What Democrats are currently acceptable to GD?

[liberalpragmatist]

I'm continually amazed by DU's perpetual ability to declare someone "DLC enabler". EVERYBODY is tarred as "DLC," even when they have nothing to do with the organization. And we're constantly writing off any Democratic politician who says something with which we don't agree or votes a certain way on one or two bills.

Backing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman is one thing. And nobody is saying DU'ers shouldn't express their disagreements with Democratic politicians. But we can disagree without being disagreeable, and the level of discourse is shockingly low. By the standards of many posters, only Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are worthy of being called Democrats (actually, scratch Boxer, because she, you know, endorsed Joe Lieberman, and maybe Feingold too because he voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts). Oh, and for some the post-2004 John Kerry or Al Gore (conveniently ignoring Al Gore's stands on most domestic issues). And in the House, Dennis Kucinich and about 20 or 30 members of the House Progressive Caucus. That does not a party make. When we're throwing people overboard who vote with vote with Democrats 96% of the time and calling them plants, we're getting a little over-emotional. It's at times like this I feel we're a lot closer to being the liberal version of Free Republic than anybody cares to admit.

DU does not form 50% of a state's voting-age population. And if you want someone who votes with you every single time, go run for something yourself.

If Howard Dean had been elected President, people would be calling himself a sellout. I can virtually guarantee that if Ned Lamont is Sen. Ned Lamont next year people will be calling him an enabler or sellout. At this point, I'm thinking of staying completely away from DU when the Democrats return to the White House because I can't imagine what kind of hostility is going to break out on the boards when that happens.

[babylonsister]

1. Great post, liberalpragmatist. nt

[Perky]

2. kickety kick kick, Recommend and a hearty Amen

[lastknowngood]

3. Here the majority are true blue Dem's we have core beliefs for which

we feel passion and which we will not compromise. The constitution and bill of rights are basic, we also believe in the community of man. Within this community we are responsible to some degree to and for each other and our community well being. Within the community of humans we are connected to each other as a planet, country, state, county, city and neighbors. We see each other as members of a "whole" and not only as self serving individuals. When one of our basic principals is threatened, by anyone, that person will be held to task.

Injustice unfairness and exploitation are our enemies and our world is drowning from these ills.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Dennis Kucinich is acceptable to me.

I voted for him in the 2004 presidential primary.

[LoZoccolo]

19. .

[Eric J in MN]

26. What would you have done in Kucinich's position? NT

NT

[LoZoccolo]

33. I would have shouted like the dude from Rage Against The Machine.

FREEDOOOOOOOOM!

YEEEEEEEEAH RIIIIIIIIGHT!

Why do we have such wimps, like Kucinich, who won't take a stand?

The DLC took down it's membership list - how do we know Kucinich is not on it?

[Eric J in MN]

35. Kucinich voted against the Iraq War.

He voted agaisnt increasing FCC indecency fines.

Just because he shook Bush's hand doesn't mean he won't take a stand.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Right, he voted against the Iraq War, voted against...

...increasing FCC indecency fines, and shook Bush*'s hand.

Sell. out.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

52. Hey....

Why DID the DLC take down its membership list????

[dweller]

59. DK's left hand is behind his back flipping him the bird.

how do we know he's not?


dp

[madokie]

47. the one on the right is so right

[Swamp Rat]

44. Dennis Kucinich is GREAT!

A true humanist and a very strong person. :patriot:

[rainman99]

5. Yeah, I think people who do that aren't really Dems.

[skipos]

6. How dare you interrupt our circular firing squad with logic!

:)

[Techno Dog]

7. Hear Hear

Try saying the 04 election wasn't stolen, and Bradblog's work trying to discredit the results in CA 50 will hurt the Busby campaign's efforts in November.

:yourock:

[Idioteque]

8. DLC is a label that folks here put on any Democrat they don't like...

...not even bothering to notice that several great members of Congress are New Democrats, including Earl Blumenauer, Jay Inslee, Adam Schiff, and Brian Baird, just to name a few.

[kiahzero]

9. You're a pragmatist! Get out!

Your kind has no place here! We shall have only the perfection of pipedreams! :D

[tammywammy]

10. exactly1

Excellent post. Recommended. :)

[SlipperySlope]

11. I'm witcha brother!

I can be as guilty as "my way or the highway" as the next guy, particularly on my pet issues. But we've all got to realize that no electable politician is going to be all things to all posters here.

[OnionPatch]

16. You summed it up nicely

I can get irate with some Dems when I disagree with a vote they made or a stand they took on an issue. But that doesn't mean I would never vote for them. I understand that one individual cannot possible agree with me on every issue and I don't expect it. Does that mean I'm going to shut up when I don't like what they do/say? Nah.

[NMDemDist2]

12. I just HAD to K&N this one! well done n/t

[Warpy]

13. I have different standards, actually

I know that some districts are heavily populated by conservatives and that corporatists often serve them very well.

I also know that running corporatist campaigns at the national level has shut us out of all 3 branches of government.

I also know that the DLC has taken two good presidential candidates and made them so bland, noncontroversial, colorless and lacking in fight that the last 2 elections were close enough to steal.

I also know that DLC spokesmodels like From have cut Democrats who have strayed from DLC orthodoxy down at every turn.

I also know that Brian Schweitzer has shown us how Democrats can win office in the most GOP of GOP states.

DLC candidates can and do serve selected constituencies well. They just don't translate well to national campaigns.

(Clinton was an aberration. He campaigned like an economic populist, governed like GOP-lite)

[Critters2]

21. Right on all counts! eom

[gizmo1979]

14. I've seen Jon stewart and Keith

olbermann skewered also.So we rip just about everyone,I'm pretty sure we've ripped Jesus and the Dali lama.At least we're equal opportunity.

[wildeyed]

62. I have never seen Conyers ripped.

But maybe I was just absent on that day.

[gizmo1979]

69. you maybe right.

I don't think I've ever seen a conyers flame post.

[stevedeshazer]

15. ALL of them.

Period.

We all need each other.

Point well made.

[jsamuel]

17. Elected Democrats are exactly that.

If we feel someone is not representing us, then we should feel free to run ourselves and/or support a primary opponent. I think that criticizing Democrats is necessary and should be done, however, I have to agree that people on here have been going overboard lately. I have even seen some post that Feingold was wrong to vote against the IWR because he "thought Saddam had WMD's," ignoring the fact that he said he just didn't believe the Admin's "shifting rationals" at the time. Very strange to me... I do support Lamont over Lieberman. However, I will support the Democrat who wins the primary. Don't think that means that I won't criticize them after they win ;)

Criticism is healthy.

Being hypercritical is like falling deeper and deeper into a pit.


Criticism is not the end of it though. Criticism is only healthy when you actually DO something about it.

[LoZoccolo]

18. It's what happens when all people do for activism is hang out here.

The only power some people allow themselves to have is to tar and feather people. People largely aren't engaged in activism here, as I've found, preferring to sit around behind their computer desk. Thus, the only thing they can do when things don't go their way is to go around talking about which Democrats are unacceptable to them.

DUers are seldom doers.

[wildeyed]

63. We have a new Precinct-level Politics Group

for those who are interested in getting active with the party on the local level. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=382

I find working to change the party infinitely more satisfying than complaining about it. That said, I do spend a fair amount of unproductive time on this site. I consider it recreation time and try not to let in interfere with my activist time too much.

[NJ Democrats]

20. K&R!

I've noticed this as well, and it also gets me annoyed. We are the party of the people- all people no matter what their race, age, sex, religious beliefs or their Political Views. Are Democrats are Democrats, some just more liberal than others. Accept it. We will never have an all-liberal party, unless we leave the Democratic Party.

[ginnyinWI]

22. The answer to your specific question:

The most acceptable Dems are the ones people know the least about. That way they can be idealized and put on pedestals around here. Once they get well-known and on the record, there is always something wrong, some statement, or vote, or action which disqualifies them.

Dem politicians aren't allowed to be human and make mistakes, even though it's a whole lot harder to actually get out there and run for public office than just sitting at a keyboard and finding fault.

[patricia92243]

23. REMEMBER - This board is FULL of Republicans. Why, I don't know, but they

are here hot and heavy and LOVE saying things derogatory of any Democratic person and/or political position that they can.

[ruggerson]

25. So, you think all the anti HIllary bullshit here

is really just Republican trolls?

[havocmom]

29. LOL, probably the converse is more likely

;) The GOP wants Hillary. They can't wait to put "Run Hillary, Run!" bumper stickers on their FRONT bumpers.

But it is pretty likely some of those paid posters the GOP hired are working this corner too. They have figured out the internet is a powerful tool and will be trying to neuter it until they manage legislation to own it.

[patricia92243]

46. Yes, I do. Most of it is trolls, but some good Democrats don't like her.

Which is what this board is for - discussion. But when it gets really vitriolic - it is trolls - IMHO.

[otherlander]

65. I'm not a Republican, I'm a liberal independent, I'm alright with most of

the Democrats, but I don't support her because she's done nothing against the war in Iraq.

[ruggerson]

24. It's the pitchfork brigade

They despise anyone who doesn't agree with them on every issue.

[Awsi Dooger]

27. I honestly don't know what DLC means

I see that term everywhere but it's a meaningless blur.

Pardon me if I stick to the same handicapping techniques of the past decade. Who can win a given race or state, and who can't. Trying to keep up with demographic changes. Or how much 9/11 is still impacting the white female vote toward national security.

I just searched for DLC on my hard drive and Tiger reported no results. That settles it and I'm happy with the report.

[Cleita]

30. Democratic Leadership Council. Google that, read their

website and come back and tell us if it doesn't come off as Republican Lite to you. Actually, they remind me of what the Republican Party stood for back in Eisenhower's administration. Compared to the Republican Party today, they do appear left wing.

[chill_wind]

28. Absurd.

"If Howard Dean had been elected President, people would be calling himself a sellout. I can virtually guarantee that if Ned Lamont is Sen. Ned Lamont next year people will be calling him an enabler or sellout. At this point, I'm thinking of staying completely away from DU when the Democrats return to the White House because I can't imagine what kind of hostility is going to break out on the boards when that happens."

Talk about hyperbole......

but to answer on only my own part--

Democrats with recognizable principled convictions and actions as Democrats are all acceptable to me. Those who continue without remorse in aiding, abetting and endlessly funding a criminal illegal war are not, to me. Those who refuse to take an uncomprimising stand for the civil liberties of all Americans are not, to me. Those who continue to turn a blind eye to the sordid history of the BBV apparatus are not, to me. Those who vote and align with the corporatists who continue to wage class warfare against the working class are not, to me.

[omega minimo]

31. Litmus: "Who sells out the U.S's future to consolidated corporate power?"

Could be a great equalizer :hi:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

32. I Only Like People Who Think Exactly Like Me

If they Ever feel different about an issue than I do, there goes any chance I'll Ever vote for them.

:sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Unfortunately There Are Those Who Simply Find Fault In Everything.

I feel for those people, as life must be miserable for them.

That was a great post and I agree with you 100%.

[chill_wind]

37. Illegal War & Deficits in the Trillions. "Patriot" Act. NSA & Pentagon

Domestic Spying & Illegal Wiretapping. Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.
Rivers of blood in Iraq-- a stacked SC, a militarized CIA and a cabinet of rubberdstamped nominees the Weimer Republic could only envy--yeah, that's all trivial crap, stirred up by just a bunch of fringe-thinking malcontents.
Tut-tut-tut.

Best to keep our party powder dry for REAL ISSUES!

[nashville_brook]

38. sorry to inform you that just b/c someone calls themself a dem

doesn't mean EVERYONE on DU has to support them.

deal with it.

[seabeyond]

39. i am not a democrat and stand up for democrats more than the democrats

go figure. totally ridiculous

[Autonomy]

40. We cannot be ideologically pure if we win an election

and we will have nothing to complain about if we win, also. At least if I shoot myself in the foot I can get some sympathy for walking around with a limp. No, I fear success and the responsibility it entails; therefore I recoil from winning like a whipped dog.

If a liberal candidate I really like seems like he has a shot at winning in 2008 (or this year, for that matter), I will find something to fault him on, and go with a more "ideologically pure" candidate who stands no chance of actually being elected. It just makes me feel safe and somehow internally fulfilled to do it that way.

[chill_wind]

42. We are in no serious danger of that, I'm quite certain.

We seem to have a fair lot of present dem pragmatist pub appeasers in Congress. Gotta keep our power dry for getting re-elected on REAL ISSUES, not chickenshit stuff like civil liberties and The Constitution, the integrity of the vote, or torture and/or death and dismemberment of thousands of men, women and children who did not attack our country--- or the billions upon billions we've authorized and spent and keep spending toward that cause--at the enormous expense of any domestic agenda we can be proud of here at home----THAT niggling "ideological" stuff.

[Autonomy]

43. There ya go! Perfect example!

Blaming Dems for "appeasing" republicans when the Dems cannot control the agenda, rules, or even mount a remotely effective challenge to most legislative issues for the past several congresses is the perfect method of indefinitely avoiding that pesky responsiblity of having to actually govern. Who needs Diebold when the Repubs have us leftwing puritans! Good thing, too. We wouldn't want to make them mad by beating them!

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. *ahem* Tell me again how many Democrats voted for the IWR and the Patriot

Act? How many voted for the Bankruptcy Bill? How many voted for the Medicare Bill? How many voted for ScAlito and Roberts? This has NOTHING to do with 'controling the agenda.' What it does have something to do with is PRINCIPLE. NONE OF THEM HAD TO VOTE FOR ANY OF THAT LEGISLATION AND CHOSE TO DO SO. They own it now. It had nothing to do with their inability to control the agenda.

[Autonomy]

58. Nothing those Dems did would have changed the outcome of those votes

Therefore your "principle" is meaningless at best, self-defeating more likely. Both sides have certain things they can't be on record as voting against. That's the sad truth.

It has EVERYTHING to do with controlling the agenda. EVERYTHING.

There's a specific name for "principled" politicians: unemployed.

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. I'd rather have a principled unemployed politician any day of the week

than one that kowtows to every threat posed to them by repukes or their voting records. Paul Wellstone had Principles and was beloved by his constituents. It CAN BE DONE. They just have to want to do it.

[chill_wind]

41. So when will the pragmatists do something pragmatic

like start a prominantly visible running DU straw poll?

Or do we really fear real answers to rhetorical questions seemingly meant to finger-wag and chide? We've got 90,000+ registered users here... if the question is really sincere... re: "currently acceptable dems", as it was put.

Here's one for you from another high profile dem/lib blog..


Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:26:03 PM PDT

dKos reader poll. 5/24. 14,474 respondents.

May Mar Jan Nov Sep Aug Jul

Feingold 44 48 30 19 19 16 10
Clark 15 15 22 26 34 35 34
Warner 10 11 12 14 4 3 5
Edwards 8 7 8 12 10 7 7
Other 6 3 6 2 3 4 4
No Freakin' Clue 4 6 6 6 6 9 13
H. Clinton 2 2 3 6 8 9 10
Richardson 1 2 3 5 3 4 4
Biden 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Kerry 1 1 3 2 2 1 2
Daschle 1 0
Bayh 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Vilsack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dodd 0

-----

more at http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Straw%20Poll

[Behind the Aegis]

45. I can tell you which ones that aren't!

Your post is an excellent example as to why we are still spinning our wheels in the snow!

This is the best: "...if you want someone who votes with you every single time, go run for something yourself."!!!!

Way to go! :applause:

[iconoclastNYC]

48. Another post bitching about DU

How about we bitch about Republicans instead about bitching at the people here at DU who are disillusioned with the spinless Democrats we send to Washington.

[NNN0LHI]

49. Any Democrat who doesn't make a living insulting our intelligence is OK

Problem is there aren't many of those.

Don

[yodermon]

50. Duh.

It's a public discussion board.
The Democrats are not a monolith.
If you can't stand the heat, the living room's the 1st door on the left.
:nopity:

[Bretttido]

51. I Agree with liberalpragmatist

Politely disagreeing with a fellow democrat is one thing. Accusing them of being a GOP plant when they don't follow you lock-step is stupid, ludicrous, and reflects poorly on the majority of DUers. For our sake, keep the conspiracy theories to yourself.

[Bill McBlueState]

53. look at all the varied responses to your post

Makes it look a little silly to speak of "GD" or "DU" as some monolithic entity with a single opinion.

[Touchdown]

54. As far as I'm concerned...everybody, except...

Those who claim victimhood for being christian, because a Dem said something out of line, while at the same time not doing a damn thing about the religious right, who hijacked their faith in the first place.

I mean that, and I'm through trying to reason with them.

[Iowa]

57. I have seen some variation of this post a thousand times...

It's preachy, condescending, and overly simplistic. It has been beaten to death - we hear this type of rant over and over again.

Most, if not all, DUers have already thought this issue through and drawn their own conclusions - and most have probably done so much more thoroughly than laid out in the OP.

[NobleCynic]

61. No kidding

[NoPasaran]

64. At the moment

I think it would be any who haven't been within fifty feet of known evangelicals in the last week. But I'm sure that next week the Two Minute Hate will have an entirely new theme.

[otherlander]

66. For '06, I think that the important thing is

just getting a Democratic majority. Then, even though many of the politicians are just that- politicians- the progressive Democrats will be able to accomplish more. I think that most of the Democrats are alright, but for the presidential election I have higher expectations. When the primaries are over, I'll be glad if whatever candidate is chosen wins against the Republican running. But during the primaries, when we have the chance, I will take it, because that is our best opportunity, our only one, to ensure that someone who is truly progressive gets to lead our nation.

[expatriot]

67. I am with you one hundred and twenty percent. I have been saying this for

I am very progressive in my politics, many of my ideals would be described as radical by most people... but I believe for progressives/liberals to have any serious impact on the political system (a positive one, at least) we must accept the reality of the two party predominance in our political system (winner take all)... and therefore if you want any influence in the national scene you need to build coalitions. Of course we can and should voice our criticisms of Democratic pols and candidates that have a more centrist line than us or choose to 'moderate' themselves on some issues not of our liking but to issue such fiery vendettas against them is counter-productive to say the least, IMO.

[RDU Socialist]

68. for the loudmouths who berate democrats, this guy is acceptable to them

[Marie26]

70. Russ Feingold.

And that's about it.