Will Marshall (Wash Post, April 2003): Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Washington Post via New Democrats online
Dated April 30, 2003
Posted on NDOL May 1, 2003

The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle
By Will Marshall

The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.

Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation.

Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed.

I couldn't resist posting this ironic piece today.

Yesterday, the British people chastised the Labour Party for Tony Blair's stubborn insistence on leading Britain into an illegal and unnecessary war behind Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives. Blair even justified the war to the British with the same pack of lies that the Bushies used to sell the war to Americans and attempted -- with no success -- to sell it to the rest of the world.

The British elections have been held. Labour has held on to power, but only because they had so much to give away. Having about 100 seats shaved off their parliamentary majority is nothing to be too happy about. If Labour held the kind of majorities it held with Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in the sixties, a Tory government under Michael Howard would be in power today.

The reason is clear: Four percent of the British public shifted their vote from Labour, led by Tony Blair, to the Liberal Democrats, who consistently opposed the US neoconservatives' illegal war of aggression in itself and Britain's participation in it. This allowed the Liberal Democrats to take about a dozen seats away from Labour.

Although the Conservative Party is the principal beneficiary of yesterday's election, this cannot be seen as a Conservative comeback. In terms of voter share, the Tories' improvement over the previous general election (June 2001) was marginal. Their gains came through the back door when voters shifted from Labour to Liberal Democrat in about 30 marginal districts.

Emblematic of Labour's demise yesterday was the narrow defeat of Blair loyalist and war hawk Oona King in Bethnal Green at the hands of George Galloway, who was expelled from Labour in October 2003 for his opposition to Blair's war policies.

There is no other way to evaluate the results of the British election yesterday: Labour was punished because Tony Blair stood behind Bush instead of behind the 80% of the British public who opposed a war that they knew was unnecessary and was being predicated by lies.

The Labour Party itself would do well to finish the job and evict Mr. Blair from Number 10 Downing Street soon.

This war is a loser. Bush is a pariah who will infect all who embrace him. Let that be a warning to "Blair Democrats".

[Crunchy Frog]

1. I won't say anything about the "Blair Democrats"

because I've made a pledge to not go negative on Democrats on this board. Nevertheless, this is the kind of thing that sometime pushes me close to just going Green.

[Southsideirish]

2. Sick, just so sick.

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for the rememberance..........Amazing isn't it.

It just galls me how our DLC/New Democrats tried to have Iraq both ways.
Staying in the "middle" seemed oh so clever at the time to them. How will that rotten crow taste in the next few years.

And how many of the DLC/New Democrats in addition to Will Marshall did we read or hear make this same statement in the first year of Iraq Invasion which given the mess in Iraq right now and Blair's losses yesterday, seems bizarre.
Quote from Marshall's article:

"The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush."

[Jacobin]

4. "The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq"

Oh its a "stunner" alright.....

:eyes:

You couldn't make this shit up.

Guess he couldn't make a living as a male Miss Cleo with his prognostications, so he got a job as a WaPo Whore.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Actually, Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute

The PPI is the New Democrats' version of PNAC. It advocates many of the same approaches to foreign policy. Marshall has even signed PNAC letters. It's no surprise that he would embrace Bush's war and urge Democrats to do likewise.

I try very hard not to use the term DINO, but Marshall really makes it difficult at times.

It seems to me that the Iraq war is a disaster and was an inevitable disaster from its inception. Better planning would have helped, but not much. Iraqis would still be opposed to foreign occupation, would still resent any underhanded attempts to put their natural resources in foreign hands and would still be on the brink of civil war along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Kerry is one of the "Blair Democrats" lauded by Marshall. Of course, I voted for him last November. It wasn't because I agreed with what he said about Iraq. I didn't. Nevertheless, Kerry is a pragmatist who would have tried two or three different ways to salvage the US position in Iraq and, once they had all failed, withdrawn.

I don't know whether Marshall is any such pragmatist or not. I'd rather not give him enough power to find out.

This piece makes him look like a fool.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Damn, I wish I had a dick....

so I could tell Will Marshall to bite it! :mad:

I am more certain than ever that this "Democratic" group is a planted cancer in the Party.

BTW, hey JR! :hi:

[mistertrickster]

7. What was Kerry's biggest liability while running? That he had voted

FOR the war. Everytime he criticised Bush's policies, Bush would come back with, "he saw the same intelligence I did, and voted FOR the war . . ."

Kinda hard to nuance your way out of that one.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Except Bush was lying, and shirking his own responsibility-

-For illegally invading against every international and national agreement as yet reached, and by letting him blame Kerry, the media (and dare I say it, Democrats) let him get away with washing his hands of HIS OWN deception and dishonesty and promise-breaking.

Now THAT'S shameful.

[zalinda]

9. BUT, he didn't see the same intelligence

and he didn't vote for the war. It's a far cry from "demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq" to voted for the war. He voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, as a LAST resort. This "vote" was to be a threat to Saddam, not a declaration of war. He made that very clear in his speech before the vote. He never thought that Bush would actually bring this country into a war, as a FIRST step, because NO rational leader would ever do that.

Keep bashing dems, and keep the reps in power! That's the ticket!

zalinda

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. That has been a weasal point...

for all the DEMS who voted for the war. One after another they got up and claimed that they were not voting for war, but they all knew better than that. Robert Byrd stood there and told them the truth. Barbara Boxer told them the truth. Dennis Kucinich told them the truth. They knew the truth of what they were doing.

But they voted that way because it gave them political coverage and wiggle room -- come election time they could say, "Hey I didn't vote for the war, just to give Bush the authority as a last result, don't blame me!"

The day they voted on the IWR was one of the most cowardly days in the Senate history.

And there are over a thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands dead Iraqis who have paid the price for that cowardice.

[zalinda]

11. Keep thinking that way, you know best

I guess all those dems who are in DC are just really stupid or are there for their own gain. We have NO idea what goes on behind the scenes, yes, the vote was political, just in case we really HAD to go to war. If Saddam REALLY had WMD's how would the dems have looked like, if they ALL said no to forcing Saddam to disarm, by saying war was a possibility.

I'm sorry, while I don't always agree with what the dems do, I WILL NOT bash them, because I don't know the whole story. Watching the West Wing for these past few years have taught me that there is much more going on behind the scenes than we really know. Some dems are bad, yes, then work on getting them out of office, but bashing the majority of dems because of your own bias, does nothing to further the progressive movement.

zalinda

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. "Progressive"...

you mean like Will Marshall is "progressive"???

Puh-lease.

Based on the intel at the time -- the real stuff, not the OSP crap -- there wasn't a single good reason to invade Iraq and they knew it. Outside of Bush's push for the PNAC agenda WE WERE NEVER HAVING TO GO TO WAR.

I was here on DU when this was all going down. I know the truth. Clearly you don't know the whole story. Hopefully the archives will be back up someday so you can do some educating of yourself.

BTW, just about all the Progressives in Congress voted against IWR. Because they are Progressive and they knew the truth too.


From Robert Byrd's speech before the Senate on October 3, 2002 - just days before they voted on the IWR:

http://www.narsil.org/war_on_iraq/byrd_oct_2_2002.html

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

snip


Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?

snip

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

snip

The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need - the American people need - information and informed debate.



It is well worth reading Byrd's entire speech -- the man saw completely what was coming and called it like it was. How terrible it must feel to look down the road and know the horror that is coming. What a terrible thing to live with.

[stevedeshazer]

13. You do know that "The West Wing" is fiction, right?

That said, when your party's politicians continue to vote against your interests half the time, is it good enough?

Not for me.

[zalinda]

24. Of course, I know it is fiction

but, many politicians have said that is a truer look at politics than any other political drama. It's just that politics IS NOT a black or white situation, there are all kinds of things that are going on that we are not privy to. But, brushing all dems with the same brush is really not fair. They were voted in by their districts, which means that their district must be satisfied with them.

zalinda

[Jack Rabbit]

17. My piece on the eve of the war

From Democratic Underground
Dated February 28, 2003

Mr. Bush's Colonial War
By Jack Rabbit

In the past year, Mr. Bush and those in his inner circle have put together several reasons for going to war against Iraq. However, each reason that they have given either has been called into question by credible sources or outright refuted. It would seem that if there were a good case for war, it would have been made now. Furthermore, it would seem that if there were a good case for war, Mr. Bush's people would be in foreign capitals making that case instead of resorting to threats and bribes in order to secure a favorable vote in the Security Council.

The reasons given for the war have been that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America; that he is a threat to his neighbors in the Middle East; that he aids al-Qaida; that he is in material breach of UN resolutions; that he possesses weapons of mass destruction; that he is a brutal dictator.

The first reason is simply preposterous. Whatever weapons Saddam possesses or merely have been suggested he possesses, none are able to reach the shores of the United States. For the second charge, Saddam's neighbors have shown very little enthusiasm for this war. Were he a bona fide threat, they would be showing much more. That he aids or is even associated in any way with al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden is absurd. Osama regards Saddam as a socialist infidel who should be overthrown and killed. Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalists in Saddam's Iraq come in for some of Saddam's harshest repressive measures. These two are not allies. The charges that he is in material breach of UN resolutions and that he possess weapons of mass destruction are for the most part the same charge, since the resolutions of which he accused of breaching are those that directed his disarm after the 1991 war as well as a more recent resolution under which inspectors have returned to Iraq. The inspectors have found nothing of significance and while the chief inspectors, Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, have expressed a belief that Iraq's cooperation could be better, they have not indicated that they have been prevented from executing their mission.

That Saddam is a brutal dictator is true. However, this is not in and of itself reason to go to war. If it were, we would go to war against many other brutal dictators, some of whom are our allies.

To the refutation of their reasons for going to war, Mr. Bush and his associates have responded with bluster and propaganda. They continue to repeat what has been refuted.

Read more.

The fact is that we knew quite a bit prior to the war. For instance, we knew that intelligence was being cooked in the Pentagon. While the White House and its supporters were hyping links between al Qaida and Iraq, the BBC debunked the only solid story supporting this theory. The BBC also frequently reported that Saddam's military capability was not even at the level it was following the 1991 war. As for Saddam's weapons, we knew that former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was poking holes in administration claims and that the UN knew that General Kamel had ordered Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed shortly after the end of the 1991 war. It made no sense to us that if Saddam was swimming in banned weapons, as claimed by the administration, that UN weapons inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003 would have found no significant violations. We knew that IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei called the Niger document a forgery and debunked many other administration claims about Iraq's nuclear capability before the war started.

Accurate information was available. We knew that Bush and his lieutenants were lying. Granted, our sources were the foreign press and even alternative press on the web; anybody who was relying on CNN and The New York Times for information was probably as misinformed as somebody watching FoxNews 24/7. Of course, there were many knee jerk pacifists who protested Bush's plans for war during its run up. However, many of us marched as informed citizens who knew that Saddam, brutal as he was, was no threat to anyone and had no ties to al Qaida.

If that information was available to us, then it was available to members of Congress. They really don't have a good excuse for voting for the IWR. I will grant that the IWR was a more complex document that one that simply said, "We're going to war with Iraq," but to think that Bush was being straightforward or the administration was not "being fixed around the policy," as a recently disclosed memo confirms, was simply naive. Bush has never deserved the benefit of any doubt, and it was at this time and over this matter that he least deserved it.

Calling the reasons for voting for the IWR lame is not bashing anyone, regardless of party affiliation. It is a judgment based on facts.

[kimchi]

28. Thanks, Jack Rabbit.

Thanks for reminding us of what WE knew before the war. And if a housewife knew, then the damn senators and congressfools knew it too.

So they were either lazy, ignorant, or spineless to vote for the IWR. Pick one.

I'd say in most cases it was the fear of being portrayed as anti-American. This fascist shit just never gets old, does it?

[bvar22]

45. In addition to Jack Rabbit' s post,

we also had this:

..."seven months before 9/11, George Tenet testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States."

"in a Feb. 12, 2001 interview with the Fox News Channel Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.”

"...intelligence reports released by the CIA and more than 100 interviews top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. never believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm


and this:

" And frankly they (the UN Sanctions) have worked. He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell Feb 24, 2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." ---Condoleezza Rice on CNN July 29, 2001

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm


All of these top officials in the Bush* administration TESTIFIED in the months leading up to 9-11 that Saddam was NO THREAT to anyone outside of his country. Immediately after 9-11, they ALL changed their assessments 180 degrees. NONE explained their switch in position, offered new evidence, or even admitted that they HAD IN FACT changed their position. No one in the MSM questioned them on their flip flops.

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. Will Marshall is no Democrat

And I will bash treasonous criminal shit for brains turds like him until my dying breath or until they cease to exist, which ever comes first.

[PassingFair]

34. That's right Zalinda...don't worry your pretty little head over this

...I'm sure the big boys in DC have their reasons. Thank goodness you keep up on "West Wing". Now run along and play and let the daddies in DC handle things for you.
:puke:

[mistertrickster]

16. Yup, I totally agree. When Kerry said that he believed Bush, I had

pinch myself and say, what joy juice has this guy been drinking.

All the Dems who even SEEMED to be supporting the invasion (whether they were or not, and that includes Hillary and a lot of otherwise good people) bear culpability in the quagmire of death that has resulted.

It would have taken a lot of guts to oppose the President Liar's war. And that was more guts than our side had at the time.

We need to face up to our party's shortcomings and confront them with them--not sugar-coat and rationalize them like the right-wing does.

[ooglymoogly]

25. ahhhhh but therein lies the ambush

the snares.....and it was not long after 9/11...who would have dared.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Senator Bob Graham somehow figured it out and spoke out FIERCELY

against going to war. Now that's integrity. Also, Scott Ritter says he tried to no avail to convince Kerry that the WMD rationale was Bush-bogus. Edwards sat on the same Intelligence Committee as Bob Graham.

[getmeouttahere]

14. It comes down to this...when dealing with extremists...

we must be a true opposition party...if we give them an inch, by going to the center, they will take 2 miles...that should be obvious by what is happening now...People like Boxer & Kucinich are acting like true opponents...we need all dems to stand up and move from the center, because the center in this country right now is still the right!!!

[KissMyAsscroft]

15. Stunning success.....?????????

It's a failure on every level. We invaded a neutered defenseless country and bombed a bunch of people living in absolute squalor. They didn't even have any AIRCRAFT!!

Americans are getting killed, Iraqis are getting killed, infrastructure is not being built, insurgents are getting stronger, all of our coalition of the bribed are pulling out, world anger is making it difficult for Americans to travel abroad, we're not getting any oil out of the deal because the pipelines keep getting blown up.

The only people that the war is a stunning success for is Halliburton and Carlyle, who just HAPPENS to be who the President and VP owe allegiance to.

Yet to the fucking DINOs that represent us, that is simply not to be talked about. It would clash with their chardonnay and cheese.

Fucking cocksuckers. I hope they all choke. Democrats marginalized their party for 20 years with that cowardly act of appeasement and now they expect our vote?

Howard Dean is the only viable option. No Democrat is going to win the Presidency for the next 15 years because, due to their spinelessness, they will always be Repub lite.

[Zhade]

18. Oh, FUCK this PNAC-endorsing asshole.

He's endorsed several PNAC documents. He is unworthy of being spit upon. Fuck him right down to hell, along with all his neocon buddies.

Can you tell I don't like Will "PNAC rocks!" Marshall?

[NVMojo]

19. Actually, this is good info. We can't win the game if we don't look at

the score and the strategy that was used....

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. This treasonous piece of shit Marshall should be in a Federal Prison.....

...not claiming to speak for the Democratic Party.

And as for any "Democrats" who would choose to be aligned with a spineless poodle like Blair, don't get me started.

I'll say this for Poodle though. At least he has the balls to listen to the British people criticize his bullshit policies and his appeasement of Bush/PNAC. That elevates him above the Chimp, at least.

[Zorra]

22. Will Marshall helped found the DLC.

Rightweb on Will Marshall:
snip----
Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

It has always seemed to me that the DLC was established and financed (during the Reagan era) by RW corporations to neutralize the Democratic Party.

“Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right.” - George Lakoff

[ooglymoogly]

23. i do believe that is the dumbest piece of drivel and clap trap

i have ever encountered.....have you visited earth lately will?...geeeesh...i thought i was reading an article from the washington times propaganda rag...though wapo has sunk just as low and deserves zilch respect

[ms liberty]

26. I think the egg on his face has dried quite nicely, don't you?

And so much of it, too!

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Whose face?

Marshall's or Blair's?

[ms liberty]

40. Both! n/t

[bonzotex]

29. Nice reminder...

Every Democrat that voted to give Bush carte-blanche to go to war should hang their head in shame and dedicate the rest of their lives to helping repair that ghastly mistake. There was enough evidence well before the vote for any conscientious Dem to question Bushco's motives and the cooked intelligence. Beside that, all representatives that voted "yeah" abrogated their constitutional responsibility to decide when where and how the US goes to War. None of these folks, Dem or repug deserve slack on that one. There are good Democrat office holders that deserve our support, but in spite of their war vote, not because they blither some weasel rationalization. The second they show any signs of again betraying Progressive principals and giving any President permission to violate the Constitution we need to find better candidates to support. The Bankruptcy Bill crossover Dems are another perfect example. We have to hold our party's members to account as well as fight the Neocons.

It's not OK to sell out.

Don't forget, don't forgive. Reward good behavior. Punish bad behavior. We don't have to support compromised, weak, gutless leaders to win. We are the majority party at the voter level. We have plenty of good candidates. Don't fall for some entrenched DINO operator whining how we have to "play ball", be pragmatic, go with the experienced name candidate to win. We can win with ideas, the truth and sticking to principles.

[KissMyAsscroft]

30. Well said...

Damn skippy.

I will add that I don't think we are going to win any elections for awhile. It's going to take rebuilding our crooked bought off party from the ground. Howard Dean is the only guy doing that right now.

[Zhade]

41. Indeed. Well-said.

NT!

[bvar22]

44. That is how Wellstone repeatedly beat the odds...

...and the advice of the most knowlegable political pundits."


Thanks, bonzotex!
"Don't fall for some entrenched DINO operator whining how we have to "play ball", be pragmatic, go with the experienced name candidate to win. We can win with ideas, the truth and sticking to principles."

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Bump for the evening crowd

How would you like to be called a "Blair Democrat" today?

[ClarkUSA]

33. It isn't just the DLC cheerleading Blair -- DNC sent top staff to the UK

Blair Democrats...how fitting, considering the DNC sent their Field Director, former Dean NH campaign director Karen Hicks there to help GOTV:

ROCHDALE, England, May 2 - Between plates of curry and mugs of ale, volunteers studied tattered lists of registered voters at the Labor Party's headquarters here.

In a corner, examining a computer screen displaying demographic data about the electoral makeup of this hard-fought district, was Karen Hicks, the former New Hampshire campaign manager for Howard Dean and field director for the Democratic National Committee.

Ms. Hicks's presence here in the final days of the national British election campaign underlines what has become an urgent concern of the Labor Party as it works to ensure the re-election of Prime Minister Tony Blair: turning out Labor voters who seem strikingly unenthusiastic at the prospect of a third Blair term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/international/europe/03britain.html

[Anarcho-Socialist]

35. Karl Rove helped the Conservative Party too n/t

[Englander]

36. Ha! "Election: Lib Dems take Rochdale"

"THE Liberal Democrats turfed Labour out of Rochdale after a night of high drama at the town hall.

Lib Dem candidate Paul Rowen unseated Labour's Lorna Fitzsimons after a recount which meant the result was only formally announced at 2.45am.

It is understood Ms Fitzsimons - who refused to speak to journalists after learning of her defeat - blamed thousands of postal votes that were added to the count at the last minute.

Both parties had been expecting a close fight. At 1.30am, acting returning officer, Roger Ellis called the candidates and their agents to the centre of the counting area and said that the Lib Dems had won by 441. A recount was requested, which then showed a majority of 442 for M Rowen, who is Rochdale Council's Lib Dem group leader."

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/157/157566_election_lib_dems_take_rochdale.html


And btw NYT,it's LaboUr,dammit!:)

[vota]

49. Blaming postal voting

Many Returning Officers warned about the possibility of fraud if postal voting was extended without reform of the system, but Labour just went ahead.

A bit like the way they went into Iraq! Look before you leap must be the lesson.

Incidentally, postal voting fraud seems to have happened in Bethnal Green and Bow, where Labour lost to ex-Labour anti-war campaigner George Galloway. But in this constituency the fraud seems to have come from Labour supporters.

On second thoughts, I wonder if Labour are as stupid as they seem...

[Apollo11]

37. Will Marshall is wrong is so many ways

The "liberation of Iraq" is anything but a "stunning success". How many coalition soldiers killed, injured and traumatised? How many innocent civilians killed, injured and traumatised? The country and its basic infrastructure is in ruins. Most economic and social life has been largely wiped out. Car bombs and other insurgent activity is costing dozens of lives almost every day. The political situation is unstable and civil war can only be prevented by ongoing military occupation.

Recent polls show that the majority of American (and also British) citizens agree on 3 things:
- Saddam was not a significant military threat to anyone outside Iraq.
- Bush and Blair distorted the facts and lied about the intelligence.
- The costs of the war, in terms of lives lost, outweigh any benefits we will get from the so-called liberation of Iraq.

Blair's Labour Party received only 35% of the vote, with a participation rate of 61%. So that makes about 22% of the registered voters. Less than 10 million, out of around 40 million registered voters. And many of them probably do not accept the Bush/Blair explanation of the invasion of Iraq. Rather they voted Labour to stop the Conservatives (who are even more pro-war than Blair) from taking over. And the total also includes those who voted for a Labour candidate who opposed the war. (That's because in the UK system - you don't vote directly for the Prime Minister)

But luckily Howard Dean was not the "only" Democrat who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq. That's why I'm dreaming of a Gore-Boxer ticket in 2008 !! :)

[Apollo11]

38. Wait a second!

I just saw that article is two years old!

OK - now I get why it's ironic ... ;)

[Jack Rabbit]

39. Welcome to DU, Apollo

We had a lot of fun with Marshall's piece two years ago, too.

And I've been waiting for two years for this moment to post it again.

[Zhade]

42. I've noticed there are no DLC apologists in this thread.

I hope that's because they're too ashamed to show their faces.

[bushclipper]

43. what is the source for the second article?

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Second article

The italicized comments in the root post are mine. They were written yesterday.

The article in post 17 was written by me and appeared on the home page of DU about three weeks before the invasion; the additional comments in post 17 are mine and were written yesterday, although I have written similar posts over the last two years and even made the same argument from the same set of facts in some articles that have appeared on the DU home page.

[Wizard777]

47. In this Republic of Democracy

We now have a Republican Party that seek to defend only the land. Thus leaving our Ass hanging out. Much like it was done in our Pledge of allegiance. Using God to deny the US Constitution that was formed of the essence of his word, Freedom. Now we find ourselves at the Mount being asked. God or Country? With my gift of freewill I exercise my Heretical right to chose the unseen. I choose them both! In this Patriot they shall always be as One. Do not be deceived. 1/3 did choose. But always remember that 2/3 Chose Heaven and were made invincible by He who is invisible and therefore Indivisible. Allow no man nor group of men to part your ways to give you that which is already yours.

:dilemma: :patriot: O8)

[marions ghost]

48. does anybody know what the DLC

and Will Marshall are saying these days?

Or are they awfully quiet?