Moderate Democrats: Shouldn't compromise be a two-way street?

[Q]

There were recent threads bemoaning the division between the 'moderates' and 'progressives' in the Democratic party.

I can't speak for other liberals or progressives...but I believe the divisiveness has nothing to do with the moderate politics of our more conservative friends in the party.

The division is about the direct or indirect support of Bush* policies by 'moderates' who seem to believe that the Bush* Republicans are still interested in working together, bipartisanship or sharing power.

Liberals and progressives have absolutely no problem with compromise when the opposition understands that it's a process of give and take. There is no such thing as a one-sided compromise. But time and again those who call themselves moderates compromised with the Bush* government without getting anything in return for their party except minority status.

Moderates say we should 'compromise' with the Rwingers on issues such as abortion and separation of church and state. Yet...the Bushies have no intention of compromising on these and other issues. Their stated intention is to eliminate abortion and completely tear down the wall that separates church and state.

How is compromise possible when the other side considers compromise a weakness and refuses to participate in the process of give and take? We give and they take and give nothing in return. How much more can the moderates compromise without giving everything away?

[KitSileya]

1. Amen to that!

And how moderate dems can still hold out hope that moderate Republicans will join with them to stop the deluge, is also beyond me after Hastert's recent upspit.

It's about time we, both grassroots and (especially!) elected dems, say no, and refuse to pander to them.

[ElectroPrincess]

7. Right you are ...

I'm slightly left of center but one thing I know for sure = we are now being controlled (media, representatives, and slews of right wing think tanks) by large corporate entities.

Many of our present Democrats have become as SPOILED by the interest groups that represent a myriad of disgusting corporate entities from USA (Carlisle Group), Saudi Arabia (CitiBank) and special interests promoting Israel.

It's bizarre that these groups mesh but the reason they do is ALL ABOUT POWER AND MONEY. Many of the pink tutu Dems are not near as chicksh*t as they act ... they are rich and happy with the status quo. Hell, if I wanted for nothing, I could also kiss KKKarl Rove's ass and look quizzically at "the masses of people" who protest these relationships.

We need activists but they will only succeed when the average lazy, uninformed American begins to HURT and HURT BAD in his/her pocketbook.

Further we all must pass around simplistic, yes simplistic - talking points and repeat them like we're members of a new religion fighting the disgusting, evil and corrupt right wing radicals. Yes, use derogatory connotations as often as you can when referring to the present republican leadership. Act outraged and stir people up. Most important, we need to set our petty differences aside (I support the 2nd Amendment) and fight these slime balls with every fiber of our being and loyal support of each other.

The republicans win because they can split our electorate. We must not give into that allure. IF we don't pull together, we are in for true corporate "world" fascism, i.e., we're screwed.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

2. You don't understand...

We're not asking for compromise because we like the Republicans, or are secret Republicans, but rather because it's what's best for the country. No, the right doesn't want to compromise on those or any other issues, but just as the left isn't all the Democratic Party has, the right isn't all the GOP has. The President can't get much done without the centrists in his Party, and if their centrists and our centrists work for better laws we all benefit.

[tk2kewl]

4. Hate to break the news to ya Cowboy.

I DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY ANYMORE. The pukes do not want to compromise. Thier centrists are being shot down left and right (look at Specters about face for instance). They are trying to eliminate the filibuster from the Senate for crying out loud.

WAKE UP Cowboy!!!! This is not your daddy's America.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

6. No news there...

First off, I don't approve of the term "Pukes." That sort of trash does nothing to benefit the nation.
Secondly, you're dead wrong...there are PLENTY of Republicans who are working for good comprimise. Just because leadership isn't, and they obviously aren't, doesn't mean that's true across the board for every single member of the Party.
Nobody's going to eliminate the filibuster, that's just big mouths giving their base some red meat, it ain't a serious threat.

I'm wide awake, and I resent being told I'm asleep just because I don't agree with you on this.

[tk2kewl]

11. pukes actually has an historical context

it was used to describe a similar backlash movement 100 years ago in Kansas. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Tom Frank. Many progressives believe it to be an absolutely critical read for anyone who is interested in today's politics.

[htuttle]

14. Name one, just one

Name ONE Republican in the Federal government that you think is actually working for good compromise.

[tk2kewl]

18. and we'll point out how powerless and ineffectual he/she is

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. linc chaffe

[AndyTiedye]

28. It is a Very Serious Threat

They intend to push a ruling from the chair that forbids any filibuster
of Bush's nominations.
That will obviously pass on a party-line vote. It cannot itself be filibustered.
It is on very dubious grounds legally, but the Supreme Court will back them up.

Then Bushler will appoint hard-core Dominionists to all vacancies.
The moderate Republicans are totally cowed, and there are so few
of them left anyway, that they will bend over for Bush no matter what.

Why should they hold back now, when their takeover is almost complete?
It is not as if we will be able to vote them out of office again.
Look who owns the voting machinez.

[KitSileya]

39. Actually,

did it pass you by that Hastert has gone out publicly to say that only bills supported by the majority of the majority (that is, the majority of the Republicans) will pass? That means they'll actively block legislation with a democratic/moderate republican majority behind it - refusing to let it come to a vote, etc. Your dream of compromise is just that, a dream.

[Q]

8. The Bush* RWingers refuse to compromise...is THAT right for the country?

Once again...there is no such thing as a one-sided compromise.

Why should WE compromise when the other side refuses to do the same?

[Cheswick2.0]

9. their centrist are powerless and vote with their right wing all the time

and really...there is nothing wrong with a little grid lock. We don't need any of the republicans new laws.

[sarahlee]

94. With that kind of thinking

I think it would be better for those who want to "compromise more" to join the Republican party and try to get it out of the hands of the neo-cons.

I am not moving any further to the right. If the party does, it will never, ever win again. And all like me will be gone to the greens or starting a new party.

Think about that.

[tk2kewl]

3. Why in hell would we ever compromise on separation of church and state?

Your kids can pray at home and in church, they don't need to pray in school.

You can buy the lot next to the court house or town hall and erect as many idols as you wish.

You are free to express yourself and practice your religion anywhere you want. Just not in government run facilities. To favor one religion over another is no different than favoring one race over another. We don't condone that in the U.S.

Wingnuts take a hike.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

5. uh, kewl

Who on earth was that aimed at? I haven't seen anyone advocating favoring one religion over another.
You can pray in school if you want, you've always been able to. It cannot be compulsary or mandated by the school, but private prayer or Bible study clubs (or, for that matter, Koran study clubs) outside of classroom hours are all fine. Having a church service inside the school building outside of classroom hours is fine, happens all over the place.

[ElectroPrincess]

10. I rest my case :( ... see original post

Again, if we "true" Democrats can't set aside our petty (mostly personality clash) differences, the entire Republican Party leadership will take a giant sh*t on ALL OF US. The Democratic party will from then on relate only the socialism and elitists.

Damn, let's get with the program or die alone and destitute?

[Q]

13. The President* of the US is advocating his religion over all others...

...or haven't you been paying attention? He has also used executive orders to fund the church with OUR tax dollars.

And where is the Republican's compromise on this issue? You won't see any.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

17. Q, where?

I do pay attention...where exactly did the President advocate his religion above all others, I've certainly not seen that anywhere.

And, again, you're saying there's no compromise from the Republicans when in fact there always has been...there HAS to be...compromise on both sides. Nobody's getting everything they want, representative democracy doesn't work that way. I see people on both extremes unwilling to compromise.

[Q]

27. Do you really need to ask about the President* advocating his...

...'christian' religion over all others?

Can you actually give us an example where the GOPers have compromised since Bush* took office? Start with one example and then explain which side conceded the most.

It's the 'extremists' you're talking about that WANT to see real compromise...not this outright capitulation to king george*.

[ElectroPrincess]

19. Hey I pray often throughout the day but you wouldn't know it.

The right wing religious nutcases have hijacked Christianity and hold Jesus (concept) hostage.

I pray often but quitely (looks like I'm resting my eyes) ... no way do I wish to draw attention to myself because PRAYER (to the liberal Catholic and other true left Christians)is between the individual and their God. Christian prayer is encouraged to be an intense and private matter - save for Mass.

The people who make an event of prayer are not following the teachings of Christ. Guess that is no surprise because they also have conveniently forgot to serve the poor and outcast instead of their obsessive desire to aquire increasing wealth.

Just because someone attends Church and makes their activities visible by praying in mass, does NOT, in any way, reflect a true Christian genuinely serving God with all their heart and soul.

IMHO * is a false prophet. It saddens me to know that many of my fellow parishners have bought into such cruel sentiments of superiority (USA!) and false promises for the future.

[tk2kewl]

20. I have no problem with prayer

and having been brought up Catholic I agree wholeheartedly with your understanding and practice of prayer.

It simply has no business being officially encouraged or sanctioned in public schools.

Today I am not religious as I find the Catholic church to be completely out of sync with our times. However, I still believe in a higher power and do pray for guidance and solace in a troubled world.

[Overseas]

12. Total Agreement Here -- Fake Compromise is Best

They talk pretty just to convince the naive Democrats to cave in.
Then they tell their constituents to disdain those wimpy flip floppin Democrats.

Let's just do as they do, anytime they propose something we were planning to vote for anyway, let's make a big trumpeting of our bipartisanship.

[lcordero]

15. compromise?

Every time the Democrats compromise the average person out on the street takes it in the ass. We have gotten nothing since the days of Nixon and we are on the verge of having everything taken away from us.

[tk2kewl]

21. They don't label people as "Compromised" for nothing.

[Julien Sorel]

16. Exactly what have "the moderates" "given away"

by compromising without getting anything in return? Or is this more DU conventional wisdom that is based on impression and wishful thinking rather than fact?

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. What have the moderates given away?

The House
The Senate
The Supreme Court
40 years of Democratic Majority.

How's that for a start?

[Julien Sorel]

35. And how did the moderates give this away?

Just as with the OP, it's an unsupported assertion tossed out without a shred of supporting evidence, relying on the anger of people here rather than facts, to gain support.

"It's the moderates' fault!" But what did they do? You left that rather important part out.

[wyldwolf]

56. I, too, am intersted in this answer... seeing that...

... the person making the assertion makes it often and never supports it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. I don't agree that this is the fault of moderates

Clinton: moderate; two terms in office
Gore: more progressive but picked Lieberman as running mate; should have won election.
Kerry: still more liberal; lost popular vote.

Gay marriage cost the Democrats far more votes than anything the moderates did, and support for the war in Iraq picked up a great many.


And in response to the claim that administration is not interested in giving away anything in return: that doesn't matter. The idea isn't to compromise with the Republican leadership, it's to compromise with their voters.

[tk2kewl]

23. "compromising without getting anything in return"

By definition if you "compromising without getting anything in return" it is not a compromise (see 1 and 2 below) and you wind up compromised (see 3 below).

---

com·pro·mise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpr-mz)
n.

1.

a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
b. The result of such a settlement.

2. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.

3. A concession to something detrimental or pejorative: a compromise of morality.

[Q]

26. Indeed...each side makes concessions...

...and just what have the Republians 'conceded' as they push for full control of our country?

[Q]

24. Do you want to start with Clinton...

...or just the Bush* years?

Instead of challenging Bush* on his plans to invade a country that he couldn't prove threatened us...Democrats 'compromised' by giving him an out on the lack of evidence and a way to wage war. What did the Democrats get in return?

Separation of church and state? You have moderate Democrats like the Lieberman crowd compromisng the Consitution by joining with Bush* to push 'faith-based' initiatives and fund the church with taxpayer dollars. What did the Democrats get in return?

Moderate Democrats compromised on 'choice'...working with anti-abortion forces in the Bush* government to weaken existing laws and set the stage for abortion to become illegal...again. What did the Democrats gain for this compromise?

Democrats on the right of the party compromised with Bush* in his quest to give tax cuts to the rich and crumbs to the rest. What did Democrats get in return?

The list goes on and on and covers a period of a decade or more. What have the moderate Democrats accomplished by compromising and conceding issues to the right? Republican control of the entire US government.

COMPROMISE ISN'T THE ISSUE AS MUCH AS THE DEMOCRATS GET NOTHING IN RETURN.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Let's see.

In the case of Iraq, they forced Bush to at least go through the motions of dealing with the UN before the war. So it wasn't a "giveaway."

Separation of church and state? You have moderate Democrats like the Lieberman crowd compromising the Consitution by joining with Bush* to push 'faith-based' initiatives and fund the church with taxpayer dollars. What did the Democrats get in return?

That's not compromising, but people doing what they believe is right. Notice the little word game: instead of "compromise" as give and take, suddenly it's "compromising the constitution." Again and again around here, I notice a rather casual approach to ethics by a certain faction.

Democrats on the right of the party compromised with Bush* in his quest to give tax cuts to the rich and crumbs to the rest. What did Democrats get in return?


The original Bush tax plan in 2001 called for 1.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years; that was whittled down to 1.2 trillion, and some of it was redistributed to child tax credits and so on at the insistence of congressional Democrats. Bush's 2003 tax cut proposal, at a time when he was riding high with 70 - 80% approval ratings, with Greenspan supporting the cuts, and the country mired in a near-recession, was knocked down from his proposed 700 billion to an actual figure of about 500 billion. That's compromise. I'm sure if the Democrats were real tough guys, there wouldn't have been any tax cuts at all, but what can one expect from this gang of pussies, heh?

Maybe they should have shut the government down, like the Republicans did in 1996. Clinton's approval ratings went through the roof and the Republicans were forced to cave in: but I must be making that up, because we all know only spineless Democrats compromise. The Democratic record is one of weakness, stupidity, and cowardice, while the Republicans are strong, clever, and ruthless. I know it's true, because brilliant, knowledgeable, and honest people like you say so every day.

[Q]

81. Wow..I'm impressed. So rich fat cats got only 1.2 instead of 1.6 TRILLION?

That'll show em.

Look...all I'm saying is that if the DLCers still hold power over the party in 2008 and run a corporate friendly candidate unwilling to speak the truth about Bush*, the war on terrorism and the state of the union...many of us simply won't go along with it. We simply DON'T BELIEVE that the DLCers have the best interest of the Democratic party or the people in mind.

We've seen the party in decline since 1994. In case you're bad at math...that a friggin DECADE of losing to losers. What makes you think disenchanted Dems will stick around to watch more appeasement, concession and one-sided compromise?

The DLCers need to reach out with others in their own party and do some REAL compromising that counts. Don't expect us to stick around for 2008 if we see more of the same. And this is coming from someone who has voted Democratic for 30 years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. The reason I think

that "disenchanted Dems will stick around" is because they will be even more furious with the Republicans then than they are now, and there is absolutely no risk of the Democrats running a candidate in 2008 who is not significantly better than the Republican on all fronts - he may not be as good as you'd like, but he will still be much better.

You personally may not stick around, but I think you are mistaken when you say that many others will go with you - although I think a lot will talk about how they "will not stick around in 2012 if the trend continues".

But in any case, I think it not improbable that the Democrats will run a candidate more to your liking than Kerry was in 2008, in which case presumably the whole question will be acadmeic.

[ibegurpard]

29. Well, we could start by discussing NAFTA

and then we could move on to a discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1995.

[Julien Sorel]

32. Well, since Clinton and a lot of Democrats, myself included,

supported NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act, they were hardly "compromises," were they? So perhaps you should start someplace else.

[ibegurpard]

34. No

These were policies that would not have been enacted without the strong support of moderate Democrats. They have had the "unintended" consequences of doing great damage to the Democratic Party politically.

[Julien Sorel]

36. In your opinion, you mean.

Yet another unproven assertion.

The Telecommunications Act passed the Senate something like 92-5, if memory serves, and the House by about 480- 20.

That's a whole lot of "compromising moderates." Like the entire party.

[Q]

41. 1996

Votes of Members of Congress:
Telecommunications Act of 1996
(All those not listed below voted in favor of passage)


Voting Against Passage

US Senate - 5
Russell Feingold (D, WI)
Patrick Leahy (D, VT)
Paul Wellstone (D, MN)
Paul Simon (D, IL)
John McCain (R, AZ)

US House of Representatives - 16
Neil Abercrombie (D, HI)
Fortney Pete Stark (D, CA)
Earl Hilliard (D, AL)
Peter DeFazio (D, OR)
Tim Johnson (D, SD)
Pat Williams (D, MT)
Patricia Schroder (D, CO)
Harold Volkmer (D, MO)
John Conyers, Jr. (D, MI)
Barney Frank (D, MA)
Maurice Hinchey (D, NY)
Jerrold Nader (D, NY)
Collin Peterson (D, MN)
Sidney Yates (D, IL)
Lane Evans (D, IL)
Bernard Sanders (I,VT)


Not Voting

US Senate - 3
Christopher Dodd (D, CI)
Phil Gramm (R, TX)
John D.Rockefeller (D, WV)

US House of Representatives - 4
John Bryant (D,TX)
Jim Chapman (D, TX)
Bob Filner (D, CA)
Charlie Rose (D, NC)

[Julien Sorel]

42. And your point?

And taxes? And all the rest of the bullshit? I'm still waiting to see all these one-sided "compromises." You've had most of the day to some up with something and failed -- not that failure will stop you from continuing to make the same unsupported claims over and over again in the future.

[m berst]

48. unfair and destructive

This is an unfair attack on the op. He is not under any obligation to prove anything to someone who is not being serious nor considerate in the conversation. Using your approach, no conversation could ever occur, because a person would have to write the equivalent of a doctoral thesis to pass the test of your demands for proof before they could make any assertion, or be subject to relentless attacks from you and then be charcterized as illogical and irrational.

This is simply a bullying tactic, IMHO, and adds nothing to the discussion.

The assertion on the table here is more in the way of a hypothesis that the op is encouraging us to explore, not a doctrine that he/she is foisting off on us.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[m berst]

52. not much to say

Responding in kind would just further trash out the thread. I believe that I made my point, and I stand by it.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Q]

103. "Most of the day to come up with something"

You must know that one can't spend 'most of the day' on the internet when there is work to be done and bills to pay? Your arrogance is astounding...expecting people to answer questions on your time frame.

I believe that it's YOUR problem that you can't see the forest for the trees or what has been happening to the Democratic party for over a decade. Do you seriously think that the party suffering the worst setbacks in HISTORY is simply a fluke or coincidence? Do you think it just might have something to do with the lack of opposition and the abandonment of so many social issues?

The evidence is clear: The Democratic leadership has not only signed on to harmful Bush* policies and legislation...they haven't gone on the record as opposing them. They bitch and moan about taxes going to the richest Americans and then allow the legislation to pass without much resistance...giving the Right the opportunity to say it's a bipartisan effort.

This is EXACTLY why Kerry couldn't use the pitiful Iraq 'war' in his campaign. Bush* simply shot back that Kerry and many other Democrats had voted for it and disagreeing during the campaign indeed looked like a 'flip-flop'. Democrats also have no useful argument against the Patriot Act or Bush's* criminal cabinet...since they helped install them.

The DLC moderates have essentially controlled the Democratic party since Clinton took office. You can use simple equations to determine if their corporate friendly, concede to get along approach has been effective. History shows that the Democratic party has NEVER been in this sad of shape. There is no one to blame for this but the failed leadership of the DLCers and their enablers. DLCers bitch about the 'failed policies of the past'...but they won't discuss their failed policies of the present.

How do the DLCers respond to this most recent loss? They won't talk about election fraud or Bush* dirty tricks. Instead...their idea is to become more like the opposition and frame our policies to fit what the Republicans want us to become.

[Julien Sorel]

120. A long post that says nothing.

Where are these "compromises" you claimed "moderates" have made? You threw some bullshit out there and it got shot down. Any more? Or will it be the generic rants about the DLC, totally unsupported by specifics?

to remind you of what this is about,

WHERE ARE THE COMPROMISES?

[Zhade]

134. Wow, did you not even READ Q's post?

Compromised on the Iraq War. See where it got them.

Compromised on Ashcroft.

Compromised on Negroponte.

Compromised on holding back the entire 9/11 report until after the election.

And on and on.

He had two of these examples (war and criminal cabinet) within his post, and you say he said nothing? Good grief, when a person gives you examples as you demand, and you ignore them, why on Earth would anyone waste time trying to converse with you?

At least WyldWolf is willing to discuss what people say, rather than pretending they never said anything in the first place.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

138. Last I checked, Ashcroft was once part of the criminal cabinet.

So maybe he didn't say his NAME. You surely could have named several criminals in the cabinet yourself.

"What makes Negroponte a "war criminal?" This is simply far-left bullshit"

It's called Honduras. Educate yourself.

[Zhade]

133. I hope never to see you complain about two things...

1) losing a job to outsourcing (thanks NAFTA!)

2) corporate conservative media consolidation (thanks Telecommunications Act!)

If you do complain about either, you will officially be a hypocrite.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

25. Repubs are Nazis. Dems are Jews...Stop going to the ovens. Fight for life!

The stakes are such that simply surviving murderous fascism is necessary, not appeasements and compromises.

There is a dark beast on the kill and it must be stopped AGAIN.

It is the psychology of fear and hate becoming violence in our Fallow Merkins and we must deal with it EFFECTIVELY.

Our country has intentionally been turned into a weaponized culture, a DEATH CULT and we must deprogram every one we can.

SHORT TERM:
1)GO FOR THE (FIGURATIVE) THROAT OF EVERY CELEBRITY FASCIST MESSENGER (POLITICIANS, MEDIA ETC.)WE CAN. PUT A FACE ON FASCISM AND STOP ITS ADVANCE!! ATTACKING THE MESSENGER WORKS.

2)EDUCATE OUR KIDS, SOLDIERS, AND COPS WHAT THE SCAM IS (BLOOD FOR OIL) SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FACE OUR OWN TURNED AGAINST US LIKE THE TIENANMIN SQUARE MASSACRE IN CHINA. WE MUST BE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE VISIBLY TO SHOW PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSENSUS AND SOLIDARITY WHICH ARE KEY TO POPULAR MOVEMENTS.

LONG TERM:
BRING URGENT AWARENESS OF FASCISM AND ECO-DISASTER TO THE THRESHOLD OF BEHAVIOUR CHANGE IN THE LESS EVOLVED AMONG US. "BLOOD FOR OIL" IN IRAQ IS THE CRIME WE BEGIN WITH AS CURRENT AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

1)PHOTOS OF WAR VICTIMS ON EVERY PUBLIC SURFACE TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE INAVOIDABLY HUMANIZED.

2)GROCERY AND HIGHWAY BLOGGING. BANNERS AND PAMPHLETS AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL.

3)KNOW YOUR FACTS AND GET ON TALK RADIO, ESPECIALLY NPR'S 'TALK OF THE NATION.'TELL EVERYONE YOU CAN OF THE CRIME OF "BLOOD FOR OIL."

4)PARENTS AT SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES LOOK OUT FOR NATIONALISM, MILITARISM, AND RELIGIOUS (IRRATIONAL) INDOCTRINATION IN CEREMONIES, PLEDGES, TEACHING.

5)AVOID TV. IT IS 100% CORPORATE PROPAGANDA AND HAS UNAVOIDABLE SUBLIMINAL POWER AND A PHYSICAL EFFECT ON YOUR BRAIN EVEN WHEN YOU FEEL IMMUNE TO THE BS AND SPIN.

EXAMPLE: SPORTS ARE USED AS MOCK-WARFARE TO SOCIALIZE HIERARCHY, BLIND OBEDIENCE, REGIONALISM, AND SUBLIMATION TO GROUP-THINK INTO BOYS AND YOUNG MEN WHO WILL BECOME THE NEXT SHIFT OF OCCUPIERS FOR EMIPIRE'S OIL.

IT ALSO DISTRACTS FROM UNDERSTANDING AND COPING WITH REAL LIFE AND DEATH MATTERS WHICH TAKES TIME TO LEARN AND FOLLOW DAILY.

[Q]

30. When GOPers ask us to compromise...

...our answer should always be: WHAT'S IN IT FOR US? For Democrats? Does it benefit all Americans or just a few?

Once again...there is nothing wrong with 'moderation' or compromise...IF both sides are willing to participate. That's not what we're seeing with the GOP majority. It's their way or the hiway. This isn't what America is all about.

[robbedvoter]

33. They only compromise with the "winners". That's why it's so important

to convince themselves that W won, we lost - "prove me it aint so".
It makes the coddling to the power seem a bit less craven. They just accept "reality" - and in that reality we have nothing to offer but integrity. That ain't a moral value in the imperial "reality"

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[Q]

37. That statement describes...

...not only a party unwilling to compromise...but literally doesn't care what the other party thinks.

Why have we had this same discussion for four years? Shouldn't it be clear by now that we're geting nowhere by pretending that we can work together with tyrants?

[robbedvoter]

82. It should also be clear that we are the majority, so our way won, but...

It must be Stocholm Syndrome, of S&M or something - but some people just looove it!

[yellowdogintexas]

38. I have heard former Speaker of the House Jim Wright on the

subject of "the death of compromise" many times. Over the past 4 years he has brought it into the discussion every time I have heard him speak and he has written on it more than once in the local newspaper.

He recalls when he was whip, then Speaker, of the ability to go to the President, opposing party leadership, senate leadership, etc. and carve out compromises on many heavy issues of the day.

There were weekly meetings during the Reagan years: Pres, VPres, Senate Maj/Min leaders, House Maj/min leaders, in which differences were ironed out and compromises reached. Of course he loves to tell about saying to Reagan: 'Mr President, you can't lower taxes and build up the military without creating a deficit! " (more than once, apparantly) and he wasn't sent to sit in the corner for saying it .

He grieves that these days may be gone forever, that cordiality between all the levels of leadership may never be seen again.

The true animosity and inability to negotiate really began when Newt began his coup in the House..and when the R's decided that no matter what Clinton wanted, he wasn't going to get it.


A true corruption of the grand design of the founding fathers, in my opinion

[Q]

40. And of course it needs to be said that....

...there are still many Democrats who know how to negotiate and get something in return for compromising. But unfortunately they seem to have little or no voice in the party. Those running the party have forsaken the art of compromise and throw issues away...hoping to appeal to 'moderates' instead of the base which valued those issues.

The era of cooperation between the parties is over. Fanatics have taken over the GOP and they've outright arrogantly stated they intend to implement a one-party government.

[Zhade]

43. A most excellent question, friend Q!

Indeed, this is my main problem with DLCers (and not all moderates, as they are most definitely not one and the same - I know several moderates who despise the corporatist DLC): that they do not see that extremist Republicans (as opposed to their moderate fellows) have no desire whatsoever to compromise in any way with ANYONE.

At least, my hope is that they don't see it, because the alternative is that they do see it and AGREE with it.

[Q]

45. Yes...and in fact MODERATION and COMPROMISE is needed for good...

...government. And the only problem I have with the DLC 'moderates' is that they're too willing to compromise or concede issues without a fight and without getting something in return.

Like the Patriot Act. The RWingers insisted that it had to be signed immediately...without debate or even reading it. Now...wouldn't a good compromise have been to take a couple days and allow everyone to read it and then take a few more days to debate it? But that's not what happened. RWingers proclaimed that wanting to read or debate it was traitorous. THAT'S where the negotiations should have began for a compromise. Instead...there was a mad rush to vote it into law to avoid the appearance of being 'unpatriotic'. But wasn't it also unpatriotic to push such sweeping anti-Bill of Rights legislation into law without debate?

Meanwhile...there are scores of Democrats AND Republicans that want real compromise and debate...but they're shouted down or marginalized by fanatics on the right and DLCers on the left.

[Zhade]

47. I agree with your entire post, except the last sentence.

DLCers, IMIO, are NOT on the left. The rank-and-file might be center-left, but the leadership? Hardly.

Otherwise, a great post!

[Q]

49. DLCers still call themselves democrats...

...or should I say 'new' Democrats? But they are definately not on the left and many are not even in the middle...like Lieberman. He votes with the Bush* Right so often he might as well be a GOPer.

And thus we have a problem with the DLCers supporting issues like the Iraq invasion/occupation, tax cuts for the rich and deficits. It's the new version of 'trickle-down economics'.

[Zhade]

67. And Michael Jackson still calls himself the King of Pop.

Just SAYING it doesn't make it true, though it may have been at one time.

[wyldwolf]

77. and far lefties call themselves the "base of the party."

Just SAYING it doesn't make it true.

[Zhade]

90. And DLCers call people like myself "far left".

Again, to repeat the motif - ain't true. Sorry.

[wyldwolf]

97. and far lefties call people like myself...

... "republicans" and "republican lite."

Again, to repeat the motif - ain't true. Sorry.

[Zhade]

99. Yes, we could go around in circles this way.

Wait, I said we could, but maybe that's not true...

:D

[Mutley]

44. maybe some brave soul should post this thread on freerepublic n/t

[Q]

46. Please elaborate...

...as to why anyone would want to post anything on FR?

[Mutley]

51. well....

in general, i really don't know...

but on this topic specifically, to see if they back up the concensus here that they are NOT willing to comprimise........

which i'm sure they would prove us right....

but at least we wouldn't be speculating anymore....

or maybe i have no idea what i'm talking about :)

[quaker bill]

54. It is not compromise with the right that is needed

You are correct, they do see compromise as weakness and have no interest in seeing any of our issues advanced.

The point of urging compromise is to adopt moderate positions.

All but the most radical among us can agree that a high abortion rate is not desirable, if for no other reason than that all abortion techniques put the mother's life and health at risk. Making abortions illegal simply does not solve the problem. Empowering women in ways that allow them to keep and care for their children is the right approach.

Seperation of church and state should not be compromised. However, in all honesty I am perfectly capable of ignoring a tacky rock with the 10 cammandments carved on it. They only try to put these things in our face to start an argument and gain publicity. "Them liberals are against the 10 commandments, next they will be banning Bibles!"

Post the 10 commandments everywhere and crime will not drop and people will still commit adultery. People ignore stop signs and traffic lights, why would this be any different? It is a stupid and meaningless effort on the part of the right wing done for no other purpose than to start a fight. Why take the bait?

On the environment, begin to understand that people need to live somewhere. Every development project is not a cardinal sin against the holies of holies. Yes, some projects are absurd and need to be opposed. But generally, when people meet the law, get out of the way. There are plenty of folks who don't meet the law, focus on them. If the laws are not restrictive enough, lobby for stronger laws, citizen initiatives are a good route.

Understand that we must live within our means even if your priorities must face budget cuts. If you do not like it, support candidates that will raise your taxes (as opposed to someone else's). It is all too convenient to believe that we can have everything we want by taxing someone else and it fails to show courage of your convictions

[Q]

55. You're making the assumption that the Right wants to debate these issues..

...and of course debate and discussion is necessary before compromise is possible. You can't come to an agreement with someone that simply circumvents the issues and makes a decision without your input.

That's the problem with a one-party state without an opposition party. The minority party is simply left with crumbs that fall off the table.

[Crowdance]

59. Actually, gestation and birth most endanger the woman

Abortion's moridity is MUCH lower than that of gestation and birth. Additionally, there are economic costs to birth that are not attendant on abortion.

I agree with you that we should all be working to empower women economically and socially, so that those who choose to carry a fetus to term, and then raise a child, can do so. Fewer abortions will likely result--but not a complete end to abortion.

[Perky]

57. I think you misintrept the core debate

The core issue is how do we best attract the swing voter?

Do we become a true opposition party and make the distinctions so great that part of the middle comes to us.

or

Do we move to the middle on some issue wresting control of the issue from the Republicans believing that if the people don't come to us we must go to them.

Remember the Flap Howard Dean got into over bubbas and Dixie Decals in their pickup trucks.

Dean caust crap from Liberals for even feigning to suggest that we ought to go after NASCAR dads by arguing that the GOP has really done very little for them.

As a child of both the north and the south I found it amusing that liberals were upset about the notion of going after souther white men, and the Southern White Men I know were actually taking notice of HD.

That Hoard actually had to back off the statement was a double defeat he looke like a coward to southern whites and party regulars cut off a potential olive branch to those who really did not like Bush at the time.

[Q]

60. Nah....that's the moderate's core issue...

...the core issue for everyone else is how to attract the base back to the party. Many believe that if the centrists stopped compromising the party's principles...those who lost hope in the Dems would be motivated to vote again.

The issue is how the Democratic party needs to become an opposition party again and either oppose things that are against our principles or make compromises that benefit both parties.

[paulk]

62. it seems to me that some of your basic assumptions are flawed

are you speaking for yourself when you say - "those who lost hope in the Dems would be motivated to vote again."? Because, as far as I can tell from the election results, there were very few Dems who sat this last election out.

And what do you mean when you refer to "attracting the base back to the party"? I have no idea what this statement means. If the base wasn't "the party" - how did John Kerry get the 2nd highest vote total ever? (and many believe he actually got the highest)

You seem to be coloring your arguments with some preconceptions that are subjective in nature.

[wyldwolf]

64. Q is under the misguided assumption that those who think like him...

..are the base.

But, of course, if that were so, Kucinich would have been the nominee.

[eridani]

75. The base agrees with the Kucinich platform

At WA state precinct caucuses, Kucinich caucusers were mostly the only people to bring resolutions for consideration. Every single one of the ones I brought was passed unanimously, and they were all rewrites of the Kucinich platform. I pointed that out, and all the Kerry caucusers said "But he isn't electable."

[wyldwolf]

76. as they do with Kerry's, Edward's, Clinton's, Clarks's, etc.

...so what is your point?

Kucinich ISN'T electable because he only appeals to a small part of this fabled "base" we all have differing definitions of.

[eridani]

78. No, they don't agree with Kerry's platform

95% of the Dem convention delegates were against the Iraq war, and 80% favored withdrawal as soon as possible. 99% favored universal health care instead of Kerry's piecemeal approach.

[wyldwolf]

79. you said the fabled "base," NOT the convention delegates...

... but while we're on the subject, do you have a source for these stats?

[eridani]

87. CBS poll of delegates

When I say base, I mean those people who will do a lot of volunteer work and donate money frequently in smaller amounts.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m2dqYouYYH0J:www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/delegates_dems.pdf+delegates+war+convention+%22New+york+times+poll%22&hl=en

q25 Which comes closest to your view about the tax cuts Congress has passed since 2000:
1. ALL of those tax cuts should be made permanent OR
2. MOST of those tax cuts should be made permanent; OR
3. MOST of those tax cuts should be repealed or allowed to expire;OR
4. ALL of those tax cuts should be repealed or allowed to expire.
All made permanent 1%
Most made permanent 6%
Most repealed or expire 71%
All repealed or expire 18%
DK/NA 4%

q26 Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?

Did the right thing 7%
Should have stayed out 86%
DK/NA 7%

q28 What is your personal feeling about abortion:
1. It should be permitted in all cases;
2. It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than
it is now;
3. It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman’s life; OR
4. It should ONLY be permitted to save the woman’s life?

Permitted in all cases 64&
Permitted with restrictions 14%
Only rape/incest/save life 10%
Only to save life 2%
Not permitted at all 1%
DK/NA 9%

q29 Which of these comes closest to your view?...
1. Abortion should be generally available to those who want it.
2. Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now.
3. Abortion should not be permitted?

Generally available 75%
Available but stricter limits 17%
Not permitted 2%
DK/NA 6%

q30 Which concerns you more right now -- that the government is failing to enact strong anti-terrorism laws, or that the government is enacting new anti-terrorism laws which excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties?

Fail to enact 13%
Enact laws that are excessive 77%
Neither 5%
DK/NA 5%

q34 Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq or not?
Worth it 3%
Not worth it 93%
DK/NA%

q36 Which comes closest to your view?
1. Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, OR
2. Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, OR
3. There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Should be allowed to marry 44%
Should form civil unions 43%
No legal recognition 5%
DK/NA 7%

q40 Which of the following statements comes closer to your opinion --
1. Trade restrictions are necessary to protect domestic industries, OR
2. Free trade must be allowed, even if domestic industries are hurt by foreign competition?
Restrictions necessary 67%
Allow free trade 23%
DK/NA 10%

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/read/755648.htm
As a poll of delegates in the Boston Globe this week suggested, this audience - 95% opposed to the Iraq war, 62% in favour of gay marriage and nearly 90% in favour of gun-control laws - was well to the left of average Americans.

[wyldwolf]

96. so we now have ANOTHER definition of "base"

In post #61, Q defined the base as "women, blacks, poor, workers, 'gays' and the disenfranchised."

YOU describe it as "those people who will do a lot of volunteer work and donate money frequently in smaller amounts."

I see by you your previous post you feel Kerry's platform was limited to the Iraq war and healthcare. Interesting.

At the time of the DNC covention, popular opinion was FOR the Iraq war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), yet Kerry took the admirable approach of promising not to leave the country in shambles and to pull out gradually. With that, I agree with him.

Where in your link is the "99% in favor of universal healthcare instead of Kerry's approach?"

As a poll of delegates in the Boston Globe this week suggested, this audience... was well to the left of average Americans

In other words, they weren't in touch with average Americans.

[Q]

102. As far as the party structure goes...wouldn't the delegate be as close as.

...we can get to the 'base' being involved in the process?

It's kind of amusing that you've gone out of your way to defend the status quo. You can't really come up with a strong defense of the capitulation of moderation...so you've resigned yourself to go on the offensive and became an obstructionist to the free flow of ideas.

Why are you trying so hard to confuse the issue about what constitutes the BASE of the party? Is it that the DLCers feel a twinge of guilt knowing that they're the corporate wing of the party that has left so many behind to suffer the ravages of the Bush* corporate state?

You speak of 'average Americans'...but you defend a group that doesn't include most Americans in their plans...average or not.

Common sense dictates that the base will follow the party only up to a certain point of departure. Workers will vote Democratic only as long as they support unions or worker's rights. The same goes for Blacks, women, environmentalists, gays and other minority groups. The DLC can't be complicit with the Republicans, ignore these groups and still expect to get their vote.

[wyldwolf]

104. No

...we can get to the 'base' being involved in the process?

No, the delegates are typically the more active people or the those with an ax to grind - the more ideological ones who have an agenda to push.

It's kind of amusing that you've gone out of your way to defend the status quo. You can't really come up with a strong defense of the capitulation of moderation...so you've resigned yourself to go on the offensive and became an obstructionist to the free flow of ideas.

In other words, you want the freedom to put forth your ideas and philosophies but no one can dissent from them? To disagree with you is to obstruct the free flow of ideas? Sounds like the GOP

Why are you trying so hard to confuse the issue about what constitutes the BASE of the party?

Why are trying to mislead people into believing the base of the party is what YOU are?

You speak of 'average Americans'...but you defend a group that doesn't include most Americans in their plans...average or not.

See, what you do is pick one or two pet issues and paint the DLC with a broad brush.

[eridani]

122. Whatthefuck ever happened to LEADING?

Do the Rethugs ever back off on their reactionary agenda?

In post #61, Q defined the base as "women, blacks, poor, workers, 'gays' and the disenfranchised."

YOU describe it as "those people who will do a lot of volunteer work and donate money frequently in smaller amounts."

Those are often the same people. The conventioneers were drawn from state conventions, where it was very often the case that more than half of the attendees had never been to a party convention before. Why do you want to piss away this energy? I can assure you that they weren't worked up about saving NAFTA and the PATRIOT Act and wars of choice.

[wyldwolf]

123. often they are not. Still doesn't make it "the base."

[eridani]

125. So what do these people you call 'the base'--

--ever do for the party? Volunteer? Not on your life.

[Q]

84. Dems came out in droves to vote against Bush*...

...and yes...much of the BASE turned out. But that base is not LOYAL to the New Democrats or their corporate, anti-worker agenda.

I strongly believe that those who turned out to vote against Bush* in Nov. can't be expected to do it again when he can't run in 2008.

Politics IS subjective. But I think my theory will be proven correct in 2008...when the nominee will be FORCED to EARN our votes instead of simply expecting them because we're Democrats.

[Zhade]

91. "But that base is not LOYAL to the New Democrats..."

And no matter how much they wish it, it will NEVER be loyal to those in bed with the corporations costing them their jobs, their healthcare, their once-free press, and their very rights.

The DLC is much like Republicans in a major way: they have to fake caring about the middle class and poor in order to sucker people into following them. They lie to good people just as the Republican party does.

Thankfully, I know many reasonable moderates who see the corporatist DLC for what it is and loathe it.

[wyldwolf]

98. we have TWO definitions of "base" in this thread... what is yours?

?

[Zhade]

100. The opposite of yours, naturally!

NT!

[paulk]

106. your definition of the base is just wrong

by defination the "base" of anything is the largest part - not the activists that you obviously see as the base. If the activists were the base, we would have had Mike Miles running for the Senate and not Ken Salazar here in Colorado. Miles won in the caucus, when all the activists showed up. He lost in the primary election, when the "base" showed up to vote.

I also think it's a mistake to approach these political questions from such a broad perspective - The Democratic Party is not the monolithic beast you make it out to be - the Democratic party runs liberal candidates where they can win, moderates where they can win, and conservatives where they can win. It's not the job of the overall party to determine ideological purity, it's their job to win elections. Politics are local, like Tip said - and all this talk is just that. Talk.

-

[Perky]

68. What?????

John Kerry got More votes than any other Democrat in History.. The Repgublicans got more.

So what you are saying is that we need to draw back in those who are no longer voting...ok how many people "checked out" of this last election?

As opposed to attracting people who we can rely on to vote such as middle class suburbanites?

[sarahlee]

95. Maybe the DLC

needs to understand that those of us on the left are also "swing voters." We can swing Dem or third party.

[wyldwolf]

58. Sure, why do you ask?

The reason our government is set up the way it is is so healthy debate and compromise on issues can be reached.

The "rightness" and "wrongness" of an issue is a matter of opinion. Unfortunately for the left, more people who have differing opinions than ours are controlling things. When we again control things, the GOP will be looking for compromise with us.

The moderates on both sides of the aisle have, until recently is seems, kept the extreme elements from controlling the parties.

When the far left has their glorious revolution and takes over the dem party (starting when they can muster just one national election victory - whenever THAT is!), then you can show us moderates how it is done.

[Q]

61. That's the difference between the DLCers and the 'far left'...

... The DLCers want to control the Democratic party and set the agenda. They call themselves 'new' Democrats because they don't want to be associated with the 'old' Democratic party or their values. Like the Bushie Republicans...they refuse to compromise with others in their party.

On the other hand...the 'far left'...as you like to call them...simply wants an OPPOSITION party. They want a party that fights for them and their Constitution...and the rule of law. They want a party that...when they witness lies, fraud or corruption in government...won't ignore it for the sake of political expediency.

It's telling that you constantly use the term far left to describe the very base of the party: women, blacks, poor, workers, 'gays' and the disenfranchised. These are the PEOPLE the DLCers would leave behind in an effort to appeal to middle class 'swing voters'...which may or may not vote for the other party.

[wyldwolf]

63. the 'far left' feel they are 'owed' something

That's the difference between the DLCers and the 'far left'.. The DLCers want to control the Democratic party and set the agenda.

Funny - that is exactly what the far left wants to do. They are completely unbending, uncompromising, and so sure they are "correct" that it borders on arrogance. Their threats of supporting third parties unless they get their way is tiresome. Unfortunately for them, they can't organize and generate enough support to make any real difference.

IF that weren't the case, Kucinich would have won in a walk, Nader would have rode the Green express in 2000 to victory...

Win some elections and show you have some political clout before making demands of the party.

Or would the far left rather just bitch and moan because taking action might lead to some sort of victory and the very thing that they thrive on - the fight - would be over and there would be no more motivation.

they refuse to compromise with others in their party.

Tell us what the 1% could possibly bring to the table? And why you feel you are owed something that you haven't earned?

It's telling that you constantly use the term far left to describe the very base of the party: women, blacks, poor, workers, 'gays' and the disenfranchised.

What possible evidence do you have that women, blacks, poor, workers, 'gays' and the disenfranchised share your political beliefs?

[Q]

65. Well....I would say that the people who have supported the Democratic

party for so long are owed SOMETHING. For instance...Blacks and workers have been very loyal to the party...but they'll tell you they think they're getting screwed by the 'new' Democrats who don't support unions and are wishy washy on programs that benefit minorities.

Win some elections? You mean like the DLCers have been 'wining' since 1994? Please don't lecture others on winning with such a poor friggin record under your belt. The Democratic party has never been in this bad of shape in its entire history.

I don't have to show evidence about what women, blacks, poor, workers, etc think about the 'new' Democratic party. Look around the web...talk to the people and find out for yourself. Many Dems believe they've been sold out. Even Kerry stated that he EXPECTED the votes of the base as he went after the so-called swing voters. But in 2008...any Democratic candidate will have to EARN votes because they won't be automatically given as in 2000 and 2004.

It simply amazes me that DLCers can even THINK of compromising (and getting little or nothing in return) with the criminal, secretive, arrogant Bush* government. Many, many Democrats will never forgive them for this. Most Democrats are smart enough to know that the Bushies have committed crimes against the state and humanity...and that the Democratic leadership has done nothing about it.

On edit: the 'far left' hasn't had any real power or leadership role in the party since the New Deal and Great Society. You've said before that 'we' should win a few elections...but you should know that the New Democrats are actively working to keep anyone to the left of them out of leadership positions. "WE" knew long before the primaries that a DLCers or someone they approve of would become the 'chosen one' to continue to sell out the party.

[wyldwolf]

66. But you can't prove it, Q, beyond your small patch of experience

Well....I would say that the people who have supported the Democratic party for so long are owed SOMETHING.

And we all receive things from the party...

For instance...Blacks and workers have been very loyal to the party...but they'll tell you they think they're getting screwed by the 'new' Democrats who don't support unions and are wishy washy on programs that benefit minorities.

They'll tell me? Really? As long as we're working off of purely anecdotal evidence, I know many blacks and workers who share my political perspective. They haven't told me they're being screwed. Or maybe you have some national poll that explicitly says this?

Win some elections? You mean like the DLCers have been 'wining' since 1994?

Yes. Funny - far lefties cry about the stolen election of 2000 and whisper about the stolen 2004 election UNTIL discussions of moderates and DLC comes up, then they say those elections were lost.

So, for the record - Clinton in '96. The DNC won house seats in '98. Gore in 2000.

In 2002, senate-wise, Dems lost control of Senate by 2 seats. The DLC lost two seats (GA and MO) but gained one (Arkansas) for a net loss of one. Non-DLC dems lost one seat. So DLC and non DLC both lost 1 seat, but the stories don't end there. In Georgia, Max Cleland was targeted with a vicious smear campaign that essentially called him a bin Laden sympathizer. Do you feel if Cleland weren't a DLC or moderate, it would have made a difference? Also, 2002 was a bad year for Dems in GA, period, with Gov. Roy Barnes losing partially because he removed the confederate emblem from a prominant position on the GA flag.

However, in Minnesota, very-non DLC Paul Wellstone was lagging behind Republican Coleman (depending on the poll) before his plane crash. Walter Mondale, also considered by many as being very liberal, couldn't retain the seat.

The Democratic party has never been in this bad of shape in its entire history.

This is true BUT as the record indicates, is isn't moderate or the DLC who have faired the worse. At least they're getting on the ballots.

I don't have to show evidence about what women, blacks, poor, workers, etc think about the 'new' Democratic party.

What a cop-out! Of course you have to show evidence if you are to have any credibility in this discussion.

Many Dems believe they've been sold out.

And many more don't

in 2008...any Democratic candidate will have to EARN votes because they won't be automatically given as in 2000 and 2004.

Proof? No, I guess you saying it makes it so.

the 'far left' hasn't had any real power or leadership role in the party since the New Deal and Great Society.

FDR was a moderate democrat - despised by both the left and the right.

you should know that the New Democrats are actively working to keep anyone to the left of them out of leadership positions.

Not that you can prove that statement BUT if the dem base really feel as you do, the will of the people would have far lefties in leadership roles...

"WE" knew long before the primaries that a DLCers or someone they approve of would become the 'chosen one' to continue to sell out the party.

The PEOPLE voted in the primaries. Remember? More unproven sour grapes conspiracy tripe.

[Q]

70. The first thing I noticed about the DLC was their overt hatred of liberals

...which pretty much materializes in all of your posts.

Where in the hell did THAT come from? I didn't have feelings either way about the DLC until I heard them rant negative about liberals. Curiosity got the best of me so I visited their web site to find out more.

It turned out that the DLC wasn't just against liberals....they were against the New Deal / Great Society and everything that went with it. They were just a more Dem-friendly version of the Republican party. It all became clear: Clinton, Gore and Kerry were simply shills for the moderates who abandoned the GOP when the nutballs started to take over their party in the late 80s.

Kerry went out of his way to disavow liberals and progressives and told business leaders during the campaign that they didn't have to worry that he was a 'redistributionist'. Wink, wink...he was on THEIR side. To make matters worse...he shunned traditional Democratic groups to court voters more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. He simply expected their votes because they were Democrats. If he had been running against anyone but Bush* it would have been a very embarrassing loss.

Gore found out too late what they were all about. He refused to take the OATH TO CORPORATIONS that all DLCers were expected to take and started to run a populist campaign. They threw him out of the club and threw him to the Bushie wolves.

But this thread is about compromise. In the Clinton 90s...many Democrats began to wonder why the party was giving so much away. At first we thought it was the impeachment...that Clinton was simply keeping the RWingers off his back by conceding issues to them. He literally gave away positions that Democrats had fought for decades to achieve. From welfare to affirmative action to unions to 'free' trade to women's rights to helping the Right monopolize the media...he dismantled the party and rebuilt it in the DLC's corporate-friendly image.

What did the Democratic party get in return for all of Clinton's concessions and giveaways? The obvious answer is a Republican government. But beneath the surface...the Democratic base began to erode. And then 2000 happened and we watched the DLC-controlled party pretend as if an election wasn't stolen. We were told in no uncertain terms to 'shut up', get over it and 'support' our new president*. It was then that we knew that the Democratic party was no longer the party of the people.

[wyldwolf]

73. your entire post is full of conjecture, opinions, and emotion

Do you have ANY evidence?

[Q]

80. You'll see evidence of what I'm saying in 2008...

...The DLC 'moderates' got another break in 2004 because everyone hated Bush*. I'm not sure you understand just how many otherwise faithful Democrats had to hold their nose and vote for Kerry.

And it's not that Kerry is a bad guy or wouldn't have made a better president...it's just that he wasn't what was needed to run against Bush*. Many on the left had predicted two things before the election. The first was that only a DLC approved candidate would emerge as nominee. To us this meant that the nominee wouldn't take Bush* head on...given their appeasement policies towards Bush* in the past. ("just" war, patriotic act, reluctance to make him accountable, etc.)

Secondly...We knew that Bush's* Smear Machine would tear apart anyone not willing to escalate the war of words and expose Bush* for the lying criminal he was/is. What was needed was a big dose of the truth and a candidate willing to deliver it no matter the consequences. Bush* had to be the most vulnerable candidate in history. He made tricky Dick Nixon look like an angel. Yet Kerry didn't even hit near any of his soft spots and put him on the defensive.

I believe you'll find out in 2008 just how much Democrats in general hate the concessions and one-sided compromises by the new democrats. Once again the DLCers will believe that Dems have no choice but to vote for them and will take their votes for granted. They'll run a candidate that won't confront the criminal Bush* government, rejects progressive politics and snuggles up to corporations.

The DLCers will simply expect the votes of the progressives, Blacks, Gays, Workers and Women in 2008. But they're going to be very shocked to learn that it's not going to happen again. Many of us would rather stick to our principles and lose then be a slave to the corporate church/state.

That's right. We've rather serve in heaven than rule in hell.

[wyldwolf]

86. blah blah blah... always an excuse...

The DLC 'moderates' got another break in 2004 because everyone hated Bush

Right. We got another break 'cause people didn't REALLY want to vote DLC, they just hated Bush... :eyes:

Why do we keep getting them breaks? Maybe because we get the most votes?

So you're faced with a delema...

If the party really DOES think like you politically, why did we not see Kucinich get the nomination? I've asked you that repeatedly and you avoid the question.

So 2008 is the glorious far left revolution?

Let's see. First it was going to be 2002. Then 2004. Then 2006. Now it's been pushed back to 2008.

So let's make a bet for all on DU to see. I'll bet in 2008, ANOTHER moderate DLC member or DLC type will be nominated.

He will have easily defeated further left candidates in the primaries.

Those like you will scream "fix!" and "The 'base' (undefined) didn't vote..." blah blah.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. Correction!

Wellstone was NOT lagging in the polls at the time of his death. He went up 6 points after his "no" vote on the Iraq War Resolution.

We will now return to our regularly scheduled flame war.

[Zhade]

92. The "far left" will take over...

...the same day you can successfully define the term apart from the way the rightwing uses it. In other words, it won't happen.

"Far left" is a rightwing boogeyman. I'm surprised intelligent people like you actually borrow a rightwing phrase.

[wyldwolf]

105. as for the phrasing...

... if you knew me and had followed my posts, you'd know I trot out the "far left" boogeyman whenever the "DLC-republican lite" boogeyman is trotted out by the usual suspects on DU.

See, the problem is a certain element here who feel they can insult, criticize, and generally bash to no end a very large segment of DU and the Dem party as a whole but then play the role of the victim when the tables are turned.

[Q]

107. Those you like to call 'far-left'...

...are what used to be called moderates before the DLC became...yes...GOP-lite.

The thing is...you can't deny it. It's easier for you to trash those who rightfully critize those who took over our party rather than defend their dubious record.

The DLC's influence on our party is responsible for the lack of opposition and even complicty in the coverup of this administration's crimes and misdeeds. Nevermind that the DLC tries to fly below the radar...they've been duly recognized as the appeasers that allowed Bush* to attain nearly dictatorial powers.

The DLC isn't a large segment of DU...and you know it. They represent as many people on DU as they do the party in general. What gives them the power over the party is that they control the flow of money...from the corporations to the candidates bank account. Don't like the DLC...then don't expect money from the party bosses. You'll have to raise it online like Dean had to do.

[wyldwolf]

108. again (and again) you make assertions with no facts to back them

Those you like to call 'far-left' are what used to be called moderates before the DLC became...yes...GOP-lite.

Proof?

The thing is...you can't deny it. It's easier for you to trash those who rightfully critize those who took over our party rather than defend their dubious record.

You keep making my point. What YOU do is "rightfully critize." What I do is "trash."

The DLC's influence on our party is responsible for the lack of opposition and even complicty in the coverup of this administration's crimes and misdeeds.

Like... how? What?

The DLC isn't a large segment of DU...and you know it.

Well, technically you are correct since you have to be an elected democrat to be a member of the DLC. But moderate Dems and those who think along the same lines as the DLC are abundant on DU. And you know it.

Don't like the DLC...then don't expect money from the party bosses. You'll have to raise it online like Dean had to do.

Like DLC Kerry and DLC Edwards did - only MORE so than Dean?

[Q]

112. I have no idea how long you've been a Democrat...

...or have watched/voted and participated in politics. But I'll tell you right now that I don't believe in coincidence theories.

Something happened to the Democratic party during the Clinton years...specifically the leadership and those who say they represent the 'new' party. It wasn't a sudden thing...but during the 90s the leadership just gave up. Perhaps it was the impeachment or losing congress. They literally stopped trying to be the other half of the two party system of government and became reluctant to use the oversight and checks and balances provided in the Constitution against the other side. The last time they even tried to make the GOPers accountable was during Iran/Contra....but even that was covered up in the end. One for the Gipper.

The DLCers are either clueless or their complicit. It has to be one or the other. The whole world understands that the Bush* administration is one of the most corrupt in American history. Nixon was threatened with impeachment for far less than what the Bushies did in their first term. From election fraud to Enron to Halliburton to the Patriot Act to illegal aggressive wars...the New Democrats either ignored the wrongdoing or participated by voting against the best interests of the people.

You have consistently misrepresented what the DLC is all about. They are not 'moderate'...they're RWingers in Dem clothing. They throw a few bones to the faithful in order to maintain the charade...but they have more in common with GOPers than Democrats. They refuse to work with liberals or progressives and use the same tactics as the RWingers with their threats to withold funding and support from any candidate who doesn't swear an oath to corporations and the 'third way'.

Gore and Dean...among others...refused to walk in lockstep with them and were exiled or smeared by the dirty politics of the DLC and the corporate press.

The DLC's skidmarks were all over Kerry's campaign. Support for the Iraq 'war'. Disavowing progressive politics and promises to corporations not to be a 'redistributionist' Democrat. It looked exactly like Gore's DLC inspired campaign before he told them to get lost and went populist.

You're trying to make it sound as if the 'far-left' is being unreasonable by rejecting the DLC's brand of politics. But it was they, not us, that started a new conservative wing of the party..determined to help Republicans get rid of any remnants of the New Deal. Progressive haven't had any real input into the party platform since before Clinton. That's why the downfall of the party can be directly traced to those calling the shots: The DLC third wayers.

[wyldwolf]

114. longer than most I know

I have no idea how long you've been a Democrat..."

Since I was knee high to a grasshopper - 35 years now.

...or have watched/voted and participated in politics.

Since I ran for my first Student office in high school...

Something happened to the Democratic party during the Clinton years...specifically the leadership and those who say they represent the 'new' party.

During the Clinton years - or more specifically the late 80s after the defeat of Dukakis - the Democratic party began reverting back to what it was before McGovern - a moderate party with both left and right leanings.

Q, your problem is repeat the same meme over and over in your opinion of the DLC. Never factual or sourced.

[Zhade]

109. I have followed your posts, which is why I know this is not true.

I even sent you a PM asking you what you mean by the term "far left". You declined to answer - and there was no "Repub-lite boogeyman" to fight then, since it was a private conversation.

[wyldwolf]

110. two things...

1. I don't recall any such PM... and I never delete the ones I get... irrelevant, though, because...
2. You didn't pick my profile out at random, then PM me asking that. You had to have seen me use it in a thread to inspire the PM - a thread in which yet again moderates were being attacked.

[Zhade]

111. Actually, no.

1. I believe you. It happens. However, I most assuredly DID send you a PM about this.

2. Actually, I sent you a PM after you used the term "far left", without yourself being attacked. The PM I sent was reasonable and polite - I just wanted to get your definition of the term, because there are obvious differences between how we see them.

Like it or not, DLCers (I differentiate them from moderates on purpose, because they are not one and the same) attack "far lefties" (like me, even though I'm NOT far left) first at least as often as they are attacked first.

[wyldwolf]

113. well, then...

1. I believe you. It happens. However, I most assuredly DID send you a PM about this.

I believe you did, then.

2. Actually, I sent you a PM after you used the term "far left", without yourself being attacked.

I've never said I use the term when I'm personally attacked. I said I use it when my politics are attacked.

[Zhade]

115. Sorry, should have clarified - your politics were not attacked.

I have seen them attacked - hell, I've attacked them, because I vehemently disagree with some of them - but this was not one of those times.

But that's the past. Can I ask you, then, how you define the term "far left", since I have your attention? :)

[wyldwolf]

116. I'd like to see the thread you refer to...

...I'll PM you what I consider characteristics of the far left.

[Zhade]

118. I'll try to dig it up, though you can see I don't have a star anymore.

b*sh economy. :P

[wyldwolf]

119. while you dig it up, look!

ANOTHER DLC attack thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2778105

Just a matter of time before someone there who isn't DLC gets their feelings hurt and claims he/she's being unjustly attacked.

[Zhade]

121. Now, are you saying that the thread was started to 'attack' the DLC...

...or that is simply what happened?

And how do you define 'attack'? Disagreement? Despising the DLC's policies? Because I fit both of those. I will not give the corporatist DLC quarter for their being in bed with multinational corporations (or countries like China) that abuse human rights wholesale.

I am more than willing to discuss why with people like yourself, if people like yourself are willing to listen and not dismiss me as "far left".

Let me add, by the way, that I truly have enjoyed our friendly back-and-forth today. It's too rare in politics these days!

[wyldwolf]

124. no, but...

It was started by someone who doesn't like the DLC's policies - which in itself if OK, but quickly (from the first reply) turned into an ugly ad hominem attack thread...

"The DLC should DROP DEAD!"

"What the DLC/Fascist Party is saying..."

"The DLC Trojan Horse has done the damage it was meant to do..."

"Before we take on the pukes again we must purge the party of these
fat cat douche bag RW vichy Dems."

"Since the DLCers suck at winning elections..." more...

When Nicholas_J inserts a bit of civil reason into the thread, HE is attacked...

"you hold high in one hand a banner saying "get behind the party or else" and in the other a knife to make sure no one else tries to carry the banner more effectively. Whatever."

"This is a record... you made it TWO whole posts into a thread before launching into your memorized Dean tirade."

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

[Q]

127. I may have it wrong...maybe the DLC DID get what THEY wanted?

Perhaps I have made the wrong assumption all along? The DLCers DID get something in return for compromising with the New Republicans. The problem is that what they got isn't good for all Democrats or Americans.

The New Democrats and Republicans seem to want many of the same things. They're both against unions. Both want school vouchers. Both want to 'shrink' government and fund corporate welfare over social welfare. Both are in love with the 'Bush* Doctrine of aggressive wars.

I guess in the strictest sense of the word 'compromise'...both sides are getting what they want. It's the Democratic faithful and the American people who will be made to pay for this collaboration.

[Zhade]

130. I happen to agree with the sentiments...

...if not the vituperative way they are expressed (although I have been guilty of letting my anger at the DLC's corporations-over-people policies get the better of me as well).

I have no problem with moderates, as evidenced by my example (given to you via PM) of madfloridian, a moderate who has been laughably accused (by DLCers, though I am not sure by you yourself) of being "far left".

I have a HUGE problem with the DLC, I believe the evidence in my signature (when sigs are on!) shows why I have a problem with the DLC, and I will not cease attacking what I perceive as a pro-corporate (to a fault) group more interested in winning for winnings' sake than in We The People.

There is a fundamental disconnect between people like myself (who, while attacked as "far left", are not) and those who support the DLC's policies.

Supporting Dems is good. Supporting the party to get them into power so they can enact a positive, progressive, pro-people agenda is good. Supporting corporate consolidation of the government, which is one facet of the DLC IMIO, is not good, and I will not stop denouncing them. It's unfortunate that DLC supporters get caught up in the fray, since I view those who support the DLC in much the same way as I view good-but-uninformed people who vote Republican without knowing all the damage the Republican party does.

Until we can come to a middle ground on understanding the nature of the DLC, I fear the disconnect will continue. I hold nothing against DLC supporters, just the group they support.

Well, except for DLCers like Will Marshall. Anyone who endorses PNAC views is, IMIO, an outright traitor to the American people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. Wyldwolf, a serious question for you:

What are the values on which you would NEVER compromise with the Republicans?

What makes you a Democrat as opposed to a Rockefeller Republican?

(Okay, that's two questions. Here's a third:)

Why should the DLC think it can succeed by dissing its base voters when the Republicans pamper and cater to their base?

[Q]

128. Keep up the good work and keep their feet to the fire!

It's getting crazy out there. "Real" moderates don't understand that we want to work with them for the sake of the party and the people. They don't seem to understand that it's the DLCers blocking the way and driving a wedge between Democrats.

Hopefully one day they'll understand that the DLC is to the Dem party what the Neocons and Fundies are to the GOP.

[Zhade]

132. I have to take exception with this statement, WW.

"The "rightness" and "wrongness" of an issue is a matter of opinion."

The war on Iraq is wrong. There is no 'matter of opinion' about that.

There truly ARE some absolutes in this world. That waging a 'preventative' war against a country that did not attack us and was not threatening to is wrong is one of those absolutes.

[flaminbats]

69. our party is now divided between moderates and suckers....

there are no more fighting liberals, the Truman era is gone forever.

[Q]

71. There are many 'fighting liberals'...

...and you can see them if you watch CSPAN cover their speeches. But they have no power within the Dem party and thus have no voice to speak out in public. When they do have a chance to speak out...they are quickly silenced by the corporate arm of the Dem party.

It took over a decade for true conservatives and moderates to realize their party had been taken over by the Neocons and Religious Right. But by the time they realized it they found they had no power or voice in their party. They had been sold out. The same thing is happened in the Democratic party right now.

[Q]

72. Irony: now the DLC appeasers are moaning about the end of 'bipartisanship'

Banning Bipartisanship


The demise of bipartisanship in Washington under the president who promised to change the city's tone has been steady and dramatic. Lest we forget, it was not this way under his predecessor. Even though Republicans declared war on Bill Clinton from the moment he was first elected; called him "irrelevant" after they seized control of Congress two years later; and ultimately tried to remove him from office -- the Clinton years were regularly marked by bipartisan legislation and "center-out" coalitions, including the NAFTA, GATT, and China PNTR trade bills, welfare reform, the Balanced Budget Agreement, and many other major accomplishments.

But last week, bipartisanship reached a new and even historic low, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to bring an administration-backed bipartisan intelligence reform bill to the floor that would have definitely passed, because he wasn't sure a majority of House Republicans supported it. And his spokesman John Feehery made it clear this was not just a one-time decision, but a fundamental principle Hastert intends to apply in the future. "He wants to pass bills with his majority," Feehery told The Washington Post. "That's the hallmark of this majority.... If you pass major bills without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term speaker.... I think he was prudent to listen to his members."

This partisanship-first principle, mind you, was elevated not only above the views of a majority of House and Senate members, and those of the president, but above a strong national interest in fixing our intelligence system before another terrorist attack on the United States occurs. Maintaining his popularity among the House Republican rank-and-file was apparently more important to Hastert. Contrast that attitude with the one expressed by Republican House leader Newt Gingrich, hardly a slouch at partisan warfare, who in supporting one of President Clinton's trade bills in 1993 said: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics... larger than personal ego."

As Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), who was a White House staffer in the days when Republicans occasionally put aside partisanship to cooperate with Clinton, noted: "What is more comforting to the terrorists around the world: the failure to pass the 9/11 legislation because we lacked 'a majority of the majority,' or putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new legislation with America's security foremost in mind?"

It's a question that Dennis Hastert should be asked often. Banning bipartisanship is not simply an affront to Democrats or to the bipartisan rhetoric GOP leaders from President Bush on down trot out on the campaign trail -- it's an affront to all Americans who expect their elected representatives to place their interests first.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253036

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

The RWingers used and abused the DLC New Democrats...and now have simply thrown them away. Golly...we never saw THIS coming.....

[robbedvoter]

83. Oh! Please date-rape us again! We'll be gooder next time!

Wear shorter skirts!

[Zhade]

93. "Yeah, alcohol makes him crazy, but if I buy the booze he hits softer!"

The DLC enables the extreme right, and then bitches when it ditches them. That's rich!

[Q]

101. It would be funny except that it's the People who are made to suffer...

...for the weakness and complicity of the DLCers. That they've led the party to irrelevance should be the topic of debate...not which candidate to choose in 2008.

Here we are...just a couple weeks away from the last election and we see Democrats already trying to pick the 'best' candidate for the next election. No real discussions that reflect the needs of the loyal Democratic base...just more of the same about how to become more like Republicans in order to attract some of THEIR base.

We should decide long before 2008 about the kind of candidates we want representing the party. Do we continue on the path of least resistance and run a corporate candidate against the GOP's corporate candidate? Or do we admit to ourselves that only a true opposition party can bring in enough fed up voters to overcome the election fraud that now seems to be a permanent addition to our nation?

[Kahuna]

74. Absolutely! It's the extreme wings of both parties who never

want to seek common ground. "Clinton and Gore are republicans...blah blah blah...because they took an occasional stroll to the right in the interest of compromise." :eyes:

[Q]

85. Except that only ONE extreme is in power...the Bush* Republicans...

...and their only opposition has been silenced by their so-called moderate enablers.

There's a reason why one doesn't negotiate with 'terrorists'. Once you give in to them they take more hostages and make more demands. Our party leadership negotiated with Bush* terrorists in 2000 and now they've taken our country hostage.

[Cronus Protagonist]

88. Compromise is capitulation with these people

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[quaoar]

117. "Moderates say we should 'compromise' with the Rwingers"

That's pure distortion.

We should NOT compromise with the Republicans since they have no integrity or honor or any intention to compromise with us.

What we should do is realign our party with the values and principles that the Democratic Party has always stood for and with the constituencies we have always represented. We have strayed from both and the GOP has filled the vacuum.

[Q]

126. We haven't 'strayed'...we were intentionally led there by the DLC...

...and thus my complaints about their 'compromising' with criminals.

There is a battle going on right now in DC...between the DLC corporatists and the 'progressive caucus'.

One of the main issues is whether we'll continue on the path to fund (trickle-down) corporate welfare over social welfare.

I agree we need to 'get back' and realign our party with the aforementioned values. But that can't be done as long as the DLC remains in power.

[LimpingLib]

137. Weve compromised so much , that even yesterdays moderate waved as we flew

by them so fast to the right.


Our battle is now squarly against the American people. WE cant even convince them the 2 partys are very different and as soon as we START to do just that , we get the DLC echo chamber "ONLY nominate a Southerner" which will bury us yet another election.

We finally got a decent turnout in 2004.Though the DLC had enough of an inluence that it wasnt high enough plus record Latino urnout actually saw the GOP get its highest vote ever.

WE should just sign a contract with the moderates that if we let them cost us another election in 2004 then they need to finally (FINALLY!) give us a chance at winning in 2012.

Fine moderates (or fake progressives), nominate whatever looser you want in 08 , just dont blame us.

[Q]

139. Yes...it's clear that Democrats have the backing of at least half...

...of the country. Millions more would support us if they knew the whole truth about the Bush* government and the corporate media. The most dangerous thing to a despotic government is an informed citizenry.

Yet...you'll see no complaints from the self-described moderates and the DLCers about our free press becoming stenographers for the Bush* regime. They simply try to explain away the lies and fraud as signs of the country 'moving to the right' and becoming more conservative.

The DLC's infuence on Kerry's campaign was apparent. His attempt to move away from the progressives and social Democrats and at the same time embrace the corporate agenda made him appear willing to sacrifce 'our' principles in order to win.

There was an opportunity during the Clinton years for the progressives and centrists to work together for the good of the party. But Clinton's 'third way' actually eliminated the involvement of the progressives.

History shows that the Democratic party lost the support of many of the 'southern' states after the civil rights act of 1964 and the 'new deal'. The DLC was created to get them back by comproming the very values that made the civil rights act the and new deal possible.