Which of these is a "real Democrat"?

[MrBenchley]

Would it be somebody who protects reproductive rights, stands up for the environment, promotes racial equality, fights for health care for the poor and children, and stands up for the rights of women, gays, and the disabled? (let's call him or her A)

Would it be somebody who calls for a Consitutional amendment to ban flag burning, promotes school prayer, opposes reproductive choice and thinks habeas corpus shouldn't apply in death penalty case appeals? (let's call him or her B)

Would it be somebody that Business Week praised as being a "Rockefeller Republican" because of the special deals he gave IBM and other big businesses, who told CNN "we have to win" the war and called for a bipartisan deal with Bush? (lets call him or her C).

I'd love to know.

[rpannier]

1. Depends on who you ask

If you ask me it's A. If you ask Faux news it's B. If you ask the wsj it's C.

[MrBenchley]

4. Okay....remember that when I reveal the names.

I tihink you'll be surprised.

[...of J.Temperance]

6. This is a good one MrB!

;)

Of course I already know the answer, but I'm not saying!

[MrBenchley]

10. Thanks.

[rpannier]

41. I will

but I would add...it's only a slice of what they have done and said in their careers, or what has been said about them. I'm sure in the end that A will be some scrub loving Democrat, like Lie-bermann or clinton, B could be Feingold and C maybe Boxer.
I won't be necessarily surprised, but I also probably won't be surprised or care.

[MrBenchley]

47. But it's a pretty big slice....

unless you look at the world through only one issue.

A is Lieberman, B was Murtha and C was Dean, by th way.

[rpannier]

52. Well...

Let's see...I realize Murtha is rather conservative. I applaud Murtha's statements, but I know he and I have very different points of view on the world -- even though we are both veterans. Dean was an excellent Governor, I didn't vote for him in the primaries, but I applaud his job as Chairman and as for LieBerman...he seems to be willing to continue to support too many things I find appaling -- the Bankruptcy reform bill and his stance on Iraq are just two of about 50 things I have problems with him over.

[MrBenchley]

57. I think the actual correct answer is all of them

frankly. We don't have to agree on every issue to work together productively.

[rpannier]

68. I don't necessarily disagree with you on agreeing on every issue

I think Sen Reid has done a Hell-of-a-Job as Minority leader. I have said that many times. I am fully aware that he is Mormon (as if anyone should care), that he is anti-Abortion and pro Death Penalty. However, he does his job effectively. There is almost no chance I would ever vote for Clinton in the primaries, but I would be reluctant not to vote for her in the general election (again, as if anyone should care I am not registered in New York State). I mean, let us not forget that Clinton was a Goldwater-girl in '64 and comes from a family of Republicans.
As to Lie-berman. He has to go. He has supported way too many regressive pieces of legislation and has been too vocal a supporter of scrubbie on International issues. Having lived overseas for over a decade, I have seen the damage this administration has done to our image in Asia and Europe. To me Lieberman is an enabler. If Sen Reid is correct and he has alienated himself from almost every Democrat, then he will be ineffective in representing his state in the Senate.

[MrBenchley]

73. I agree Reid has done a helluva good job....

I disagree that Lieberman ought to go anywhere. He's coasting to victory with a 70% approval rating and he votes liberal on a lot of important issues. I disagree with him on lots of issues, but it's much more important to bring down some Republicans and take their seats in Congress than fuck with Joe's Democratic one just to break even.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

90. Would you believe I'm not surprised?

Lieberman's pro-choice, and liberal on economic issues. Murtha's a conservative Dem, and let's not forget, Dean was considered a fiscal conservative in Vermont, and got an A rating from the NRA.

[MrBenchley]

104. Exactly...

I think the main reason Dean did no better than third in pretty much every primary is that he wasn't liberal enough for most Democrats.

[Warpy]

2. They're all Lieberman

I've said on this board many times that nobody can fault his stance on civil rights and liberties. He gets great markes from both the ACLU and NARAL.

He does a great job of representing the yuppies of western Connecticut, as Hillary Clinton does of representing the yuppies of New York.

However, the rest of the country is vastly different from the districts of both these Senators. Pushing the for the top office is asking for another disaster. Their economic policy is hostile to 80% of working people and their foreign policy is deplorable.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different outcome. I'd suggest that we've seen enough corporatism in the presidential campaigns, thanks very much. It's time to try something different.

[MrBenchley]

3. Actually, no. Answer shortly.

[wuushew]

59. I can fault him

Defense of Marriage Act: Passage of H.R. 3396

Vote No. 280: September 10, 1996
Defense of Marriage Act: By 85 yeas to 15 nays (Vote No. 280) Senate passed
H.R. 3396, to define and protect the institution of marriage.
Page S10100


September 10, 1996


YEAS--85
Abraham Republican Michigan Y
Ashcroft Republican Missouri Y
Baucus Democrat Montana Y
Bennett Republican Utah Y
Biden Democrat Delaware Y
Bingaman Democrat New Mexico Y
Bond Republican Missouri Y
Bradley Democrat New Jersey Y
Breaux Democrat Louisiana Y
Brown Republican Colorado Y
Bryan Democrat Nevada Y
Bumpers Democrat Arkansas Y
Burns Republican Montana Y
Byrd Democrat West Virginia Y
Campbell Republican Colorado Y
Chafee Republican Rhode Island Y
Coats Republican Indiana Y
Cochran Republican Mississippi Y
Cohen Republican Maine Y
Conrad Democrat North Dakota Y
Coverdell Republican Georgia Y
Craig Republican Idaho Y
D'Amato Republican New York Y
Daschle Democrat South Dakota Y
DeWine Republican Ohio Y
Dodd Democrat Connecticut Y
Domenici Republican New Mexico Y
Dorgan Democrat North Dakota Y
Exon Democrat Nebraska Y
Faircloth Republican North Carolina Y
Ford Democrat Kentucky Y
Frahm Republican Kansas Y
Frist Republican Tennessee Y
Glenn Democrat Ohio Y
Gorton Republican Washington Y
Graham Democrat Florida Y
Gramm Republican Texas Y
Grams Republican Minnesota Y
Grassley Republican Iowa Y
Gregg Republican New Hampshire Y
Harkin Democrat Iowa Y
Hatch Republican Utah Y
Hatfield Republican Oregon Y
Heflin Democrat Alabama Y
Helms Republican North Carolina Y
Hollings Democrat South Carolina Y
Hutchison Republican Texas Y
Inhofe Republican Oklahoma Y
Jeffords Republican Vermont Y
Johnston Democrat Louisiana Y
Kassebaum Republican Kansas Y
Kempthorne Republican Idaho Y
Kohl Democrat Wisconsin Y
Kyl Republican Arizona Y
Lautenberg Democrat New Jersey Y
Leahy Democrat Vermont Y
Levin Democrat Michigan Y

Lieberman Democrat Connecticut Y

Lott Republican Mississippi Y
Lugar Republican Indiana Y
Mack Republican Florida Y
McCain Republican Arizona Y
McConnell Republican Kentucky Y
Mikulski Democrat Maryland Y
Murkowski Republican Alaska Y
Murray Democrat Washington Y
Nickles Republican Oklahoma Y
Nunn Democrat Georgia Y
Pressler Republican South Dakota Y
Reid Democrat Nevada Y
Rockefeller Democrat West Virginia Y
Roth Republican Delaware Y
Santorum Republican Pennsylvania Y
Sarbanes Democrat Maryland Y
Shelby Republican Alabama Y
Simpson Republican Wyoming Y
Smith Republican New Hampshire Y
Snowe Republican Maine Y
Specter Republican Pennsylvania Y
Stevens Republican Alaska Y
Thomas Republican Wyoming Y
Thompson Republican Tennessee Y
Thurmond Republican South Carolina Y
Warner Republican Virginia Y
Wellstone Democrat Minnesota Y


NAYS--14
Akaka Democrat Hawaii N
Boxer Democrat California N
Feingold Democrat Wisconsin N
Feinstein Democrat California N
Inouye Democrat Hawaii N
Kennedy Democrat Massachusetts N
Kerrey Democrat Nebraska N
Kerry Democrat Massachusetts N
Moseley-Braun Democrat Illinois N
Moynihan Democrat New York N
Pell Democrat Rhode Island N
Robb Democrat Virginia N
Simon Democrat Illinois N
Wyden Democrat Oregon N


NOT VOTING--1
Pryor Democrat Arkansas X

[MrBenchley]

62. Too bad, binky....

Down below you'll see somebody explain with stunning logic that "nobody cares about gay marriage"...

I used to but I was converted by the stunning clarity of the argument below (snicker)...

By the way, Joe has stood up for gay rights on many occasions....(and as you can see from the list you provided, he was hardly alone on that particualr bill).

[KoKo]

5. That's much too simplistic. Could you please flesh this out a little more?

more folks might understand what you are talking about if you do. Your choices are very simple minded, in that they really don't give the depth of the three postions.

I think you can do better than this from what I've seen of your other posts here. Why not provide some links so we can really have a discussion based on a more comprehensive view of the differences of "A,B & C."

It might make for a much better DU discussion.. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

9. No, I won't.

And it's no more simplistic than lots of other threads.

Which one of those three would you say IS a "real Democrat," based on the views you see here? God knows you haven't been shy about telling us who was not a "real Democrat."

[KoKo]

13. Sadly....if you don't understand the complexity of the questions you asked

I cant' help you. :-( Maybe you could do a Google search to better define your choices. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

16. I understand the complexity perfectly.

Don't answer then and begone with you.

"Maybe you could do a Google search"
Gosh, I already KNOW who A, B and C are.

[KoKo]

25. Yes...but it's your job as OP to inform others more fully of what you know

:shrug: Just so they can prepare an answer that's not just a one line comment.

[MrBenchley]

27. I'll take that under advisement (snicker)

And the answer to this is just three names, such as A is Adam, B is Barry, C is Calvin.

If you don't feel up to that, don't come crying to me.

[KoKo]

31. Please do...it would add alot to your discussion. Broaden the posters

that it would appeal to. You might really get a good discussion going here, with just a little more work on your part. :-)'s

[confludemocrat]

30. Its shallowly, assininely simplistic which is makes it special

others may be merely simplistic, but this original post is paul harvey dumb

[MrBenchley]

32. Then don't vote, for God's sake!

I'll try and carry on despite your absence. (snicker)

[leftstreet]

7. None. It's the person who stands up for Labor

Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, school prayer - most people don't give a shit about those issues.

[MrBenchley]

11. Most people don't give a shit about gay marriage and abortion?

Guess you don't know m,any women or gay people.

[leftstreet]

21. That's right

Most people believe that equal protection under the law shouldn't even be a debate. Just ask people. The majority will tell you:

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry one.
Don't believe in burning flags? Don't burn one.
Wanna pray in school? Go to a religious school.

These are largely moral issues, embraced by the corporatists, and have nothing to do with working class interests.

[MrBenchley]

22. Guess you don't know any women or gay people, chief....

"These are largely moral issues, embraced by the corporatists, and have nothing to do with working class interests."
Bullshit.

[leftstreet]

38. There shouldn't be laws restricting the rights of women or gays

in the first place.

Why is it so hard to understand that the majority of voters aren't interested in these talking points? The ruling class creates restrictive and controversial laws to give working class people something to "fight" against. That way they won't collectively turn on the ruling class. It's pretty simple.

[MrBenchley]

40. And yet there are....go figure that.

So are you going to answer the quiz?

[leftstreet]

43. See post #7 "none"

[MrBenchley]

48. Well, that was wrong....thanks for playing.

[Boojatta]

8. First point in B and First point in C

"Would it be somebody who calls for a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning <...>" -- That is not a significant issue. For one thing, there's a process required to amend the Constitution. Calling for that kind of Constitutional amendment is going to have zero effect other than to increase or decrease one's popularity with various segments of the population.

"Would it be somebody that Business Week praised as being a "Rockefeller Republican" <...>" -- Are you sure that you want to let Business Week (whether it be their words of criticism or their words of praise) influence your opinions?

[MrBenchley]

15. How aboot somebody who proposed a flag burning amendment in Congress

[Mass]

29. Concerning Business Week, ask to those who do that here

blasting people they dont like on the base of what Washington Times or the New York Post prints.

I dont think the OP is part of them. I imagine he is just making a point.

And welcome to DU.

[MrBenchley]

35. Thanks!

By the way did YOU know nobody cares about reproductive rights and gay marriage? It sure was news to me...but then I know women and gay people.

[Mass]

36. I am a woman. I am pretty sure I care about reproductive rights and

I care about equal rights for all.

[MrBenchley]

42. I'm not and I care about that

Not gay and yet I care about their rights too.

Guess I lack that special marxist insight into class struggle that lets me say with supreme confidence that nobody cares about issues.

[Zensea]

12. My "random" guessing

Well perhaps I should say that I decided to play in the sense of trying to suss out what is being attempted here -- that is what the subtext is.
If I'm wrong it doesn't really matter to me though.
I'm going guess that A is Hillary, B is Lieberman and C is Dean.
I'll be somewhat curious to see how far off base I am.

[MrBenchley]

17. Good guesses and one of them is correct

Not going to say which one was correct though, just yet.

[Zensea]

19. I know which one I was the most sure of

C - Dean.

Don't tell me if I'm right though.
I'll wait and see.

[MrBenchley]

20. I think it's going to be an interesting quiz for some.

[Mass]

14. Are the three people you are talking about living today

or have some been dead or out of politics for years?

[MrBenchley]

18. Not only living today but mentioned with great regularity

here, singled out for both wildly enthusiastic praise and bitter hatred.

[Mass]

23. I think I know who B and C are, however I know too many

Dems like A to be able to guess who you are aiming.

I would say Byrd for B and Dean for C.

[MrBenchley]

24. I'll turn over all the cards soon....think you'll be surprised and pleased

[KoKo]

26. You are a MAGICIAN! OMG the ...Hat Trick is Coming!

WOW! I can't wait....let'er RIP!!!! We are dying with anticipation!

[MrBenchley]

28. Go home and tell your mother she wants you, kid (snicker)

On second thought, she'd never believe THAT.

[KoKo]

33. Oh My...and I thought "You" were the one in need of "nurturing."

OOP's...One never knows on these boards, does one? :eyes:

[Lefty48197]

34. ...and then there are those "real Democrats" who hang out in the gungeon

and vote for candidates that toe the Republican Party line, not because they're Republicans, but because they're committed Democrats who disagree with our party on that one little issue.

[MrBenchley]

39. Exactly so! Glad to see you.

I think that the answers to the quiz are going to be enlightening to some and amusing to others.

By the way, I guess I have to apologize because this thread doesn't live up to the lofty intellectual and moral standards of such threads as:
"I'VE HAD IT!!! So called Democratic leaders can go to HELL"
"Is the DLC a Neocon 5th Column within the Democratic Party?"
"Joe Lieberman just makes me want to barf on my keyboard"
and
"Back to the same old, same old. Guess enough Democrats got to Dean"

[Zensea]

45. You were doing ok until you apologized

Now that subtext I suspected all along is showing through.

[MrBenchley]

49. Can't fool you....

[Zensea]

51. All in good fun -

:)
I do realize

[MrBenchley]

54. Yup.

[Mass]

37. BTW, my answer is all of them

even if I disagree with B on all the points you listed.

[MrBenchley]

46. Actually, that's correct!

And for the record, A is hated and despised "Republican lite" Joe Lieberman
I meant as B that current darling of our progressive purists, John Murtha, USMC...but I think you're right about Byrd sharing all those issues too.
And C is Howard Dean.

And they ARE all true Democrats. Anybody who says otherwise can go shit in their hat, as far as I'm concerned. You may disagree with them, but they're Democrats...and i'm proud to be in the same party as all of them.

[Mass]

56. It is more or less what I suspected

A - I agree with him on the points you listed, disagree on many other ones.
B - I have welcomed his call to pull troops out of Iraq, but I know that I disagree with him on many others issues, and it would include his world view which is way too militaristic for me.
C - Of those three, the one I agree the more with, even if I have differences of opinion sometimes.

Thanks for this enlightening experience.

[MrBenchley]

58. Thank you for participating

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. A

Real Democrats are interested in protecting the people, not corporate interests, and by that I mean all the people, including women facing the choice of having a child or not, the person on death row, the poor, the disabled, minorities, etc.

[MrBenchley]

50. Congratulations!

A is Joe Lieberman. B is John Murtha and C is Howard Dean.

[KoKo]

53. What's the prize?

[madfloridian]

55. How many fell for how this was worded?

I just wondered.

Dean was raised Rockefeller Republican, switched a couple of decades ago to Democrat though his parents remained Republicans.

He stands up for rights of minorities, protects reproductive rights, stands up for the environment, promotes racial equality, fights for health care for the poor and children, and stands up for the rights of women, gays, and the disabled.

He opposes unjust wars and invasions, which the other two appear not to do at this time.

He does really not like to see flags burned (neither do I), but he opposes an amendment about it.

Talk about misleading.

[Mass]

60. In fact it was making the point perfectly.

You can always distort or improve anybody by selecting only one part of his record and ignoring the rest.

Anybody who knew something about Dean would have recognized him and known that this was not all the picture. For the rest, too bad for them if they support or oppose somebody without knowing the whole picture.

And for the record, of the three, Dean is the one I feel the closest.

And this is done on DU to way too many people including Dean.

[madfloridian]

63. None of them fit into just one category. Not a fair picture.

Yes, it is done here a lot.. I don't like it either.

But there are "groups" which need to be shown for what they are, and there is just attacking without reason.

Joe Lieberman's bad aspects far outweigh his good, and none of them were presented.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

69. "just attacking without reason." is my specialty?

Really.

[MrBenchley]

71. REALLY

[madfloridian]

72. Pretty blatant accusation there.

.

[MrBenchley]

74. Statement of fact

Tell us again how the DLC is deliberately sabotaging the DNC convention and hiding the results...or how Harry Reid is a warmonger....

[madfloridian]

78. The ugliness that is coming in the party is showing here.

I don't think any of us who got into spats during the primaries were nearly so ugly to each other.

This is a sample of the ruthless way the ones in the party who think they are the "elite"...will work. I don't know how much is DLC, DCCC, or DSCC. But I know there is a ruthlessness emerging.

They are tactics that seem more GOPish, attack attack attack and call names.

These people in the party think Howard Dean and those he brought back to or into the party are smarty pants little upstarts...and they will not tolerate us.

You seem to be talking to us in the same way. Calling me names is ineffective. I have been called so many I have lost count. Accusations just roll off my back now.

We are here, Benchley, to stay. We ain't going nowhere. Deal with it.

[MrBenchley]

80. "attack attack attack and call names"

Yes, irony is a wonderful thing, all righty.

"Deal with it."
Are you going to keep flying into a rage when I point out your distortions and smear tactics? Cause that's how I deal with sleazy attacks using distortions and smear tactics like yours.

[Boojatta]

65. Support Or Oppose Without Looking At The Whole Picture

"<...> too bad for them if they support or oppose somebody without knowing the whole picture."

-- That was one of the points that the author of this thread was trying to make, no?

[Mass]

66. I think so.

[MrBenchley]

75. Exactly.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

67. You say I do "specious crap"...and call Reid "warmongerer"?

Murtha is not for the war now, and I am glad, but he did vote for it. He is one who has the nerve to speak out.

I am thinking people are seeing what is going on with the name-calling. I have had some notes today from some noticing.

But you know what? If you feel better, if you need to say hurtful things to others to feel better...well Benchley buddy I have a very tough hide.

[MrBenchley]

76. Yup...and I'll back it up....

"I am thinking people are seeing what is going on with the name-calling."
Irony is such a WONDERFUL thing....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2302004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2299123

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5534605

[madfloridian]

79. I hope they read every thing I have posted. I really hope so.

I hope you just keep on keeping on.

[Boojatta]

70. Raw Materials For Weaving

"<...> weaving DLC conspiracies out of thin air and horseshit."

At least we can all take comfort knowing that the horses are eating a very healthy, high-fiber diet.

[MrBenchley]

77. LOL!

[AuntPatsy]

81. I cannot help but wonder why these particular three Democrats

were used in your little by play. After reading all the comments from beginning to end and your obvious relish in stating the names for a b and c...

Lets take into consideration the three players used in your little induction into game role playinf of who's the real Dem...

A, we have what looks to be a fairly good track record of for issues regarding what most Liberals prize most when looking at candidates...

B and C seems to pull us out a bit further to the right of where our progressives wish to be...

Now considering the bad press that A has been getting lately, meaning of course our fair fellowed Dem Lieberman, a favored component of definate right winged leaning Dems, one has no problem seeing that those supporters of Lieberman will do what they can to attempt a sort of sarcastic distain for anyone even suggesting that Lieberman swings both ways...

And of course we have B and C who though from the very little imput given to pinpoint those two characters based on past views, it's obvious the responsible party that gives light to these what could be unknown facts to some is meant as a sort of rebuke for the unfailing adoration that for the most part is directed at these two from the more left leaning of this message board that such adoration should in some respect be questioned...


For me at least, it doesn't in any way shape or form alter my views on all three subjects that were used in this little mind game of yours...

Being that the present state of affairs speaks for itself regarding each individual's standing in the minds of a high majority of people, its a no brainer that word games such as this will be conducted time and time again, what you were attempting to do failed miserably for some, myself one of those, but I am sure also found some wondering if indeed they were too hasty on certain assumptions about certain individuals...

I'm sorry, it was cute and your right, it was much better than the "I hate bushies guts threads" but it didn't quite live up to the expections I think you were looking for, at least for me...

My only wish is that people will quit trying to undermind the much needed change of face this party needs, like those such as Boxer, Conyers, Dean etc have been attempting to highlight for some time now...

Forget the scream being Dean's downfall, for me, it woke me up and ensured I listened more closely. Obviously, some people see things differently, its a given, and for me, Liebermans hugging Bush to name one instant and his recent attack towards any Dems standing up to this administration highlights a very real and ugly truth as to where his true leanings lie...

Political grandstanding not withstanding, every now and then, we do get honesty from our politicians both right and left as well as from those in the middle, and believe it or not, such is a good thing, one should be true to himself and his beliefs if he or she wants to be taken seriously by those they pretend to speak for...

[MrBenchley]

82. Cute

"A, we have what looks to be a fairly good track record of for issues regarding what most Liberals prize most when looking at candidates..."
But of course, since A turns out to be Joe Lieberman, whom all the progressive purists hate hate hate hate hate....there must be something wrong with the thread. Because otherwise one might think for oneself. So obviously it's much safer to piss and moan and even make a clumsy little gay-baiting comment about Joe "swinging both ways"...to prove how" progressive" one was, of course.

"his recent attack towards any Dems"
What was that attack, pray tell?

[AuntPatsy]

83. The attack of yours by serving up Dean with Republican leanings...

It's fairly obvious as to which way Dean is leaning TODAY and not yesterday as it is more than obvious which way Lieberman is swinging...

As to your thinking I was making a gay baiting comment? That is the furtherst thing from the truth I promise you, it wasn't in my head at all? I wonder why you viewed it as such?

As far as attempting to prove to anyone that your attempting to attack Dean, I really don't see it as such, what I view this whole thread as was attempting to whitewash Lieberman and it just doesn't work, at least not for me...

Its really not about attacking, I think your attempt was more as excusing...

[MrBenchley]

84. That wasn't an attack but a fact

Here's an account of some of the deals he gave big business while governor of Vermont...

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

"It's fairly obvious as to which way Dean is leaning TODAY"
To whom?

"which way Lieberman is swinging..."
Yeah, good thing you're not doing any gaybaiting....

And I'm still waiting to hear how Lieberman "attacked" Democrats...

[AuntPatsy]

86. To me its fairly obvious, obviously your opinion differs...

Lieberman attacked Democrats when he openly announced that all Democrats should staunchly stand behind this president in this time of war and not undermine this country's security or so he says they are doing when they DARE to question the validity of the honesty of this administration...

If you dont see such as an attack, that is your right, but I certainly do considering the number of casualities that continue to rise day after day both foriegn and domestic in this illegal rush to war this adminstration forced on this country...

[madfloridian]

87. He said we questioned the president at our "nation's peril."

But that is fine. Al From takes up for him, so all is well. Do a search on his name, and you will see he is fast becoming the favorite of the right wing blogs.

He still thinks Howard Dean is in a "spider hole of denial" about Saddam, I fear. And he thinks we should finish the job in Iraq.

He as much as said we were unpatriotic to question that fool of a president. How dare he?

[AuntPatsy]

88. I do think How Dare He, it does come off as another jab at anyone

who dares to question this administrations truthfulness to be seen as nothing less than patriotic, he need not use that exact wording since it's pretty obvious where he is going with such rhetoric...

What I am wondering about these days is the massive attacks on Dean on this message board by the very same people who swear we as Dems should stick together and NOT question any Dems motives, those dems of course seemingly a certain few, Lieberman among them, reeks of hypocritical bs to me when the very same individuals have no problem attacking dems that seemingly have a more progressive stance than the ones we are supposed to endorse no matter what they might do or say?

Its crazy...

[MrBenchley]

92. Yeah, how he dare he say something that you disagree with

[MrBenchley]

91. Wow, that ISN'T obvious to me

"Lieberman attacked Democrats when he openly announced that all Democrats should staunchly stand behind this president""
Wow the pounding! It's a wonder you can stand up under that brutal assault.

And actually what he said was ""It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril." Which to me is neither an attack, nor necessarily correct, but well within his rights to say.

Lieberman has also said, "In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge."

By the way, I hate Chimpy but like Joe, I do have to acknowledge he's gonna be staining the White House for three more years. If you can see a way to avoid that without a bipartisan effort, I'd love to hear it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. do you Mr. Benchley agree that Lieberman's remarks were inappropriate

for a leading Democratic Party figure?

I made it a point myself to remind my fellow progressives that on many--in fact most domestic issues Lieberman is fairly progressive. This is simply a matter of intellectual honesty.

But when Sen Lieberman made some delusional remarks about progress in Iraq, something those who live in Iraq find absurd and when he made his equally absurd remarks implying that those who oppose Bush's Iraq War policy are putting the nation at peril, well what can one say?

Do you also agree that when leading DLC figures such as Al From and Will Marshall smear mainstream and progressive Democrats as being "fringe leftist" or "far leftest" even when their positions are actually very mainstream, something is wrong?

I am not suggesting that the DLC, Lieberman or anyone else should be purged. I am suggesting that to a large extent that they started this fight and to a large extent their message is "my way or the highway".

I do agree that many progressives go way overboard too.

[MrBenchley]

98. No I don't

I don't think it's ever appropriate for a Democrat to have to bow to one fringe group within his party....especially when they're as far out of touch with reality as they clearly are.

To reiterate something I posted elsewhere yesterday:
Connecticut voters have historically always responded strongly to bipartisanship--you might recall that the "Connecticut compromise" allowed North and South to unite and actually form the US.
The voters there see his record on issues like reproductive rights, the environment, racial equality, stem cell research, health care, gun control, etc., etc., as being of equal importance to the war in Iraq. Connecticut is sometimes called the "arsenal of democracy" because many defense industries are headquartered there and have historically been based there.
The Democrats in Connecticut are in the middle of reforming the state legislature and are trying to unseat a popular Republican governor--they have no interest in ripping up their entire ticket and unseating a candidate who is wildly popular just to please out of state leftists or the Connecticut Green party. Even before Joe's muddle-headed "war cabinet" proposal, he was such a shoo-in for re-election in 2006 that the Republican party wasn't going to try to mount much of an effort to unseat him. (Can anybody name his Republican challenger without google? I can't...and I've actually looked him up a couple of times in the last month.) In 2000, the GOP trotted out Philip Giordano to run against Joe, and Giordano was convicted of felony child molestation a couple months after the election.
If things go well for the Democrats as I'm sure we all hope they do, and we regain control of the Senate, the margin will only be one or two seats. Why anybody sane would want to piss one seat away is beyond me....and after we take control, we will still need someone like Joe, who can reach across the aisle to make bipartisan compromises with moderate Republicans like Snowe, if we want to get anything real accomplished.


"Do you also agree that when leading DLC figures such as Al From and Will Marshall smear mainstream and progressive Democrats as being "fringe leftist" or "far leftest" even when their positions are actually very mainstream"
No, again, they have the right to say what they think. Which mainstream Democrats did they single out?

"to a large extent their message is "my way or the highway". "
Says who? The only people I see spouting that horseshit are our progressive purists here on DU--and I suspect the forum is being ratfucked by the Green Party.
Lots of people on the left and center argued that Monicamania and the Impeachment farce endangered the nation by attacking the president's credibility. I certainly wouldn't have brought that argument up at this time, but there it is.

Hell, I don't even see that much rift between Democrats out there in the world. I see no sign that Congressional Democrats were outraged by Joe's remark and ready to lynch him--most sort of chuckled and moved on. There's no sign of any war within the party--Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton just joined in a luncheon for Democratic women not so long ago. There's no sign that Howard Dean was singled out by the DLC for his San Anotnio gaffe--he had his own spokesperson start doing damage control that afternoon, and within a few days was doing damage control himself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. are you suggesting that it is "progressive-purist" to oppose the War in

Iraq and to strongly oppose Bush's approach to the war?

I am certainly not suggesting we should "lynch" Lieberman? I just think that when he is talking about the war in Iraq he is operating outside of reality and according to almost every poll outside of mainstream America.
Again, I have made it an effort to point out that Sen.Lieberman has a fairly progressive record on most domestic issues. Calling him a "Republican" would be intellectually dishonest. I always advice everyone to got to vote smart and compare his record with John McCain or Susan Collins or any other so-called "moderate Republican".

However, of course his words regarding Iraq muddle the Democratic Party's message.

I also don't know what some people mean when the use terms like "fringe left" or "far left". What does this mean? And what specific policies do these alleged "progressive-purist" "fringe leftist" or "far leftist" -advocate are you or others referring to when you describe people or groups as fringe of far left?

[MrBenchley]

117. I'm suggesting it's "progressive purist"

to demand that any Democrat the yawping mob disagrees with be driven from the party.

"I am certainly not suggesting we should "lynch" Lieberman"
Look at some of the other threads here devoted to vilifying and pillorying him.

"I have made it an effort to point out that Sen.Lieberman has a fairly progressive record on most domestic issues. Calling him a "Republican" would be intellectually dishonest"
Which doesn't keep other people here from doing so with great regularity. Some people seem to call just about any Democrat you've ever heard of that or simiar epithets...and big surprise, it's almost always a Democrat who's running for re-election and beating their Republican opponent like a drum. Like Joe.

I also don't know what some people mean when the use terms like "fringe left" or "far left".
That's why I've stopped using it to describe who I mean, and refer to them as "progressive purists" or "teen progressives."

"And what specific policies do these alleged "progressive-purist" "fringe leftist" or "far leftist" -advocate are you or others referring to"
Chirst only knows. They never seem to have any policies or actions they approve of beyond vague generalities...they're too busy telling you that any Democrat you've ever heard of doesn't live up to those notions.

[AuntPatsy]

118. And how is the media spinning what he said to include he really doesn't

believe that criticising the president is not in effect putting us at peril? Thats right, they are not are they?

How many of us realize the average citizen believes exactly what the media tells them, and what they are telling them is that Lieberman is telling Democrats to quit questioning the president's antics and ignore whatever he does period because it puts our nation at "Peril"..

Many people will simply see the word peril and think, OH MY GOD, another attack is imminent if those nasty dems dont quit questioning this presidents credibility...

Thats it in a nut shell, they of course will be terrified such will occur unless those nast dems quit speaking all together for the next three years..

Lieberman is not by any means stupid, considering the spinning that the media has done for the past seven years to destroy the dem party, even the least knowledgeable would realize how damaging Lieberman's statement can be to the Dem party...


Considering the Republican party has no wish to be partisan, why should we?

[MrBenchley]

122. The open contempt shown by leftists for the average American

is a shitload more toxic to the Democratic party than anything the DLC has done.

"Lieberman is not by any means stupid"
Would that I could say the same about others.

[AuntPatsy]

159. See, now there is where I have a problem, "the average American'?

In your mind, what do you consider average?

Because someone is not considered universaly "stupid" does not mean they are exempt from acting in stupidity which I still believe Lieberman to be quilty of...

Anyway, whom to you are the Average Ameericans?

[MrBenchley]

163. Soon as I care about your problem, I'll let you know

You sure didn't have any doubt when you sounded off contemptuously.

[AuntPatsy]

165. Is there a reason why you could not answer my question with nothing

but sarcasm? Just curious.

[MrBenchley]

166. It's what your question deserved.

You sure didn't seem to be riddled with doubt about "who is the average American" when you lobbed an ugly little insult....

[AuntPatsy]

167. Insult? I offered you no insult? I asked you a perfectly reasonable

question which by the way you have yet to answer?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

168. Insult...

You got no problem lobbing insults at average Americans, even though you profess to have no fucking idea who they are.

[AuntPatsy]

169. Be more specific please, are you talking about my displeasure with

Liebermans remarks?

[MrBenchley]

174. No, I won't be more specific....

When you were telling us contemptuously how stupid and gullible average Americans were, it was no fucking mystery who they were. It was only when your insult was pointed out that you suddenly couldn't figure out who the term could possibly apply to and wanted to ask an "honest" question.

[AuntPatsy]

185. Your really making no sense you know, but I am sure your well

aware of that already....

[AZBlue]

85. ALL of them are Dems

Because Dems don't march lock-step in line with one-side-only views on issues.

[MrBenchley]

93. Thank you.

I'm goddamn tired of seeing cries to lynch Joe Lieberman just because he said something progressive purists disagree with.

Especially since it was not so outrageous--nor was it any sort of attack on Democrats.

[AZBlue]

170. I was thinking about this last night after I logged off.

I have never encountered so much prejudice and hatred within the Dem party for other Dems as I have on this site. I'm fairly new to DU but I've been involved in politics for 18 years. I've been involved on the east coast and now here in the southwest. I've worked with the state, the county, the district, for specific issues, for different candidates, for women's groups and others I probably can't remember. I've found many varying views and opinions and heard great debates and discussions. But no where have I encountered the nastiness I see here. Which leads me to believe that this group of hate-spewing Dems are a lazy group! They complain and bitch and moan, but when it comes time to making xeroxes and licking stamps and manning phone banks, they'd rather just sit that part out. If they think that repeating online rhetoric they heard someplace else counts for activism, they are so very wrong. And, that doesn't give their opinions any credence or substance either!

Ok, I'll get off my soap box now. :rant:

[mtnsnake]

171. I agree with you word for word

It really does make one wonder, doesn't it.

Anyway, nice job, AZBlue!

[MrBenchley]

175. You sure don't see it in the real world

Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and the DLC's Debbie Stabenow all participated recently in the Women's Leadership Forum event, as did Joe Biden and Hilda Solis...and there's been no report that a fight of any sort broke out...

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/wlf_12th_annual.php

AS I've said elsewhere, keep an eye on our hate-spewers, and you will notice that the targets of their hate are almost always Democrats up for re-election who are beating their GOP opponents like a drum.

And also keep an eye on their tactics!

[skipos]

89. I appreciate your thread MrBenchley and agree with you on many things but

I do wish you would try not to fight with DUers so much. I know I am a newbie and it is a free country and all that, I would just love to see negativity on DU. I know you are as tired of the daily "I hate the DLC/Joe/any dem who ever disagrees with me etc" posts as I am.

Can't we all get along?
:hippie:

[MrBenchley]

94. Sorry--I've never liked seeing a lynch mob

Nor do I appreciate these "the DLC is Satan" threads.

"I know you are as tired of the daily "I hate the DLC/Joe/any dem who ever disagrees with me etc" posts as I am."
It's one thing to have a policy difference and discuss it. It's another thing to just make shit up and/or post baseless innuendo.

And still another thing to to just make shit up and post baseless innuendo again and again and again and again. Especially when it's repeated AFTER it's been shown by others to be false and misleading.

[ulysses]

96. how's this for cherrypicking?

Would it be somebody who, as governor of a southern red state, was open to removing the Stars & Bars from the state flag and implemented an expansive new funding mechanism for state schools and their students? (let's call him or her Z)

[MrBenchley]

100. Love it....

Goes to show what a crock ideological "purity," especially defined by one narrow issue, really is.

by the way, do you want me to say who your mystery guest is, or do you want to have others guess too?

[ulysses]

101. yes, it is a crock.

I've been saying for several years that progressives aren't looking for purity, but the center would have to give up their favorite meme in order to acknowledge that fact.

And no, I suspect we all know who Z is.

[MrBenchley]

105. Wonder if he ever found someone to have that duel with?

"I've been saying for several years that progressives aren't looking for purity"
Sure seems to me they are. How many calls for expulsion by centrists do you see here?

What I find hilarious is that the progressive Democrats have their own group analogous to the DLC whose policy papers and events they could promote, and yet they seem to ignore it completely and spend all their time pissing on the DLC.

What I find doubly hilarious is that I used search a couple days ago to see the last time that group had been mentioned here, and the last mention was a claim a month ago that the DLC was "desperately trying" to offset the mighty works of that group. BEFORE that, there were two threads that promoted it in January of '05, and both sank like a stone with almost no responses.

What I find triply hilarious is that I've challenged "progressives" a couple times to name that group, and I've yet to find anyone who can.

[ulysses]

106. duel?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

107. You don't remember Zell challenging Tweety to a duel on the air?

It was hilarious...I'll have to see if I can find some links.

My favorite comment was by the blogger who asked if Tweety was going to have a Z carved on his ass if he lost.....can't find that, yet...

http://smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=46015&forum=9

http://corrente.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_corrente_archive.html

[ulysses]

108. heh - I missed that.

Whatta tool.

And I voted for the fuck in 2000. :eyes: You'll understand, perhaps, my wariness over being too gung-ho over simply voting for the "D" every time. Thought has to come into the process.

[MrBenchley]

109. It was a scream...his eyes were bulging out of his head.....

Here's the good Roger Ailes:

"I say give Zell Miller Joe Scarborough and a couple of banjoes, and let him have his duel."

And he also points us to this:

"Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family's box during the president's acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.
There was no explanation, however, for why Miller would be giving multiple interviews during Bush's acceptance speech, or what channels would snub the president in favor of Miller. Nor was it made clear why Miller's wife also was not allowed to take her place in the president's box 24 hours after his deeply personal denunciation of his own party's nominee."

http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_rogerailes_archive.html

By the way, I'd be willing to bet the Republican in 2000 was even worse than old Zell.

[ulysses]

111. I forget who ran against him that year

By the way, I'd be willing to bet the Republican in 2000 was even worse than old Zell.

but I'd call it a tossup between him and Isakson, who won the seat last year.

[MrBenchley]

116. Yeah...in some parts of the country

it's Hobson's choice.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. The thing about Z is that he changed

Z gave an incredible speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention about how George Bush was ruining America and he was spot on about everything. Z unfortunately had to have his prostate removed and that supposedly made him go insane. Now Z supports what he used to fight tooth and nail against and when people ask him why, he just repeats Ann Coulter's "left wing crazies have taken over the democratic party" conspiracy.

[MrBenchley]

130. Certainly anybody who saw him challenge Tweety to a duel

would have to conclude that he was a man with serious emotional disorder or some sort of substance abuse problem. It was so funny that it was hard to feel much sympathy for him, though...doubly so because the image of Tweety dueling with anyone was also hilarious.

[dsc]

97. Lieberman had the worst, by far, position on marriage equality

of any of the Presidential asparients. You should at least be honest when you post. I will grant that otherwise Lieberman has a good record on gay rights but to call his record good now is just plain dishonest. He also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Again, be honest when you post.

[MrBenchley]

102. Not even close to true....

"I will grant that otherwise Lieberman has a good record on gay rights"

[dsc]

123. Unlike you I will back my assertions up

Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosley Braun were in favor of full marriage equality. That is they favored giving gays the exact same right of marriage that you have. Kerry, Dean, and Clark were in favor of a national civil unions bill which would grant the same benefits but by a different name that marriage would have. Of those three Kerry favored a MA amendment banning same sex marriage in MA and a MO one banning it in MO(though he changed his mind on the MO one). Graham, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman opposed a national civil unions bills but favored the granting of some rights on a case by case basis. Of those four only Lieberman didn't later announciate what rights he might grant. All of the above come from the www.hrc.org

[MrBenchley]

138. Feel free to do so anytime...you haven't yet

Funny thing...when we look at your link we don't see anything approaching what you posted here....

But I do find that I can download the HRC's Congressional Scorecard...

"n each election, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, allies, friends, families and co-workers have the power to decide whether to move forward or lose ground. The Human Rights Campaign wants to provide you with the information you need to be an informed voter. Most importantly, get involved to elect a fair-minded Congress. HRC publishes scorecards of each Congress so that you can learn about the records of your elected officials on GLBT issues."

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Congress_and_Scorecard/Index.htm

And when we do, we find that Joe Lieberman scores an 88...the same as Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold. John Edwards scored a 66.

[dsc]

147. They evidently have removed their questionaire

I have found a link to a video and transcript of their forum. That will back up what I said about all the candidates save Edwards, Graham, and Clark. The first two didn't attend and Clark hadn't declared by the time the forum was held.


http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Debates/Campaign_2004_Presidential_Forum.htm

Sorry I had no idea they had removed it. They had it up all through the campaign in 2004 and I just assumed it was still there. I should have looked.

[dsc]

99. More blatent dishonesty

Business Week didn't call him anything. They quoted a political science professor who called him a Rockefeller Republican. So on two of your three items you were totally dishonest.

Unlike you, a link to back me up

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

I shouldn't have had to spend over 20 minutes researching this since you had the link and had been asked for it in this thread.

[MrBenchley]

103. Cry about it to somebody who cares

So Business Week referred to him in print as "Rockefeller Republican," just as I said. How'd you like the special deals for IBM and other big businesses?

"I shouldn't have had to spend over 20 minutes researching this since you had the link and had been asked for it in this thread."
Who asked me for the link?

[dsc]

124. Madfloridain among others

And again Business Week did no such thing. They wrote "so and so says he is a Rockefeller Republican".

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

136. Oops, did you just insult dsc? Oh my.

Being associated with me speaks volumes about what? Shall we talk?

[MrBenchley]

139. Yup.

[madfloridian]

144. So insulted both of us in the same post.

Well done.

[dsc]

140. Actually I don't have a problem with her company

but the rules of this board, which to my knowledge she has nothing whatsoever to do with having authored, are pretty clear about whose job it is to provide links when quoting material. It is the quoter's job not the reader's. The simple fact is you decided to quote a source without providing us benefit of that source. Instead I had to spend 20 minutes tracking the thing down, and still can only assume that I have the correct article. I may well not have the right article.

[MrBenchley]

141. High praise indeed (snicker)

[dsc]

150. You are the one with the problem with her

I am merely pointing out the standard of who provides links in this instance is defined by someone other than her.

[madfloridian]

134. dsc, Dean was from a family of Republicans.

Let me look up some articles. Do you really think I am lying? I believe he has even called himself one in the past. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that because the guys that are running our nation most definitely are NOT Rockefeller Repubs

How many articles do you want?

Hell, most of my family is Republican.

[dsc]

137. That also isn't what you said

The clear implication of your quote was that he was being called a Rockefeller Republican now, not having grown up as one. By that standard Hillary is a Goldwater Republican (she worked for him by her own admission) and Reagan was an FDR Democrat. Yes, he did grow up as a Republican no one disputes that. But again, that isn't what your quote clearly implied.

[madfloridian]

143. Oh, dear god, whatever.

If I said the sky was blue, someone would say it was green. I will revisit my quote, read and reread it, and I will repost it in a new thread if I misquoted.

Damn.

On edit, do your own research. It is all over the web. It is not something new. What is this forum becoming.

[dsc]

148. It isn't my research which is my point

For something all over the web it was damn hard to find. It is your job, not mine, to provide links. And when, as I did on this thread, you provide a link which doesn't work, it is your responsiblity to fix it if possible. You will note, that with not a little difficulty, I did just that.

[madfloridian]

151. dsc, here are the search terms.

"howard dean" "rockefeller republican"

It is so well-known that I did not think I had to provide a link.

Jim Dean has become a Democrat as well, I don't know about Bill. Dad died in 01 as a Republican, and Mom still is.

There is nothing wrong with being a former Republican. I never thought I had to provide links for that.

[dsc]

153. again, that isn't what you said

Would it be somebody that Business Week praised as being a "Rockefeller Republican" because of the special deals he gave IBM and other big businesses

The above is quoted directly from your post. I took the liberty of making the part I wish to emphasize bold. You will note that you said he was called a Rockefeller Republican because of his behavior in office, not because he was raised a Republican. Words have meaning, even when typed by you, so articles that refer to him having been raised a Republican would be irrelevant to your post. It is your fault if you typed your post wrong. That is all the more reason you should have provided a link since you evidently didn't know what you yourself typed. But as noted here, the post you typed, isn't what you are saying now.

[madfloridian]

154. Who are you talking to? That was Benchley's quote.

Here was my post, I looked it up.

"Dean was raised Rockefeller Republican, switched a couple of decades ago to Democrat though his parents remained Republicans.

He stands up for rights of minorities, protects reproductive rights, stands up for the environment, promotes racial equality, fights for health care for the poor and children, and stands up for the rights of women, gays, and the disabled.

He opposes unjust wars and invasions, which the other two appear not to do at this time.

He does really not like to see flags burned (neither do I), but he opposes an amendment about it.

Talk about misleading."

[dsc]

155. Sorry I thought he had responded to me not you

I am watching paper clips on HBO and it is hard to multi task with that.

[madfloridian]

156. Well, you should be careful...you opened the door for insults..

on me that way.

[dsc]

157. Sorry

I had actually found the article he referred to, at least I think I did, my central point was that one minute or 20 it is his job not ours to find those links. The terms you used are what I used except I added Business Week.

[Armstead]

112. Business Week is actually very enlightened sometimes

Despite the fact that they are a business magazine, Business Week is often out front on issues that matter, like workers rights, globalization, corporate power, etc. Some of their articles could have been written by a lefty.

So if they endorsed Dean, that is NOT the kiss of death, as far as liberals are concerned.

Also, many progressives who oppose corporate power are NOT "anti-business." We recognize the advantage of things like jobs. So that's anotehr red herring.


As for Rockefeller Republicans. On many issues, the Rockefeller Republicans were more liberal than many "centrist" Democrats these days.


As for Joe Lieberman, sure he's been a good liberal on some domestic issues, although he does come from the Insurance State of Connecticut. But he's also a conservative on many social issues, and he's flat-out wrong on Iraq.

As for Hillary. If I could figure out where she stands, I might be able to decide whether or not she is a "real" Democrat....Frankly, it depends on which day you ask, and which Hillary is in operation at the moment.

[MrBenchley]

119. Hahahahahaha....

"On many issues, the Rockefeller Republicans were more liberal than many "centrist" Democrats these days."
Sez you.

"As for Hillary. If I could figure out where she stands, I might be able to decide whether or not she is a "real" Democrat...."
I'll sure as shit be hanging by thumbs waiting for you to figure it out. If only she had a website, or made speeches, or something.

[Aaaargh]

113. Wouldn't fool a bright kindergartener

[MrBenchley]

120. Must have been a struggle for you, then.

[terrya]

114. It would, of course, be candidate A

Candidate A stands up for the things that Democrats should believe and fight for. Candidate B is no real Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

121. LOL!

[Blue_Tires]

115. what's the stance of all three on the war? n/t

[ruggerson]

125. My guesses

A is Hillary
B is Harry Reed
C is Bill Clinton

[ruggerson]

127. And I can see

after reading this, that I got all three wrong.

:)

[MrBenchley]

132. Actually, you may not have

there are a number of Democrats who fit one position or another. I had t agree with theperson whosaid All of them.

[Cascadian]

126. The choice is very clear!

Somebody who protects reproductive rights, stands up for the environment, promotes racial equality, fights for health care for the poor and children, and stands up for the rights of women, gays, and the disabled.


The true Dem is an "A"


John

[MrBenchley]

133. LOL! Thanks.

[Hippo_Tron]

129. Okay but lets say that B and C have come to their senses

And support withdrawing from a war that has killed 2000+ US troops and 100,000+ Iraqi civillians and counting.

A, on the other hand, continues advocating the US staying in this war and thus people continue to die every day. When you look at it in terms of a body count, all of a sudden the other things don't matter much anymore.

[MrBenchley]

135. But add to that

A is in a moderate state that has lots of defense industries and that values bipartisanship.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. That doesn't help your case...

Most people here would take that to mean that A is in favor of sacrificing more lives in favor of the defense industries.

[MrBenchley]

145. Good point....

On the other hand, it also shows that he won't get to BE Senator A if he phrases public questions that way in his state....

There's no "one size fits all" positions that fit the entire country...all one can do is lay out some broad principles...and even then some Democrats will have to pick and choose like a Chinese menu.

It's the price we pay as a party by appealing to enlightened self-interest instead of trying to inflame the lowest common denominator with appeals to hate, ignorance and superstition.

[Hippo_Tron]

146. Actually, a progressive could get elected in connecticut

Would it be a close race because the Republican would have lots of funding from those defense industries? You bet.

Look I don't want Lieberman to switch parties. I just want him to sit on the bench and stop attacking his fellow Democrats. John Murtha may be in support of school prayer but he doesn't go on TV saying that his fellow Democrats are godless atheists because they don't support it. Lieberman, on the other hand, is going on TV saying that his fellow Democrats who are being critical of Bush are undermining his attempts to win the war and therefore helping the terrorists win. That's the same "if you don't support the war you support the terrorists" crap that Bush spewed during the election and frankly we are pissed off at Lieberman for saying that we support the terrorists.

But unlike some other DUers, I place a much greater value on how much a majority in congress matters.

[MrBenchley]

149. But again, what's progressive for Connecticut might well involve

less anti-war fervor than other parts of the country.

"Lieberman, on the other hand, is going on TV saying that his fellow Democrats who are being critical of Bush are undermining his attempts to win the war and therefore helping the terrorists win."
Hilariously, being Joe, he probably did more to undermine that meme than earnest attacks on it would. You'll notice the GOP started running ads with Dean's gaffe, but barely mentioned Joe.

I don't see much sign that other Congressional Democrats did anything more than roll their eyes and say "there he goes again." Here on DU though, the lynch mobs are in full cry.

[Hippo_Tron]

152. Harry Reid called Lieberman...

And seriously expressed concern about what he was saying. It was in a New York Times article. I would hope that you take my word for it, but I can find the article if you would like.

As for Howard Dean's "gaffes", which are a completely different subject, I posted on this in Nicksherp's "recall Dean" thread.

I don't think that Dean is making "gaffes", I think that he is raising money. He said on the daily show that ever time Rush Limbaugh goes on a rant about something that Dean says, the DNC raises another $1 million. If there's one thing that you have to give Howard Dean credit for, it is that he has the best track record of any Democrat for raising money in the McCain-Feingold era. I say at least give the guy an election cycle before we start looking at whether he's done a good job or not. Hell, we already had an odd year election cycle with him at the helm and it turned out pretty good for us.

[MrBenchley]

162. I'll take your word for it

I disagree on the gaffe thing though.

[NobleCynic]

160. Lynch Mobs?

To poorly quote someone and misrepresent their positions on issues, as you have done with Howard Dean, helps to create a lynch mob environment. And those attacking Lieberman are mostly in the same boat. It is possible to make almost any politician seem on both sides of any issue with his own quotes. By phrasing this entire debate as a verbal trap, you necessarily incite less than polite responses. Frankly, I think it's appropriate, as it does not serve to further actual debate in any meaning of the word.

[MrBenchley]

161. I didn't misrepresent a goddamn thing about Dean

What I did was show how the reality conflicts with some people's fantasy.

"you necessarily incite less than polite responses."
Funny, we have plenty of polite responses here.

[dsc]

176. You most certainly did

You said in your OP that Dean was called a Rockefeller Republican because of favors he gave to IBM. You have yet to show a link that supports that and I found one which shows you to have been wrong.

[MrBenchley]

178. No, I did not misrepresent a goddamn thing...

You produced the Business Week article that does both....and then falsely claimed that I had been asked for a link.

[dsc]

184. Business week didn't call him anything

[guidod]

158. It can't be "C"...

because of school prayer.

[MrBenchley]

164. Murtha is for school prayer

and school prayer was B, not C...

[guidod]

173. The Origial Question Was...

"REAL" Democrat. I feel that a "REAL" Democrat should do everything possible, under the rule of law, to ensure that we keep our one of a kind "SECULAR" Government. If we allowed that to happen we would soon lose our freedom of choice and our freedom of religion.

Don't get me wrong I like Rep. Murtha very much, we just have to keep focused on all the different types of Religion we have in our Country. We have to treat each one of them equally.

[MrBenchley]

177. I agree with you on that issue....

All I wanted to note that were we to select that issue as the only test of a "true Democrat" we would have to cast John Murtha into the darkness. Which would be a shame, because even a hidebound hawk like Murtha can surprise people...as the world saw.

Murtha seems to vote his conscience and represents his district well. It's possible to have honest disagreements with him without stirring up a lynching bee.

[guidod]

180. I agree....

I like Murtha a lot but if it ever came up for a vote on prayer in school I would have to go against him. I now we can't agree on everything so we would have to accept each others decisions and move on.

[MrBenchley]

181. Exactly...

I think overall solidarity is a lot more important than selecting issues and being chippy to each other.

[Polemonium]

172. With 290 million people represented by two parties

it ain't that simple.

[MrBenchley]

179. Some people would certainly want you to think so....

Look how many threads our progressive purists have started calling for a "purge" for just that reason, against the DLC, or certain Democrats (almost always those up for re-election who are beating theri Republican opponents like a drum).

[LWolf]

182. Any of them that

are registered with the Democratic Party.

That doesn't mean I'm interested in, or will be, voting, or not, for any of them.

And, since I'm a registered Democrat, I'm REAL, too.

[MrBenchley]

186. Good answer...

[mmonk]

183. What I would like to know

If the following will matter with extremists on our appeals court and a supreme court with the current makeup less O'Connor and with Alito.

"Would it be somebody who protects reproductive rights, stands up for the environment, promotes racial equality, fights for health care for the poor and children, and stands up for the rights of women, gays, and the disabled? (let's call him or her A)"



I'd also like to know if the gang of 14 will have been responsible.

[MrBenchley]

187. "the gang of 14"???

Jeeze, it's wonderful to see our Junior Joe McCarthy's scuttling around with their enemies lists and their epithets demonstrating how "progressive" they are.

[mmonk]

188. Given these justices and their takes

on rights, do you mean reverse McCarthyism?

[MrBenchley]

189. No, I mean our "progressive purists" and their enemies lists

[mmonk]

190. Oh I see.

Look, I don't care if the democratic party abandons constitutional principles and rights as long as the democratic party doesn't pretend to represent those principles and rights any longer so I can leave and give up. As far as "enemies" goes, yes I consider anyone who is for reducing or eliminating rights for my learning disabled son, especially after the struggle to create legal status and protections for him under the constitution an enemy of my family. There's no justification for that nor taking away constitutional guarantees of our civil liberties. The difference seems to be the definition of enemy and enemy of what.

[The Magistrate]

191. Locking

This has unfortunately become a flame-war.