To DLC Demos: Why should we compromise?

[Cascadian]

What do the Democrats have to gain in our politicians going along with the Republicans? What does the Democratic Party get for "going along to get along"? I fail to see the logic in people like Hillary, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Maria Cantwell, and Dianne Feinstein going along with the Neocons twisted agenda. Sure some Demos will speak the rhetoric but not follow up with action like going against the flag burning law or the Iraq occupation.

Don't give me this nonsense like "But at least they are not Republicans." or "They are the lesser of two evils." and my favorite one "What choice did we have?". All of this just doesn't wash anymore. I am sick of those Democrats who will not stand up to the Republicans. I am sick of Democrats who vote in favor of the their ultra-right wing laws and actions. All are contemptable and go against the core principles of the Democratic Party.

Also, don't give me this Bill Clinton business. The 90's are over and he is not coming back as President. He was as a whole a 65 per cent good President. I would take 1 Bill Clinton over a dozen George W. Bushes. The other 35 per cent was his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy", his drive to push this so-called Free Trade that ultimately had hurt many workers in the country. Also, his bombing of Serbia. All of these I was very much against. Bill Clinton was no liberal. He was at best what a centrist Republican would have been. Of course those type of Republicans don't exist anymore.

The time has come for those who are willing to fight the Neocons to stand up. Those weak-knee Democrats or Vichy Democrats should just move aside. Give me more Wellstones, Kuciniches, Feingolds, and Boxers. Less Liebermans, Feinsteins, Bidens, and Hillarys.

The compromising is over, people. Time to give the Repubs Hell!

John

[Selatius]

1. The DLC has virtually no constituency with rank-and-file voters

I doubt you will find a large amount of DLCers here.

You are going to have to accept a great deal of disagreement in the Democratic Party. It is not YOUR party anymore than it is my party. The two-party electoral system only allows just that many parties. As a result, the Democratic Party is more like a coalition, not a real political party. You have all these different groups pushed together under the banner of one party. You're going to have disagreement as a result.

When it comes down to it, if the electoral system was changed to a system based on proportional representation, the Democratic Party would most likely splinter apart. Then you would see the different opinions and views manifest themselves in their own unique parties. You would have Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, various labor parties, various democratic socialist parties, etc.

If you are socially conservative and economically leftwing, Christian Democrats are for you. If you are socially liberal and economically leftwing, try the Social Democrats or the Greens, Greens especially if you're big into environmentalism. If you're a strong supporter of worker unions, the labor parties are great. If you're not satisfied with capitalism, try the democratic socialists.

Of course, these choices above are available to many other representative democracies, but this is America, not Europe. You don't have these choices. Just vote Democrat, and deal with it.

[leftstreet]

6. Just vote Republican and deal with it.

I think the Republican party faces many of the same challenges. Rank and file-ers don't feel they're being represented by the ChristoTaliban faction. In these times it's hard to find an anti-corporatist voice.

[Inland]

48. "You don't have these choices" is exactly right

That is, unlike other political systems, the first past the post means that one has to form the coalition and accept the compromise at the party level. The concept of "not voting democratic" because it is wrong means one is allowing victory of the party that is even MORE wrong. Yes, it's the lesser of two evils things, although one would think that individuals would have enough opinions that they could see something that was positively good in the democrat agenda.

[Selatius]

2. Self-delete (double post)

[Crazy Guggenheim]

3. No reason.

[autorank]

4. It's that time all right. And it's going to be us, not the "leadership"

Don't wait for the Mandarins and the comfortably numb to act. They won't because it might cost them their jobs, or contributions, or invites for free flights on corporate jets. After all, we've got Redskins season tickets at stake here. You think this is small stuff, think again.

Many of the 'leadership' will go only so far. Will they challenge an election, no. Why not? There's plenty of proof nationally that we got screwed. They don't, except in Virginia where a vigorous recount is being fought for Attorney General. Nationally, no way.

Will they fight for much lower cost on prescription drugs? The Veteran's Administration negotiates for low drug costs and gets 50-60% off. But no, Congress barred HHS from doing this for Social Security and the rest of us. Why? Isn't this worth stopping the Senate with a filibuster. After all, people get sick and die because they can't afford drugs. Nah, not worth it apparently.

Will they fight to stop, just stop, the Iraq war? This introduces new levels of insanity into our politics. Nobody wants to be there. But did they rise up in unison to support Rep. Murtha? Nah, not worth it apparently.

We're it, we are the only people who will fight for our rights. Not our leaders, not now, not anytime in the near future. The leaders will, however, be glad to follow a popular mass movement. That is their only salvation.

Tough times, indeed.

See Syriana. It's a metaphor about the USA.

[rman]

8. Lest people think the DLC is the leadership of the Dem party,

they might want to be the leadership, they might want people to think they are the leadership (why else would they have put "leadership" in their name), but they are not - the DNC is.

[electropop]

59. The best we can hope for is that our leaders become followers

of their constituents. Currently they follow the money.

[autorank]

83. Thay do that! They have a "nose for it." n/t

[lvx35]

5. on compromise

there are some areas to give a little headway, and the liebermans and hillaries aren't on them. NOTHING in the crazy, corrupt neocon agenda should be tolerated. The reasonable "thinking conservative" issues like gun ownership, property rights, etc is where you can compromise a little and work with people. But the crazy assed iraq WAR neo-con stuff has nothing to do with any thinking conservatives views, and that's why the compromisers are getting nothing done. Anybody dumb enough to believe Bush's shit on Iraq is also dumb enough to buy Rush Limbaugh, and he's going to be blasting Hillary or anybody else who tries to take Bush's dumbass constituency, so give up on them! If you HAVE to go for conservatives, go for the thinking ones!

[Cascadian]

17. Never were truer words spoken

Ivx35 posted....."there are some areas to give a little headway, and the liebermans and hillaries aren't on them. NOTHING in the crazy, corrupt neocon agenda should be tolerated. The reasonable "thinking conservative" issues like gun ownership, property rights, etc is where you can compromise a little and work with people. But the crazy assed iraq WAR neo-con stuff has nothing to do with any thinking conservatives views, and that's why the compromisers are getting nothing done. Anybody dumb enough to believe Bush's shit on Iraq is also dumb enough to buy Rush Limbaugh, and he's going to be blasting Hillary or anybody else who tries to take Bush's dumbass constituency, so give up on them! If you HAVE to go for conservatives, go for the thinking ones!"


Exactly! Thank you!


John

[Wetzelbill]

7. one of my biggest worries is the idea of compromising certain values

that the Dems are supposed to represent. If we aren't going to look out for women's rights, Civil Rights and in general human rights, then what do we stand for? What good is our party?

I see a lack of humanism that worries me. I read posts from people on this board after the Roberts nomination who acted like it was a chance to sell out women's rights for a political strategy that might, and I stress MIGHT take back the Senate for us in '06. After our so-called "Moral Values" presidential election in '04, Dem strategists were looking to distance themselves from anything that even represented women's rights and Gay and Lesbian rights. Like all of a sudden talking about going to church is going to make people want to vote for some weak ass Dem who acts like they can barely tie their shoes without looking at a poll? Give me a break.

Dems are supposed to be for the people. We're supposed to embrace those different and welcome them all under one big umbrella. We don't TOLERATE people who have a different skin color or someone who loves another person of the same gender. We don't TOLERATE the poor, the suffering, the weak or the elderly. We are supposed to embrace them all. Yes, EMBRACE. They all come under this one big Democratic tent and we are supposed to look out for and fight for each other. The unwillingness to do that on a fundamental level in our party genuinely saddens me. If we had fighters in our party then we'd have a decent living wage, 40 million people wouldn't be without health care and 40 million wouldn't be living in poverty. If we had fighters in our party leading the way, then women, minorities, gays and lesbians wouldn't be frightened about what damage this Supreme Court is going to be doing for the next 30 years. What we are supposed to believe in and stand for is important. That's what matters. Not whether somebody seems likable or electable. Substance, heart and determination. I'm not worried about having to pay a little bit extra in taxes, I'm worried about raising my future family in a country where we are bigoted towards others, the school system sucks, nobody can afford health care or college and empathy towards your fellow human beings is considered weakness. That's what worries me. And, the DLCers just don't get that.

[Sapphocrat]

77. Wetzelbill...

I know this is an issue for you, and I appreciate your ongoing struggle to find a way to do the right thing, and still win elections.

And, buddy, if I could, I'd vote for you. (What's going on with your race, btw? Are you still running? Are you going to post a campaign Web link, so we can all promote the hell out of it?)

[xchrom]

9. some of us already know what ''moderates'' will compromise on.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. Yep!

I can here it now: "just take a seat on the back of the bus. After all it is for the good of the party, the country and this election."

Then if the Dem's lose yet again it is going to change to: "why didn't you take a seat on the back of the bus? Now look at what you have done." Or "Why did 25% of the gay population vote for the repukes? That gave the repukes the win."

[xchrom]

12. just this week i think there were

two threads about how gay folk were too extreme --
one regarding gay folk and their parades
and the second that gay marriage was too much and cost kerry the election.

i'll sit out the presidential part of the 08 election if we go one more time with a candidate that wants to compromise on equal rights for gay folk.
i'll vote democratic party for every other candidate -- but i won't check that box.

[foreigncorrespondent]

75. Yes...

...I saw the one in our own forums no less about how our pride parades where just too extreme, but I don't think I came across the other.

I don't blame you for not voting for a president that is against the very person you are. Here in Oz the Labor party lost my vote the moment they chose to side with the conservative liberal party and codify the Australian constitution to ban any and all recognition of same sex marriage.

[terrya]

19. Exactly right.

It's "damned if we do and damned if we don't". If we insist on the rights we deserve...if we dare to demand that we're not to be treated as second class citizens...then we're "pushy" and "selfish" and "going to cost the Democrats the White House". But then if we go along and take that seat at the back of the bus, then if the Democrats lose...yep, we're villified again.

But gosh, if we compromise and be good little boys and girls...maybe the nominee just might, just might, appear at that black tie HRC dinner to talk about how the party is committed to equality for GLBT folk.

[foreigncorrespondent]

74. Exactly!

But gosh, if we compromise and be good little boys and girls...maybe the nominee just might, just might, appear at that black tie HRC dinner to talk about how the party is committed to equality for GLBT folk.

All the while back stabbing us with more DoMAS and DADT policies!

[Sapphocrat]

76. You know, we could just all kill ourselves...

...so there won't be a "gay wedge issue" anymore. Ya know, I mean, if we really wanted to take the ultimate hit for the team.

Oops! I better shut up -- that idea might actually appeal to some folks!

I'm sick of getting patted on the head little a good little doggy, too, terrya. *sigh*

[LWolf]

11. No compromise.

Of course, I'm not a DLC democrat.

I'm sure they'll show up shortly to explain. I'll check in after work to see how many posts' titles include "HAHAHAHAHA" and how much derision drips from the posts themselves.

:popcorn:

[sendero]

13. We don't get jack..

... they get corporate money and hence the ability to retain their seat.

This is not rocket science, it's all right out in front of everyone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I don't vote for Republicans. Even those with a (D) after their name.

In this instance, VichyDems who voted for the war, or support the occupation of Iraq. Cantwell is my senator and fits that description. She's up next year. I'll be voting Green.

[Cascadian]

18. Any other Democrats going up against Cantwell?

I thought I would ask. She has been a great let-down for this state and her party. She has to go.


John

[hyphenate]

15. If people keep hoping for a flaming liberal

to take the white house back, it's never gonna happen. At least not until the stench of the RRR and the extreme right is gone. Following some moderate principles will at the very least, help us get our feet back in that door.

I don't like it, and I really think it sucks, but we are viewed as out of touch with the mainstream of USA and unless we can finagle ourselves into an untouchable spot, we have no choice but to play by some of their rules.

Yes, folks, we are the ones on the "edge" not them. How sad that we have moved so far to the right that we are viewed as radical. But unless we can stifle some of our eagerness to bring everything back to the left, we will have a far better chance at taking back some of this country.

DLC or DNC doesn't really matter. Good leaders know when to bite their tongue and suffer through the shit in order to make some inroads.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Because they succeed at winning the primary where other candidates fail.

By the time someone's complaining about a DLC candidate, they've often been successful at winning the primary, and at that point, the party as a group has spoken and that's it. There's no deciding about who needs to compromise; the decision for who the party thinks should go into the general election has been made.

Did you support a ballot petition drive for a new primary candidate? Petitioning for primary ballots ends in a few days in a lot of states if I recall correctly. No? Then you need to realize that you have failed to produce an alternative to the candidates that are available. Your job now is to convince people to vote for a candidate you like who could win the general. If you fail to do that, and choose to punish the plurality of the Democratic Party for succeeding, then it's your job to compromise if you want to support the party.

I see a lot of people wanting to ruin general elections here, and almost nothing about actually getting up and going and doing something about the primaries; probably because that would require work and making a compelling case for something.

[MrBenchley]

22. But that's hard work!

It's much easier to sit around whining that the candidate the majority of Democrats favor (and an even bigger majority has now rallied behind) has betrayed "core principles" or is a "DINO" or a "Republicrat" or the like. It's even easier if you avoid mentioning what those "core principles" are, exactly, or if you avoid mentioning what your alternative plan to what the candidate proposes is.

That's why you see all these threads on DU by DLCers or their supporters demanding that progressives be tossed out of the party...oh, wait, there's nary a one.

At one point on Friday, among the first 20 threads in the GD--Politics folder, there were five threads bashing Republicans. One thread called for Howard Dean's ouster, but for pragmatic, not ideological reasons. Two were threads attempting to gauge DU opinion on Howard Dean and his gaffe.

THIRTEEN were attacks by "progressives" on the DLC or on Democrats presumed to be DLC members (some named as DLCers, were not), counting the one that demanded to know how long progresives were going to have to endure constant attacks by DLCbots.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Here's an indication of knee-jerk reactions against the DLC.

Don't know if you've seen it before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2035218

[MrBenchley]

52. Good thread...and right to the point.

[OzarkDem]

62. But they can't seem to win the general election

All of DLC's candidates lost in 2004. Their strategies don't work for candidates any longer because, as Harry Truman used to say, "if you give the voter a choice between a real Republican and a pretend Republican, they'll pick the real one every time."

DLC would have an argument if their candidates win in competitive races, but they don't.

[MrBenchley]

64. Tim Kaine, Debbie Stabenow, etc etc. etc.

"All of DLC's candidates lost in 2004"
Not even close to true.

[MrBenchley]

20. Don't, then....I sure as shit don't care.

The DLC is effective because it discusses issues in an adult way. It's actually organized and does good things.

DLCer Christine Gregoire just delivered the Democratic radio address the other week. DLCer Tim Kaine just won a very close race in Virginia. DLCers are poised to win a lot fof races in 2006, some by overwhelming margins. The DLC's Debbie Stabenow and Hillary Clinton just joined with Howard Dean to hold the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum.

The Progressive Democrats have their own organization exactly like the DLC. Hilariously, I'd bet you can't even name it without resorting to google.

Even more hilariously, it's only been mentioned once that I can find on DU since JANUARY--and then in a thread which indicated that the DLC was "desperate" due to all the mighty (but unnamed) triumphs that group was accomplishing.

"Time to give the Repubs Hell!"
Let's hope you can do a better job than you been doing with the DLC...so far the criticism of the DLC here on DU by our "progressive purists" has been both fact-free and silly, with a side order of dishonest.

[Inland]

24. "Giving hell" would have to include a real challenge at election time.

It seems the DLC gives some value to that, and not just being a louder party.

[MrBenchley]

26. Worth noting

that volume adds nothing when one has nothing to say worth hearing.

Meanwhile, I'm impressed by the "ethics" on display from our "progressive purists"--you'd never guess from this thread that the reason the DLC has no "rank and file" or grassroots support is that seeks none, because it's a think tank and forum for elected officials and candidates. And the post that defines what "moderation is" to falsely imply that those are the DLC's policies is especially nice.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. ALL the DLC criticism has been fact free, silly and dishonest?

Also, as one of DU's most vicious attack dog defenders of the DLC, perhaps you should learn to discuss things in an adult way.

:shrug: Just sayin

[MrBenchley]

27. Sure seems that way....

and this thread has been no exception.

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Do we need to go down that road again...

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

31. Go wherever you like.

[depakid]

29. The DLC is effective? LOL

6 Congressional elections lost in a row doesn't seem very "effective" to me. And yet, some people actually want to follow that "strategy" and lose a 7th.

Since the DLC's taken reign, the Dems have gone from consistently being the majority party in Congress- to a state of absolute irrelevancy today- handing the far right every single thing they ask for.

Very effective, alright- as long as you're a Republican.

[MrBenchley]

32. Yeah, it is.

"Since the DLC's taken reign"
The DLC's taken reign? That sure as shit is news to the rest of us.

"the Dems have gone from consistently being the majority party in Congress- to a state of absolute irrelevancy today"
One wonders why somebody who hates the Democrats so much lingers, especially since the people he hates so much have "taken reign."

[depakid]

34. Hey, facts are what they are

and you're basically pushing a losing strategy again- so one might rationally ask, who is it that really hates the Dems?

Seems to me someone who wants them keep losing by supporting Republican policies ain't no friend of the party.

[MrBenchley]

36. Sure wish you had even one fact....

[depakid]

37. Repeat after me

6 elections in a row....

[Occulus]

55. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=2667&mesg_id=2680

[Cascadian]

80. Those who cater the other party are akin to traitors.

Why do think they are called "Vichy Democrats"?



John

[Cascadian]

81. Another question worth asking.

Do you out there who support these safe middle, DLC politicians agree with their stance on Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, or flag burning? Also, do you think we should continue the occupation of Iraq?

John

[MrBenchley]

84. Since you don't seem to know what the DLC stance is.....

[Cascadian]

78. I have a name for you.

Tom Daschle. A man who played it safe too much in Congress and got his pants handed to him. He may have not been DLC but he was playing by their rule book.



John

[MrBenchley]

85. Since it's the name of someone not part of the DLC, I have a big laugh

"A man who played it safe too much in Congress and got his pants handed to him"
Is THAT what happened? Wow...what a silly comment.

[Clark2008]

46. Um... you basically just said the name and it's not usually

referred to here as its full name, but more commonly as PDA.

I see it all the time.

(Or did you think folks were talking about their personal digital assistants?)

[MrBenchley]

63. Feel free to dredge up a PDA thread, then....

The only PDA references in active LBN refer to personal digital assistants or public displays of affection....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1975578

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1975908

The only PDA reference in active Editorials is from the group's blog from November 19 and got NO responses beyond the initial post.

There are only two references in active GD; yours just now and a throwaway mention in yet another thread with six responses bitching about the DLC....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=174027

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5565500

In active GD--Politics
Search says there's a PDA in this...damned if I can find it....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2301930

I brought up the group here in a DLC bashing thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2298930

I brought up the group here in a DLC bashing thread ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2301098

I'm not going to try to wade through this...but it's not promoting the PDA...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2289885

And here are the titles of the other GD-Politics threads mentioing PDA....

Urgent Please sign this petition to release the 4 Cpt workers in Iraq
Girl may suit school for telling mom she's gay...
Why is there NO interest in the DNC meeting being held in Phoenix this
The DLC, a different perspective
A Congressional Election THIS Tuesday!
In Case You Missed it, Joe Lieberman is a PNAC grade NEOCON!

And one of them was started by a guy FROM the PDA, and it got the fewest replies.

[PurgedVoter]

21. Ethics and Policies over Teams and Corruption

I will vote for an ethical person before I vote for a party representative. This makes me vote Democrat. But I care little for the 'TEAM.' We have some great Democrat leaders out there, so why would I support someone who takes their handful of silver from the DLC? I am not a loyal Democrat. But as long as the Republican Party opposes truth, transparent government, fair elections, right to trial, equal representation, science, and compassion, I will not cast a vote their way. The DLC appears to be moderate, but look at the scale. Moderate today means somewhat for cruel and unusual punishment without trial or review. Moderate today means protecting corporations from repercussions of their crimes. Moderate means lying down with thieves and liars.

[Inland]

23. Not compromise with republicans, BUT WITH THE MAJORITY

That's what moderates suggest. Nobody is suggesting "going along" with republicans where republicans are pushing a minority agenda. Why go along with something you disagree with AND is only a minority faction? That's Lieberman's suggestion, BTW: he's one of those, You Have Got to Back the Only President You Have dimwits.

But if the question is, why compromise with the majority, the premises of a place where majority rules pretty much answers the question. It's obvious why. It might not be obvious when to fight and when to compromise, but the fact is one wants the votes.

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. The time may already be here......

Poll result (250 votes)
left of the Democrats (100 votes, 40%) Vote
progressive Democrat (119 votes, 48%) Vote
moderate Democrat (may disagree with lefties on abortion and cultural issues) (19 votes, 8%) Vote
DLC (5 votes, 2%) Vote
Republican uncomfortable with Bush (1 votes, 0%) Vote
Republican comfortable with Bush (not necessarily in the Jeff Gannon sense) (0 votes, 0%) Vote
right of Republicans (0 votes, 0%) Vote
anarchist (4 votes, 2%) Vote
monarchist (2 votes, 1%) Vote
sunchist (0 votes, 0%) Vote

[MrBenchley]

33. And so now we know what 250 of the 80,000 DUers think

about a question that you failed to supply from a poll you failed to link to.

Yeah, the beauty part of this "progressive purity" stuff is its relentless honesty </sarcasm>

[Inland]

35. And even as a DU member, winning The DU Primary isn't MY goal

There's got to be something more.

[MrBenchley]

39. DU is by definition a closed society....

Meanwhile, the point is winning elections.

And you'll notice that pretty much every Democrat targeted by our "progressive purists" for expulsion from "our" ranks is up for re-election in 2006 AND coasting toward victory with a comfortable margin over his or her Republican opponent.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. You are the one telling folks to leave the party.

You are also the one blaming 'leftists' for sinking John Kerry's swift boat.

How silly is that?

[MrBenchley]

43. Hey, if you really hate Democrats, don't stay.....

And I sure as shit think the open contempt and hatred expressed in public over and over again for ordinary Americans by many leftists is a hell of a lot more toxic to the Democratic party than anything the DLC does or doesn't do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. See, there you go again.

You accuse me of hating Dems, for what the tenth time? I've grown tired of that tract, can't you just call me a commie or something?

Do you have any examples of 'leftists open contempt and hatred of ordinary americans', or are you just projecting here?

[MrBenchley]

51. Gee, if you jump up and shout "who me?"

when I mention people who hate Democrats, don't come crying to me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. I can post the link if anyone should want it.

If you can tell us how to distinguish between 'fact free, silly and dishonest' DLC criticism, and your own personal criticism of the DLC.

Can you go back to calling those who disagree with you teen progressives, that was a whole lot funner for me.

Are we really going to have another discussion about 'honesty' in front of everyone.

Poll Link ---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5567638&mesg_id=5567638

[MrBenchley]

40. Do what you like....

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. I believe the Onus is on you sir.

[MrBenchley]

44. I'd hate to have to try to tote up the silly things you believe....

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. Just expain to everyone here why you feel the need to attack the DLC,

while also attacking anyone else who attacks the DLC.

It is that simple.

[MrBenchley]

49. Already did that elsewhere....

Back MONTHS AGO, I was mistaken enough to repeat the conventional wisdom expressed by people like you in an offhand aside in a thread that wasn't discussing the DLC. Then I dug a little deeper and found out so much of that criticism was full of shit.

But then that's the beauty part of our "progressive purists"--their relentless honesty.</sarcasm>

Simple enough for you? Or do you need me to repeat a few times more? After all, this is the second time I've gone to that trouble when you got busted and tried this lame tactic.

[Occulus]

56. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=2667&mesg_id=2680

[MrBenchley]

65. I don't know which is more hilarious and pathetic...

the post you link to or the fact that you keep posting a link to it as if it wasn't pathetic and hilarious.

Keep it up, though...it's sure handing me a BIG laugh.

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. Perhaps a disclaimer is in need when you post attacks on fellow Dems.

Like maybe a new sig line that says "I used to hate Dems too" or something to that effect.

As for busted you must be referring to Dec 7th when you acknowledged your flip flop in-re the DLC.

Maybe you should start you attacks on 'leftists' with a disclaimer that says "Pay no heed to the

Bashing!"

[MrBenchley]

68. How about

"I used to believe what our progressive purists said, and then I found out what dishonest and childish shits they were"

[LincolnMcGrath]

69. You are projecting again....

Your attacks on NUMEROUS DUers have been well documented and are utterly dishonest and quite childish.

But alas, that *disclaimer* might give posters a good idea of where you are coming from.

[MrBenchley]

70. You wanted the disclaimer...now you got one you deserve....

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. Tee Hee Hee! This is Rich!

:rotf:

[Perky]

53. Because Liberals do not win the presidency.

I do not think it is so much an issue of compromise... as it recogonition of electoral calculus, I think it is fine to hold strongly to liberal beliefs. But I would rather drive the NeoCons from powere with a moderat then let them stay in power by fielding a lefty candidate. It is a far more important issue than having a lefty in power. Besides where liberals excel is in the house (abercrobie, Kuncinich, Sanders, etc). The AMerican poplation has repeatedly and loudly said no to liberal in the Oval.

The Party had to make room for moderates and suburban upwardly mobile voters if it want to be relevant.

[Clark2008]

58. But a Democrat can be a moderate without being DLC

In fact, DLC isn't about being a moderate. It's about cowing to corporate interests.

[Perky]

60. I agree in part.

WHat I have never seen any evidence of is how th DLC shills for croportations. WHat is the basis of that argumen.. WHat is the history. Convice me.

I never saw Big Dawg in the back pocket of corporations

[MrBenchley]

72. I suspect you never will see that evidence either

[H2O Man]

54. I think it is important

to support democrats who share the same values I do. So I will invest time and money in the campaigns of those candidates. However, with a candidate like Senator Clinton, who I have invested time and money in, in the past, I have begun returning requests for cash with a note that explains I will almost always vote for democrats, but will not donate a penny to any candidate who is not strongly opposed to the Bush policy in Iraq.

I tend to associate the DLC with Senator Lieberman. I would not send a penny or make a phone call to support him. In fact, I would make an exception, and consider supporting a 3rd party candidate. I'd far rather donate time and money to a Green or a Socialist Party candidate than Lieberman's ilk.

I've had a democratic group contact me by phone as recently as yesterday. In the past, I sent them money. (I've seen another DUer mention being called by the same group.) I had an interesting discussion with an older woman from this group yesterday. She was not trying to be pushy, but was more interested in comparing views. She was big on John Kerry. I can appreciate that, and I told her if I start hearing more of that old John Kerry -- the one I remember from the early '70s -- my wallet opens up. He might not be my first choice, but if he takes the strong stances needed, I'll back him. But the Lieberman-types are the last choice.

[PurgedVoter]

73. I'm in total agreement here. NT

[electropop]

57. More Conyers too, please!

I can't imagine why the DLC doesn't just take its right-wing nutjobs like Loserman and move over to the RNC. We don't need 'em.

[porphyrian]

61. Because it's the only way to win elections.

Just like the last three major ones.
</bullshit>

[iconoclastNYC]

66. DLC : Fellating Corporatists Since 1985

Third way my ass.

[Cascadian]

79. The DLC keeps talking about a "third way".

They carry on like this, the voters will find a third way of their own. A third party!


John

[lateo]

82. Fuck the DLC and...

their supporters. Anyone who supports "compromise" with the Republicans (who don't compromise)is just inviting defeat.