Democratic circular firing squad?

Does anyone else find this disturbing?

From the Washington Post:



Competing against the DNC instead of trying to work with it? Sounds like the wrong approach to me.
Why do these guys hate Dean so much?

More

precinct lists that show how every Democratic voter has voted for the last 4 elections. I don't know what they have in mind here?

In fact, we had to go build said database ourselves before the 2004 election. I worked my BUTT off to do so. Our model is now being used as the grassroots model of database building for the state of NC.

:hi:

It was shocking to see the lack of organization of our Dem Party here in NC. But, it's not only NC it's other states I've lived in where the Dems for decades have not reached out to their own registered Dems. They relied on the Party Heirarchy (Big Donors and the Unions for funding along with small amounts from Civil Rights and Women's Movement activists). When the Unions had less power Dems seemed to not know how to move forward except by courting the same Big Business interests as the Repugs (i.e. the DLC was founded) They figured they would keep their Women's Activists and Civil Rights Groups on board but knew there wasn't much money forthcoming there.

I've lived in NY, Conn, NJ and now NC. And even though I've voted in Every local, State and National Election for decades ...my party never tried to include me in any functions or reach out to me. In NJ on local issues a group of us actually had to ban together to get a Dem out because he was more conservative that the local Repug! That was the only time I ever voted Repug...but it was worth it!

I got involved in NC through business interests...but then it was the Dean meetups and Kucinich activities that got me involved in the Party locally.
Without the Dean, Kucinich and Nader activists the Dems creaky Top Down autoritarian ways would still be in place.

I applaud those who worked so hard to get the databases here functional and allowed Precincts to start to get organized. :applause:

What are they talking about?

Here we go again.

power bases.
Power to the people would mean less power to those bureaucratic bullshit assh**es! This is their attempt to hold onto power, even if it means that the end result would mean that the Repukes would stay in office.

This is a disturbing tactic for a couple of reasons. First, as you said, the DLC seems to be trying to usurp Dean and his strategy of building grassroots organizations by compiling a data bank of "possible" Democratic voters who ideally could be ignored until a couple of months before the eclection (no muss, no fuss, no bothering to listen to them). Second, and more troubling, this is the sort of tactic the RNC used when they ordered churches to turn over their member lists to provide more targets for party mailing, voter registration drives, and high pressure tactics. Churches balked and parishoners were resentful. It backfired, big time.

More and more, the party conservatives are proving what I've said all along, that party conservatives are the problem and will continue to be the problem until we find a way to push them out of the center of party power.

the personality of likely Bush voters. That's why if your read their propaganda closely everything reads "fear of outsiders" coupled with a "great father who will protect them". His base is made up of people who feared the boogey man as a child. They used the data to find out what scares them most and what sorts of images they liked to see that comforted them.

The DEMS got out-flanked and all we are left with is Bush sucks!-not appealing to somebody who thinks their daddy protects them from fictional monsters. The response is "Nu Uhh My daddy doesn't suck. He protects me." They'll use this data to figure out how to frame their message in a marketable manner. Unfortunately this requires massive amounts of personal data collected from the great panopticon we connect ourselves to through our use of digital money exchanges.

:popcorn:

They have investors who fund the research, then they turn around and sell this information to Democratic candidates and party organizations on the state and local level?

That is wrong on so many fronts, not to mention taking money away from Dem organizations and candidate who could use it for loads of other activites. Poorer candidates and party organizations will be left in the dark. We already tried this in 2000, 2002, and 2004. This was the DNC's plan under Terry McAuliffe to fill its coffers before Howard Dean got involved.

Since there are already several for-profit organizations out there who will sell you voter information, one has to wonder why the Clintons would attempt this.

Anyone else starting to smell a DLC attempt to control who gets elected?

The DLC with Hillary who took her stand with them recently already have their own party. Since Ickes is a long long time loyalist and an advisor to Hillary...I would venture this means that this is part of that movement. The Democracy Alliance mentioned is connected to Rosenberg and the NPI as well as Ickes.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we can not work together. We seem to be handing it to them on a silver platter.

We could fund the DNC, but most don't because it is not perfect. That is the reality.

Think of it as a kind of power play..

It doesn't do anyone any good to try to usurp the national party. Soros was big with MoveOn as well, which similarly tried to supplant the DNC.

If they don't trust Dean with their money, that's their business. It's a free country, still, supposedly.

A voter database that targets potential Democratic voters seems like a can't lose proposition though, no matter who is doing it or why.

So I can't get too worked up about this.

MoveOn did and is trying to lessen the influence of the DLC and the powers behind it...

Sorry if that sounded like I was knocking MoveOn, which wasn't really my intent.

My point was that Soros could have simply donated money to the national party rather than starting MoveOn, similarly to this. MoveOn doesn't do a whole lot that the DNC couldn't do, so to an extent I think they are duplicating the efforts of the DNC.

Though at the time, Terry McAuliffe was in charge, and the DLC agenda was in full effect at DNC, so I can see why he chose to start up a different organization.

Now that Dean is running the show (and taking a beating for it, judging from the bs media stories about running out of money), you'd think Soros wouldd be more willing to support the DNC's efforts.

Why doesn't Soros buy a freakin' cable news network so we have a VOICE? THAT would be much more effective, IMCPO.

Is the DLC behind this????? I wouldn't doubt it. It's their modus operandi...indermine everything Howard Dean tries to do.:grr: