We have to win in the fall. Without concern for ethics, nicety or anything else, agreed?

Is there anyone who doesn't agree with that?

would be OK?

Ethics matter. We can win without sacrificing that.

We don't need to play nice, but we don't need to lie, cheat or steal, either.

should we plant drugs on someone ?

Should we kidnap and rape ?

I disagree. I won't compromise my principles.

And for how long? As a hypothetical: would you prefer dem A in the WH, that is such that the result is that in 2010 the dems lose the Congress, and in 2012 a really bad republican gets the WH, or republican B that is bad but not horrid, we keep the Congress for at least another 10 years, and in 2012 a very good dem gets into the WH? Ever heard of Pyrrhic (sp?) victories?

the point was (and I am sure you got it :-)) that it's all in what the definition of victory is (is).

The line may not be where is was 8 years ago or 20 years ago, but there is still a line. ;)

What is winning good for if in the process you actually lose?

for the American people?

to dredge up the will-power to support them. I suppose it would be better to have a "Rockefeller Republican" in office as opposed to a Cheney Neo-con...

blues! :hi:

MKJ

an agenda that may be fluid, but is never benevolent.

Something like that.

MKJ

of Star Wars fame...

They only deal in absolutes

:-) MKJ

Therein lies the root of all the problems the Democratic Party is facing: No one is willing to stand up and demand ethics, nicety or anything else.

Is it any wonder most Amercans who could vote do not?

We NEED to stop the law violations NOW, to have something to gain and preserve.

the politics of "divide and conquer" which only serves the Status Quo.

The divisive and, at times, unethical TACTICS of The Clintonian DLC vary little from the RNC.

Please remember this "divide and conquer" strategy began to flourish during Goldwater's CONSERVATIVE movement? It seems that HRC has learned well from her days as a "Goldwater Girl" and her college's President of the Young Republicans. :shrug:

Let's look back to history and see what MLK thought of Goldwater's Campaign?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/autobiography/chp_23.htm

JULY 16, 1964: King asserts that nomination of Senator Barry Goldwater by Republicans will aid racists.

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The "best man" at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.


While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.


The celebration of final enactment of the civil rights bill curdled and soured. Rejoicing was replaced by a deep and frightening concern that the counter-forces to Negro liberation could flagrantly nominate for the highest office in the land one who openly clasped the racist hand of Strom Thurmond. A cold fear touched the hearts of twenty million Negroes. They had only begun to come out of the dark land of Egypt where so many of their brothers were still in bondage-still denied elementary dignity. The forces to bar the freedom road, to drive us back to Egypt, seemed so formidable, so high in authority, and so determined.

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

IMO, the DLC's Atwater-lite tactics mirror the horrific days of "states rights" campaign spear headed by HRC's Hero, Barry Goldwater.

There is NO Place in our Democratic Republic today for Campaigns which pit Blacks against Whites OR Hispanics against Blacks. The tactics of The Clitonian DLC led by Mark Penn are unconscionable and are BROADCASTED by a corporate driven M$M who thrive when us "non-investor classes" fight among one another.

The time has come to UNITE. Not left vs. right but WORKING AMERICANS standing up against The Power Elites.

I submit that a 3rd DLC Stacked Executive Branch will usher in "more of the same."

Yes, it's beyond time to TURN THE PAGE ... Edwards needs to shed his delusions of a potential comeback, and choose to join in with Obama. We MUST wrest loose the STRANGLEHOLD that the DLC holds over *our* Democratic Party. :thumbsup:

loss. In fact they are going to hand the election to the GOP.

As a commentator at MSNBC said Put Romeney on stage with Obama. Facing a recession and all the problems , who will America choose
a successful businessmen with vast experience or a community organizer.

The Establishment give the appearance of trying to push the Clinton"s
Out. Folks she is our Experience and Competence Candidate

The Democratic Party is seen in America as a just a buncy of groups.
Blacks, Gays , Feminists, Minoriies. The Establishment is ruining
our chances for the next 50 years.

As Mudcat Saunders once described us. "look like a buncy of wussies"

The Primary and GE are two different aninmals.

The GOP are loving this.

Something was going on at that GOP Debate last night. Mark my word.

Is it Competence and Experience or as the GOP would say privately
Affirmative Action??

I think the country is sick of smears, voter suppression and nastiness. Look at the wins of the vets in 2006 who were smeared - but defended by Kerry and Clark.

I think it is essential that we win AND we do it ethically. Even if we win after nasty tricks, can we govern? "What does it profit to gain the world and lose your soul?"

sad that so few don't see it and/or do not care.

We just disagree.

Equally misguided IMHO. And of course we disagree, that's OK.

That's what the rules are there for. To set the boundary of what is acceptable.

Democrats can certainly set additional rules for our own primary if we don't like the general rules.

We can even opt to not vote for someone who operates within the rules if we elect to do so.

guide to what is acceptable conduct in campaigning or governing? None of us should set a higher standard for ourselves beyond the minimum required by law?

I think some of the things Bush has done are immoral and unethical, even if some of them may not have technically crossed a legal boundary. I expect more from a president, particularly a Democratic one.

I'm content for the people to decide. Are you?

Obama and Clinton are 1A and 1B with me. I'll be happy with either (though I am not happy with Bill, but that is another story). ;)

It does bother me to see either of them trashed as totally worthless and beneath contempt, when they are both intelligent people who would make a great president.

I just have no problem with competitors competing within the rules.

If their behavior is so odious, even if legal, the voters can express our displeasure by not voting for them.

that they won't govern as dirty as they campaign. I'm not really getting that from either of the top-2. I think that's why Edwards is so popular on DU. After closely tracking 7 years of Bush/Cheney/Rove, we all have some trust issues, here (rightfully so).

I want us to win, and I want us to preserve our brand for the future; I don't want us to become the 2000-2006 Republicans Part Two. Do-absolutely-anything-to-win is a recipe for short-term success and long-term failure.

I'll maintain my concern for ethics, thank you very much. The ethics in getting there are no less, nor no more important than the ethics involved once there.

Winning & Ethics-- the two are not mutually exclusive except through design.

So yes-- for what it's worth, I disagree.

on edit: spelling

nt

I have been trying to make repeatedly. Mostly to deaf ears/eyes. I wish people could see and understand this simple truth. Such a "win" is actually one of the worst kind of losses :-(

Sorry about the yelling, but I just couldn't agree more. We're all heated up right now, myself included, but in November we won't elect a Democrat for president unless we get off our butts on election day, put our disappointment and bile in check, and vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. AWESOME post! (I just said "awesome" for the first time in my life!)

have no choice except the ethics part. You can fight hard and be ethical. You can.