sooo....IF we hold our nose and elect DLC candidates, then what comes

[Lerkfish]

AFTER the election?

All pro-DLC people make their arguments UP TO THE POINT OF WINNING THE ELECTION. They never discuss what happens after, and for good reason.

here's the undisclosed logic puzzle: we are told that we should forego our progressive issues in order to have a democrat, any democrat elected.
ok. that means a pro-republican issue DLC democratic candidate gets elected. ok.

now, progressives have compromised their own issues for that to happen. ok.

sooo...now that the DLC candidate is elected, there are two possible post-election outcomes:

A: They then morph into someone who will NOW support progressive issues.
if so, isn't that fraudulently representing yourself to get elected? Is that fair to moderates or centrists who voted for them who might not like progressive issues?

B: (the most likely possibility) The DLC candidate votes as advertised: along republican lines on progressive issues.
If so, doesn't that completely disenfranchise progressives within their own party? If progressives sacrifice their issues, for the golden ring of a "dem, any dem", what do they get in return?
Not only are their issues ignored, they further empower the very base that works AGAINST their issues. The more you elect DLC rightists, the more right the party drifts, the less plausible is the ability to achieve progressive causes.

[MercutioATC]

1. Excellent argument on voting for "the lesser of two evils".

I guess the (dubious) point is that they'll still support at least SOME Dem issues, unlike their Republican opponent.

[MrBenchley]

4. Does it ever occur to our "progressives"

That an elected official is supposed to represent all of his constituents, and not just a pressure group?

[400Years]

9. Does it ever occur to you that fascism sucks?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. Like... the kind of fascism that demands ideological purity?

Yeah, I do happen to think that sucks.

[Lerkfish]

40. I'm using logic, not demanding ideological purity.

I'm simply explaining that a candidate that runs, funded by corporations and right wing groups, telling progressives they need to subsume their issues in order to elect said candidate, has absolutely no logical motivation to address progressive issues after election.

they have support from the right, and permission from the left, to ignore progressive causes. What would ever convince them to then relent and address progressive issues?

That is the crux of my post. Do you care to address that in any substantive way?

I can put it more simply: What's in it for progressive dems to abandon their issues? Do we have some sort of guarantee that they will be addressed after election, and if so, how would that work logistically?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. I did address that. See my post below for your answer.

And I might ask you how much power you think the moderate Republicans actually have right now? How much power do you think moderate Dems will actually have when we're back in the majority?

[Lerkfish]

45. can you point out the specific post #?

If you're referring to the math one, its a non sequitor. It doesn't really address my question, if that's the one you're referring to.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. No, it's not non sequitor at all.

It's the only meaningful answer to your post.

[Lerkfish]

71. If I have more people on my team, but they only make baskets for the other

team, do I have a better basketball team? Not really, I still lose.

I'm not suggesting voting against DLC candidates who make it through the primary process, I'm saying how does electing them benefit progressive issues? The answer is it doesnt. And, since it doesn't, what assurance can anyone here promoting DLC candidates make progressives that they are not being disenfrachised in that situation?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. Do you have any idea what power the majority leader has?

Obviously not.

[Lerkfish]

79. do you have any idea what power is?

probably not.

power is only useful if it is used well.


but again, your arguments are offering a false dichotomy:

either vote DLC or lose elections. Or, in this case, lose majority.

Those are not the only two choices.


and, again, I feel as though I'm explaining the same things repeatedly: what assurance do we have that a non-progressive candidate will address progressive issues once elected? What would motivate them to do so?

you have logged many posts in this thread and have avoided that question, but it is the crux of the OP.
The only argument you appear to want to use is that progressive dems want to elect republicans, which is very odd consider the DLC is much closer to republican lite than progressives would ever be. You appear to want to argue we are naive and don't understand politics.

ok, then, oh wise one: what do you have to assure us that voting for your candidate will address our issues after election?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

82. Really? Can you point to a "true" Democrat that can win

in Nebraska?
in Florida? (and Graham doesn't count)
in Louisiana?
in Indiana?

I'll save you time - IT WON'T HAPPEN! And yet we still desperately need to keep those seats because we will not gain a majority in the Senate otherwise. So yes, there ARE only two choices.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

99. again, you refuse to answer

which indicates to me how much of a raw nerve this is for DLCers:

the fact that they offer progressives nothing post election.

but they don't want us to realize it.

now, why is that?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

156. thanks for that.

its a bit hard to hear reason in a room full of shouting voices.
I almost missed your post because of the thread hierarchy. Glad I didn't.

I didn't realize I was going to hit such a raw nerve, but now that I have, it has revealed volumes.
They can't argue past the election, because to do so means they have to admit there is nothing for progressives there.
its a compromise without an advantage.

on the other hand, they seem to think I'm wanting to purge something, which I'm not. I'm just pointing out what I see as a logical fallacy: that sacrificing or compromising your issues to elect someone who doesn't share your issues but who is in your party will somehow magically address your issues once they achieve majority.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

28. DLC constituents are corporations, so in that regard, I agree.

[expatriot]

134. All of them?

I know a lot of moderate Democrats who prefer DLC-type politicians and policies who aren't corporate lackeys.

[Lerkfish]

157. did I say "all of them"?

I said what I said..admittedly sarcastically, but there ya go.
I was pointing out that corporations are defacto constituents of DLC candidates, because they fund them.
I did not say all constituents are corporations or corporation lackeys.

all grasshoppers are insects, but not all insects are grasshoppers...see?

not all that hard to figure out.

[SaveElmer]

136. So the....

63% of the people in New York who support Hillary are ALL corporate stooges?

How about the 70% that approve of Kent Conrad

Or the 66% support Ben Nelson

Maybe the 63% that support Joe Lieberman


Yeas these are allllll corporate voters marching in lockstep behind the wishes of their evil corporatist masters!!!!

[BamaBecky]

139. Well now wouldn't that be just dandy if the elected officials would

represent all their constituents? Do you actually believe that's possible?
Bama

[MrBenchley]

159. How ARE things on Pluto this time of year?

I must admit, I doubt Congresspeople pay much attention to loopy new age conspiracy theories...but then who does?

[BamaBecky]

160. You tell me - You seem to enjoy talking about Pluto a lot

Conspiracy theories - that seems to be coming out of NOWHERE - What pray tell are you talking about?

Why don't you just come right out and say EXACTLY what is on your mind.

Bama

[MissWaverly]

158. I don't have a problem with representing constituents not lobbies

Since 2000 when has the Congress been concerned about the
welfare of the American people, while they're giving thousands to resettle people
from the Gaza strip while our own citizens are in tents, while they are voting
more tax cuts for the wealthy elite, while they are giving more tax breaks and legal
loopholes to Big Corporations while endangering the environment. I don't want a
DINO in the White House.

[MrBenchley]

2. Don't, then....

"now, progressives have compromised their own issues"
What issues? Not even the progressives here seem to give two craps about the Progressive Caucus and its proposals.

"doesn't that completely disenfranchise progressives within their own party? "
Would those be the progressives hear screaming for every Democrat anyone's ever heard of to be pitched out of the party? (Especially Deocrats up for re-election who are walloping theri GOP opponent.)

Would those be the progressives here drawing up enemies lists and demanding ideological purity?

Would those be the progressives here who grandly announce they refuse to vote for other Democrats?

"the less plausible is the ability to achieve progressive causes."
Far as I can see, you've only yourselves to blame.

I'm a Democrat. I'm going to work to elect Democrats. If you can't get behind that, get out of the goddamn way.

[Lerkfish]

30. well, ignoring your ad hominems....

"now, progressives have compromised their own issues"
What issues? Not even the progressives here seem to give two craps about the Progressive Caucus and its proposals.
--Gay rights, withdrawal from Iraq, restoration of civil liberties, opposition to the Patriot Act, do you want me to go on? is the claim that we have no issues close to accurate or even a valid argument for why we should abandon them?
You have to do better than that.

"doesn't that completely disenfranchise progressives within their own party? "
Would those be the progressives hear screaming for every Democrat anyone's ever heard of to be pitched out of the party? (Especially Deocrats up for re-election who are walloping theri GOP opponent.)
-- nice generalized whine. how about addressing the actual point: if progressives elect nonprogressive candidates, doesn't that disenfranchise their own issues?
Is outrageous hyperbole your idea of an argument?

Would those be the progressives here drawing up enemies lists and demanding ideological purity?
-- no, those would be DLC advocates, actually. They spend a great deal of time attempting to marginalize progressive issues.

Would those be the progressives here who grandly announce they refuse to vote for other Democrats?
-- Probably you refer to progressives who want to vote for progressives. Don't non-progressives want to vote for non-progessives? Does that make them traitors to the party? Be careful, that broad brush is splashing on your own pants.

"the less plausible is the ability to achieve progressive causes."
Far as I can see, you've only yourselves to blame.
-- Blame for what, exactly? You can't have it both ways: you want us to vote against our issues to elect your candidates, and then you say its our fault when that happens.

I'm a Democrat. I'm going to work to elect Democrats. If you can't get behind that, get out of the goddamn way.
--- oddly enough, I"M a democrat. I'm going to work to elect Democrats, as well. What was your point again?
Oh, I suppose you think if I don't support a DLC democrat, I'm a traitor and standing in the way. Does that mean if the progressive candidate is the stronger in the polls, you'll support them in the primary? Or will you continue to work for your own candidates, regardless of their chances against a progressive candidate?

answer honestly.

[MrBenchley]

43. That's so sweet....

"--Gay rights, withdrawal from Iraq, restoration of civil liberties, opposition to the Patriot Act, do you want me to go on?"
Yeah? How are you going to get there?

Take withdrawal from Iraq....the GOP is going to withdraw some troops by 2006 for the election. Will that fulfill your desires?
Suppose we did pull out tomorrow--what happens to the Iraqi people? What happens to the rest of the world now that we've created a breeding ground for al Qaeda? Do you just shrug and pretend the war never happened?

And there's nothing outrageous about asking those questions about you "progressives". I can certainly point to lots of threads in this folder from over the past few weeks calling for a purge of moderates, or centrists, or the like. I'd bet you can't find even one post in any thread here calling for the expulsion of progressives.

I would like to see you find even ONE post here calling for DLC "purity."

And I'm talking about progressives who refuse to vote for Democrats. There's a shitload of "I'm going to leave the party if I don't get my childish way" posts here.

"Don't non-progressives want to vote for non-progessives?"
I wouldn't know. I vote for Democrats. Do you want to find us a post or two where somebody is saying they're going to vote only for non-progressives?

"Blame for what, exactly?"
You got no proposals on the board, you got nothing but ceaseless bitching around here, and then you're amazed Democrats don't want to line up and cheer about your vague gibberish. You want to piss on everybody but the far left, and then you wonder why you're marginal.

What's the Progressive Caucus' plan for Iraq? Bet you can't tell us without searching on google.

"oddly enough, I"M a democrat. I'm going to work to elect Democrats"
It shows. (snicker)

"Does that mean if the progressive candidate is the stronger in the polls, you'll support them in the primary?"
So I don't get a choice in the primary but YOU do....hokay. It's always intriguing to see what's rellly behind that "progressive" mask. I've supported lots of Democrats I didn't support in a primary.

"answer honestly."
Wish you had.

[Lerkfish]

51. I acknowledge reading your post.

otherwise, since your personal attacks have little basis in what I've actually said, I see nothing to respond to.

[MrBenchley]

55. That's so sweet....

[Peace Patriot]

31. Good heavens, MrBenchley! If people have problems, for instance, with

Democrats who support Bush's heinous war, they are supposed to "get out of the goddamn way"?

If they have problems with Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act, or the bankruptcy bill, or support global "free piracy"--and the consequent outsourcing of millions and millions of jobs, and destruction of labor unions--they have to "get out of the goddamn way"?

Who are you leaving room in the party for? The supporters of pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats at any price in good government and good policy? What are you leaving room for discussion of--fundraising, canvassing, telephoning, putting up signs?

"Get out of the goddamn way"?

Personally, I think it's naive to believe that we will have any other choice but a pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat as "our" presidential candidate in '08, for instance, even though I am convinced that such candidates do not represent a majority of Democrats--OR a majority of Americans. That's the reality--the truth--of our filthy campaign contribution system and our Bushite company controlled election system (with their 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code). So we have to decide, in that regard (the presidential election): What is the most important thing that we get get from a pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat, with our extensive antiwar grass roots volunteer and fundraising force, that will make real change possible, and that we will never get from a Republican? We can forget stopping the war and its expansion into Iran and Syria. That IS going to happen; we cannot prevent it, even with (currently) something like 70% of the American people against the war on Iraq. We can forget stopping a military Draft. We are going to see that, for sure. And we cannot gain any real control, as a sovereign people, over the global corporations that are oppressing us and the rest of the world, and are destroying our very planet. None of this will be permitted.

In my opinion, the best thing we can go for is election reform--to stop the corporate privatization of our election system, and the outrageous Bushite control over vote tabulation with secret formulae (and virtually no audit/recount controls). With honest, transparent elections, we can begin to elect representatives who will be more responsive to the will of the people, and who will, not incidentally, protect our right to vote.

Generally, at present, Diebold and ES&S cannot outright manufacture an election.* But they can, and have, tipped the balance in close races. So candidates still need our support. I think we should regard that support as coin with which to buy transparent elections--from candidates who might not like to give it, but who must at least pay lip service to progressive values like honest elections--and then build on those gains for the future, election by election.

I do think we should fight hard for progressive values--and no war!--in the primaries. You seem to think that we should shut up now about our views (and those of most Americans), and just silently accede to the crap that surely will be thrown at us, about war and corporate rule. That is very un-american of you. We do get to voice our opinions, I believe. It may be naive to say, "I will never vote for so-and-so"--out of some purist desire for peace (...ahem)--but we do have a right to say it, to take it back later when the War Democrat gets nominated anyway, and to work like hell for more war, more war profiteering, more $100 billion military budgets, more dead US soldiers and Muslims, a little bit of taxation of the rich, and--it is profoundly to be wished--election reform.

For the '06 elections, we need: a) INDEPENDENT EXIT POLLS (pressure the Dem Party to fund them--badly needed); b) extensive monitoring of election results, gathering of evidence and challenges to suspicious results (www.UScountvotes.org, www.verifiedvoting.org, www.votersunite.org, and for info on '04, www.TruthIsAll.net); and 3) passage of Russ Holt's election reform bill HR 550, if Bush's "pod people" in Congress can be pressured to do so, given their current troubles (it has 169 co-sponsors, mostly Dems, so far--sign the petition at: http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html ).

Everybody gets to argue to their heart's content, until the primaries are over. Then we will have the argument about unity. Much as I object to the War Democrats (but as a loyal Dem voter, lo these 40 years), I hope unity wins--because a War Dem WILL need our support and a War Dem 'winning' might mean a faster route to election reform. Otherwise, it's a slow slog through state/local venues--doable, but difficult, and impact will be delayed.

(Note: I think a War Dem might actually be the choice of the corporate war profiteers, this time around--for their own purposes (for instance, getting a military Draft, which Bush can't do). In either case, we should use our support to gain the influence we need for election reform.)

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

*A worrisome event in Ohio, recently. Four ELECTION REFORM initiatives that were predicted to win by 60/40 were flipped over on election day into 60/40 LOSSES!--the most audacious election theft yet. They seem to be testing out procedures for massive flipover of votes, with impunity. Not good. Ohio may be a special case of Republican corruption and tyranny, but with Diebold touchscreens spreading across the land like a plague--and highly insecure and hackable systems already in place, run on "trade secret" programming (optiscan systems, and all central tabulators)--all states could go the way of Ohio (straight to hell) real quick.

See Bob Koehler's article about the Ohio initiatives:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

[MrBenchley]

47. If you don't want to work to get Democrats elected, get out of the way

"Who are you leaving room in the party for?"
Aynbody who wants to work to get Democrats elected.

"I do think we should fight hard for progressive values--and no war!--in the primaries."
Do it then. Don't wait for my blessing. If the Democrats aren't your cup of tea, there's always the Green Party, untained by "pro-war pro-corporate" anything. Of cours,e they're toxic to voters and pretty much a GOP dirty trick, but you won't be contaminated by contact with actual Democrats.

"You seem to think that we should shut up now about our views (and those of most Americans), and just silently accede to the crap that surely will be thrown at us, about war and corporate rule. "
I don't give a flying fuck if you tattoo your views on your ass and stick 'em out your car window.

What I have a problem with, is that you seem to spend all YOUR time bitching about MY views, the views of most Democrats, and the views of many Americans.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

137. And the same progressives....

Who won't take five minutes to actually LOOK at the records of those they decry...

Facts would get in the way of their fun little rant...

But as our Greatest (IMO) founding father John Adams says...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

[MrBenchley]

141. Amazing that not everyone wants to join their lynch mob, isn't it?

Great quote by Adams.

[SaveElmer]

142. It really is...

Any push back on their mantra just drives them into hysteria!!!

The really stupid thing is...most of these so called "neLibs" they complain about have excellent progressive records...but they just can't get by this preconceived notion about them.

[MrBenchley]

143. Don't miss the post below

Where lerkfish accuses me of "fabricating" other threads he started....

[SaveElmer]

144. I guess...

They are having trouble keeping track of their own misstatements (I'm being nice)

[MrBenchley]

145. What else is there to do but laugh?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Increasingly there have to be more progressive challanges in Primaries

That is what will keep more centrist Democrats looking over their shoulders when their votes go on record in Congress. Either we take some centrists out in Primaries, or at the least, keep them more honest after they are elected due to having to worry about primaries.

[mike_c]

5. electing DLC dinos is the same as electing republicans...

...if all the dinos do is roll over and support the repig agenda.

[MrBenchley]

7. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies....

Wonder why Democrats keep voting for candidates you don't approve of?

[Peace Patriot]

39. I would put the word "voting" (and also "vote") within inverted commas,

thusly, "Wonder why Democrats keep 'voting' for candidates you don't approve of?"

I think that any argument that presumes to say how people 'voted' should include a discussion of the definition of 'voting' on Bushite-controlled 'voting' machines, run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Is that really 'voting'? Or is it more like gambling? Put your quarter in, and maybe you hit the jackpot (your 'vote' is counted) and maybe you don't (it goes to the opposite candidate, or simply disappears into the electronic ether).

[ticapnews]

6. We gain a majority in both Houses of Congress

Meaning that the progressive agenda at least sees the light of day, rather than the neocon agenda that has led to a police state. Given a chance to vote on a real progressive agenda, many of these DLC candidates certainly will.

If your Congresscritter doesn't share your views find someone who does and get them on a ballot. If you can't find someone, put yourself on the ballot. I am lucky enough to live in a very progressive district with a very progressive Congressman. When he steps down we have a whole stable of progressives ready to take his place.

As far as the "lesser of two evils" argument. Ask our soldiers in Iraq if there is any difference between a President Bush and a President Gore.

[Peace Patriot]

59. "...any difference between a President Bush and a President Gore."

There is no question in my mind that Al Gore--or just about ANY Democrat (with the exception, maybe, of Joe Lieberman)--would NEVER have invaded Iraq. Maybe Afghanistan (given 9/11), but even that had diplomatic and police solutions that the Bushites had no interest in. The Democrats would NEVER have gotten us into this mess--even those who voted unconstitutionally to let Bush get us into it.

But the situation NOW is quite different. We are there. The war profiteering corporate agenda is to KEEP US THERE, which a War Democrat CAN do, without taking the blame for it (at first--not until the war profiteering corporate news monopolies decide that she/he has outlived his/her usefulness, and they START blaming the Dem for Bush's disasters). (Mark my words!)

Clearly, the war profiteers' strategy is to go for; a) at least a year more of US and Iraqi deaths in Iraq; b) trying to hang onto the oil (through the Kurds and Shias); c) trying to hang on to the 10 or so big, permanent US military bases we've built in Iraq; d) failing that, having Halliburton build us some new ones somewhere nearby; and e) withdrawing to that position, in Kuwait or Qatar, with full US military deployment, bombing the shit out of the Sunnis and border villages, and waiting to pounce on Iran and Syria when the appropriate "Gulf of Tonkin" moment comes.

Eisenhower put the first US troops in Vietnam (nixing democratic UN sponsored elections that Ho Chi Minh would have won). JFK tried to pull them out, and got assassinated. LBJ (getting elected as the "peace candidate"--I kid you not) then dramatically escalated that presence, and, with "Gulf of Tonkin," created full scale war. The American people started to rebel. RFK sided with the people, and got assassinated. (So did MLK, same year.) Nixon ran on "peace with honor," and escalated into Laos and Cambodia. Result: Upwards of 2 million southeast asians slaughtered, and over 55,000 US soldiers dead. Lesson: You simply CANNOT win a war for self-determination and independence--no matter what amount of violence you bring to bear, unless you are willing to nuke the entire country. Lesson #2: The war profiteers will keep trying to fool us that we can.

We are looking straight into the eyes of another Vietnam. And the Democrats who are hog-tied to the military-corporate complex (the War Democrats) are getting sucked right in. You could hear their message in John Kerry's speeches during the election ("we'll do a better, more efficient war"). We can hear it now from Hillary Clinton.

So the current War Democrat (if installed in the WH)--like LBJ, will be able to CONTINUE and to ESCALATE the war, without any Congressional "declaration of war," and without the consent of the American people, and will likely do so on the basis of some fabricated incident with Iran or Syria (which the Diebold/ES&S elected Congress will consent to, if the president even bothers to ask them).

THAT is the situation. I happen to believe that Gore is NOT a War Democrat. I don't think he would continue the war; nor support a military Draft. I think he would make strenuous efforts at diplomacy and world peace. (Heard his speeches lately? Wow!) But he will probably not be permitted to gain the Dem nomination (if he seeks it). The corporate/military interests that are running things will simply NOT allow an antiwar Dem to get that far.

WHOEVER is president (of the only candidates who will be permitted to reach the WH, those who are pro-war), the plan is going to be, keep a full scale US presence in the ME indefinitely, and wait for (or arrange for) the opportunity to expand. Dems will undoubtedly be better on veterans' benefits, duty rotations (which now amount to slavery), less war boondoggle looting and crime, and slightly more equitable budgeting and taxation at home (and maybe some limp regulatory and environmental efforts that will look good compared to Bush, but will be nothing like what is needed). The military Draft that they are going to do (no question about it, in my opinion) will relieve some of the burden on current forces.

This is a more realistic scenario to "ask our soldiers in Iraq" about, than one that posits a situation that never never existed: Gore being president in 2000.

Of course Gore wouldn't have done it! But what will a Dem do now? That is the question. And I think I'm fairly on target about what that will be, having lived through all this before (during the '60s, with Vietnam), given the even worse corporate-military corruption of our political system now, given the loss of honest large-type news organizations, and, especially, given Bushite controlled electronic voting.

Given all of this, "our soldiers in Iraq" would more than likely prefer a Dem. (I'm sure they loathe Bush.) But if they think that that means peace, they will be disappointed. Not until they come back here, and run for office, and help oust this entire military/corporate junta--and its influence on both sides of the aisle--will we have that.

[400Years]

8. Yep, we would just get more corporate wars & destruction of freedom

Most of us come to politics out of a sense of right and wrong and identify with the Democratic party because traditionaly this party represents the best position on issues like equality, justice, and personal liberty. The people who go around spouting support for the DLC are just power mongers who don't care about the issues. They just want power and need it to feel enfranchised. In other words, they are just jockeying to become better servants of the corporate machine. If that is your view just go ahead and become a republican because either way DLC or repub you still get fascism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. It's called simple math.

44 Democrats + 1 Independent + 5 more Democrats/DLCers = Boxer and Kennedy having the power to do as they please.

I really don't know how to make that any simpler for you, but if you don't get that now, here's guessing that you don't want to. You'd prefer political "purity" over actually having power.

[MrBenchley]

11. Too complicated for some here....

It's easier to announce that fascism sucks and stomp around like a two-year-old having a tantrum...

[400Years]

13. So what happens when your beloved DLC people are in full control

and we still get the corporate war agenda shoved down our throats. Are you saying that by electing more servants of Bechtel and Halliburton we would get better government just because these people have a D after their name?

[MrBenchley]

32. You'll still be pouting

[Lerkfish]

38. You consider that a mature argument?

You're not helping your side, much, here.

regardless: address the issue of what happens after the election?

If we elect your candidate, what do we have, other than your claims, that says progressive issues will be given better attention?

I do not see that, logically.

think about it: Rightist Dem gets elected, funded by corporations and left dem votes. Left dems sacrifice their issues for that to occur. What in god's name would be the motivation for that candidate to ever vote progressive? They have funding from the right, and permission from the left, to ignore progressive issues.

can you make an intelligent, non ad hominem argument for what would motivate that candidate to pay attention to progressive issues?

[MrBenchley]

49. I consider it a response that post deserved

And can the sanctimonious faux concern for "my cause."

"address the issue of what happens after the election?"
After the election a Democrat is in office.

"Rightist Dem gets elected"
Like John Murtha?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Sam_Lowry]

167. Mature?? From the Benchster?? BWAHAHAHAHA

Sorry Lerkfish, you just won't get it. Surely you must know by now that MrBenchley is god, and his word is law. Haven't you figured that out yet? He knows what a "democrat" is, what "democratic" values are, and how we all must obey his wise policy. The DLC is made up of just such people, who know more than the lowly commoners. And thus are duty bound to save us from ourselves.
I recommend that you just enjoy his posts, and remember the words of C.S. Lewis, noting the critical reception for his novel "The screwtape letters":

"Reviews were either laudatory or filled with that sort of anger that tells the author he has hit his mark"

[400Years]

12. Would you support the war if a Dem Pres. waged it?

I wouldn't. Wrong is wrong.

Now I hope what you are saying comes true. That our better people like Kennedy, Kucinich, Conyers, etc. would have a stronger influence on policy with a democratic congress and presidency. I also hope that things really do change even if more of the DLC types take office. What I fear is that we would just get more of the corporate agenda pushed through, rather than any kind of real people oriented agenda.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Which war?

The war that probably would've never started to be talked about in the first place if a Democrat was in office (aka Iraq)? No, I wouldn't have supported that war. And if Democrats were at least in charge of Congress (both houses), it's likely that the vote would've never come to pass in the first place

Believe it or not, there are a few more issues on the board than just the Iraq War though. There is no single issue that would ever make me vote for or against any candidate.

[400Years]

19. Iraq of course

I hope you are right as far as the vote but I doubt it.

There are other issues are of course:

1. economics and the betrayal of working people disguised as "free" trade.
The DLC types will sell us out on that everytime

2. the Patriot Act and creeping fascism
The DLC types embrace that

3. Foreign policy such as U.S. history with Latin America
The DLC types will certainly maintain the status quo there as well

I'm more concerned with the issues than I am with power. If you have
to sell your soul to gain power then you have really gained nothing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. What good is your "soul" if it can't do anything?

You and your impotent purity will have fun watching idly on the sidelines while Republicans destroy the country. That, apparently, is your ardent desire.

[400Years]

25. Well for one thing you can look at yourself in the mirror

but beyond that, don't get all flamey on me.
Your assertion that "You and your impotent purity will have fun watching idly on the sidelines while Republicans destroy the country. That, apparently, is your ardent desire." is pure bullshit and you know it but I guess this is your normal mode of discourse so I'll just let it pass and take note that you can't hold down a rational discussion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Is it pure bullshit?

Please, tell me what value it has? Honestly, I wouldn't even be able to look myself in the mirror because I'd know that I was a direct party to Republicans destroying the country, but maybe that's just me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Perhaps some here would rather have rick Santorum as Majority Leader

rather than a DLCer like Harry Reid.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Apparently they do.

But at least the Democratic Party will be pure!!! :sarcasm:

What fucking good is your precious purity if you will never have the power to actually exercise it?

On edit: the sarcasm is not directed at you - i know you're on my side here.

[Hippo_Tron]

164. I don't see Harry Reid on the DLC roster n/t

[MercutioATC]

18. How many "Democrats" voted for the recent Republican tax cut bill?

Is that the kind of "power" you're suggesting we'd have if we just check the box with the "D" beside it?

[400Years]

20. Some people will excuse anything as long as they have a D

behind thier name. I guess where you stand on the issues doesn't really matter.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Do you think the tax bill would even be voted upon with Dems in charge?

Unfortunately, we are currently under Republican rule and we have to vote on THEIR agenda. Also unfortunate is the fact that they will pass almost anything they want since they are in charge. As such, you're going to get a lot of Dems voting on things like the tax bill if they are from states that might actually favor it even though they'd never have to under a Democratic majority. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the crime in voting for a bill that is going to pass one way or another anyway if it means keeping your constituents happy and keeping the seat in Democratic hands.

[400Years]

26. If they are all republicans who call themselves dems then YES.

That's why people here are calling for more progressive candidates.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. I can't help but notice you haven't responded to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2311497&mesg_id=2311618

[400Years]

64. Sure

I'm happy that most of them are pro-choice so no I don't think they are evil incarnate like Richard Perle but being apologists for imperialism and helping destroy our freedoms here by voting for nefarious crap like the patriot act means
they need to be challenged in the primaries.

[MercutioATC]

27. With Dems like Lieberman ? Absolutely.

That's my point. A "D" does not mean that they respect the same values that most of us seem to consider important.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. As I've said above, I have no use for Lieberman either.

A "D" next to their name, however, does mean that they will vote agenda setting and majority powers to the people that DO respect the same values most of us consider important, and that one DOES include Lieberman. I don't know how you can undervalue this given how extensively the Republicans have used this power. I also don't know how you can ignore how little power the moderate Republicans actually have in this Congress either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. "Oh, I have to vote for it because it's going to pass anyway" or

"I don't believe in this but my constituents do" are both lame excuses.

If you believe in a principle only when it's popular, then you don't really believe in it and you're not a leader but a wuss.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. No, that's the way politics work.

Sorry, but that's the way it's been for about 200 years and that's the way it will be until Republicans finally destroy the government as we know it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. And that's why so many voters are cynical

and believe that "they're all the same."

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. In spite of everything there is still a difference - check the record

Let me make it clear that I am a progressive and certainly no friend of the DLC. Do a comparison of records to see if there is a difference between some of these DLC Democrats and a Republican. Now I do think it is completely legitimate to challenge some of these people in the primaries and depending on the circumstances I would tend to support that. But the general election is an entirely different story.

this is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 25 percent in 2004.2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 85 percent in 2003.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 50 percent in 2004. 2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 102 percent in 2003.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

Now I will end with a 1996 quote from Noam Chomsky on why he was voting for Clinton's reelection and not for Nader:

from: Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky page 337

"I mean, I'll vote for Clinton, holding my nose--but the reason has nothing at all to do with big policy issues; there I can't see too much difference. What it has to do with are things like who's going to get to appoint the judiciary happens to have a big effect on people's lives....
They may be small policy differences when you look at the big picture--but remember, there's a huge amount of power out there, and small policy differences implementing a huge amount of power can make a big difference in people's lives....Okay, that makes a lot of difference for people whose kids are hungry in downtown Boston"

Of course that was in 1996. Since the first administration of Bush jr. it is clear that Dr. Chomsky considers the current Republican Party with its fundamentalist base and its influence on domestic policy and neoconservative influence on foreign policy to represent a significant departure from what had been bi-partisan consensus into a whole new and much more dangerous direction thus increasing the differences between the two parties

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Oh no! Facts!!!

I think some people here are allergic to those!! :sarcasm:

[Inland]

150. But that compares the possible DLC, not the perfect, ideal candidate

who would never win the election.

What the OP wants is a comparison between Chomsky and Clinton, or Nader and Clinton on the progressive scale.

[Mass]

24. First, it would be nice to see how many people are really progressive here

There are clearly a lot of people that are anti-DLC. This is a fact that we can see in every threat relative to the issue. But how many of them are really progressive and how many are just anti-DLC as in anti-establishment? I think there is a lot of confusion between the two here. A lot of people also think that being mad at Bush means that you are a progressive and get all "in love" with the last person who talked tough, whatever they stand for in the end.

So, if the issue is: "hold your nose and vote for candidates who do not stand for the same thing you do", this is an interesting question, but for me, it relates to people like Byrd, Reid, as well as Conrad or the two Nelsons.

[sandnsea]

33. trust fund anarchists

That's what Patton Oswald called them during his comedy tour. That they showed him saying it in Eugene tickled me no end. This state is full of them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. This "trust fund anarchist" is 55 years old and has never made more

than $58,000 a year (and that was ONE year).

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

67. I was quoting Patton Oswald

Take it up with him.

[Dogmudgeon]

29. Our (note the pronoun) Bass-Ackward Thinking

WE are the ones who must drive the agenda, no matter what social clubs our representatives belong to. Not every DLC member has has the brown-lipped political libido of a Joe Lieberman, but when the DLC was effective, the politicians we worked FOR and WITH (i.e., Bill Clinton) were carrying out our agendas. And no matter what Counterpunch and National Review may say, Clinton did advance Progressive, pro-people causes far more than he hurt them. The DLC died quickly as a leadership force when it decided to adhere to stale political talking points and set its focus on appearances instead of action. (I think this happened between 1994-1998, but that's just my estimate.)

We're far too vexed now by the DLC. If they can raise money for The Cause, fine and dandy; elsewise, we ought to just ignore them as best we can. The future lies with Progressivism, and obsession with yesterday's decaying garbage will only serve to keep our mind on it and spoil our appetites for a better world.

Yes, every once in a while, it makes sense to "hold our noses and vote". But if it's happening more than every once in a while, it means that we have to field primary candidates that reflect our political agendas. Ideological perfection in our representatives is not required; obedience to the naturally progressive public will is. The first part of that sentence, you will notice, is an old statement; the second part is what is usually ignored, and that's the cause of half the trouble. THEY shouldn't be the ones to call the tune; WE should. To cop a metaphor from music, it doesn't matter so much if the musician flubs the occasional note as long as they carry the soul and the fire to the gig. Right now, we have too many leaders who are straining to get every note perfect, but who lack the muscle and blood and bones and guts of leadership and progress.

And guess who can best show them the way back to the "kick-ass sweetness" of that song of progressive leadership?

WE are the ones who ultimately have to do the campaigning, the canvassing, the watercooler-arguing, the low-budget propagandizing, the house-party-get-together-ing, and the rest of the heavy work. WE MUST forge a political movement where THEY (the politicians) court US (the grassroots). This is the only real, democratic and progressive way to do it.

That way, if we are Progressive, THEY will have to be.

No wailing and gnashing of teeth is necessary at all. Simply, "When you're progressive, we'll back you to the hilt. When you're not, we'll ignore you. And the longer we ignore you, the more likely one of us will run against you in a primary. And you'll lose."

We also have to be a lot more active in pursuing the lower echelon of elected positions. In my area, the 10th and 13th district of Pennsylvania (there has been some gerrymandering, so I include both to give you an idea of where I live), there are always at least four or five positions that are uncontested, almost always because a Democrat can't be found to run for them. (Yes, I'm looking into it myself.) Our local school boards are far more conservative than they have to be, and there are a lot of cronies who get jobs as ditrict justices, some of whom have never even cracked a law book. Our fortune is that we have fairly liberal state and national representation, and even the local Republican rep (Mike Fitzpatrick) gets overall poor marks from the Culture Warriors. (He ain't no Democrat, but we're working on it!)

Eventually (the sooner the better), the "WE" of the grassroots and the "THEY" of the political world should become one big "US". I call upon US -- you and me -- to be that Leadership, every day, in every conversation, raising every one of our neighbors' expectations and spirits.

There is MUCH work for us to do. Complaining about the DLC is like any other in-group issue -- it has a point where it just wastes time. Every hour we spend promoting the Progressive cause to our family and friends and neighbors undoes hundreds of hours of DLC jibber-jabber. And you do know that we "ain't got time for th' jibber-jabber", don't you? :)

--p!
I pity the fools ...

[Lerkfish]

42. thanks for your well-thought out post.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Very nice post.

Unfortunately, I think some of the folks above enjoy hand wringing a little too much.

[MrBenchley]

53. "Every hour we spend promoting the Progressive cause....

to our family and friends and neighbors undoes hundreds of hours of DLC jibber-jabber."
So true. If progressives have progressive proposals, let's hear them. Let's hear them get fleshed out. Let's hear about who they ought to be adopted. Let's hear good pragmatic solutions.

Great post. I disagree with your assessment of the DLC, but you're right on the money about what has to be done.

[Lerkfish]

52. well, my apologies. this turned into a flamefest.

I simply wanted to note an illogical concept: that people who want you to vote against your own issues will later be motivated to address those same issues.

I stand by that still. I appreciate the thoughtful posts made in this thread, and am disappointed by the flames, but whattaya gonna do.

[MrBenchley]

57. "people who want you to vote against your own issues"

Who does that?

[Lerkfish]

73. people here arguing for the DLC have in the past suggested we

should drop gay marriage and the Iraq war as issues in order to elect democrats.

:shrug:

that would be going against my conscience. I support equal rights for everyone and I am against war, especially illegal wars of agression.
These are issues that are non compromisable, in my world view. I can vote for a candidate that disagrees with me but I cannot abandon those issues any more than I can be forced to go out and murder someone.

Since I feel that strongly, I will support progressive dems whenever possible. Unfortunately, I feel the intrusion of the DLC is disproportionately tipping the balance in the wrong direction. I feel I have a responsibility to speak out against that.

[MrBenchley]

90. Sure they have...let's see you trot out the evidence

I'll wait here....

"I will support progressive dems whenever possible"
It shows. (snicker)

So would you vote for John Murtha?

[Lerkfish]

77. sorry dupe

browser hiccupped

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

62. your accusations are unfounded, ill spoken and misplaced.

and I usually respect your contributions, so I'll consider this an aberration and move on.

You are leaping to false conclusions.

further, I would add: please point out where I've suggested voting republican.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. I wish I could nominate just this post.

Well said Lynne

[Zhade]

108. Screaming "FUCK YOU" repeatedly is 'well-said'?

Yeah, okay, if that's what you think of when you think of great debating skills...

Very telling that you embrace that hostility toward those who disagree with you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

118. No, it's very telling that the same people post the same

asinine statements over and over and over again without any actual goddamn solution as to how we can actually get back into power. What's telling is the number of times we hear calls for purging in the name of "party purity", exchanging one form of Republican fascism for a new brand of Democratic fascism. What's telling is that these people have no concept that candidates represent their constituency and their constituents vote for THEM, not the party, and if they had a problem with their elected officials politics, they would vote them out. Did anyone ever stop to think that the people of Nebraska, Florida, Louisiana, or Indiana actually prefer DLC candidates? I know, shock of all shocks, right? What is telling and absolutely RETARDED is that people here would rather let Republicans be elected in those states than to have DLC Democrats, even though that is literally slitting their own throats.

Quite frankly, I'm fucking sick of hearing that childish, idiotic, and completely politically retarded line of reasoning around here. So yes, I applaud Lynne's "Fuck you" and raise it a "grow up and wake up!"

[gulfcoastliberal]

105. I agree with your premise; but screaming "FUCK YOU" is not the way to go

Unless we're allowed to curse each other out now? Seems to violate the civility rule. I understand heat of the moment rage, but come on. That's bad karma. Calm down.

[Zhade]

63. K/R for a FANTASTIC question!

This is exactly what I've been wondering - if "A", won't those who were persuaded to vote for the right-leaning Dem (but normally wouldn't vote Dem) just be pissed off, and be eager for payback next election?

Wouldn't that ploy work exactly ONCE, before those voters rightfully felt tricked and vowed never to fall for that again, and make sure their friends and family weren't duped again? (And duped it is, it's dishonest to run on one thing and then do the opposite once in office - see the current traitor-in-chief, or Clinton's NAFTA betrayal.)

So in my estimation, "B" is infintely more likely to happen. As a result, no vote from me for such a candidate.

[wyldwolf]

66. Like Bill Clinton?

Like Mark Warner?

Come now, for your arguments to have any merit at all you must demonstrate that, A: The DLC forgoes progressive issues, and B: The voters WANT what you consider progressive positions on issues.

See, this is where the anti-DLC arguments often fail.

[Lerkfish]

70. um...no, try addressing what I actually posted.

take off your prejudice hat for a moment.

what would motivate a non-progressive candidate to address progressive issues, if they are funded by the right and get permission from the left to ignore those issues to get elected?

Its a question of logic. Thus far, NO ONE has provided me with anything to convince me that there is no apparent motivation.

If I am a candidate, and someone who disagrees with me still votes for me, and someone who agrees with me funds me, I fail to see why I would ever need to address issues of those who disagree with me.

And Bill Clinton is an interesting example to pick, because he ran on progressive issues that were important to me when I voted. However, once in office, I was disappointed as several of those were compromised on or simply evaporated. So, he would seem to be a weird example.

DLCers make their arguments up to the point of elections, but then shy away from discussing what happens AFTER.
It appears that is a raw nerve of a point, because it has riled up many people, all of whom avoid addressing it.

and, i think its a reasonable question: what assurance do progressives have that electing a non-progressive DLC candidate will address the issues they abandon in order to elect them?

As an example: If I believe immediately begun staged withdrawal of troops in Iraq is my issue, but the DLC candidate does not support withdrawal at all, but a more efficiently run military operation, at what point does my POV on the issue get aired? As far as I can tell, never. I have essentially voted to not withdraw.

For the record, I voted for Kerry, even though I disagreed with his POV on the war in Iraq. he still had my vote, but there is nothing tangible that would have said he would have listened to my desire for withdrawal after the election, is there? If he runs on staying the course, but doing it more efficiently, why would he ever change that stance?

[wyldwolf]

80. I thought I did

You said:

A: They then morph into someone who will NOW support progressive issues.
if so, isn't that fraudulently representing yourself to get elected? Is that fair to moderates or centrists who voted for them who might not like progressive issues?

I said:

for your arguments to have any merit at all you must demonstrate that, A: The DLC forgoes progressive issues

I don't believe they do.

You said:

B: (the most likely possibility) The DLC candidate votes as advertised: along republican lines on progressive issues.

I said:

and B: you must demonstrate that the voters WANT what you consider progressive positions on issues.

Also, you state that the DLC votes along republican lines on progressive issues. That simply isn't true in most cases.

It isn't really an either/or situation. The voters choose who they like best. A politician can't be all things to everyone. Someone's feelings are going to be hurt.

[Lerkfish]

83. valid points.

however, my OP is trying to arrive at this:

what assurance do we progressives have that electing non-progressives will get our issues addressed?

[wyldwolf]

85. you have no assurances

But to be quite honest, I have never seen a more unreliable and hard to please voting block as self-described progressives. It's almost impossible to define them and It's almost political suicide for a moderate to pander to them because once he/she does something that remotely offends them for political expediency they turn on him/her.

I mean, how many progressives really and truly stood up and defended Bill Clinton? I know progressives today who hate the man. Kucinich voted to impeach him.

[Lerkfish]

87. THANK YOU!

for finally addressing the issue.

only 300 posts to arrive at this.

yes, we have no assurances. and, you've gone on to explain exactly why we actually have the opposite: an assurance to NEVER address progressive issues:

But to be quite honest, I have never seen a more unreliable and hard to please voting block as self-described progressives. It's almost impossible to define them and It's almost political suicide for a moderate to pander to them because once he/she does something that remotely offends them for political expediency they turn on him/her."

So, you've basically admitted there is nothing in it for progressives to support your candidate.

absolutely nothing.

its a compromise without a benefit.

I would suggest that progressives ignore any pleas from "moderates" to put away their differences and gather under the moderate umbrella.
To what benefit?

indeed.

thank you for addressing my points.
You are the first to really do so.

[wyldwolf]

89. If you want to call it a compromise without benefit, fine

..but by their very nature, Moderates compromise. That's how they become moderates.

But self described progressives are often rigid and uncompromising, much like their far right counterparts.

I would suggest that progressives ignore any pleas from "moderates" to put away their differences and gather under the moderate umbrella.

Now, you are aware you are taking an internet forum poster's opinion and using it to set an agenda for self described progressives.

So, you've basically admitted there is nothing in it for progressives to support your candidate.

No, I expressed my opinion. Be reasonable. Like I said above, by their very nature, Moderates compromise. That's how they become moderates. Self described progressives have many of their issues addressed when moderate Democrats are in control. But they can't have all their issues addressed because some of those issues naturally go against the needs and wants of other constituents. And withholding votes or voting third party gets self describe progressives much less because they have the potential to give the election to Republicans.

Your best bet is to field candidates that appeal to more than just a narrow segment of the population. But then, that would make them moderates.

[Lerkfish]

102. If they are moderates, why are they refusing to be inclusive of

progressive issues?
The answer is because they are compromising with REPUBLICANS, not democrats. IF they were compromising with progressives, we would not be having this thread.

[wyldwolf]

106. they aren't

That answer was simple.

Give me a list of "progressive issues" moderate DEMOCRATS aren't addressing or haven't addressed.

Try to make it longer than just a perceived slight concerning the Iraq war.

[Lerkfish]

107. here's one...just today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2312642

[wyldwolf]

113. like I said

Beyond the Iraq war (and the patriot act is tied up in that.)

Let me expand it. Beyond national defense.


See, when it comes down to it, whenever self described progressives talk about issues, they're really referring to defense/Iraq/terrorism issues.

[Lerkfish]

122. is gay marriage and health care reform a national defense issue?

Is reforming institutions to care for the indigent a national defense issue?
Is separation of church and state a national defense issue?
Is national endowment for the arts a national defense issue?
Is working against vouchers for schools a national defense issue?

These and many more are issues I care about.
I've mentioned them as well.

what is your goal in marginalizing my concerns and labeling me a self-described progressive. What are you attempting to accomplish?

I reject your premise.

[wyldwolf]

155. no

But all those issues have been addressed by moderates.

Moderates are for national healthcare.
Moderates are for separation of church and state.
Moderates are for thr national endowment of the arts.
Moderates are against school vouchers.

Your premise that they aren't is false so I therefore reject YOUR premise.

[Zhade]

110. Well, it's not like Clinton was progressive.

He's referred to himself as a Rockefeller Republican, in fact.

[wyldwolf]

114. He did, in fact?

Fist I've heard. So where and when did he do this?

[eridani]

112. No, he did not. He voted for the pre-impeachment inquiry.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22003600.html

One fairgoer wanted to know what position Kucinich, a four-term Ohio congressman, took on the Clinton impeachment.

Kucinich said he was one of the few Democrats who voted for the U.S. House to proceed with an inquiry. However, he voted against impeachment. The U.S. Senate ultimately acquitted Clinton in February 1999.

"I thought, as a member of Congress, that there was enough reason to go forward with asking questions," Kucinich said. "But when we did that, not enough information was produced to rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

[wyldwolf]

116. that was, in effect, a vote for impeachment

The Republicans had the votes to impeach. Kucinich knew that and if he didn't, I would have to wonder why since it was nationally covered.

Voting for the inquiry helped move the impending impeachment forward. Just as the Democrats who voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill allowed the bill to be voted on. Kucinich aided in the impeachment of a Democratic president.

And isn't it interesting that his vote helped lead to Clinton's impeachment yet he refused to be involved in the impeachment planning of George W. Bush, saying "I'm not interested. I think it would be destructive for this country." and "The votes aren't there."?

So I guess he didn't think voting for Clinton's impeachment (or impeachment inquiry) would be destructive for this country. I suppose he voted that way because he knew the votes were there for impeachment.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

149. Isn't that like saying that some Democrats voted for the war? n/t

[eridani]

166. He nonetheless voted against the actual impeachment n/t

[Zhade]

109. Clinton did just that.

He campaigned on NAFTA having worker protections before he got into office, then dropped them as soon as he got in office.

So yeah, kinda like Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

115. Did he?

I don't recall that. I would appreciate a source on that so I can refer to it in the future.

But as for Clinton, I never said he was a self described progressive. He was a moderate and, as I said above, Moderates compromise. That's how they become moderates. Self described progressives have many of their issues addressed when moderate Democrats are in control. But they can't have all their issues addressed because some of those issues naturally go against the needs and wants of other constituents. And withholding votes or voting third party gets self describe progressives much less because they have the potential to give the election to Republicans.

Your best bet is to field candidates that appeal to more than just a narrow segment of the population. But then, that would make them moderates.

[Inland]

154. "Moderates compromise. That's how they become moderates."

That's not true, entirely. Some of us are hold moderate positions because we think that they are best, not out of a inexorable desire to compromise. It's an unspoken assumption that moderates are merely wimps, or without principles, or are just splitting differences. Rush says it, and plenty of people on DU say it, and it isn't the case.

Conversely, other posts object to the labelling of progressives as purists, and there's a point to it. Nothing about being a progressive makes one a purist, and vice versa.

[mopinko]

69. we end up like the cloth coat republicans

wondering what happened to the things our party stood for.

[LSK]

72. besides Bill Clinton, where is proof that DLCers win anything?

[wyldwolf]

88. well, that's easy

Besides these?

http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

Besides Al Gore? Kerry? Edwards? Howard Dean?

Besides Mark Warner and Tim Kaine?

Shall I continue?

[LSK]

94. Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA

I was wrong. They do win!!!! :sarcasm:

Al Gore won in 2000.

Kerry/Edwards were diebolded. What is the DLC doing regarding election fraud?

Dean - yeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

[wyldwolf]

95. well, you did ask

..and I answered.

Next?

[LSK]

96. why did you answer?

[wyldwolf]

117. nature abhors a vacuum

..the question was presented and begged to be answered.

[Peace Patriot]

74. Progressive policy is not "purist." It is common sense, wise, real and

the will of the majority.

I ask that Democrats who call for support of any Democrat--no matter their votes favoring Bush's war, $100 billion military budgets, cuts to the poor, de-taxation of the rich, and deregulation of global corporate predators--would stop calling the opposite of these positions "purist." That is not fair.

The opposite of these positions is not only the will of the majority--and would be the best thing for most people, and the best "good government" polices, and the most democratic--the opposite reflects common sense, wisdom and reality: no unjust war, no bloated, looting military budgets, help for the poor, fair taxation of the rich, stringent regulation of corporate predators.

The government should be regulating usurious credit card interest rates and predatory practices. Any good government would do so.

The government should never lie about war, and go slaughter tens of the thousands of innocent people, and torture people, and whisk them away on dark flights to secret prisons. No good government would do these things.

The government should never allow health care profiteering. Good government would provide decent health care for all.

The government should never allow no-bid contracts. Any good government would require competition and performance standards, and strict accounting.

The government shoud NEVER allow corporate "trade secrets" in our voting system, or partisan ownership of voting system companies, or voting systems with no paper ballot and no auditability. No good government would ever permit such things.

Etc. Etc.

These are NOT "purist" policies.

We need to be realistic about what we have now, and where we should go, and how to get there. I am a big advocate for strategizing on the basis of truth and reality (about our election system, for instance). But let's not call people who want peace, or want fairness, or want transparent elections, "purists." What you are saying, when you do that, is that the simplest, wisest, best policies are unattainable, and should therefore not be voiced, and should not even be dreamt of. You are saying that good goverment is unimaginable and impossible.

We should add things up realistically--say what's right, say what's wrong, and say how far we are from right--and FIND THE WAY to get the right things done, and if we can't, FIND OUT what's blockading that, and work on the mechanisms of control and power that are currently resulting in so much being wrong. For instance, I think we should ACCEPT, as a realistic premise, that we WILL have another pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat shoved down our throats as our only choice in '08. What do we DO with that? Well, one thing we can do is use the opportunity of a Democratic administration to get election reform. With transparent elections, good government WILL be possible. But in order to do that, we will have to support the War Dem, once she/he is 'nominated,' to gain influence to get this 'sleeper' issue dealt with, definitively (and quickly, on a national basis).

It is foolish to think that by supporting a War Dem, we can stop the war in the Middle East. THAT is not possible (in my opinion). But election reform IS possible, and it is fundamental to our ability to change things over time.

I think this is how we should proceed--not throwing words around like "purist," nor condeming those who would work with war /corporate candidates, but realistically strategizing how best to achieve good government.

[MrBenchley]

92. It's perfectly fair to call purists "purists"

We've got a shitload of threads at DU including this wowser we're in, that are nothing but an ineffable call for "progressive purity "so "we" (hahahahahaha) can be free of the DLC on ideological grounds....

In fact, the "purist" part is a lot more accurate than the "progressive," since we've got a shitload of Junior Joe McCarthys drawing up enemies list and smearing those they disagree with. All to show how "progressive" they are, y'understand (snicker)...

"we WILL have another pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat shoved down our throats as our only choice in '08"
Like John Kerry? I'm going to break down and have a good cry at how tragic it is that we'll get a candidate you disapprove of....

[Lerkfish]

103. point out anywhere in this thread where I have:

called for progressive purity or suggested dumping the DLC.
point out anywhere I have become a mccarthy and drawn up an enemies list.
point out anywhere I have smeared those I disagree with.

I have not called for a purge,
I have not said we should not vote democratic
I have not said DLC is worse than republicans, nor have I suggested voting republican.

These are all hyperbolic false slanderous accusations brought by people like yourself, because I have apparently struck a raw nerve.

What is that nerve?

I have brought up this point: What motivation do elected DLC candidates have to address progressive issues once elected?

the answer, as provided by the only person to maturely address it is: none. Having been elected under "moderate" auspices, it would be political suicide to EVER address progressive issues.

[MrBenchley]

119. You first

Point out anywhere in this thread where I have indicated the term "purist" refers to anything but what it refers to.

"These are all hyperbolic false slanderous accusations"
Bull and shit. There's a shitload of threads by the Junior Joe McCarthy Club demanding ouster of this Democrat or that from the party because they betray some sort of ideological standards "we" (cough cough cough) all share. You're in a thread that's whining that unless "we" oust them, "we've" all betrayed some noble principles (hahahaha) and are getting the big green weenie.

"What motivation do elected DLC candidates have to address progressive issues once elected?"
Hell, I don't see any motivation to "address progressive issues" since our progressive purists never have any proposals worth adressing. "Wa wa wah, I'm not getting my way" isn't an issue worth discussing.

[Lerkfish]

124. you're the one making the accusations, onus is on you to pony up.

I have not done anything you're accused me of, here.

anyone reading this thread can determine that for themselves.

I have, however, apparently struck a nerve by pointing out the logic flaw for progressives to support non-progressive candidates, and which you corroborate:

I quote you:

--Hell, I don't see any motivation to "address progressive issues" since our progressive purists never have any proposals worth adressing. --

exactly. As long you don't see anything we propose as worth addressing, there is no motivation for us to blindly support DLC candidates, now is there? So, the obvious question is therefore, what is in it for us, to hold our noses and vote for YOUR candidates? Better for us to fund and support our own candidates in the primaries.
so now, when DLC people tell us "you have to vote for us or never get elected" we will point out: that's a false dichotomy, there is a third choice, we will defeat you ourselves in the primary.

What good is it for us to keep electing certain DLC candidates IF they continue to waste time with flag burning, line fatcat corporation pockets with bankruptcy bills, allow the executive branch to wage war unchecked and unbalanced, allow the law to label those who dissent as terrorists?

with representatives like that, we don't need enemies.

[MrBenchley]

126. You started a whole thread

to piss and moan about how you're getting stiffed by the ideologically impure.

"As long you don't see anything we propose as worth addressing"
What HAVE you proposed?

I see three threads started by YOU in active GD-Politics...

One is a bunch of chest-thumping about what a holy terror you're going to be someday....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2280414

One is a blah metaphor for the "Republican elite"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2292472

And the third is yet more bitching about moderate Democrats....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2294792

If there's some mighty proposal for me to join in on, I sure as shit don't see it.

"So, the obvious question is therefore, what is in it for us, to hold our noses and vote for YOUR candidates?"
Don't then. I told you that further up the thread, and it occasioned a lot of wailing.

I don't much care what YOU do. What I'm good and fed up with is you and a bunch of other "purists" pissing and moaning about what other people ARE doing.

If you don't want to vote for Democrats, DON'T. But get out of the goddamn way of those of us who DO want to work and vote for Democrats.

[Lerkfish]

128. you cannot debate in a mature and reasonable manner

you fabricate arguments I never made.

good day to you, I've given you enough room to state your points, thanks for your input.

[MrBenchley]

135. Irony IS a wonderful thing....

"you fabricate arguments I never made."

And here they are....

"Lerkfish Tue Nov-29-05 09:17 AM
Original message
Open letter to republicans"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2280414


"Lerkfish
Original message
it finally hit me: The republican elite is like in the OMEN or Rosemary's"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2292472

"Lerkfish
Original message
So...if the majority of americans oppose this war, and disapprove"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2294792

Buth then the beauty part of our "progressive purists" is their relentless honesty. (snicker)

[LWolf]

120. Labeling people with fautly/false rhetoric:

a propaganda technique that has been so successful for rw conservatives that some DLC supporters are happy to adopt it.

Thank you for an insightful post. :thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

121. Irony IS a wonderful thing....

[Sam_Lowry]

168. Like that one!

Well said Peace Patriot! :toast:

[Peace Patriot]

75. Progressive policy is not "purist." It is common sense, wise, real and

the will of the majority.

I ask that Democrats who call for support of any Democrat--no matter their votes favoring Bush's war, $100 billion military budgets, cuts to the poor, de-taxation of the rich, and deregulation of global corporate predators--would stop calling the opposite of these positions "purist." That is not fair.

The opposite of these positions is not only the will of the majority--and would be the best thing for most people, and the best "good government" polices, and the most democratic--the opposite reflects common sense, wisdom and reality: no unjust war, no bloated, looting military budgets, help for the poor, fair taxation of the rich, stringent regulation of corporate predators.

The government should be regulating usurious credit card interest rates and predatory practices. Any good government would do so.

The government should never lie about war, and go slaughter tens of the thousands of innocent people, and torture people, and whisk them away on dark flights to secret prisons. No good government would do these things.

The government should never allow health care profiteering. Good government would provide decent health care for all.

The government should never allow no-bid contracts. Any good government would require competition and performance standards, and strict accounting.

The government should NEVER allow corporate "trade secrets" in our voting system, or partisan ownership of voting system companies, or voting systems with no paper ballot and no auditability. No good government would ever permit such things.

Etc. Etc.

These are NOT "purist" policies.

We need to be realistic about what we have now, and where we should go, and how to get there. I am a big advocate for strategizing on the basis of truth and reality (about our election system, for instance). But let's not call people who want peace, or want fairness, or want transparent elections, "purists." What you are saying, when you do that, is that the simplest, wisest, best policies are unattainable, and should therefore not be voiced, and should not even be dreamt of. You are saying that good government is unimaginable and impossible.

We should add things up realistically--say what's right, say what's wrong, and say how far we are from right--and FIND THE WAY to get the right things done, and if we can't, FIND OUT what's blockading that, and work on the mechanisms of control and power that are currently resulting in so much being wrong. For instance, I think we should ACCEPT, as a realistic premise, that we WILL have another pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat shoved down our throats as our only choice in '08. What do we DO with that? Well, one thing we can do is use the opportunity of a Democratic administration to get election reform. With transparent elections, good government WILL be possible. But in order to do that, we will have to support the War Dem, once she/he is 'nominated,' to gain influence to get this 'sleeper' issue dealt with, definitively (and quickly, on a national basis).

It is foolish to think that by supporting a War Dem, we can stop the war in the Middle East. THAT is not possible (in my opinion). But election reform IS possible, and it is fundamental to our ability to change things over time.

I think this is how we should proceed--not throwing words around like "purist," nor condemning those who would work with war /corporate candidates, but realistically strategizing how best to achieve good government.

[Lerkfish]

86. thank you for this wonderful post.

you've stated your points eloquently.

I especially like this part:

It is foolish to think that by supporting a War Dem, we can stop the war in the Middle East. THAT is not possible (in my opinion). But election reform IS possible, and it is fundamental to our ability to change things over time.

I think this is how we should proceed--not throwing words around like "purist," nor condemning those who would work with war /corporate candidates, but realistically strategizing how best to achieve good government.

your criticism of both them and I are stinging, but apt.

[GreenArrow]

78. are you going to hold your nose after the election?

One doesn't need to hold one's nose unless there is a stink. And the stink isn't going away, no matter which party gets in.

[Lerkfish]

81. LOL! thanks for much needed levity.

:)

[Dogmudgeon]

91. Good GOD! It's on fire!

Neither the DLC nor the anti-DLC forces deserve this kind of firefight.

It reminds me of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian with the People's Judean Front and the People's Front of Judea ... you know which one ...

--p!
Ain't got no time for the jibber-jabber!
(Laurence Tureaud)

[Sam_Lowry]

169. I thought we were the popular front

SPLITTER!!

[jackpan1260]

97. Many people would "hold their noses" if they voted for Kucinich

and many people would "hold their noses" if they voted for Hillary.
Many people would love to vote for Kucinich and many people would love to vote for Hillary.

What's up with this whole "purging the party of people I don't agree with" mentality around here? That will get us nowhere fast.

[Lerkfish]

101. point out anywhere in this thread where I have:

suggested purging the party of people I don't agree with?


these false accusations are becoming very tiresome.

[Cha]

98. What I'm wondering

is if they would vote for a progressive or a republican?

[Lerkfish]

100. point out anywhere in this thread where I have either:

suggested anyone NOT vote democratic...
or suggested anyone vote republican.


that's a straw man diversion from my point.

my point is ONCE DLC CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN ELECTED, what assurance do progressive candidates have that progressive issues we ignored to elect that candidate will be addressed?


the very telling thing is, WHY is this point striking such a raw nerve, and WHY nearly everyone is avoiding it?

that speaks volumes, don't you think?

[HR_Pufnstuf]

111. More wars for Wall St.

nt

[mmonk]

123. I don't plan on voting for any DLC'ers

unless they prove to me they are against a police state and current US policy of pre-emptive war.

[Lerkfish]

125. I think we have to look at the individual candidate, but...

there's nothing wrong or illegal about challenging DLC candidates with progressive candidates in the primary.

[mmonk]

127. I will help with the challengers

and if the challenger loses, I will have to look at the DLCer and examine him/her on the most important issues facing this republic since the civil war. They won't get a pass from me for just carrying the democratic party label.

[Lerkfish]

129. I think if we have nothing but a DLC candidate, then it behooves us

to be very vocal about our issues and hold their feet to the fire.
the time of simply bending over is past. Incremental changes are not going to cut it. In 5 years, the devastating damage the republican party has done to the system of govt. is so pervasive, so rapid, that a mealymouth compromise in incremental numbers is not going to forestall the juggernaut.

time for change.

[lostnfound]

147. Take a look at a converse situation also:

a fairly progressive incumbent Ciro Rodriguez "beaten" in the primary
by a rightwing DINO Henry Cuellar, who borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars from his buddy the banker to mount the challenge, and who "found" enough "missing votes" in his friend's bank vault to win a close election.

Cuellar runs as a "D" because it's the easiest way for a Republican to get elected in that district..

His presence in the House has already made a real difference for the Republicans on some close votes. And he owes his seat not only to 'found' votes in the bank vault, but also to Tom Delay's redistricting which puts him in a safely Democratic district.

Two questions I'm asking myself:
--how large does the progressive caucus need to be to have real power in the House? (It is already the largest Democratic caucus.)
and
--if and when it ever gets that large, how can we as progressives protect and defend them from the well-funded campaigns of pro-corporate candidates -- especially when they run as "wolves in sheep clothing"?

[Kolesar]

130. Do people at DU actually *do* activism?

Or do they just talk about it?

[mmonk]

132. "Do"

I've done things such as stuff envelopes, put out fliers, put campaign signs out, send emails on issues etc. I don't have any real power though and it seems people in general no longer pay attention to these methods. The media has helped make many entrenched.

[indigo32]

140. Many of us "DO" activism

I can speak for the MN folks I've met personally (quite a few) and almost all of us are active.

There are people here who don't as well, but many of those have reasons for that.

[Kolesar]

146. There's this long-running anxiety-attack here (&at Daily Kos) about DLCers

There is not much to be gained by wading through all the posts. My position is find a candidate you like and work for him or her.

[indigo32]

148. Oh I completely agree

I just try and do my thing (except of course as a moderator I'm a bit more obligated to wade through some of these posts ;) )

[Kolesar]

153. Well thanks for that

Keeping order in the classroom :hi:

[Sam_Lowry]

170. Yup right on

Find who you want to elect and work hard to get them there

[Clark2008]

131. Point of order... DLCers are NOT moderates or centrists.

They're corporatists - and we need to constantly explain that to more moderate Democrats.

We need to open their eyes to the fact that many (not all) DLCers are cloaking themselves in the moderate shroud to pretend to appeal to centrist Dems, when they're real goals are to allow the corporations to run rough-shod over the working class.

Point these moderate Dems to real moderate candidates instead of allowing the DLC to continue the talking point that they're the moderate wing of the party.

I'm a moderate Dem - I was an Independent until Bush - and I live in a red state. I'm for many progressive issues, but some of them I just think are looney (sorry, but I do).

My candidate of choice is actually more liberal on some issues than I am, but I like him for the simple fact that he is perceived as a moderate, took the least amount of corporate financing during the 2004 primaries, could unite the country, could flip some red states and could lead this country from a seasoned and reasoned viewpoint.

[mmonk]

133. That's been my position.

The term "moderate" has been changed.

[Inland]

151. "Okay, first ASSUME democrats are going to win the election......"

The concept of making a strategy that skips over the part where the democrat gets elected is ridiculous. If the democrat loses, it doesnt' matter HOW progressive he is. Or conservative he is, for that matter.

By ignoring the fact that a democrat of any stripe has to be elected first, the only real answer is, "while you were arguing against moderate democrats, another republican was elected. Another moot point, another circular firing squad, another circle you know what wasting time."

But that's pretty much where the anti-DLC crowed wants to go: Naderites without Nader.

[Lone_Wolf]

152. We simply get a corporatocracy that is progressive on a few issues...

the major institutional problems will remain the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

161. Jon Conyers becomes House Judiciary Committee Chairman

I swear to god if you think that there is no difference between the House Judiciary Committee being chaired by Jim Sensenbrenner and the House Judiciary Committee being chaired by Jon Conyers, then I want some of what you are smoking.

Here's a few more...

Pat Leahy becomes Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House
Harry Reid becomes Senate Majority Leader

We aren't going to get a progressive agenda until we get a strong progressive president. But we can start to reverse the damage that is done by simply putting good Democrats in congressional leadership positions.

[Lerkfish]

162. again. I am NOT avocating NOT voting for DLC candidates after the primary

sigh...how difficult is this to understand? you're floating a false dichotomy: you're assuming that only a DLC candidate would be elected.

I'm raising the logical point that there is no motivation for a rightist, or if you prefer "moderate" DLC candidate to address progressive issues once elected. Their donors support them, and the progressives ignore their own issues to support them, then why would they ever return to progressive issues?

the answer is that they would not. And, for that reason, there is nothing "in it" for progressives either now or in the long run.

better to aggressively support and fund progressive candidates in the primaries. Once that happens, if a progressive dem wins the primary, then electing them in the general election will still end up with the changes you name, ONLY the dems will be progressive and WILL address progressive issues.

the biggest problem I have with the pro-DLC argument is that it is fundamentally flawed: it is predicated on the core assumption that only DLC candidates can be elected, and only DLC candidates should be supported. Or else a republican will win. "our way or the hiway" seems to be the thinking.

I'm saying, there are other alternatives than simply allowing the DLC to be the only ones to decide who runs and who doesn't.

[Hippo_Tron]

163. Sorry, I didn't read your post completely

And yea I agree 100%. I would ideally like progressives in control as well over the DLC, an organization which I don't particularly care for. I just think that sheer numbers are important in congress because of the way that congress works.

[Lerkfish]

165. yes, we are in agreement then.