working to crush "the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party"

[Robbien]

David Sirota
The Marriage of Corruption & Hypocrisy In Democratic Washington

<snip>

It's nice to imagine that the new Democratic Congress will put a stop to all this, especially after a 2006 election campaign run against corruption. But on the same day my op-ed appeared, a spate of stories shows just how aggressively Democratic Washington is embracing the pay-to-play culture. Take this Politico profile of J. Jonathon Jones - some mid-level nobody former staffer for mid-level nobody Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). But in Democratic Washington, everyone knows that the quickest way for mid-level nobodies to become somebodies is to sign on the dotted line to sell off your soul and the Democratic Party's working-class base.

In the story, Jones brags about opening up a brand new corporate lobbying operation to cash in on the new Democratic majority and working to crush "the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party" - all while flaunting his previous efforts shilling for corporate interests as a paid government worker:

"In 2003, Jones played an instrumental role in organizing a regular meeting of Democratic lobbyists and Senate staffers. Every other Monday during the congressional session, 80 to 100 lobbyists and top staffers for Democratic members plotted strategy in a conference room at the Hall of the States near the Capitol...Staffers stopped meeting in 2005 in a reevaluation of the group in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. After the air cleared, the mix of lobbyists and congressional aides started meeting again last fall...Jones's main challenge is to beat back the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and to help craft legislation that businesses can stomach."

. . .

Obviously, these are not one-person operations. There is an entire infrastructure designed to support paid shills inside the Democratic Party.

and much more about The Third Way and Blue Dogs and K Street front groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-marriage-of-corruptio_b_44529.html

[bigtree]

1. 'Politico profile'

'nuff said . . .

[Robbien]

2. If anyone knowsthe backstory of the Moderate/Centrist Dem

it is Drudge/Politico.

Drudge/Politico follows and caters to the monied.

[bigtree]

18. bullshit. These folks are making it up as they go along.

They are 0 for 2 on the speculation/unattributed quote game.

I saw Roger Simon last night. Ugh.


The Politico's Simon botched description of Kerry's joke

Summary: Roger Simon, chief political columnist for The Politico, wrote that Sen. John Kerry had "botched a joke about the draft" in October 2006. In asserting that the botched joke was about "the draft," Simon echoed Republican claims that Kerry was disparaging U.S. troops, rather than President Bush, as Kerry has said.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250003


Ignoring his own media criticism, Politico's Harris blamed Gore for 2000 election loss
http://mediamatters.org/items/related/200703220002

Politico reported Putnam's criticism of Pelosi without noting his earlier false attack on her (02/27/2007)
http://mediamatters.org/items/related/200702280001

Politico's baseless, charged rhetoric fueling Republican attacks on Democrats (02/15/2007)
http://mediamatters.org/items/related/200702150009

[Robbien]

47. Politico/Drudge knows centrists/moderates like the back of their hand.

Politico/Drudge's goal is the same as centrists/moderates. All of them would like to see the corporations rule and progressives wiped out.

It is the rest of the Dem Party Politico/Drudge/centrists/moderates cannot get right because they know shit about the common good.

[bigtree]

76. Politico/Drudge may know something, but what they feed us is bullshit

Sirota has stooped to scoop their republican shit to attack DEMOCRATS and I'm not buying it.

[Robbien]

85. The only ones picking on Dems here are the Centrists/Moderates/Blue Dogs

as usual.

[Marr]

3. There certainly is a struggle going on between the corporate and liberal wings of

the Democratic Party right now. I'd say Hillary Clinton sums up the corporate faction at the moment. The corporate media just cannot talk about her candidacy enough, even though almost no one seems to like her.

[Kurovski]

48. I'd say it's more like the "corporate and populist wings..."

But when you get right down to it, (Liberal/populist)they are pretty much the same at this point in time.

[blm]

66. Yep - remember this gem from Hillary - always siding with Bush.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[MadHound]

4. There has been an ongoing effort to stamp out the left wing of the Democratic party

And when that left wing gets fed up and leaves to join the Greens, or simply stays home on election day, they are demonized as an evil worse than the 'Pugs for daring to repudiate the very Dems that have been demonizing them. I have always loved how the Democrats demand the leftist vote, and then immediately after the election continues their campaign to purge leftists from the party.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Precisely. I am feeling more disallusioned as I learn.

I often joke that I have to thank the Republicans and PNAC for being responsible for me learning more about law, the Constitution, separation of powers, parliamentary procedure - every issue that I've picked up along the way in trying to learn what is going wrong with my country.

Well, along the way, I've become sick to my stomach about what I've learned about the Democratic Party.

I always considered myself an Independent because I didn't want to get connected to any Party that would disappoint me. I, laughingly, thought I could cross over and vote for individuals of either or any Party.

As I observed, starting with the Kennedy assassination, and as things evolved, I could not support many individual Republicans because it was the only way to protest my unhappiness. I felt the Democratic Party was more inclusive and there were leaders in it who were really trying to represent those who are forgotten.

I didn't see things in the Democratic Party until the 1990's and I saw something very sick in the people who represented Democrats on national television - the same people over and over. I found they were the DLC. Then the 2000 election, the votes for the massacres and torture, the votes for the Patriot Act, the 2004 election, the heads in the sand about machines and electronics and physical attempts related to stolen votes, muted voices, etc., etc.

My contempt for Nader exploded in 2000 in spite of holding him up as a hero for decades. Well, he was right.

I am at the point where I fantasize about our country having three to five parties. I want a choice.

I saw a subject heading about Gore runnings as a Green - haven't read it yet - but it sure is intriguing.

I supported the Democratic Party for years, but what I've learned about the perpetual war supporters and the lobbying corruption makes we want to run - away.

I often envy friends who refuse to let their head be bothered about what is going on in politics. I blame the Democrats for my envy.

If I really don't have a choice between Republicans and Democrats if the DLC runs things - why not join the friends and let the country go the Republican way and just eat the consequences to me?

The Democrats have an internal problem. You can be sure that the right wing will provide a way for the DLC to be heard and the rest of us to be suppressed.

Thank you for posting.

[w4rma]

20. It's not a "problem" its a battle between two factions within the Democratic Party.

Help the progressive faction win and keep control from the DLC faction.

[Clark2008]

52. John Edwards WAS DLC the whole time he was senator, btw. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

72. I'm not sure that's true -- or please document if it is

The DLC has a rather nasty habit of appropriating "members" to itself, some of whom are smart enough to disengage forcefully from being "conflated" in the membership stats.

[Cameron27]

84. His name is under the Leaders headline

where he presented this:

Education Policy Address by Sen. John Edwards
November 21, 2002

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251080


Also from July, 2002

Sen. John Edwards
2002 DLC National Conversation
New York, NY
July 30, 2002
Remarks as prepared for delivery

Snip> Responsibility of the kind we have seen in New York is at the heart of what the DLC has always stood for; it is written in the record and work of this organization. From national service to community policing to deficit reduction, the ideas you have advanced around the country have been about inspiring a new sense of responsibility in all walks of American life. Millions of Americans are able to lift themselves up, give something back, and hold their heads high because you have given them the chance.


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

[Morgana LaFey]

100. Well, there ya go.

I hope he's smarter now.

Thanks for the info.

[peacetalksforall]

79. I'd like to see how that plays out. It's obvious that they have

selected Hillary and it's only a matter of VP.

If he wants to be Pres and why shouldn't he go for it, I find I can't predict anything about success in relations to hime because I just don't understand the DLC.

But... the DLC is a mystery to me. How can these people be so ineffective, so wishy-washy when representing Dems on tv? Where did this centrism stuff come from?

They are stuck in a past decade. Or is it just me?

We need Dean, Kucinich, Gore - for air - for survival!

[w4rma]

80. The DLC is funded by the big corporations. DLCers says what their funders want them to say.

And pass policies that their funders want them to pass.

The reason they are so ineffective and sound so wishy washy when representing Democratic interests, is because they are working to undercut Democratic interests. They are only promoting the interests of their funders.

[peacetalksforall]

81. Are there any facts that would show that DLC members have been

more or less honest than their Dem peers (non-DLC)?

Were the entire 8 years of Clinton, DLC years?

[w4rma]

82. Yes. (nt)

[Pastiche423]

57. It is amusing to me

that while you want the progressives to keep control from the DLC faction, you are supporting a man that was DLC when he was a senator (the only office he has held).

[ProudDad]

77. If we had national IRV

(Instant Runoff Voting) and public financing of elections, you and I would get our wish.

[NorthernSpy]

6. and yet as the last election showed, they can't afford to get rid of us...

... populists and progressives. No matter how much the DLC might hate us (and oh, they do).

Remember, the DLC faction brought us a long string of losses. Their one really big victory -- the presidential election of '92 -- was mostly the result of a rogue third party candidacy that split the Right and undermined support for the already unpopular Republican incumbent (who couldn't seem to get a handle on the recession).

They're very aggressive, and they claim to have all the answers. But have you noticed that every time the neos take the reins, the result is disaster for whichever party was stupid enough to put them in charge? And that when we stop listening to them, we're better able to connect with our base?

The reality is that the neolibs and neocons have no genuine connection to the electorate as a whole. That's why their analysis is consistently off, and why we should ALL know better by now than to let them call the shots.

After all, just look what the neocons have managed to do to the Right in just a few short years! We don't want that.

[LWolf]

7. That's crystal clear.

The efforts to purge have been picking up steam in the last few years, and months, from my perspective. Or it just took me too long to recognize them. Even, or especially, here at DU.

[Radical Activist]

8. It isn't a two way street with them.

Moderate/Corporate Democrats always demand support from liberals in the name of party unity and winning. But when a liberal gets nominated for something, the moderate Democrats sit on the sidelines and do nothing to help.

[Vincardog]

62. When we had a real progressive win the nomination if TX AG the 'Establishment' Democrats worked

AGAINST HIM.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. And when they show up in DC to lobby,

they are called 'idiotic liberals' by Dem Congress reps.

[CarbonDate]

96. Dave Obey has been one of the most reliably liberal....

...congressmen out there.

People who berate him as though he's part of the problem are idiots, liberal or not.

[EFerrari]

37. Is it the corporate and left wing or the corporate and workers wing?

:shrug:

"Purging leftists" sounds like code to me for running over the needs of everyday people.

/oops

[PassingFair]

9. I have learned. Left wing =

Non-Corporate.

Sick, but true.

Ask DLC-types to DEFINE "LEFT-WING".

"Left-wing" is working people.
"Left-wing" is anti-Iraq-Iran war.
"Left-wing" is middle class women.


We are SCREWN.

[many a good man]

13. Left is for the people, right is for the royals

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.<8>

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics

As it was and forever shall be....

[leftchick]

10. Well I am fucking SHOCKED!!!

:sarcasm:

It has been obvious to me for a very long time they are trying to shut down the progressive/liberal/anyone left of "center" voices. It is disgusting.

[shance]

11. The definition of "left wing" is those who are paying attention.

"left wing" = paying attention.

Washington = dislike for those paying attention

[shance]

12. When we stop giving our power and money to Washington, we take our power back.

So let's do it.

[pat_k]

14. aka " American centrists" (who are being given voice via "netroots")

[loudsue]

15. As many people here know, my MAIN issue today is the voting machines

In Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, he makes it CLEAR that he thinks voting machine fraud is "conspiracy theorist" b.s. I think he's basically a pretty good guy, and over all, I like him. But seeing his philosophy up close & personal in his own writings, I really think he's naive about the corruption we face that is bringing down our country. He's slick and intelligent enough to USE the system, but he doesn't see the long-term mess he's setting up for himself or the rest of us. In other words, he'd end up stepping in the poop LONG before he ever smelled it coming.

That's why Gore or Clark are the two people I have real confidence in to be strong and smart and experienced enough to lead us out of this mess.

John Edwards is a VERY good person, SMART enough, but not experienced enough, or enough of a strong warrior, to take on the criminals who have made a career out of sucking at the taxpayer (Washington) teet.

There are things I really like about Obama. VERY few, but some things I like about Hillary. And I love EVERYTHING about Kucinich, but he would be so hounded and set up and devoured by the business community, that his presidency would end up being marginalized all the way to ineffectuality.

The ONE THING that a candidate, for me, HAS TO DO, is understand what these electronic vote counting machines are doing to our Democracy. In fact, we're going to be stuck with Washington as usual until we get rid of these voting machines. Because we're going to keep getting the government the VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES want, until we get that part straightened out.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Maybe if Obama loses Illinois in 08 he'll wise up.

Both Gore and Kerry had to get completely fucked over for it to dawn on them that there is something going on.

[loudsue]

Hmmm. You may be right. Obama took his first loss very hard,

according to his book. It would be a real eye-opener if, now that he's a rock star, to fall off that pedestal temporarily. I just don't see it happening for him that way. He's now the sweetheart of some of the big boys, so unless he does something REALLY stupid, (which I don't see happening -- he's smart, and he's got too many coaches in the political community) he's with us for the long haul.

:kick::kick::kick:

[w4rma]

22. Edwards has more experience at dealing with that stuff than anyone else you listed.

Including Kucinich. Remember that Edwards fought that corruption in court as a trial lawyer, even though he only spent one term as a Senator.

Except for Hillary, who is part of the corruption, imho.

[peacetalksforall]

46. I think people on DU become delusional - it really hurts to learn

that our leaders in Washington barely give a damn about voting while people who communicate on forums like DU think everyone is involved or learning. Voting - something I consider my most precious possession.

Yes, only a few are savvy. Too many dismiss it - they share the theft with the thieves. Therefore I cannot give any time or money to anyone who doesn't seem to care. I didn't know about Obama referring to us as conspiracy theorists. Too bad. No wonder the Republicans love him.

I have no time for people who dismiss important facts as conspiracies just because some confessions are missing.

[rebel with a cause]

89. You are reading too much into it, and he didn't refer to anyone as conspiracy theorist..

there are a lot of people who try to see the best of things and do not realize that there is so much evil out there. But with Barack, I believe he is down playing the election fraud stuff, trying to keep people from giving up hope or becoming panicky. Lets face it, there are people out there that if they believe what we all do then they would give up, not vote and some of them even might hurt themselves if they thought there was no hope in getting out from under this bunch of "evil doer's" control. Barack is all about giving others hope and I think this is what he is doing as he works behind the scene with others to try to stop this from happening again in 2008. This is common practice with good leaders, they lead with courage and reasure the people that things will be better and not by controling others by spreading fear.

And republicans don't love him. If they did they would not be breaking their necks trying to get something, anything, on him. If there is a candidate they love, it is not him.

[loudsue]

90. Nope. He said it himself. Look in the book!

I'd tell you which page it's on, but I took BOTH of his books over to a friend of mine who is a big Obama supporter, because she hadn't read them yet.

When he's talking about the 2004 election, he said something to the effect of "there were a lot of conspiracy theories about the election being stolen..." or some such.

Have you read his books?

:kick:

[rebel with a cause]

91. Nope,

I know the man and I trust him. I don't always agree with him, I don't agree with anyone all of the time not even myself. ;-) But I know this one thing, of all the candidates running in the democratic primary, he is the one that I see as the most honest and I will stand behind him.

I won't say anything negative about the other candidates, which I am sorry to say that you who bash Obama do not feel fit to do the same, because I am not going to give the republicans any more material than they already have to use against us later. There are a couple of the candidates, whom I will not name, that I will not support and will either vote green or stay home this time. I am tired of holding my nose and voting for someone that I don't really support just because he/she may be better than the republican. I wouldn't doubt that the Obama bashers on this message board are supporters of these two candidates. Enough said.

As for me, I have had enough of the going ons here for one night. Time to hit the hay as the sun rises in the east. Good night.

[kiteinthewind]

53. In 100% agreement! If the corporate factions run our elections, then we don't really have

a transparent vote. We have to 'trust them' with our vote. NOT!
:toast:

[Morgana LaFey]

73. That makes him extremely dangerous, IMO

In Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, he makes it CLEAR that he thinks voting machine fraud is "conspiracy theorist" b.s.

Not only will he influence hundreds of thousands if not millions of people via his book, but he unwittingly provides cover for the crimes. In addition, if he goes into a race with that notion (and won't the Roves and other vote stealers of the world love him for it!!?), he'll do a John Kerry and drop out at the slightest provocation.

Dangerous, dangerous man. I dislike -- and distrust -- him more with each day. It might not be so bad were it not for his arrogant self-assurance that he's got all these answers. Bah!

[ananda]

16. what left wing?

There is NO left wing of any party ...

[mmonk]

24. Anybody who opposes them is "extreme left wing"

but I can tell you that most of us are just traditional democrats. Anybody who speaks in that manner is not.

[Cha]

41. They call us, "extreme left wing"..I call

them, "the fascist wing of the dem party".

They think they're sooo clever putting that "extreme" in there like that's the red flag, right there. :silly:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

95. They've picked up on the wrongwing talking points. These Democrats are as Democratic as the Neocons

are Conservative Republicans.

[Laughing Mirror]

33. that phantom left wing

I know there must be a phantom left wing out there because I vote for them whenever I seem them on the ballot. For example, voting for whoever's on the Workers Party on the NY ballot, not that I know who it is. I never go their meetings, if they have any. I never see their candidates on TV. They may not even exist so far as I know. I could be throwing my vote into some empty void, voting for some fake COINTELPRO candidate for all I know. I don't how it is in many locales, but at least if you see a left wing option on the ballot, you can vote it because you do have that option.

[rman]

93. i'm curious to know what your definition of "Left" is...

Do you seriously think that the political spectrum in the US is limited to Right-Wing and Center?

[w4rma]

19. Those "3rd Wayers" have the same problem with using Democrat as an adjective as the 'thugs do.

'New Democrat Coalition'
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/

[gordianot]

21. In America there is an extreme right wing but not an extreme left wing.

That is why the American Eagle keeps flying in circles making the same mistakes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. I am a member of the extreme left wing

Yes, we do exist.

[gordianot]

75. Compared to the extreme right in power now you are probably right.

I'm not sure I have met anyone who advocates the complete elimination of all private property, allowing control by the state on all production of goods and commodities. The State owns the Corporation. My take is these people are rare.

Now on the extreme right side there are those who advocate total privatization of Government. Compete control and ownership of the State by an Oligarchy. These people are also rare but I have met them and these extremist have seized the Executive Branch and the Judiciary. Compared to the extremist Neo-Cons it is not hard in America to be on the extreme left which in other times would have been centrist.

[mmonk]

23. I already know my opponents (by their choice, not mine).

[gordianot]

25. My opponents are domestic, I have seen the elephant.

They are far more dangerous to survival of humanity than third world terrorists.

[mmonk]

101. True.

Terrorists can't fell the constitution. That can only be done within.

[librechik]

26. when did extreme left wingers get voted into congress???

Never, that's when. Even Kucinich and Feingold are mildly leftish of center in the Reality Based scheme of things. The Pukkkes control the language of the debate, and they paint our mildest soldiers as if they were bloodthirsty demons (i.e. like the radical right themselves who who bully over us.)

[Jim Sagle]

68. I think Kucinich is solidly left. Scarcely extreme, though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. And some of these blue dogs are longtime DUers.

They are trying to beat back the extreme left wing of the Democratic party right here on this discussion board which is full of extreme left wingers. :crazy:

[bigtree]

30. what a bunch of shit

problem is, some folks here can't debate issues without resorting to labeling and name-calling, or spinning some innuendo about the folks who bother to post here like they're part of some think-tank conspiracy.

Just make you damn argument when you respond. If you can't make your argument, it doesn't matter whose water you might be carrying.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. True

Here's my argument: A military mom who confronted a congressman in DC was called an "idiotic liberal" by that congressman. DUers not only agreed with the congressman but actually criticized the mom for filming the encounter. Hundreds of responses to the thread posting the video. Most were negative.

Today I posted an article about that same mom putting together a citizen's lobby group. Great idea. Very few responses. I guess DUers are satisfied with the way Dems are running Congress.

[Breeze54]

35. Where is it posted?

I'd like to read it! Thanks! ;)

[loudsue]

36. Here it is: jump in!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x548518


:kick::kick::kick:

[leftchick]

39. thank you

I want to continue supporting every peace mom like me. :)

[Breeze54]

59. Thanks!!

I searched under Proud2Blib's name but couldn't find it.

[bigtree]

40. who knows why folks respond or don't

I think a lot here is driven by the sensational and the moment. Others who are more thoughtful in their posts and responses may not reveal any true allegiances as they choose or not choose to debate some point or another. If we challenge the ideas and not spend a lot of time on the character or motives of the posters we'll make more progress in understanding and relating to each other.

[cali]

70. That wasn't a right/left issue.

The Rep in question, David Obey, has been solidly against the war. He shouldn't have called Tina Richards an idiot in that encounter- even though she was saying some idiotic shit.

[NorthernSpy]

42. the "blue dogs" and the DLC are actually quite different...

DLC: pro-corporate, neoliberal: globalism's true believers. Capable of breathtaking opportunism on "hot button" social issues, but personally prochoice on abortion; would like more gun control; do not have any real religious objection to gay marriage. Anti-populist orientation.

Blue dogs: want to start renegotiating trade deals that have harmed US workers; want balanced budgets; don't want more gun control; don't want gay marriage; may be prolife; may want universal healthcare. Basically, social conservatives -- often from a Catholic standpoint -- who are sick of neoliberalism and fanatical Market worship in general. Populist orientation.

[Jim Sagle]

69. Many Southerners as well as Catholics under hte Blue Dog tent,.

The biggest differnece I noted was on torture. Most DLCers voted against it, like most other Dems. Blue Dogs voted for it.

[intheflow]

31. It's slimeballs like this that convinced people to vote Nader in 2000.

This is the argument for a thrid party, although we all know now without a shadow of a doubt that the third party thing is a dangerous catch-22. I'm all for crushing the corporate arm of the Democratic party, though. I'd happily be a lobbyist to do that, but who in hell would pay me?

[LeftishBrit]

34. Who are the 'extreme left' of the Democratic Party?

I thought there were practically no 'extreme left-wingers' in American politics. Even Bernie Sanders strikes me as left but hardly extreme-left.

[EFerrari]

38. The "extreme left" seems to be people who want fair elections,

dislike wars of choice and have a mortgage. Aka, the unwealthy.

[Cha]

43. And want equal rights

for everyone!

[EFerrari]

44. That's right. How extreme!

:crazy:

[leftchick]

51. and want clean air, healthy food, address global warming etc.

nuts like me. :crazy:

[Morgana LaFey]

74. and are pro-Labor and pro-minority at OTHER than election time

:evilgrin:

[nealmhughes]

45. Gee, I've been speaking of "the civil war in the Democratic Party" since 2000.

Glad some others have noticed.
:sarcasm:

If that hasn't been evident since Humphrey v. McCarthy, then people have been blind.

[blm]

64. I heard in the late 90s it was the Clinton Dems v the Kennedy Dems for soul of the party.

No wonder TeamClinton stayed closer to Bush on so many military issues than they would to Kerry who was Kennedy's choice.

[leftofthedial]

49. we need to go to the source

and eliminate as much of the plutocracy as possible

take the money back

take the money out of politics

start over from political scratch

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. From the title and from the link, 2 words:

Rahm Emanuel

[Robbien]

55. Yes. It is no wonder Rahm grabbed credit for the 2006 win

He knows the win was due to progressive grassroots, but he had to push the meme that it was he and the moderates who saved the day.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. He's the Bob Schrum of the New American Century!

:rofl:

[zippy890]

54. the Progressive Caucus in Congress

was pivotal in giving Pelosi enough votes
to pass the Iraq military funding bill with the 2008
deadline to get troops out.

http://cpc.lee.house.gov/

now it is arguable whether these Representatives
fall into some definition of the 'extreme left wing' of the Democratic Party.

it is not arguable, but fact that they were crucial in the passage of that bill. Some of them did not vote for it but most did.

from the webpage about the Progressive Caucus:

"We want to take on the Bush Administration's agenda by providing a comprehensive, thoughtful, progressive alternative -- what we call The Progressive Promise -- Fairness for All


The Progressive Promise is rooted in four core principles:

1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties; and
3. Promoting global peace and security.
4. Environmental Protection & Energy Independence"

http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=2&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=2

Are these 'extreme left wing' ideas?
I think many in this this country would say yes, note #1 "Fighting for Economic Justice...." many would call this socialist talk.

I think we Progressives are a force now to be reckoned with and no we will not be dismissed or marginalized.

good for David Sirota- he keeps on fighting the good fight-

[Pharaoh]

56. I miss Howard Dean!

Representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party

<img src="">

[DanWithAngel]

58. it does not matter

we are REQUIRED to vote for Democratic candidates regardless of their position.
any talk of voting 3rd party is crushed. is that not the rule around here?

[magellan]

67. Technically talk of voting 3rd party is against the rules

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

I say 'technically' because occasional threats to vote 3rd party or posts bemoaning the lack of a viable 3rd party alternative often stand without repercussion. It depends somewhat on the tone of the post and the mood of the mods. Airing frustration is allowed to a degree...although you will likely get jumped on by purists.

There's no DU requirement to vote for Dem candidates -- simply because no one can force you to vote one way or another (barring vote rigging). No one from DU is going to accompany you to your voting place and ensure you vote Dem.

But if you announce on DU that you're voting 3rd party, and worse try to rally others to do the same, don't expect to be welcome.

[epppie]

61. Grassroots power!

Still the answer.

[Vincardog]

63. Welcome to DU epppie

[omega minimo]

65. Corporations vs. the People

So it's an open secret in DC, huh? And Dems brag about it? And Joe Sixpack America knows corporations are running the show.

So where is the party of the people?

[Morgana LaFey]

71. So if this is a good idea, why do we never hear of the GOP doing it?

Beat off and destroy their extreme right wing? INSTEAD the GOP caters to them. Hmmm, wonder what the GOP knows that stooopid Dems like this one don't? This man needs a serious challenger come '08.

[ProudDad]

78. Not really

They pander to and then after election they mostly ignore their lunatic, evangelical christian fringe (at least, according to their religious nut fringe) but they, like most Dems, are very kind to their corporate sponsors.

[Jcrowley]

83. Can we just call the "Extreme Left"

"Decent Folk"

It's nearly humorous if it weren't so sad. What passes for the left in the US is not only ineffectual but scarcely existent.

If you were to spend time in Europe or South America you'd find that what is mildly left of center there would appear to be wild-eyed radicals in the land of the Wal-Mart political arena where the politics has swung so far to the right, AND WORSE has swung into the land of consumer insignificancy, that anything even tepidly approaching a position of justice is seen as some "extreme" leftist position.

America is pretty slick and rather distracted. It can't recognize it's own condition.

[Hidden Stillness]

86. They are as Poisonous as Republicans

Maybe the most poisonous thing that "D"LC, Inc. ever did was introduce a vocabulary, exactly like Republicans--their "friends" and sponsors--that removed the center of concern from the American people, and gave it to the corporate world and its narrow, profit-making interests. After generations, suddenly, the idea that taxes should be collected from the rich so that those who have nothing might be helped, the idea that corporate management needs to be regulated or they would cheat us all at every turn, the idea that there is a common social responsibility that comes before personal or commercial profit, all these common-sense opinions, were suddenly painted as "extreme liberal," and questioned as if they had no logic, when no one had ever questioned the obvious truth of any of it, ever before. There was suddenly now a "label" for anyone who knew that corporations needed to be controlled by the people and their Government, and it was not just assumed anymore. The most ordinary non-corporate opinions were now attacked as "extreme" or "dependent on Government" or "slowing down the wonderful marvel of globalization." They stupidly attacked every pro-government-program idea as "Socialist" as quickly as their Republicans always did, so that now it was coming at you from all sides, with no relief--a barrage of stupidity and phoniness.

The "D"LC stopped acting like legislators anwerable to the people, and began acting like rich CEOs giving us orders. They even started the alarming trend of referring to the "Democratic 'brand' " or criticizing time-honored Democratic ways of solving economic problems. The Midwest still hates Clinton for devastating us with NAFTA and GATT, as we have never been able to replace our lost manufacturing base. Hillary Clinton's health care "plan" was to force people onto HMOs that refused service, and now she lies about it. The "D"LC/Republican lobbying group dismantled its whole National campaign staff structure (and it took Howard Dean to rebuild it over the past few years), and all was turned over to a personal Bill Clinton promotion; they still pretend, even after the November elections where we won heavily again, that only they know how to win, we are all losers, etc., etc. They are a corrosive, poisonous influence, and they only answer to corporations and lobbyists.

[omega minimo]

88. Unfortunately, many Dems think that Clinton/Gore was a break in the rise of

Reagan/Bushism. Not.

Great post as usual, HS. :toast:

[ComerPerro]

87. that would be great, yeah. becasue once we get rid of the whacko left nuts, we will have 3 groups

moderate Dems

moderate Republicans

extreme Right wing Republicans.


The extreme right wants a fascist theocracy based on thier bizzare take on Christianity.

The moderate Republicans want their votes.

The mdoerate Dems want to be more like Republicans, so the Republicans will vote for them.


So I think we all know where that leads us...

[creeksneakers2]

92. Crushing the extreme left wing?

I don't see a single example either in the linked article or any comment on this thread of any actual attempt to "crush the extreme left wing." Its all just another chant aimed at conjuring up anger and splitting the party. Only the GOP would benefit.

I seldom see any threads dedicated to promoting positive change by reaching the rest of the electorate. I seldom see anything specific about proposed changes in policy and how they might work. Its like pragmatism doesn't exist. I can only conclude that its all about feeling holier than thou, and not at all about creating real positive change.

[rman]

94. Did you read the OP?

In the story, Jones brags about opening up a brand new corporate lobbying operation to cash in on the new Democratic majority and working to crush "the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party" - all while flaunting his previous efforts shilling for corporate interests as a paid government worker:

"In 2003, Jones played an instrumental role in organizing a regular meeting of Democratic lobbyists and Senate staffers. Every other Monday during the congressional session, 80 to 100 lobbyists and top staffers for Democratic members plotted strategy in a conference room at the Hall of the States near the Capitol...Staffers stopped meeting in 2005 in a reevaluation of the group in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. After the air cleared, the mix of lobbyists and congressional aides started meeting again last fall...Jones's main challenge is to beat back the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and to help craft legislation that businesses can stomach."

[creeksneakers2]

98. Yes, and I read the story it linked to

David Sirota's piece is based on another story in the Politco:
(see link to Politico in Sirota story)

"In 2003, Jones played an instrumental role in organizing a regular meeting of Democratic lobbyists and Senate staffers. Every other Monday during the congressional session, 80 to 100 lobbyists and top staffers for Democratic members plotted strategy in a conference room at the Hall of the States near the Capitol."

(snip)

"Jones's main challenge is to beat back the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and to help craft legislation that businesses can stomach that also allows Democrats to remain true to working-class principles."

David Sirota twists it:

"In the story, Jones brags about opening up a brand new corporate lobbying operation to cash in on the new Democratic majority and working to crush "the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party" - all while flaunting his previous efforts shilling for corporate interests as a paid government worker"

The Politico article says nothing to crushing or bragging. I read it twice. The article does say "beat back the extreme left wing" but that's just a dramatic way of saying that Jones competes with the extreme left wing. It doesn't mean he's trying to "crush" the extreme left wing. Sirota cut out the part of the article that said, "that allows Democrats to remain true to working class principles."

Nowhere in Sirota's article does he say how anything Jones is doing could possibly crush the left. Democrats have compromised with business all along and the left is still here. Jones has lots of contacts but he's only one guy.

Some want a party that makes enemies of every business interest but that's neither right nor practical. Business and labor have many overlapping interests. Its possible that a compromise with business on one matter might be exchanged for a concession on another. Its sometimes possible to craft legislation that still achieves its goals but does it in a way that is less harmful to business. Public financing of elections would change things for the better, but for now the situation is take lobbyist money or lose. Losing achieves nothing.

Looking at Sirota's piece and this thread its easy to see how exaggerated this supposed assault is. That is what convinces me that this isn't about any real world goals or policy.

[Larry Ogg]

97. To the degree the left is destroyed humanity looses its soul.

I will never forget the words of some Republicans when they lost control of congress to the Democrats in 06, “Thank God that the new Democrats are at least Conservative”. God forbid any real liberal being elected that might stand in the way of the elite’s right quest to suck the life blood out of this country. Starving slaves are not conservative, but conservatives will make starving slaves of us all…

[newspeak]

99. over one hundred years ago

you had a movement in this country because the two political parties were aligned in their nepotism, ideals and corruption. Some of the constituency had enough-the populist-progressive movement was very influential, especially in Wisconsin and California. The movement did influence both parties to start listening to their constituency for awhile. I am a Progressive--a progressive who believes in reformation within the party--and, the party does need to reform to reflect the concerns of their constituency--many are concerned about their jobs (labor), the food, air and water (safety, environment), civil liberties, infrastructure (which we all utilize), care of our elderly and our young, etc.... Progressives need a sounding board to get these ideas across--a network, a major paper (like USA Today)--we keep hearing the medias talking points and not enough about the concerns of the majority. How easy the talking points reflect the needs of certain business concerns over the well being of the majority or mass tabloidal distraction--or downright manipulation by fear. Ignorance makes sheep of us all---again, we need a mass media outlet.