as shit news to me. I guess I missed all those examples of Bill Clinton insutling idealists and activists...care to give us some?

"BTW, I am a PDA member. Why are you going on and on about PDA not being mentioned here?"
Feel free to put up any of the threads you've started promoting them--or even mentioning them.

Here's one where you jumped in to bitch about how "evil" Hillary is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2305400#2305412

Here's one with you bitching about the DLC...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2277551#2277617

Here you are bitching about Bruce Willis...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2276503#2276520

And here's more pissing and moaning about Hillary, including the silly claim that member of the Green Party is somehow more of a Democrat than those of us who actually ARE Democrats (snicker)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5464636#5464695

You sure promoted the livin' shit out of the PDA there, all right-a-roony!

I was responding to the points in the individual debates.

And the insult to the progressives, idealists and activists in the Clinton years was in the way they were kept totally out in the cold, their ideas were always ignored, and the advertising for the party was based on bragging about how progressive the party no longer was.

Of course Bill and Hillary weren't literally having photo opportunities where they wore "liberals are boogerheads" t-shirts. It was in how those people were treated. There was a conscious effort to drive them away. You know this was the case.

MrBenchely's attempt to redicule and marginalize progressives and progressive principles with depictions of progressives as the "lunatic Fringe" - but never ever (not once) defining what exactly is his definition of "lunatic fringe" or "left fringe" on any occasion the question was directly put to him. At best his responses were essentially to say anyone who criticizes the dlc is the lunatic fringe could fall into such category, as far as MrBenchley is concerned.

From where I see things, I would argue that anyone who would advocate that flag burning is essentially equivalent to a "Hate Crime" against any or all Americans, and that the Patriot Act is constitutionally sound, (or "not" Un-Constitutional)as has been done in a number of screeds in a number of threads on these or related subjects, is a person i consider as someone belonging to the Tribe of the Right Wing Reactionaries.

IMO, MrBenchley you seem to be going through some sort of identity crises, and could do with a bit of soul searching...

but it's Ken, not Ben. No big deal, just wanted to clarify.

"You know this was the case."
In fact, I know no such thing....

Funny Maxine Waters didn't say a word about it...

http://www.house.gov/waters/clntcbc.htm

Am I correct to think you're responding to my post? Or were you responding to someone else? because Maxine Waters remarks in this transcript says nothing about anything i have discussed... that i can see...

As you could have guessed by either following the little lines on the flow chart or clicking on the "Response to" link....

I post as an individual. I am not required to invoke the PDA or to try to advance it in every single thread.

(BTW, why do you care if I "bitch" about Bruce Willis? What's it to you if I point out that Mr. Die Hard is a permanent Republican? Is there any reason whatsoever that Democrats should be fixated on appeasing the bald wonder's ego? It's not like he's going to cross over to us, or that his crossing over if it did occur would do us any real good.)

If you're attacking me for being negative, you've got a nerve. Every post you ever make is a slam. I've never seen you make a positive statement about anything or an arguement in favor of anything. You seem to think all you have to do is insult those you disagree with. You never make a substantive point about any issue.

My posts are not "bitching", btw. They are serious arguements on the issues in each thread. In most cases, I try to respond respectfully to those who disagree, even if the point angers me. It is difficult to respond respectfully to you, Benchley, because you display no respect to anyone who disagrees with you.

And as to my comments on the Green-turned-Democrat whose challenging Hillary, my point about his commitment to Democratic principles stands. The Green Party, by and large, is made up of people who became convinced, with good reason, that they and their principles were being blamed for everything that had gone wrong with the party in the '70s and '80s. They also believed, in general, that they were no longer welcome except to vote for candidates who disdained them on a platform that abandoned all they believed in. This state of affairs is a tragedy. The Democrats NEED the people who went Green, and they need the values and principles Green progressives embrace. No good at all has come from driving those people away, and the party must work to get them back if it is ever to win again. An anti-left, anti-Green Democratic party is unelectable, as the last three election cycles have demonstrated.

As I've said, not even our progressives seem to give two shits about them.

"BTW, I am a PDA member. Why are you going on and on about PDA not being mentioned here?" Guess that question is answered.

"my point about his commitment to Democratic principles stands."
And it's still silly as hell. And it's hard to imagine anybody MORE a DINO than somebody who wasn't one at all until a couple days ago.

"The Green Party, by and large, is made up of people who became convinced, with good reason, that they and their principles were being blamed for everything that had gone wrong with the party in the '70s and '80s."
And the Green party is toxic to voters and little more than a Republican dirty trick. But it's noticeable that they're over here ratfucking this forum instead of being over in their own forums discussing those swell principles.

"This state of affairs is a tragedy. "
Only for the Green party. The rest of us have managed to muddle along.

"The Democrats NEED the people who went Green, and they need the values and principles Green progressives embrace."
Bullshit. For one thing, there ain't enough people in the Green party to be worth a dry fart in a stiff wind...they came limping home in sixth place last year, barely ahead of the Maharishi party. They couldn't even get enough signatures to be on the ballot in liberal NYC, even though the Socialist Workers party had no problem doing so.

"An anti-left, anti-Green Democratic party is unelectable"
News to me. Frankly, I don't think many Democrats at all feel that the party, or even the DLC, has betrayed some deep principle and is offensive to liberals.

The fact that we may not always mention the group by name doesn't say anything about our lack of commitment to it.

And no, the Green Party was not a Republican dirty trick. It was a natural outcome when the Democratic Party became anti-left under Clinton. You had no right to expect left-of-center people to stay unquestioningly loyal. A lot of them stayed in anyway, but if all of the people who were left with no place in the party under Clinton had instead been made welcome, Gore(or any other Democrat)would have defeated Dubya by at least two million votes and Congress would be Democratic.

secondly, three straight defeats is NOT "muddling along".

Also, nobody is "ratfucking" this forum, except perhaps for verbal thugs like yourself. Abuse is not debate, Benchley. Nothing any Green or other non-party progressive has posted has been as harmful as your continuing series of insults, slurs and obscenities. You probably drive away 10,000 potential voters every time you post.

The Green party is a piece of shit that functions as little more than a Republican dirty trick.

And listening to election adivce from the Green party is like listening to tips on theatre etiquette from Pee Wee Herman.

"nobody is "ratfucking" this forum"
Bull shit.

It's you. You offer no substantive arguements. You make no case for anything. All you do is insult and abuse.

Could you at least try to make a positive suggestion sometime?

It's your attitude that helped CREATE the Greens(a party I'm not a member of now). Simply shouting down anyone who doesn't hold your view(which seems to be that progressives are obligated to stay in the back seat and settle for whatever their betters {in which category you include yourself, for reasons known only to God/Yahweh/Allah/L. Ron Hubbard}deign to offer them) serves no purpose. It doesn't help the Democratic party and it doesn't convert people to your way of thinking. The Democratic Party has to break with Clintonism and become a populist, progressive grassroots party again or it will keep losing.
Staying the course(which I assume you support)guarantees a repeat of '00, '02 and '04. The Party has to change or it will never win again. That's reality.

And in any case, Benchley, what the hell qualifies YOU to be the ultimate authority of what is and isn't "Democratic" or what does and doesn't work? Why do you seem to assume you are above having to present your views and make a coherent, respectful and honorable case for them? What have you done for the party that is so far beyond what all the rest of us have done? Get over yourself already.

I know you claim you once supported McGovern(or at least I inferred that from a post you once made)but your persona here reminds me of those musclebound goons who held up the "We Love Mayor Daley" signs at the '68 convention.

Try a little rationality. Try a little respect. knock off the bullying. What have you got to lose?

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

What help are you with your endless slams and insults and disses?

And I'm not a Green. I was, but I came back because Kucinich created a space in which it was possible to be a Democrat and be for progressive politics again. I'm joining with other to expand that space, because the party needs to be progressive to win.

And that's not just "sez me". It's sez the last three election cycles. '00, '02, and '04 prove bland centrism doesn't win anymore. The choice for the Democrats now is change or defeat. Why can't you see that? We should have an overwhelming lead in the polls right now, we should be dominating the debate, but we aren't. And why aren't we? because we aren't setting the agenda and speaking truth to power. We're still(thanks to right-wingers like you)saying little and waiting the the GOP to destroy itself. But they won't. And the voters want more from us than that. If we just hold back and try to win be default again(your approach)in November of 2006 they'll be more pictures in Time and Newsweek of Cheney and Chimpboy and the Rovemonster gloating. Don't put us through that again. We can't come back from another loss.

Again, I ask, are you ever going to take a positive, contstructive approach to these forums, or are you just going to dish out endless rounds of abuse, contempt and disrespect?

It sure is hilarious to hear a Dennis Kucinich booster telling us how to win elections...especially considering Dennis couldn't even break 10% in his home state of Ohio.

"Again, I ask, are you ever going to take a positive, contstructive approach to these forums"
No, I plan to go on comparing other Democrats to "Hitler" and "cancer"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2315323&mesg_id=2315605

And drawing up an enemies list and demanding ideological purity...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2303592&mesg_id=2303592

I'm going to start a thread asking for Democratic accomplishments and then tell people "Shut up!" when they point to accomplishments....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2313108&mesg_id=2313108

I'm going to suggest Democrats launch nuisance lawsuits to drive other Democrats out of the party...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2308512&mesg_id=2308512

Oh wait! None of that was me!

(most of those who used it and practiced it ended up becoming Nixon White House aides and campaign staffers, like Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti.)

Because the Clintonites kicked out or silenced all progressive voices in the party during their period of dominance. The Republican Party had nothing to do with it. Stop blaming others for what your conservatism caused.

If people like you get your way, the Greens will grow and cause more Democratic defeats. 2000 proved that. A lot of people came back to the party in 2004, even though Kerry had no progressive positions and agreed with Bush on staying in the war. The Democrats need every single one of those people to stay in if they are ever to win again. We can't win as a bland centrist anti-left party. As I've pointed out, 2000, 2002 and 2004 prove me right on this point.

Its time for the Democratic party to be a party of the poor, of working people, of all those the Republicans left out in the cold. Hillary isn't interested in helping the poor or working people. All she cares about is yuppies who can write massive checks.

Your arrogance helps no one, Benchley. The last three election cycles prove you have nothing to be smug about.

That's why the Progressive Democrats of America are fighting to bring the Democratic Party back to life, in spite of all the efforts of the DLC to kill the party(since DLC'ers actually like the fact that Republicans control Congress, as their behavior in every election since 1994 shows). And why PDA is growing.

(And you never have said why you won't let up on the fact that PDA members don't promote PDA in every single post we make. We do support PDA, we care about PDA, it's just that there's no point in mentioning the organization in every post. Now will you give that one a rest?)

"the Clintonites kicked out or silenced all progressive voices in the party"
Maybe up there on Pluto...no such thing happened here on earth.

"If people like you get your way, the Greens will grow"
The Greens aren't going to do shit. They're toxic to voters. They'll be lucky to stay ahead of the Maharishi party down at the bottom of the ballot.

"even though Kerry had no progressive positions and agreed with Bush on staying in the war"
The views ARE breathtaking when one lives so far from reality....

"That's why the Progressive Democrats of America are fighting "
They sure sink like stones here...not even you seem to give two shits about them.

"Your arrogance helps no one, Benchley."
Says the Kucinich supporter telling the rest of us what Democrats are doing wrong.

"And you never have said why you won't let up on the fact that PDA members don't promote PDA in every single post we make."
And the fact that you claim to be unable to figure it out is a great source of inadvertant hilarity to me...especially given the rest of your rant.

Would be nothing but insults and profanity.

Why do you never try making an actual arguement on behalf of your position?

And you can't provide any evidence that progressive voices were heard in the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Hillary herself said there was no left wing on the White House staff. That proves my point right there. In those years, progressives like Wellstone won reelection in spite of the DLC, not with its support. The DLC would have been perfectly happy to see Congress go even further Republican. They sure as hell didn't want it to go Democratic again. If they had, taking back the house in '96 would have been a slam dunk.

On every issue where there was a choice between a progrssive position or a conservative position, the Clintonites always took the conservative position. And people like you always said"Shut up. At least we've got a Democratic President".

Your way is the way of defeat, Benchley. 2000, 2002 and 2004 prove it. You have no arguement in rebuttal to that point.

"you can't provide any evidence that progressive voices were heard in the Democratic Party during the Clinton years"
Yeah, and Kerry wasn't progressive....yadda yadda yadda....If you ever get near actual fact, give a shout.

"Your way is the way of defeat, Benchley"
Says the Kucinich supporter...(snicker)

It's a positive struggle to save the Democrats and the country.

And you don't have to be Green Party to do it.

Do you honestly believe that, if it weren't for the Greens, no on in the Democratic Party would disagree with anything you do or say? Where the hell do you get that idea?

Give me one good reason why the party should stay bland and centrist(i.e. conservative)when that approach has given us THREE STRAIGHT DEFEATS.

You don't have a reason, and you know it. That's why your next response will be an obscenity-strewn personal insult.

and nothing else....

Oh puhleeezzeee.....

And you still haven't actually responded to any posts with a substantive arguement.
Nothing but abuse, four letter words and spite.
Why exactly do you think that approach helps your cause?

(BTW, how is it NOT McCarthyism for you and the rest of the DLC to
argue that progressives have no right to expect anything from
Democratic candidates in exchange for our support?)

Excuse me, but we don't have the capacity to destroy anyone's careers. We can't make it impossible for
people to work in Hollywood. We, on the left, WERE THE VICTIMS OF MCCARTHYISM. You have no moral right to use that term to attack progressives. Our political ancestors were the ones persecuted by it and you "cold war liberal" types were the ones who did nothing to stop it. None of you stood up to McCarthy or HUAC. Your wing of the party was perfectly happy to see the left forcibly silenced and the Democratic Party driven into the mindset that trapped it in the swamps of Vietnam.

Conservative Democrats cannot claim to be victims of "McCarthyism". You were the beneficiaries of it.

For shame, Benchley, for shame.

And I have every moral right to use it against these lynch mob tactics.

How can people posting on a website be a lynch mob, Benchley?

And do you EVER actually plan to make an arguement in favor of your position,
or will you just go on spewing insults and abuse?

Party, and none of us is ratfucking this thread or this party. We are fighting for a revival
of progressive politics and most of us want the Democrats to lead that revival.
It appears, my good Benchley, that your politics aren't driven by
principle or conviction at all, but rather by a naked
lust for power in name. It also appears that you
don't believe in democracy, in any real sense, because
of your insistence in responding to all posts
you disagree with not with ideas, not with proposals,
not with rational arguement in any way shape or form,
but simply with insults, profanity and spite.

Why don't you just become a Republican and
be done with it Benchley? Tempermentally
you're much more suited for them, and
you don't appear to disagree with them
on anything. Why stay here, in a party
you clearly hate?

"none of us is ratfucking this thread or this party"
Yeah, it's just a coincidence that nearly every Democrat attacked by name around here is up for reelection in 2006 and beating their GOP opponent like a drum.

I'm a Democrat, buddy. Now go snivel about "Clintonism" to somebody who gives a shit.

Hillary would be winning by a larger margin if she were AGAINST the war. Moving further and further right isn't necessary in that race. You can win in New York as a REAL Democrat.
Nobody here is hurting any Democrat's chances for reelection. We want to elect more Democrats, and more PROGRESSIVE Democrats.

Funny Dennnis Kucinich wasn't able to cash in on your swell election advice....

does not reflect a lack of support for progressive ideas in the party.
What it reflects is the capacity of a lot of progressives
to be duped by the conservative campaign Kerry ran, in which he falsely
argued that progressives had to support him because he could supposedly win.

Brilliant strategy that was. You do remember how the 2004 election came out, don't you,
Benchley?
(If Kerry had run as the man he was in 1971, he would have won going away, but no, he had
to listen to people like you.)
Progressives have learned from that. Democrats in general have learned from that.
Perhaps someday you will.

"the conservative campaign Kerry ran"
Yeah, it must be nice to live THAT far from reality.

Insulting me and insulting others who disagree with you
doesn't help you or the people you claim to support.

And let me remind you once again, YOUR way hasn't worked since
'96, so you have no claim to superiority as a political mind.

in years, Benchley. And no one ever will again. Because YOUR advice(the DLC's advice, the Democrats for Nixon advice)NO...LONGER...WORKS...

Got that, Benchers?

Those who post in opposition to you in this thread are mostly Democrats. Stop ranting on and on and on about the Greens. We are Democrats, we want the Democrats to win. And we want Democratic victories to be about something beyond having inaugual balls to be invited to.

Curb your insane paranoia, Benchley. There's nothing any progressive poster can say in these threads that could truly harm the Democratic Party. The enemy is the RIGHT, not the LEFT.

It's noticeable that nearly every prominent Democrat attacked by name by our "progressive purists" is:
--up for re-election in 2006; and
--beating their Republican opponent like a rented mule.

So what are you so paranoid about?
I am NOT working for the Republicans. Neither is anyone else in this forum.
Stop spreading lies.

...And are you ever going to actually take a position and make a
rational arguement for it? On anything?

thanks for the reminder! :toast:

and the Green party is little more than a Republican party dirty trick....

"The Democratic Party has to break with Clintonism and become a populist, progressive grassroots party again"
So tell us, what is keeping the Green Party from being that populist, progressive grassroots party?

"what the hell qualifies YOU to be the ultimate authority of what is and isn't "Democratic""
Yeah, that's why I'm starting all those enemies lists...oh wait, that isn't me.

"The Party has to change or it will never win again."
So tell us, what has the Green Party won, with that pure message? Oh that's right...they haven't won dick. Voters consider them in the same league as the Maharishi party.

As for positive suggestions...if it wasn't for me the PDA would hardly be mentioned at all.

:spank::rofl::spank::rofl::spank::rofl::spank::rofl::spank::rofl::spank::rofl:

therefore I am not responsible for anything THAT party does or says, or its performance in
elections. Stop implying otherwise. Greenbaiting is McCarthyism(unlike anything the so-called
"Junior Joe McCarthy Club" has ever done).

And as to purity or the lack of same...your IMPURE and basically Republican form of Democratic politics hasn't won anything since 1996, and it only won that year because Dole was a doddering old fart. YOU don't hold the keys to the kingdom anymore than anyone else has.

And enough about your snide comments on the PDA. We don't have to promote it at every single moment in DU. Most of DU already supports the PDA. You and the other DLC'ers are the extreme minority at DU.

And you still haven't provided a single bit of proof that the GP is a Republican plot. It's about time for you to admit that statement was a lie. Or be forever branded as a moral coward.