Possibly the only remotely bright spot from the vote to invade Iraq

If indeed there were/are any redeeming qualities at all about the vote to invade Iraq...one of them had to be that we began to realize our party's agenda was out of our control.



I have looked everywhere for that full memo from 1985. I can't find it.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org:80/profile/1463

And more from the site about the founding.



Exactly right. They took over the party's agenda. That is the reason they have felt the need to be insulting so often to the activists of the party. They don't need or want us, they just want to control the agenda of the Democratic Party.

They are doing so.

Kenneth Baer in his book says they are still concentrating on becoming a main part of the party, not just doing the policy.



Al From in 2003 put forth the ways the Democratic Party could NOT win. They are just amazing. Their tactics for winning are just so in opposition to reality in most areas.

National Purpose

Just the leading sentences from the paragraphs. Numbering for easier reference.



And the ending paragraph by Al From.



If it had not been for the vote to invade Iraq in 2002, many of us might never have noticed this agenda takeover. I also noticed the hijacking of my church about the same time.

So far this is the only good thing I have seen from this unjust invasion of a country that never hurt us. Awareness.

Other than the Clintons, who happen to be DLCers but are in their own league, the DLC is great at losing elections. They took over the Party in 93, and we got shellacked by the Rethugs until Dean took back the party after the 2004 election.

I appreciated reading it. I thought it showed great progressive tendencies and ideas. I remember how he was treated over the seatbelt when he nearly died. So I think he deserves kudos for this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010416/corzine
A Time to be Bold

"In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide whether to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to because while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a successful response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats as the party of "tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal responsibility, I believe that purpose has been largely accomplished.

...."Moreover, the DLC has not convinced me that we should turn away from advocating an activist government--one that, for example, sees healthcare as a basic right for all Americans. And while compromise is an acceptable end, too much of it too soon has led to a paralysis on fundamental concerns such as healthcare, gun safety, the environment and educational opportunity."

..."When I was a candidate, the polls said that the majority of New Jersey voters disagreed with my opposition to the death penalty. I'm grateful the voters respected that I said what I believed even when it wasn't popular. As progressives, we must be ready to do that. Most of the progressive agenda--healthcare, the environment, gun safety, a progressive tax policy-- reflects the values and the ideals of the majority of our people. They will vote for our agenda if we present it in practical terms and fight for it.

So while I respect the contribution of the DLC and while I respect its leaders, I'm not ready to join. The answer to "compassionate conservatism" isn't timid progressivism. It's a real commitment to equal opportunity, to fiscal responsibility and a fair society. We can and must be a party with the courage to stand tall for our beliefs because that's how we will be able to win as the party of the people."

mostly Democrats. That is 154 more Congress members than voted against the Vietnam War ("Gulf of Tonkin" Resolution) in 1964. Yep, only two votes against unjust war at that time. This time, 126 in the House, and 25 in the Senate--a little over a fifth of Congress.

I thought that was remarkable at the time, and still do--and I mentioned it to people, but they were so down, it didn't register with them what a big improvement that was. And in this case, it was under the tremendous pressure of relentless, 24/7, war propaganda, all channels, all the time, all newspapers, even the NYT--indeed, with the NYT the lead liar in the news media, as bad as Faux News--and an unconscionable, bullying, threatening, fascist regime, which we now know was spying on everyone and probably blackmailing people. The fear was palpable, with the anthrax attacks, and Washington barricaded.

156. Remarkable. We should give them medals.

What I don't understand is how nearly all of those antiwar voters in Congress got bullied, strong-armed, bribed, or fooled by that OTHER bill the same month (October 2002) as the IWR: The "Help America Vote for Bush's War" Act--electronic voting run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Twin bills, one for unjust war, the other for shoving the unjust down the throats of the American people in 2004--56% of whom opposed the war from the beginning (Feb. '03). The vote for HAVA (or, HAVBW) was nearly unanimous. Couldn't they SEE? Or were they collusive, and their vote against the war was just show? I'm still not sure.

That 56% opposition to the war by the American people has now grown to over 70%. This is one of the main bases of my continued faith in the American people. I think they are overwhelmingly peace-minded and progressive, but they have been demoralized by the likes of the DLC, and I think are quite mystified as to why our democracy is not working.

Just think of the power of the grass roots Democratic movement if we had been allowed to savor our victory in 2004, after the most amazing grass roots democracy movement I have ever seen. I think the DLC (and the powers in the DNC at that time) sold us down the river. I think they threw the 2004 election, as much to crush this peoples' movement, this movement of the poor and the working class and the middle class--who raised so much money, and got so many people out to vote (beating the Bushites 60/40 in new voter registration)--as to perpetuate the war and serve their corporate masters.

But the reality that the DLC must face, in their grand scheme to take over the party, is that they represent a tiny elite, just like the Bushites. They will never win the Democratic Party membership over by honest means. They will never have the support of the majority, because they clearly don't represent the interests of the majority.

As for poor, working class and middle class Americans, either WE take our party back to its roots as the political representative of the majority against the bully power of the rich elite and global corporate predators and war profiteers, or we will have to start a new party. Right now, no one is representing our interests. And it is clear, as things are shaping up, that we are going to have another DLC (war/corporate) Democrat forced upon us as our candidate next year. No other kind of Democrat will be permitted to become president. And there is little we can do about it, at this point. I think that designated "Democrat" will "win" (if that is the word for it)--the Bushites have a lot of reasons for wanting a "Democrat" to take the heat for a while--and we'll likely see a military Draft, and a widened Mideast war, in exchange for a few sops like improved health care access. But we are not going to see justice, serious reform, or a return to the rule of law (except for lip service).

Our first priority must be to restore transparent vote counting--to get rid of, or get around, these rigged voting machines. We can get round them by demanding a ballot for every vote and a 10% handcount (with results posted BEFORE any electronics are involved). This is likely to be most doable at the local/state level. It may be a long and difficult road, but we must do it. With non-transparent vote counting, done out of the public venue, with secret formulae, we stand no chance of ever getting a true populist, leftist President or majority in Congress.

Our error in 2004 was thinking that it was only the money and GOTV. We can raise the money. We proved that. We also proved that we can way, way out-register people to vote. People were flocking to the Democratic Party to oust Bush. And they stole it anyway, with a foundation of electronically stolen votes all over the country, and a variety of vote stealing methods in Ohio, where a very corrupt Bushite political machine had been installed for that purpose--both things without a whisper of objection from our DLC-dominated Democratic Party leadership.

This does not yet make me want to leave the party. It makes me want to fight and win the battle within it. WE are the majority--a big majority. We should be able to do it. But our most essential tool is missing: transparent vote counting. We must get it back.

Nice post. The problem is that money and power really don't have to represent the base at all. They just do what they want.

It takes time to change, and I don't think we have that time.

Thoughtful post.

I disagree. Just because Harold Ford says they speak for the country does not mean they do.

From a CNN interview in January this year.



I don't believe the country overall is that hawkish anymore. I disagree.

More...he comes right out and says they are making the policy..that is their purpose.



Ford brings everyone into his fold...wonder if they appreciate it.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/25/sitroom.01.html

Just think of all the stuff Bush was getting away with but because of the miserable decision to invade Iraq ALL his actions are now examined more closely. And with each rock turned over, more hideous beasties appear. These finding help put this regime's potent attack on US into the public conscience.

to spread Democracy. I have been keeping up with the Ideas Primary at the DLC which was started under Harold Ford's chairmanship.

This is a most interesting article:

http://www.ideasprimary.com:80/?p=136

It is called The Democrats' Democracy Problem.

You would think it would be that we learned not to spread Democracy, but no, that is not it at all.

It is just that we let Bush have too much control over it, cause he stole the idea from the Democrats.

"In 1995, democracy promotion was one of the three central pillars of President Bill Clinton’s first National Security Strategy. Rereading the document today, with its call for “a more secure world where democracy and free markets know no borders,” I’m struck by how the idea of expanding democracy’s reach permeated official Democratic thinking a decade ago.

No more. Today, it’s hard to say where the Democratic Party stands on the issue of promoting democracy. …

It is time to stop blaming Bush for our inability to articulate a true alternative strategy for expanding democracy and human rights. Democracy promotion was a key issue long before Bush emerged on the national stage, and it will remain one long after he has retired to his Crawford ranch. Nothing is stopping us from coming up with our own updated vision of a principled, tough-minded liberal internationalism except our own confusion, cynicism and timidity. Indeed, such a vision is more important than ever. Americans are hungry for something different and inspiring after years of the Bush administration’s bluster and blunders. And such an alternative is central to the task of rebuilding the nation’s image and alliances."

SO there...we are going to spread Democracy. Read the whole article, very enlightening.