"Something new, though, is going on inside the Democratic Party"

I was very impressed by this post at Huffington Post. This guy's bio is impressive. He seems to have a handle on the real changes going on.
Just a few snips from his post.

The Democratic Divide



It is not going to be settled soon or easily. But I think it is the right battle. I don't like the vitriol he speaks about, but it is part and parcel of passion about change.

This happened when the Iraq War was considered ok, and it hit many of us that our Democrats were ok with it. It was the first time we knew of that our country was invading a nation that had not harmed us while saying it was to prevent them from doing so. Things changed.

I remember this email from Howard Dean the day after the 2004 election. Many of us were feeling like we would not be able to get off the ground and try again. Then came this mail. It said "Today is not an ending", and it said "We are not stopping here."

I don't think he knew he then he would be chairman, but he fully intended to be a catalyst for change in the party.

Today is not an ending



So the changing is inevitable. It will take time. There will be battles won and battles lost. Those who think the Nevada Fox debate is not important are not looking at the bigger picture. It is about how the party prioritizes their audience. It is not about reaching out, it is about enlisting Fox without the involvement of the party's activists.

I was proud of the way our Democrats spoke out on Iraq today. The pressure on them has been tremendous. Their plans are not perfect, but they are fighting back.

That is what it is about.

DFA is part of this conversion of the Democratic party.

Most definitely.

:hi:

I, too, am a proud member of DFA. That, and Dean's specific "50-State Strategy" worked WONDERS. Probably THE reason we got the majority back, because it made us competitive in places where the DNC, DCCC and DSCC were not planning to spend much time or money. They wanted to target sure things or near-sure things, which is okay, but Dean wanted to build us EVERYWHERE - which is A LOT MORE than okay. There were Democrats thirsting in the desert in states like Indiana and Louisiana and Mississippi where they'd been completely ignored, and Dean went and spoke to them personally. It was the first time many of them had ever seen a party bigwig close-up.

former Deaniacs make up 40% of our delegation to the CDP convention next month.

I'm one of those skeptics, when it comes to power in Washington. I keep feeling like the spirit of our founding fathers is dead and buried, and that our country will NEVER find its true course again.

But, it is true that change like that happens slowly. It didn't for our founding fathers, but we're a much bigger machine today. Maybe there is hope left. And every day I thank God for Howard Dean. What a statesman, at a time when we really need one.

:kick::kick::kick:

principles of persuasion to the table for the left voices and issues he has now embraced.

We haven't had that in a LONG time from our DNC chairs.

That and going across America running in the Democratic primary in 2004 brings a lot to the table, too, as you pointed out one day. :)

People want to talk/communicate with each other but they THINK they're talking a different "language" because this person or that person SAYS they're a democrat (blue dog/yellow dog, etc.), republic, progressive, green, neocon, old-tyme conservative, etc.....WITHOUT defining what they mean by that term (what principles does that term VALUE, consider dominate). These terms mean different things to different people nowadays. When you talk w/someone who calls themselves 'progressive', YOU (the hearer) will ASSUME that means one thing, all-the-while to the SPEAKER it means something all together different.

It's tragic b/c it makes this country SEEM much more devisive than it really is. I believe that the VAST MAJORITY of us are "all together on the same page" (minus the fine points perhaps).....we just are all working under different definitions which makes it appear, wrongly, that we are further apart from each other than, in truth, we really are!

Peace,
M_Y_H

This kind of thing has been going on for as long as their have been political parties. This is the most insightful part:

"As much as the progressive movement has grown and strengthened itself in recent years, I don't believe outsiders/progressives are ready to win an all-out war with the establishment, but I think we can and should continue to build our foundation for the long haul. Certainly if you look at our presidential candidates, there is no clear movement option and it's hard to take over a party without a clear leader or standard-bearer for your cause. And as extreme and dangerous as the Republican Party is at this moment in history, I don't feel like it's a good time to risk losing it all by chopping the Democratic Party in half. Though the divide runs deep and there is profound passion on both sides, eight more years of Republican White House rule would tear this country apart. At the same time, there are plenty of issue battles and primary fights worth having. I just think we should pick them strategically and always look to where we have the high ground in the battle."

We need to keep fighting the good fight for Democratic values, and not let partisanship get ahead of pragmatism and common sense. We need to remember that all Democrats, indeed all Americans, have more in common than the professional politicians would like us to believe.

This time it is different. I think most people sense it is. The war was the turning point, the bankruptcy bill and the Medicare drug fiasco were next.

Nearly every battle now will be strategic.

And if I hear "don't be partisan" anymore I will puke.

I am with Joe Conason about the "bipartisanship". It is code for letting the GOP keep control.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1118

Partisan means actively seeking out what divides us....look at the root form of the word...to part, divide, etc.

Bi-partisanship means actively seeking out what unites us. It has nothing to do with compromising our values, it means looking for the values we have that at least some Republicans share.

Now, if the word bi-partisanship has come to mean code for something else, then I say we must reclaim that word along with the word liberal. We ought to be liberal bipartisans, not liberal partisans. My sig line pretty much sums it up. Working for peace ought not be a partisan issue.


www.stopiranwar.com

of what they would say about us.

Fear of their disapproval. Or trying to be like the winner...Bush..who is extreme in every way. Trying to fit in.

We can't do that anymore.

If we get called partisan that's ok.

No fear of standing up for what we believe.

No fear of listening to those with whom we disagree.

No fear of keeping an open mind.

No fear of changing our mind.

No fear of admitting we were wrong (if we were)

No fear of saying what we believe even if it's not towing the "party line."

No fear of looking partisan; no fear of looking bi-partisan.

No fear of offending "the base"; no fear of offending "the estabishment"

No fear.

I think it means more to them not so much a "bipartisan" view between conservative and liberal points of view (if there is a real even "division" between to camps on most issues). It is more trying to be "bipartisan" between the interests of the grass roots (who vote for them) and those that pay their bills (corporate and other special interests that donate to their campaigns).

My feeling is the latter kinds of "bipartisanship", while useful to them in trying to find some sort of strategy to satisfy both groups that they feel they have to satisfy, is something that most of the rest of us, conservative OR liberal, can do without!

I want politicians to run on and deliver on an agenda that serves PEOPLE (their constituents), and not small groups of people that are buying them off. That kind of "bipartisanship" which I believe they are speaking of, I can do without, thank you!

Trying to come to terms between liberal and conservatives to help us unite more people to fight off this special interest money that screws us all in terms of jobs, growing our debt, giving us wars, etc. is the kind of "bipartisanship" I want to see us in engage in! I think that might be what you're speaking of (which I don't think a lot of pols are), and I do support that!

You are working from a different defintion than the vast majority of the county ...

To the right, as noted, bipartisanship means them getting their way ... And, to the MSM, bipartisonship only exists when the right says it exists ...

We can have high minded, or even accurate versions of what bipartisonship is ... But, as with so many other things, it has been adapted to a version that suits the means of the republican party ...

I hate to give Mathews credit, but he TOTALLY nailed how the right wing has bullied its way into changing the definition of pardon for Scooter Libby ... I hate to admit it, cause I am usually attuned to it, but only after Mathews noted the legal definition of pardon as including an ADMISSION OF GUILT, did I realize how they had hijacked that term ...

that is, what the Repugs mean by "bipartisanship" -- in a word, "Be reasonable. Do it our way."

At a Democratic event last June, an organizer said to me - 'we're trying for a bit of bipartisanship today'. I looked at him and said 'Well, I don't do bipartisanship.'

ugly partisan!

It is the activists who don't have to be. Dean will not be acting that partisan, it is not his job...he can't. Neither will the congressional leaders.

But the blogs, the groups we have formed, and issue groups can continue to force the change.

That is the way it should be.

It's our only hope.

Either that, or democracy itself (and the Dem party along with it, of course) will perish.

It is such a great comfort to know he understands what's happening and will neither be crushed by it nor let us be crushed by it.

And I agree that this is the fight Democrats need to have.

I think that the outsider camp is definitely wanting to rid ourselves of corporate influence and want things like public campaign financing, etc. I'm definitely in this camp.

I think the insiders, with progressive views, etc. might be leaning towards keeping the establishment with all of its corporate influence, but are that way more because they are concerned about the risk of trying something radically new (being self-sufficient instead of dependent on corporate money, etc.) and not want to lose what little balance of power we have in Washington today. If it can be shown that the model without corporate money influence works and doesn't disrupt our power base, my bet is that a huge chunk of the older "establishment" insiders might switch to the grass roots outsiders group if and when they feel that their strategy is more proven as a viable one. The ones left in the "establishment" that resist throwing out corporate influence will then be a decided minority and will be either forced to change their views or told to find another party to barter corporate influence with (if they can find one that isn't the Republican Party).

My gut feeling is that many of us are on the same side of a lot of issues. It is just KNOWING that we can run a successful party that can have significant power in Washington without corporate money is the huge issue we need to overcome to get more unity and become the dominant force in the party. I'm hoping that Al Gore (and perhaps Russ Feingold as his running mate) can enter the race and become a force of leadership to help give us this viability. Certainly those like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich would join in such an effort too. Who knows, perhaps even Ralph Nader might come forth and support us at that point too.

Our current methods of campaign finance encourage corruption of our leaders by the corporations and the ultra-rich.

Today it amounts to institutionalized bribery. There will be no significant change in how Washington operates until we finance campaigns differently.

It is something that should benefit both Republican PEOPLE and Democratic PEOPLE where they live, as politicians will be more willing to serve people rather than special interests. Remind those on the right that not only would you be taking out corporations from influencing politics, but unions as well.

Unions today as "special interests" that help fund campaigns serve a necessary counterbalance money wise to all of the excessive money that corporate interests collectively have on our politicians, and still don't measure up collectively strongly enough against corporate interests, even though the right likes to point out how they themselves may be higher up on the "single contributor" lists than single corporate donors are. It is the collective amount of donations that corporate America make through lobbying that makes them so destructive to the people's interest now.

Hey, many Republicans in Arizona also like Clean Elections too and have gotten elected as clean elections candidates.

"Clean Elections" public campaign financing should NOT be allowed to be marginalized as some "fringe left" notion. That is what corporate America wants you to believe because it is only partisan if you measure "bipartisan" as satisfying the people's interests and the corporate interests, which Clean Elections doesn't do. But if you define Bipartisan as being in the middle between conservative and liberal politics then "Clean Elections" IS of bipartisan interest to both sides!

at least, according to some here. :sarcasm: We're the "fringe." It's not US who raise money, write letters, call Reps, hit the streets in every election right down to dogcatcher, hold meetings, show movies, organize forums, and actually - unlike the DLC "triangulators" hold the positions that most of the electorate - in poll after poll - hold. :sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

That seems to be the battle that many in the media are not willing to bring to light.

John and Bobby's youngest brother is considerably more liberal, Clinton based many of his policies on those of, or the writings of, both older Kennedys, and Ted has been trying to lead some kind of "liberal" revolt since 1980.

even though JFK was bringing it *down* to that amount from 90+% rate that existed then.

Yes, JFK, brought DOWN that tax rate, but his top marginal rate still was far higher than what Clinton and the other Republican presidents had us move our current rates today. That was symbolic of what JFK was faced with versus what we are faced with today.

Today there is SO much screwing up of our infrastructure that has occured over the last two decades to serve the elite and the right wing, versus Kennedy who was in an environment that still had the New Deal infrastructure WELL in place, where "softening" it then (making it more "friendly" to business), etc. might have been the right thing to do THEN, but now, ANY move to more rewarding of our policies to what the right wing wants is NOT the same thing as what JFK was doing. It is more equivalent to what Hoover and Harding were doing around the depression time frame that caused the mess that FDR had to clean up.

We REALLY need to completely fix the "free trade" messes of NAFTA and GATT that Clinton introduced (and CAFTA, etc. that were added later) to be FAIR trade deals instead. And also to completely fix the media which Clinton and Reagan both had equal shares of responsibility in screwing up (the Telecomm act that Clinton signed and the getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan).

Back in the days after the depression, FDR was considered a MODERATE. There were those to the left of him too that almost wanted a socialist type society that were gaining power. But we need to get omeone, whether he's considered "moderate" or "liberal" to be willing to make some sizable changes for the PEOPLE like FDR did, and not continue to support corporate America, which is replaying the market crash/depression scenario that happened back at the turn of the last century with perhaps even greater costs this time around (global warming, even greater debts, more violence with worse weaponry today) unless we correct it soon.

..and even if I did differ on some small details, they would be trivial EXCEPT your statement that Bill Clinton was a Republican president. If that is what you meant to say, it certainly isn't a realistic statement.

That wasn't my message, but you were trying to say that he followed a more conservative JFK has his model than a more "liberal" Ted Kennedy of today.

I was simply saying that the times those days were different, and that even someone like JFK might appear to be more conservative THEN, doesn't mean that they would be conservative NOW. I think JFK might be right there with his brother Ted today with what we have in place of government policies and regulations today.

Though Clinton is a Democrat, he was more of a corporate Democrat than many of us would like. Our times now is that we need to swing our country back more to the left to correct a lot of the pieces that have been put in place that have done thing like increase the wealth divide, put us on a precipice in terms of our debt financing our economy for most of us that aren't wealthy, etc. If we do get more progressive politicians in place that change our infrastructure so that it gets back to more of the New Deal style of set up that was prevalent in the post WWII times, and we get a later candidate that wants to take it at that time into an even more socialist direction than the times then, that might be where I say "Woah!" we perhaps need to balance things out like JFK did with the top marginal tax rates being brought down too. Right now though our government needs a swing to the left. And a corporate owned government isn't going to help us do that! It's going to be up to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to find true bipartisan issues (like clean elections campaign financing) to champion and not get sidetracked on things that are more truly more divisive between different political philosophies.

As a model, the policies developed by the DLC and which Clinton enacted were based on those of JFK. I mean, that is established fact and detailed in several books on Dem party history. Long story short, DLC founder Al From was a disciple of Democrats who'd work with Kennedy.

The difference you have is with corporate money. But I would suggest that if the DLC had not incorporated such fund raising, the Dem party would have been thrown into the trash bin of history long ago. Certainly the GOP has no problem with such money because up until '88 or so, they were getting the lions share of it and outspending us by mind boggling amounts.

Like I always say, hate the game - not the players.

I think everyone knows that there is a reality to playing the game to have power to make change. But the end game, when someone realizes that the game is rigged against you, is to at some point use that power to change the game so it is no longer rigged. I don't see the DLC bunch of the party doing that. They are buying into the rigged aspect of the game and lose sight of what purpose the party is there for, and are swallowed up by the rigged game themselves.

When those elements of the Democratic Party are fighting those of us who want to correct the problems of the game being rigged, then I don't think they are any longer those that are fighting for Democratic interests, but are there more purely just for power. And then you have to ask what that power is being used for, because much of that becomes compromised to those that are rigging the game (aka the corporations). Now in older times those rigging the game might not have demanded as high a price tag as they do today when they have that much rmore control. It might have seemed benign to some playing that game then (aka JFK). But I would lay money down to say that if JFK were alive today and saw how the DLC was slaving itself to corporate money and corporate agendas in doing so, that he'd be as abhorred with it as the rest of us are.

That's why I said in an earlier post in this thread that many of those who support the "establishment" group don't like what we are sacrificing in terms of Democratic principles to keep power, but are willing to "sacrifice" that to play with the "establishment". If they were to see the progressives funding strategy to be a viable alternative to those of the DLC/corporate influenced part of the Democratic Party, many of them would jump over to the outsider category to support them as more of a pure play to support their priniciples without having to compromise them.

That is why to me, it is SO important that we find some way to get public campaign financing working at a national level. It will take out what many like you say is an "inevitable necessity" and give us a choice. Given a choice, I think most will not want to continue sacrificing our principles to what corporations want us to do. Those that stand in the way of public campaign financing in my book are NOT Democrat, NOR are they "bipartisan". They are just those that want to manipulate and continue manipulating power to serve themselves and those that are in power. That I can do without!

and/or doomed. I think the Nader approach has done a lot to strengthen the Party though, making people realize that if they really want to change it they have to get involved from the bottom up--and have patience. It's hard sometimes, very hard. And sometime we have to be reminded how far we've come. :)

The battle you speak of does not belong to the Kennedy Democrats and the Clinton Democrats. It belongs only to you and the Clintons, which is a result of something that exists ONLY between you and them, possibly something personal that happened between you and them, who the heck knows, so you're making it a personal vendetta against them every chance you get. That much is obvious.

... and I agree. In 2005 I wrote on DU that "Progressives" either lack the knowledge or desire to organize or run an effective National campaign. They bemoan the establishment yet they can't seem to figure out how to effectively counter them. The reasons for this, IMO, are fairly obvious to anyone who has spent time on any internet progressive site.

"Camp B" is more concerned with their "principles" (and a belief the establishment has none) than winning. Their mission is to make their positions on issues known rather than actually running national elections which often force candidates to compromise their stances. Their goal is to defeat, then become, the establishment, even if the result is lost elections.

What this guy is sensing is in no way new. There has always been, in both parties, factions marked by ideological rigidness and/or desire to take on the establishment. The advent of the internet, however, has made those undercurrents much more noticeable though their electoral results have changed very little.

Their mission is to make their positions on issues known rather than actually running national elections which often force candidates to compromise their stances.

I'll say that even much of that effort is squandered making their positions on issues known to each other, rather than making them known in a polite, intellectually honest, and compelling fashion to voters who don't already agree and securing a wider and stronger consensus which would allow them to both win and stand on principle.

But that would require work. It's much easier to whine and cast grudge votes (if any votes at all).

Their mission is to make their positions on issues known rather than actually running national elections which often force candidates to compromise their stances.

I'll say that even much of that effort is squandered making their positions on issues known to each other, rather than making them known in a polite, intellectually honest, and compelling fashion to voters who don't already agree and securing a wider and stronger consensus which would allow them to both win and stand on principle.

Part of the problem is they want to be the establishment without doing what is necessary to become the establishment. They prefer to be courted. Catered to. They want to be "discovered" by the electorate and be told by them, "you were right all along." Sure, some have run "Don Quixote" type campaigns with limited success, but their appeal has been mainly to a very few. Others have ventured into the real political world in local parties with greater success. But by and large, they prefer to talk to each other.

and it changed the way people like me....a moderate, almost a conservative with a mostly Republican family with military officers..it changed how we think.

No, dream on wyldwolf. We will lose a lot of battles, but things will change.

Dream on, wyldwolf,and you guys keep on keeping me honest.

The same was said at various other times. "Progressives" thought they'd found a winning formula in opposing the US's Soviet policy. Again, they felt the aftermath of the Viet Nam war "changed things" and to a degree, it did - it weakened the Democratic party electorally.

To a much smaller degree, "Progressives" felt the Kosovo intervention was some rallying cry in the 90s.

As I said before, today "feels" different because of the internet. But in all honesty, it really hasn't changed things much at the ballot box.

It's all ok.

We've got the bloggers and internet activists who over-value their contribution and over-estimate their actual power. In time the reality may evolve to the levels now believed to be true but we are a ways away.

Then we've got the real world folks. Many are not involved in the internet at all, have no aptitude for it, don't like the "newness", whatever. I know many within my own age group that use the net for almost nothing but their e-mail. The old establishment people never go quietly, it's alwyas kicking and screaming. I don't think many truly believe the 'net people/activities to be worthless as they may claim, on the contrary, they are fearful of powerful internet movements.

The reality is both are needed and should be fully untilized in every way possible. Everyone brings a lot to the table, all must be willing to sit at the same table.

Julie

It started in 03 when a certain group got the war support by calling us fringe. And it was not the Republicans.

and yet....they have no doubt learned a thing or two since then. ;-)

Here in my own world many have risen to leadership positions and displaced the old mindset of what local parties are really all about. This trend continues in my part of the world.

:toast:

Julie

to the point of despair....and those GOP Peeps who Plot......have come over in small numbers to INFILTRATE/DILUTE our DEM PARTY

I saw CARL SHEELER of Rhode Island attempt this last Summer running as a DEMOCRAT but having a history of being REPUB.

He lost.

But, I assume there are others who WON....Clever these Pubs...if ya can't beat um...join um

I find it hard to believe Dr. Dean would support a split like this in the Democratic Party.

It would be good if you could find a current quote from Dr. Dean, that he is in fact, supporting this fool notion.

He isn't a Stupid man.

It is "change" he supports...I have posted so much about it here. I am sorry, but I will not do your searching for you anymore.

Your giving people the impression Howard Dean is behind this new A,B, democratic split strategy.

Apparently, he has not committed to it one way or the other, because you can't come up with a current link endorsing a Democratic split! Which, to me is a "suicidal" idea at this point in time.

I am talking about changing the party because they led us to war, begged for the bankruptcy bill, etc.

Read your post.

A change suggests ie.. a change of leadership, change of title, change of mission.

This Lux bird is floating the idea the Democrats are split into 2 segments. Team A and Team B..

What they have in common is being Democrats and thats it! Their ideals and agendas are separate and apart.
How can you not see that amazes me. What should happen is for both segments A&B to compromise and blend together
forming ONE strong Democratic unit. This Lux character, is creating a scenario that may exist in small part on these boards but to encourage it beyond the bounds of virtual reality is a suicide mission to the great detriment of our Demo nominee.

"A house divided upon itself cannot stand"...the old Abe Lincoln axiom.

Not by a long shot. You are making it up because you are upset that there is going to not be blind allegiance any longer to the consultant, advisors, the DLC wing which called us fringe.

He nowhere advocates split, and nowhere do I advocate it. Howard Dean briefly in 04 thought of a third party, but he said it would be too bloody.

I am amazed every day at how some of you here just make stuff up, toss it out, and hope it sticks.

You are absolutely not being truthful at all.

What does the word "divide" mean to you?

It's a seperation of parts of the whole in EVERYBODY's WORLD!!

As in 10 DIVIDED by 2 = 5

Are you promoting this as some kind of "good" idea for Democrats to entertain?
If so, you are effectually advocating selling the Democratic Party down the river. TRAITOR!

Please, I'd like to hear more of the Plans for the "DIVIDE"..

Calling me traitor is a new low. I thought you guys had done just about all you could and called me nearly everything.

Traitor....a new low.

Your words...

"Are you promoting this as some kind of "good" idea for Democrats to entertain?
If so, you are effectually advocating selling the Democratic Party down the river. TRAITOR!"

I am sorry you did that. It sounds like the way Republicans talk about us.

You posted a piece promoting a DIVIDE by the Democratic Party..

You supported the piece and tried to slide Howard Dean in as a supporter of this LUX (who the hell is he anyway?) character
as something that is a strong possibility of the future of the Democratic Party.

Do you mean to tell me you're denying this? As anyone can read, you're backpedaling on the OP you originally posted and have shut it down for discussion, and would rather us have a go at you being a Traitor, as more important, than the ultimate Dem nominee.

Where do you get off with this self important stuff?

I welcome discussion, but calling me a traitor is not discussing.

I never thought I would see that at DU. Never.

as a GOOD Thing for the Democratic Party..

And the fact you falsely gave the impression Dr. Dean, supports this stupidest idea- ever,
in the face of an upcoming election?

So, what should I call, what you just tried to do?

Lemmee see, deceptive...fradulent, mis-representative, undue influence. Pick one and we'll run with it.

"Traitor", is an end result label and yet to be determined. Apologies for that. So, pick one of the above as justifiable due to content.

Sadly.

I am glad I wrote a clear enough OP that most will understand. I just hate to see DU become the place where one is called a traitor for advocating change in the party.

I am team B, part of the change. But I am still a Democrat. That may change in the future, but not yet.

You called me a traitor, and it tells me so much about you. And the fact you will not have to answer for it tells me even more.

They are going on your WORD...which you have demonstrated is FAULTY and meant to deceive.

In GWB's America anything goes. Most people know I am not a traitor, but it is nonetheless a tragedy to be called that because I know my party must change.

They openly took us to war. Major Democrats knew differently, but they failed to speak up.

as per your OP!

You can't answer 2 simple questions can you?

That is your problem. Not my problem.

Dr. Dean is a good man. You disrespect him by drawing him into your pantheon of deception.
Shame on you!

I really do not know what you are saying.

You are trying to impugn my character for something I have not done.

You are getting away with it, too.

That's kind of sad.

If you don't know that Governor Dean said he was going to change the way the party functioned, then you need to do some research. I can't help you anymore.

You got away with calling me a traitor and a liar.

That's a shame.

about you than your target.

Dems and Progressives (Greens et al) need to show the way to the old values of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

The people of Brazil know this ... look at some of those posters in the crowd. America via Bush/neocons scams-artists can't fool all the people all the time. People begin asking questions. That's the freedom America is all about, sir.

this is an example of the 'divide"


Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject The Progressive Caucus Plan, The Pelosi Plan & the House BlueDogs:
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3153033#3153033
3153033,

The Progressive Caucus Plan, The Pelosi Plan & the House BlueDogs:
Posted by rodeodance on Fri Mar-09-07 11:55 AM

Pelosi looked pretty frazzled at her press conf. yersteday (cspan1)-----wonder if she can pull this off?



The Progressive Caucus Plan, The Pelosi Plan & the House BlueDogs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2761051

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq ;_ylt=AuUm09hDoidc3WSA4Vb_5NSMwfIE

Jackson Lee and other liberals are backing an alternative plan that would immediately limit the use of war funds to withdrawing troops, training Iraqis and other non-combat missions. It is doomed to failure, but Democratic leaders have been discussing whether to allow a vote on it if, in return, liberals would then swing behind their bill.


"It's time Congress finally caught up to the people we represent, people who recognized long ago that the Bush Iraq policy was and is a train wreck," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

Nearly every member of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats, met Thursday to hear out Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md. According to attendees, several members said they oppose a provision in the bill that would prevent the president from attacking
Iran. Another major issue for some was setting the hard deadline.

"In general, we need to give the commander in chief flexibility," said Rep. Jim Cooper (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn.

"There are an awful lot of members — not just Blue Dogs — concerned about a date certain" when troops would leave, said Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga.

A small group of Republicans indicated they might be on board. Rep. Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record), R-N.C., said "conceptually, I think this is on the right track," while Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) and Chris Shays, R-Conn., said they like the idea of holding the Iraqi government's feet to the fire.

Jim Cooper of TN should wash his mouth out with soap. If he wants to give a failed commander in chief, one who lied us to war more flexibility, then he has other reasons than caring about his country.

Maybe he believes in the "unitary executive" theory. Maybe that is the premise of all of this. Who knows.

Cooper of TN says that while our troops are dying in Iraq, and we are slaughtering Iraqis.

How dare he.

Could you explain your understanding of same in your own words?...NO LINKS please!

You have effectively turned this thread into something it wasn't. You called me a traitor, and you are getting away with it.

I think that is very sad.

I hope others see through it, but I doubt some will.

Is that how you get behind and promote things...similar to this LUX promoting the "Divide" of the Democratic Party?

What am I supposed to think? You're not exactly sure of what you're talking about? Your understanding of what you're promoting is cloudy or non existent? You have no idea what the "DIVIDE" is really all about OR what The Unitary Executive Theory means?

You're not going to tell me someone put you up to posting this link to the Huff Post, are you? Or if you do, you will regain some respect in coming clean, with at least the motivation behind your posting the OP.

:hi:

I wish I had not been called a traitor for posting it, but so be it. I am a strong Democrat who cares about my party and my country. Those who call me traitor say much about themselves.

I am in Camp B with you.

:hi:

:pals:

There are definitely two camps of Democrats right now. And they are both looking for more influence. I don't think it will be bloody. But I think it will happen that they will "tug" back and forth for a while over the reins.

Apparently some misconstrue the statement of a fact as a threat, as advocacy for some unnamed divide and conquer strategy.

Don't let it get to you, madfloridian. There are a bunch of us out here who know exactly what you meant in your original post.

Appreciated. :hi:

as I get home from work, mad!

I love that you bring these reminders from certain junctures of the past.
Look how far we've come since Dean wrote that email in 2004.

Excellent, analysis and suggestions by Mike Lux. I hope you posted him a "comment", mad.

You bet there are "passions" on both sides. For myself it's because I don't want anyone else murdered in bush's war..it's life and death. Is that a passionate enough reason?

What we did in Iraq will define us forever. Rachel Maddow was playing the audio of a Gore speech before the war. I had forgotten how passionate some were.

Yes, it is emotional. The deaths did not have to happen, and it should cause passion.

:hi:

I like your new Dean sig.. That's exactly what happened to Gov Dean..his "gaffes" were not only the truth they were prescient truths.

:hi:

the progressives have more money.

Dean went into Iowa with 10s of millions of dollars in the bank and Kerry (representing the
spineless jellyfish as you point our "Camp A: establishment camp" was broke as shit.

we have more money.

$60/person by millions of peoples
wins out over hundreds of people $25K per person everytime.

the progressives win everytime and right now I don't see anyone of the dem. presidential
candidates who have harnessed Dean's money base.

will some darkhorse candidate please come out of the woodwork, progressive, able to
appeal to a group willing to pay for rise to White house, but who understands (unlike Dean)
the need for a coordinated and quality PR/press machine.?????

where are you my magical dark horse candidate?