Fed up with this....Can`t you just get along with the DLC?....threads?

[LynneSin]

I'm so glad it's all about you! I'm so glad that your comforts are so important that you can't get the basic concept across of why a democratic majority regardless of each democrat's ideology is so extremely important.

It isn't about YOU

It's about a majority where we have control of congressional legislation. We have control of the committees - some of them chaired by some of our favorite liberal democrats like Conyers, Waxman, Kennedy, Leahy, etc.

It's about making sure the legislation that we put together actually gets voted on the floor and not buried in committee.

It's more than you - its our country and if there are more registered republican senators and/or represenatives than registered democrat senators and/or democrats then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL CHANGE EVEN IF WE GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WE DON'T LIKE AND REPLACE CLONES SPLICED FROM THE DNA OF BOXER, WELLSTONE, FEINGOLD, CONYERS AND BOTH JFK & FDR.

I have a DLC democratic senator coming up for election and although he's not as bad as Lieberman, I'm still not keen on the guy. If he has a primary opponent I will vote for that opponent (in Delaware though it wasn't expected). But in November I will vote for Tom Carper with the BIGGEST smile on my face because my vote is not an endorsement of Carper but an endorsement of a democratic majority.

And btw, when I attended a book signing of "Crashing the Gate" by the owners of the blogs DailyKos and MyDD even they spoke about this same exact concept even though their book was about crashing the democratic party and making changes. They realize that party change isn't going to happen with one election but long term plans where we start from scratch and build candidates in all 50 states. But with Republicans controlling everything in DC we do NOT have the luxury to turn away any democrat out there.

I've said it so much I might as well tatoo this to my forehead so perhaps someone gets a clue:

Primary Elections: Vote out bad democrats
General Elections: Vote out all REPUBLICANS (meaning those registered republicans)

:rant:

[The Magistrate]

1. Well Said, Ma'am!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[skipos]

2. Agreed. nt

[emulatorloo]

3. If Dems take back the Senate, Senator Pat "Cover-up" Roberts goes BYE BYE

from his committee chair. And that is very very bad news for Bush and his minions.

Seems to me that is worth putting up w a few less than perfect Dems.

[LynneSin]

7. Orrin Hatch goes bye-bye on Judiciary

and when we had control in 2001-2, democrats blocked every single radical judge that Bush sent him. WOuldn't it be easier to fight judicial nominations when there are only 12 people we need to persuade instead of 50?

And one thing about the Judiciary - no one gets on it that is anti-choice

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Now or if we are in the majority?

"And one thing about the Judiciary - no one gets on it that is anti-choice"

[DinahMoeHum]

4. I agree wholeheartedly about your sentiment re primaries

and general elections.

Once primaries are done, then we get to the business of kicking Repuke ass out of Washington.

However, once we take the House and/or Senate, there should be no guarantee the likes of Pelosi or Reid will remain in their positions.

For instance, if (G*d forbid) Lieberman wins, fine, but as punishment for selling out other Democrats, he should NOT be given a ranking position on any committee ever again.

:kick:

[LynneSin]

8. You know we badmouth Lieberman but he's one of the reasons Enron tanked

After Bush was first selected, California energy rates started to go through the roof. Bush refused to get involved saying it was not 'our problem' what was happening in California and the energy costs continued to skyrocket while companies like ENron were raking in the cash.

As soon as democrats got control, Joe Lieberman, chair of the Gov Affairs committee which investigates government oversite decided to use his committee to investigate what was happening. Probably helped that he had pressure from another committee member, Dianne Feinstein about the issue.

Energy costs tanked and it was reveled that Enron had cooked books and was using California to get back their money.

Joe is ok for certain committees where we know he could be of use without hurting the party. Gov't Affairs chair is kinda the throwaway you give someone who is ranking for a committee seat but a bit of a wild card to give an important one.

However, if he got the environment chair I would have no objects there - he's one of the biggest advocates to protect our environment

[KoKo]

17. As long as you know that Dodd and Lieberman loosened SEC Regulations

and that "team" did really bad stuff that helped our "Tech Bubble" which assured the reign of the Corporate Thieves.

Just so you know....And I wouldn't support Lieberman or Dodd for anything..although I must say...Dodd tried to thwart the trashing of Hugo Chavez...so he has more brains and isn't as tied into the Likud and Corporatists as Lieberman. He voted NO on Hayden today...maybe he's seen the "light." He's also "floating" running for Pres.

[emcguffie]

5. What about the machines? NT

[The Magistrate]

6. Is It Then Your Prescription, Ma'am, That No One Bother To Vote?

After all, the "machines" will make it a pointless exercise....

[emcguffie]

9. I think it's more important to fix the machines, or else

the voting will never count again. Why vote, when it won't count? Why vote, if there's not going to be any real exit poll?

Why not set up local parallel elections and/or exit polls?

It just strikes me as utterly hopeless. The same thing will happen again. And nothing will happen again. We'll all meet on DU in agony the next morning, or in the wee hours, and wring our collective hands, there will be some scattered demonstrations, there may even be lots of demonstrations. If necessary, they'll just implement martial law.

We need to plan something, have a plan in place to deal with what is going to happen. So I see this talk about winning elections as misplaced energy.

That's all.

Go ahead and vote. Just like you did in 2000 and in 2004. How much good did it do you then?

[LynneSin]

10. I think you have some valid points but we still need to vote

If we get a high enough turnout of votes for democrats it makes it more difficult for them to fix the vote. I mean, Katherine Harris is like 30 points behind Ben Nelson in Florida. If she were to somehow win the election it would be total alarms going off that it was fixed.

The bigger lead we can secure now the better chance that the election won't be fixed or at least affected by the fix.

But will still need to fix those damn machines!

[emcguffie]

26. I appreciate your point of view, but --

-- I believe you are just plain old naive.

Are you good at math? Do you understand numbers? Are you willing to be convinced? Or are you one of those that cannot accept statistics as evidence? If you can't, it's because it's something you don't get, and it's also because the media has taught you that it is nonsense to accept it.

If the media had been busy teaching you for the past eight years that statistics were reliable, then you would be saying, hmm, yes, exit polls must work.....

The statistics prove it all. You have to be willing to crack your brain a little bit.

We won both elections. Maybe you don't want to see it, because it is very painful to recognize that it is a fait d'accompli, that they have indeed taken over our government. But they have.

Please excuse me for my opinionatedness. I'm just tired of pussyfooting around. It hasn't done any good. And this is where I stand.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I would challenge you to back it up with some numbers and valid mathematical -- theorems? Is that the right word? Because I don't think you really can.

Although I kind of wish you could.

[emcguffie]

52. I hope that you are right.

But "hope" isn't a very good thing to depend on when the stakes are as high as they are today.

I would feel much better if we had some certainty. We don't have any certainty. We do have certainty that the American people are tired of this nonsense. We do not have any certainty that the elections will bear that out.

Just as, no matter how disgusted the American people get, guys like Hayden breeze through without any trouble whatsoever.

With those guys with all the power, it doesn't matter what the American people believe, think, want, or feel. With the media being controlled, the American people are just little lab rats, who can usually be convinced to believe, think and want what they are told to. Okay, sometimes they wake up. But they can always be lulled back to sleep. Until maybe one day they can't, and then you can resort to martial law and throw the troublemakers into all those camps they're paying Halliburton to get ready... or whoever it is they're paying.

One stitch in time saves nine. Why wait until after another stolen election to get ready for another stolen election?

just call me worrywart

[The Magistrate]

11. Unpalatable Though It May Be, Ma'am

Room must always be left for the possibility that the opposition actually gets more votes in a district or a state or the nation at large....

[emcguffie]

29. Room has been left for that.

Unpalatable as it may be, room must also be left for the unbearable conclusion -- after careful examination of evidence and numbers and data, including exit poll data, which was somewhat mysteriously altered, and this can be demonstrated to you -- that our last two elections have been stolen.

That, indeed, the will of the people has been thwarted. That the American people are not so stupid as it appears. That they actually voted for Al Gore, and then, in even greater numbers, for John Kerry, but the machine fixed it.

This is a possibility. Surely, if you want to insist the opposite is a possibility, you must then admit that this too exists as a possibility?

Would you like to sit down with some numbers?

Are you what they call a freeper?

Do you mind if I ask you whom you voted for?

Of course, you could be, understandably, unwilling to allow the possibility that that most horrible of possibilities has taken place, that our democracy has been compromised. But I cannot know through cyberspace what you really mean.

I do know what I mean. And I mean no offense to you personally. I think what you are doing -- there is certainly some name for this in the field of logic, when you point to how it came out and say, surely, this must have been possible? When the point is that there has been all this proof that that indeed is what did not happen. Surely, it is possible, is it not, that that did not happen? That we did not elect George W. Bush? Surely, it is possible? Don't you think? Especially since now there is no way to go back and make sure just whom we did elect?

Doesn't that make you just a little bit suspicious?

[The Magistrate]

31. Just For Future Reference, Ma'am

Either openly stating or gingerly implying another member of this forum is "a freeper" is a violation of the rules. Discussion can be carried out, and even disagreement pressed, and pressed hard, without recourse to such epithets: indeed, members are required to do so. If you genuinely feel someone is a trolling rightist, by all means use the alert function, and the moderators will look into it and decide if you are right or not.

To deal with the body of your comments. It is quite clear there was a degree of sharp practice in the recent election, and the previous one as well, that was more one-sided than usual. Most of this took place long before the polls opened, and relates to matters like purges of voter rolls and allocation of equipment. This sort of "shaping the battleground" is how the dark art is generally practiced in the modern day, whereas formerly "stuffing the box" was the general method. Evidence backing the assertion that the actual vote of those who turned out and persevered to cast legal ballots, albeit legal in the sometimes tortured sense of the term employed by partisan officials, was signifigantly different than the reported totals, is a good deal less substantial and convincing. It mostly consists of proclaimed possibilities being asserted as facts, and requires that the assumptions of the person pressing the point be shared for conviction to be generated. Proceeding from these unproven assertions to adoption of the position that all attempts at voting Republicans out of office are fore-doomed in consequence is an enterprise that is useless as a practical political line, and therefore is unprofitable to subscribe to. Its most likely effect is that of any form of defeatism, namely a dimunition of effort in the cause, taking the form in this case of reducing the number of people who turn out to vote. That is an outcome we cannot afford to risk.

[emcguffie]

32. When you say "this sort of 'shaping the battleground' is how the dark--

-- art is generally practiced in the modern day", -- does this mean you have encountered this, and are an expert from personal experience?

How do you know that this is is how the "dark art" is practiced in the modern age? Especially since with the new computerized machines there isn't really any way to go back and see for sure exactly what DID happen?

Maybe you have some kind of second sight? Some kind of other-wordly knowing? How do you know, when no one else can know? WHen the whole point of this worry about these machines is that no one can KNOW? once you have used them, there is no way to KNOW. Isn't that the point? And then, if you look at that, the fact that you cannot KNOW who did what, and put that in the context of all the numbers so many people have so carefully collected, and the testimonies that perhaps you have not taken the time to listen to, then it all becomes hurtfully clear. At least, to some of us.

Then the question becomes, what makes you different from me? Why do I see something that you do not? I think there are many of us that have spent years on this. And if we have brains that work -- and I do believe many of us do, indeed, have very good brains that work quite well -- and we cannot see what YOU see, whatever it is, does that therefore mean that it is not possible that this did happen? Does that then mean that we, who cannot see what you see, are -- or, wait -- you, who cannot see what we see, are ...? I've lost it here. I don't seem to have a suitable metaphor at hand. What is your ultimate point? What do you want to achieve? Do you want to prove that election fraud could not have happened? That George W. Bush was legitimately elected?

I hesitate to suggest it, because I'm completely unsure, but -- gasp -- could you be setting up -- STRAW PEOPLE?!!!

I know not. Go ahead, make fun of me. My brains are just fine. I don't know what's going on with yours. They're obviously very different from mine. That doesn't say mine are better, or yours are better, but they are, definitely, different.

Let's talk in another five or six years, okay?

ETM

[The Magistrate]

33. As My Son Says, Ma'am

"Dad, you're a one in a million guy...so there's a thousand Chinese just like you."

[El Fuego]

12. Thank you, LynneSin.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[Robbien]

13. Sorry, no. On a day when we get Hayden and Kavanaugh

with the support of the DLC, I say no.

[SaveElmer]

16. Had nothing to do with the DLC...

Four DLC members voted against him...

Ten Non-DLC voted against him....

About proportional to the number of DLC members in the Senate.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Sorta off topic; Is this list accurate?

Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats"

[cmd]

14. I'm with you, LynneSin

Primaries are not the finish line - only the beginning of the playoff.

[MrBenchley]

15. Amen to that....

And I'm going to repeat two observations of recent posting activity:

Here's one: Nancy Pelosi doesn't support an impeachment motion now....so according to our "left Democrats" she's a "lameass", "gutless wonder", "useless, spineless, posturing, fingerintheair asswipe", part of the "Elite Ruling Class who are there to protect the status quo of fascism", a "Pro-War Monger", "stupid, irresponsible", "worse than Tojo!...practically Adolf Eichmann to Bush's Milosevic", "another politician not willing to enforce the laws of the United States when it comes to the executive branch", "wimp", etc. etc. etc...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2489288

Non-Democrat Bernie Sanders doesn't support an impeachment notion now...but he's just "pragmatic"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2502793

*****

And here's the other: Just in this folder alone there's only 35 threads attacking George Allen, the racist senator from Virginia, and just nine promoting James Webb, the Democrat fighting to defeat him. But there are more threads than "Search" can display attacking Democrat Joe Lieberman (the function stopped at 123 threads)....

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

18. BTW: Questions for LynneSin and Magistrate...

Do you support Howard Dean as DNC Chair or would you have preferred another Candidate. Do you think Rahm Emmanuels attack on Dean was justified?

:shrug: I'd like to know since I view myself to the Left of both of you.

Thanks...

[The Magistrate]

28. To Answer Your Question, Ma'am

Gov. Dean wass not my first choice for D.N.C., and the prospect of his elevation there troubled me. However, he won the post fair and square, and has occuppied it with distinction. He is doing an excellent job, and I am very glad he is in that office today.

What atrack by Rep. Emmanuel on Gov. Dean you mean is unclear to me. If you are refering to recent reports of a dispute between them over allocation of funds, that is a matter where it seems to me both have excellent grounds for their views, and further, that their differences are those normally to be expected on occassion between a person charged with long-term strategy and a person charged with immediate tactical success. What may best serve one will not always serve the other. Gov. Dean's over-all view of the need to build up the Party in all fifty states is sound, and in my view is the correct course for the future. Rep. Emmanuel's view that resources must be husbanded for concentration at the critical moment in decisive areas of the Congressional campaign is the soundest tactical doctrine for the short-term aim of getting as many seats into the Democratic column as possible. Where both are right by the light of the duties they are charged with, it is hard to choose sides. It would be pleasant if resources were so ample there need be no quarrel over their distribution. It seems important to point out that this quarrel is hardly an ideological one, any more than a dust-up between a colonel who wants a bombardment on his regiment's front immediately and a general who has only two days' supply of shells for the division's guns is an ideological one. There remains the possibility fundraising efforts will gather momentum and enable a sufficient job to be done in both spheres.

[Writer]

19. I am simply fed up with DLC threads of any kind. Period. n/t

[Zorra]

48. Amen, Writer. Can't we all just be Democrats? n/t

[applegrove]

20. Okay - 21% of Americans Liberals, something like 35% Conservatives,

and 45% Moderates. So what do ya think the Democratic party should do? If you want some liberal policies vote Dem. But you will get moderate policies too.

[IndianaGreen]

21. The classic conflict between partisans and issue-oriented people

Democrats cannot win elections by themselves! That's a cold hard fact. Some Democrats think that by appealing at moderates that voted GOP, they can get enough votes to carry them to victory. This theory has yet to be proven right!

Then we have people that don't see themselves through a partisan lens, but vote based upon issues that they care deeply about. Some of them base their vote on the abortion issue, while others base their vote on their views about the war in Iraq, to name two issues.

Let's recognize that issue-voters and partisan-voters will never look at things from the same perspective, even when they arrive at the same conclusion. We sure waste a lot of time trying to proselytize issue-voters with a political version of "Believe in Jesus" just as we waste time in convincing partisan-voters that there is such a thing as believing in core values and political principles.

[union_maid]

24. I've been thinking about this

Being that it's a long way to presidential primary season, things seem to be getting awfully heated. I think there's plenty of blame to go around. I'll accept a little. I don't post enough to accept a lot. :) But I've been getting a little disturbed by the tendency to decide that this one or that one is the devil incarnate because of one area of disagreement. Or even more than one.

I'm both partisan and issue oriented. Here's why: Democrats are not always as I'd wish them to be on some issues, but in the aggregate, they'd make a much better country for many more people than Republicans have done or would do even if the worst of their lot weren't in power. And we'll always have just two choices. You can put forty-two people on the ballot, but we'll still have a winner take all system and there'll be one winner in each race. Even the shakiest math skills should show you what happens as a result.

What I'd love to see is a place where we can really hash out issues, not personalities, not trash candidates, but discuss our concerns with each other and try very hard to listen as well as talk (figuratively speaking, of course. We're using text). It seems that the nature of messageboards is that conversation is either, "Yeah, me, too" or the extreme opposite. Dialogue is what's missing. For instance, I see by the DLC website, there is concern expressed there for growing income disparity and the endangered middle class. I'd really like to know how some of the the pro-DLC people think that's going to affect future economic policy choices by DLC Democrats.

Most of the Democratic Senators and congresspeople have actually done things that have helped, at least a little, even in these dark times. You can't always account for a vote, either. Some of them are results of deals that you're never going to be able to know about and sometimes deals are necessary. That doesn't mean I don't want to see the Democrats move to the left of the Clinton years. I do, and like every other person on this board, I have a lot of opinions about how we got in this fix and what should be done about it.

I'd like not just to get along, but to maybe engage in dialogue from which we can both learn. It's not easy sometimes, but I'll try if the DLC folks will.

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. I'm sure AntiChoice +or Pro Gun Dem pols will now be loved here on DU!

Not Likely

[Marie26]

30. Well said

:applause: I don't get the DLC-hate either. It takes all kinds to make a party. If liberals could truly purge all the DLC-ers, moderates & conser. out of the party, they'd end up w/a small fringe radical party that would have virtually no power or electoral representation. And who wants that?

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. You're mistaken in assuming only liberals and far left fringe radicals

have issues with the DLC.

[Marie26]

35. Am I?

There's a diffreence between "having issues" & calling for the DLC to be purged from the party. And I've on;y seen that from liberal sources like, well, DU. I'm sure the DLC would likewise like to purge the far-left "radicals" from the party, but taht isn't happening either. We'll all just learn how to co-exist.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. The folks I see calling for a purge or purity test are the PRO-DLCers

Here on DU and in the DLC itself.

[The Magistrate]

37. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. McGrath

Are you saying you see no posts here in which people announce they will never vote for a member of the D.L.C., or will not vote for someone because they are a member of the D.L.C., or claim the D.L.C. is destroying the Democratic Party and must be stopped, or claim even that the D.L.C. is really a pack of Republican operatives working a colossal dirty trick? We may leave aside for the moment the question of whether or not you have seen posts claiming persons speaking in defense of, or support of, the D.L.C., or of some member of the organization, are rightist infiltrators here....

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. Considering that I have posted attacks on Democrats like the following

gem.

Everytime I run into anyone from the DLC or anyhting any of them say, I'm reminded of what Harry Truman once said: "Give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, and they'll vote Republican every time."

[The Magistrate]

44. So You Would Agree Then, Sir

That talk of purge comes from both sides of the wrangle, and not just one?

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. Not exactly. See, that quote comes from someone who talks out both

sides of his mouth.

[union_maid]

38. It's both

I'm no DLCer. I'd prefer social democracy, given a choice. But it's both sides. There have been plenty of times I've been in basic agreement with the "time to kick the DINOs out of the party" meme, too. And DINO has come cover an awful lot of ground. I just think that neither side is going to remove the other. The stronger the Democratic party as a whole, the greater the opportunity to move it to the left and I'm all for that. I just think the venom directed at candidates other than our first choices is seldom really justified, at least compared to the alternative. If we could take the volume down a couple of decibels we might get a lot farther by working together when possible or necessary while continuing to try to advance our competing visions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. You are missing the point. It is people we are talking about, not sides.

The pro DLC minority on DU would like you to think only the far left have issues with the DLC.

That notion, my friend, is no where near reality. People across the entire left of center spectrum have issues with the DLC.

[union_maid]

42. I understand that

What I'm saying is, more dialogue, less fighting. I have issues with the DLC and plenty of them, but the DLC is not monolithic, at least not anymore. I also have issues with people who say they won't vote or will vote third party rather than vote for a DLC Democrat, because with a very few exceptions, there is still a difference and even when there's not nearly enough difference, empowering the party as a whole is the only way to make progress. If we're too all or nothing, we just end up spinning our wheels.

[Marie26]

39. Then you have

seen what you want to see. DU REGULARLY has threads/posts about how DLC'ers aren't real Democrats, shouldn't be in the party, etc. That's part of what the OP was addressing. I'm DLC-neutral, so don't really have a bias here. But there's plenty of bashing coming from both sides. And here, the bashing is mainly anti-DLC, & sometimes does call for the equivalent of a purge of RINO's/DLC'ers/etc.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. This thread is a perfect example of letting the OP frame the debate.

The OP would have you believe that only the far left have issues with DLC. That is simply not a reality.

[flaminbats]

46. remember Republicans in the 70's?

I believe our party is experiencing this phase now. Our party has little or no influence over the majority party. The moderates do nothing but give in to the demands and attacks of those who control the government, while those who believe in our two-party system struggle hopelessly for control of a powerless party. But don't give up..Reagan didn't and he was ignored in the 60's, a political joke in the 70's, but the beginning of this conservative avalanche we are having now.

When I first became interested in politics..I viewed the swinging pendulum theory as nothing more than an outdated method of easing tensions between the opposing sides. Now I believe it is an accurate description of reality, and also a reason to remain involved! The DLC has little reason to exist in a powerless party and will eventually die..without purpose.

:kick:

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. Baleedat!

:kick:

[flaminbats]

49. ornot!

;)

[LincolnMcGrath]

50. lol

:hi:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

51. Agreed - well put

Majority governments are about building an alliance of understanding, for common causes.

If for example, I decided that all non-libertarian socialist Democrats ought to be purged, then it would do no good at all. Most Americans are not libertarian socialists, and we occupy a minority on the left. I'm fully aware that if the Party went to the polls in '06 and '08 on an anarchist platform (as admirable as it sounds), we'd get thoroughly beaten. As unlikely as such a situation that the Party would adapt an anarcho-socialist position, I'm simply using it as an example of the futility of the purge.

Yes, the neoliberal right of the party embarrasses me, but I'm sure conservative "New" Democrats would likely be embarrassed by us socialists in the party.

Let us take back the rôles of power from the Corporatista government, and then we can debate the philosophy of happiness and the raison d'être of the state, with the right of the Party.