DLC wants pro-war candidates more than winning ones

[yurbud]

The DLC likes to portray themselves as progressives who are just more pragmatic about how to win elections, but this story shows that's a lie. They avoid anti-war candidates even when they stand a good chance of winning.

December 9, 2005
Only Millionaire-Fence Straddlers Need Apply

Meet Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrats' New Gatekeeper

By ANDREW COCKBURN


In the last election progressive candidate Christine Cegalis actually got 44.2 per cent of the vote against the sixteen-term Hyde, despite being outspent $700,000 to $160,000 in a conservative district with no elected Democrats at all.

Following this commendable showing, Cegalis figured that with Hyde retiring and the Republicans melting down, she stood a better than even chance of garnering the seat in 2006.

However it seems that in Emmanuel's opinion, Cegalis stinks. Never mind that excellent record against the giant Hyde, forget her well-crafted support network in the Chicago district, Cegalis has not yet raised a million dollars and, even more damningly, she is calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq. So Emmanuel set out to recruit a more suitable candidate. Initially, he approached two millionaires and urged them, serially, to run against Cegalis in the primary.

They refused. Now he is pinning his hopes on a double amputee women Iraq veteran, Tammy Duckworth

Duckworth, who is not from the district, has ignited hopes at DCCC headquarters that she would campaign on a "pro-business/centrist platform". Queried by a Chicago Sun Times columnist for her opinion on the war, she replied, "There's good and bad in everything".

The rest:

http://counterpunch.com/

[ramapodem]

1. The DCCC

needs to get its act together. We need to change the way they do buisness.

[yurbud]

4. they want to make Dems "the other white meat" for corporations

mainstream & liberal cultural coating, same cancerous corporate core as GOP.

[depakid]

2. Planning to lose yet another congressional election

You'd think after 6 in a row and a resultant party that's no longer even relevant in national politics- and can't effect (much less stop) a single nominee or piece of far right legislation, that would be enough to convince responsible people to change their "strategy."

Aparantly not. I think a reasonable case can be made that these people actually want to lose and that they're happy enough with the far right agenda not to care all that much if and when they do.

[bemildred]

27. Their job is to lose.

Can't move things to the right if Dems don't lose.

[madfloridian]

3. They are running an ex-Republican in Florida, with two good Dems in race.

His name is Tim Mahoney, I have been trying to find out more about him. I think he was a registered Republican just a few weeks ago. But they have called both of the other Democrats several times asking them to drop out. This is Mark Foley's district. They want to run someone against him who can "win."

http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-democratic-party-recruiting.html

[yurbud]

5. TO HOWARD DEAN: Re: Rahm Immanuel

Contact Howard here:

http://democrats.org/page/s/contact

I send this not to chew Howard's ass, but to let him know we don't support the DLC strategy.


Gov. Dean,

I saw this article on Counterpunch describing how Rahm Immanuel of the DCCC is trying to replace anti-war progressive candidates with DLC-style corporate servants, even when the progressive candidate stands a better chance of winning.


I have signed up to give money every month to the Democratic Party, but I want my hard earned dollars going to candidates who represent me and other working Americans.

Tell Rahm Immanuel to knock this shit off, or better yet, go get a job as a lobbyist or GOP hack.

[MrBenchley]

7. I suspect Howard Dean already knows

what a screwloose Alexander Cockburn is....

[MrBenchley]

6. This dishonest crap AGAIN?

Cegelis is a trainwreck...she's lost the seat once already. She's raised just about $160,000 so far and burned through all but $50,000 WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT. One area liberal blog said "Giving money to Cegelis is like investing in arm floaties before a trip on the Titanic."

The Republican running for that seat has more than $500,000 in the bank.

The opponent ,Tammy Duckworth, is still on active duty and will be running as a National Guard person. Since she's on active duty SHE CAN'T COMMENT on the war--but she has expressed admiration for Paul Hackett, which is a tipoff.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1903271,00.html

[yurbud]

9. So the DLC supports candidates who call for pullout (example from link)?

I would be happy to be wrong about this, and your link makes it look that way.

Murphy is standing for Congress in Philadelphia as a Democrat. He advertises his background from the off. “Hi, I’m Patrick Murphy,” he tells voters. “I’m an Iraq war veteran, I served in Baghdad and I’m running for Congress.”

Once that is out of the way, Murphy has no qualms about calling on American troops to leave. “The Iraqis are a very proud people and they want to take control of their government and military,” he said. “Our mere presence is inflaming them. We need to start coming home now.”

[MrBenchley]

11. So you don't know the DLC position on Iraq

enough to know whether what Murphy says reflects it (and it does)....but you've spent umpty-ump posts bitching about it.

Says it all.

[yurbud]

15. feel free to direct my attention to the clearest DLC statement on Iraq

Do they say it was a war crime to restructure Iraq's oil industry to favor our oil companies who are hardly going to share the good forture with us since they just asked for and got more tax cuts from Bush?

[MrBenchley]

16. Actually I won't....

I think it's enough to point out that you have no idea what the DLC actually says, and leave it at that.

Speaks volumes about you, too.

[yurbud]

18. I've read a lot of stuff on their site, and it's a lot like GOP on the war

as are your heros in public.

It's so admirable when someone waits till the right moment to have a principle.

[MrBenchley]

19. It's even less admirable

when somebody can't commit to whether they've actually read something or not....

Makes a discussion with them pretty much worthless, except as a source of inadvertant amusement.

[yurbud]

20. Was this one of the DLC statements on Iraq you're proud of?

Statement of Al From on Senator Joe Lieberman

There's currently an orchestrated effort underway to make Sen. Joe Lieberman into some sort of a pariah because of his views on the Iraq War. That's wrong. Republicans may try to impose strict litmus tests, but an inclusive Democratic Party should not.

There's plenty of room for debate on how to succeed in Iraq and in the war on terror. We should be a party that leads that debate, not stifles it.

Joe Lieberman is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide. He is a man who always puts his county above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today's far too polarized politics.

We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

http://www.dlc.org/

I agree with part of what From said: there should be room for debate and differing opinions provided that opinion is based on facts. I don't know if Jack Murtha's proposal is the best way to get out, but he at least acknowledges reality and cited facts most in Congress and White House run away from like spiders.

Lieberman's statement did not qualify since it was not based on facts but pollyanna talking points.

I would respect any call to stay there that acknowledges some crucial facts:

80% or more of Iraqis want us to leave.

Even Iyad Allawi, the thug who used to be an enforcer for Saddam that Bush appointed prime minister of the provisional government recently said the human rights situation in Iraq is at least as bad now as it was under Saddam.

At the recent Cairo Conference on Iraq, the Iraqi participants from all factions agreed that while insurgent attacks on civilians were wrong, those on occupation forces are not.

We restructured the oil industry in Iraq to make it easier for the oil companies to screw Iraqis out of the income from their oil, and easier for Kurdish and Shi'ite provinces to screw Sunnis out of any oil income. Do you think that might piss people off enough to grab a gun?

Israelis and Saudis separately studied our interrogations of foreign fighters captured in Iraq and found that most had no prior connection to al Qaeda and were motivated by our invasion, not religious fundamentalism.


The Iraqis are not apes who just descended from the trees, and can't figure out how to put a military and police force together. Bush fired all the qualified people as soon as we invaded. And the current problem is getting troops and cops to fire on their own people who they know may have a legitimate beef with us being there. Which sounds a hell of a lot like Vietnam. Wasn't that the big plan there? Train the Vietnamese to fight for us in our absence? Altough it was never put that bluntly, that's the real problem. When the perception and reality are we are there to screw them out of their natural resources and kill those who protest too much with either airstrikes or death squads, it's going to be tough to find people to consistently fight for us. Those who do are unlikely to be choir boys, and likely inspire even less love for the puppet government.

By supporting Lieberman's dishonest statement, the DLC shows themselves as wanting to do the real debate and business of government behind closed doors and leave us out.

[MrBenchley]

21. That ship has sailed....I'm not going to bother with you.

[yurbud]

22. Wow-you really put me in my place. How can I deny evidence like that?

[Ken Burch]

25. And once again, let me ask

why do you, MrBenchley, think its a good idea to verbally abuse people without whose votes the Democratic Party has no chance of winning?

[Elidor]

30. The surest sign of a coward: when he refuses to cite even chapter & verse

To back up his insinuations and assertions. You, sir, are a coward. And a bully. You have nothing, and it's plain for all to see.

[Selatius]

28. I find it funny you won't

But then again, I guess the burden of proof was never on you, since you never bothered to respond to the "rubbish." Oh wait, you took the floor and did respond to the thread. He took the first step. You took the next. You're both on the dance floor as far as I can see.

[yurbud]

10. If Democratic leaders weren't so mealy-mouthed about the war, there

wouldn't be room for questions or misunderstandings about their positions and what they are doing.

[MrBenchley]

12. Hahahaha, that IS rich....

So is Howard Dean for winning the war, or not?

[yurbud]

14. what is "winning" when more than 80% of Iraqis want us to leave?

Is it winning when they stop shooting at us because we are trying to secure the oil fields for American contractors?

The problem with the GOP and DLC is you think the propaganda fools most Americans and even the rest of the world. It is failing here, and it was never believed overseas.

The biggest piece of propaganda is how you step around the oil issue like a spider and pretend it's minor, like the oil execs and defense contractors in the Bush administration suddenly got all teary eyed about teaching Iraqis democracy, so they lied to us about Saddam's WMD and ties to 9/11.

[MrBenchley]

17. Ask Howard Dean....

"We need a special task force of anti-terrorist troops stationed in the Middle East, because we're going to have to deal with Zarqawi for a long time…..We can only win the war, which we have to win, if we change our strategy dramatically. The Democrats are coalescing around a very different strategy. We hope the president will join us," Dean said on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/

[yurbud]

23. How would YOU deal with 80% of Iraqis wanting us to leave?

[Selatius]

29. Ignore 'em and continue nation-building/building stability

...with the insistence that we will leave...eventually.

[Ken Burch]

31. Dean meant the War on Terror in general,

not the Iraq War, which we now know is utterly unwinnable.

Democrats have nothing to gain by taking the Lieberman/Clinton view of the Iraq mess.

[Ken Burch]

24. 44.2% against an unbeatable Congressional incumbent is a TRAINWRECK?

nt

[HereSince1628]

8. Well at least they come right out and say it: "pro-business"

A true democrat would run on a "pro-US economy" platform that would benefit everyone.

I can't think of a better way to describe a moderate republican than someone who is overtly probusiness and centrist.

Pro-business wouldn't be so bad except it really means pro-big corporation, rather than pro small business (dedicated to staying in the US) that provides 61% of the US economy. I really think the small businesses & farms have need for resolving the same issues encountered by the American worker.

[MrBenchley]

13. Here on earth, the economy depends on business

Guess in lalala land where the trees are gumdrops and Howard Dean wasn't the pro-business governor of Vermont who did favors for IBM, things must be mighty different....

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

[Ken Burch]

26. Benchley, a "pro-business Democrat"

is a Democrat who thinks the party should abandon workers and the poor. You can't be "pro-business" AND "pro-justice".

[Moochy]

35. Flippety Floppety

Thats funny back in October MrB was singing a different tune re: DLC. (Thanks LincolnMcGrath for this :hi: )

Wonder why the sauline conversion? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951353

[Ken Burch]

38. Interesting...hey, what happened to Benchers after October, I wonder?

Did the DLC replace him with a pod person?

[K-W]

32. Here on earth business is destroying our economy. EOM

[Ken Burch]

33. Here on Earth business is destroying the Earth.

'nuff said.

[yurbud]

34. thanks for keeping this thread alive

[Free the Press]

36. um, how can business exist without consumers?

Simple:

Business Moral #1: Keep wages artificially low, ignore and deny true costs to society and people, and be greedy.

Business Moral #2: Keep #'s 1 to 10 in perpetual motion.


1). Conspire to have any and all governments levy massive taxes without representation. (On people, not businesses)

2). Conspire to have any and all governments to use those tax levies to grossly subsidize businesses. (Corporate Welfare)

3). Conspire to have any and all governments buy generally worthless and useless business products at exorbitant prices. (Corporations produce crap, taxpayers are made to buy it without ever benefiting from it)

4). Conspire to have any and all governments recognize businesses as people when it comes to Constitutional protections, and to simultaneously recognize businesses as having no accompanying Constitutional obligations, such as people! (People die in wars, and Corporations profit from wars)

5). Conspire to install bought and paid for politicians in any and all government offices, whether by political appointment or by election fraud. (Corporate owned Legislatures and Executives)

6). Conspire to install bought and paid for justices in judicial seats of any and all governments. (Corporate owned Judiciary)

7). Conspire to buy and control mass media. (Society's blind eye - Corporate Whores)

8). Conspire to keep the masses sufficiently able to be exploited for profits by business, without educating them sufficiently to become a threat to businesses. (Slavery was abolished on paper only)

9). Conspire to create a shadow government. (Democracy in name only)

10). Conspire to pass financial obligations (taxes, pensions, operating losses resulting from incompetence and malfeasance) of businesses onto any and all governments that can be made to absorb them.

[Free the Press]

37. moderators: please delete this post. It is a duplicate. n/t