The DLC responds to Feingold; I respond to the DLC (caution, long rant)

[RealDems]

In response to this (scroll down to Feingold piece)

So, on one hand, yeah that’s me. DLC = bad; activist Democrats like Dean and Lamont = good. I am a MoveOn member. I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I’ve done all those activist-y things like marching in protests, reading Huffington Post, and wishing like hell that Al Gore would make another go at it. And yeah, I do think Feingold’s “rant” was a profile in courage. Yup, you know me so well, Ed. And you know the funny thing? You think that I have the DLC pegged in the same two-dimensional world-view as the one you use to see me.

But, before you “blah, blah, blah” and “bark bark woof woof” through my viewpoint, or dismiss me as naïve because my political coming-of-age came during a “truly weird series of events,” and lacks the wisdom that comes from contradictory evidence, just try to understand what led up to my satisfaction on Tuesday night…

It isn’t that people like me (what did American Prospect call us? New New Democrats? MoveOn Democrats?) take it as gospel that the DLC is a bunch of soulless, corporate sell-outs that hurt the Party, provide cover to the Administration, and desperately seek the approval of FoxNews. These may be the conclusions that we reach, but please give us a bit more credit for sophistication than that. You honestly believe we can’t tell the difference between Bob Shrum and his “old interest-group liberalism” and the DLC because hell, to us, you’re all just The Establishment. We can create the boogey-man much easier without making the distinction, right? But just maybe we CAN see the difference, and choose to reject both. Maybe we see that activists are really shut out of both processes – by back-room deals and pet issues from the old Democrats, and by the constant taunts of “undisciplined,” and “unelectable,” and yes, the desire to compete for corporate cash from the DLC. Both are elites, both are anti-populist (what was it you said about populists a few years back? That they “indiscriminately attack corporations” and “look nostalgically to a pre-capitalist past?” Clever, but I’m not speaking solely of economic populism – I’ll let you and Joe Klein compare notes on that) But back to Tuesday night…

Do you think that when I watched Ned Lamont get up there to claim victory, I cracked open a beer and said “Yeah, there’s a big F*** You to the DLC!” Naa… I wasn’t thinking about you guys. I was thinking about idealism. I remembered Al Gore’s concession speech, and the near-immediate calls to move on from that election from Republicans, the media, and even Democrats. I remembered Dick Gephardt standing on the White House lawn in support of Bush’s war resolution and realizing that for the first time I was out of step with my own party. I remembered the day Howard Dean dropped his Presidential bid, and everyone in Democratic circles – yourself probably included – enjoyed the moment (and, in the case of Al From and Will Marshall, reportedly bumped chests at a “victory” party). Well, I’m in my mid-20s, and I admittedly lack the wisdom that your experience might bring you, but I do know that I had invested quite a bit of idealism in that race, and maybe you should’ve taken a little less satisfaction in squelching that idealism and giving me a list of reasons why I needed to grow up. But I didn’t need to grow up. I needed to stay motivated. Because on Tuesday night, idealism won, and I got to celebrate the victory I had wanted for so long.

I could give you the facts that you expect from someone on my side. I could talk about the need for our Barry Goldwater, and prepare my rebuttal for when you explain that that could never work on our side because the country is inherently more conservative than liberal, and how we tried that with McGovern, blah blah blah, woof woof, bark, bark. I could paint you in that two-dimensional corner and assume that you were a Lieberman supporter in the Presidential primary, or I could take that second look and acknowledge that you supported John Kerry from the start. Of course, that would be me giving you the kind of nuance you regularly deny people on my side. I could attempt to be witty and match your own Note-ish, Hotline-ish, and generally dismissive tone when writing about you. But no. I just wanted you to know why I was so excited about Ned Lamont, and why I was happy to read Russ Feingold’s comments. Maybe there is even a bit of dissonance in you – I can’t help but notice that you haven’t quite tipped your hand about your endorsement in this Connecticut Senate race. Maybe you have allowed yourself those rare moments where you stop playing defense and actually empathize with the rabble-rousing, MoveOn Democrats and the idealism we allow ourselves to feel about the political process. And hey, even if you don’t, can you at least give us the respect of not caricaturing our beliefs by assuming we know nothing about yours?

[evlbstrd]

1. First, welcome to DU.

That's a good commentary. Keep that energy going. A lot of us (a majority) agree.

[kaygore]

2. Well said!

[cmkramer]

3. Russ made at least one misstatement in his anti-DLC diatribe.

The DLC opposed the Clinton healthcare plan.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=252877

"As an organization that opposed President Clinton's health care proposal because it violated the principles of managed competition by imposing price controls and government limits on health care spending, we can assure you that John Kerry's health care plan is not the same as President Clinton's."

I love the part in Kilgore's blog where he points out that Bob Schrum -- who was the chief political advisor for the Gore and Kerry campaigns -- has a relationship to the DLC somewhat akin to that of Lieberman and Lamont.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I still support the Big Tent notion.

Excerpt from the blog:
"But there's nothing in Democratic politics today more tediously orthodox than DLC-bashing. I do offer one suggestion to other bold, brave politicians out there: if you're going to do this, try and get the basic facts straight."

There were some factual errors used to slam the DLC. Amazingly, but then again really rather predictable, when corrected, the same people with the pitchforks and torches didn't miss a beat and turned around and slammed the DLC from the opposite direction.

The point is this unreasonable, unfocused militant mentality doesn't care what the facts are. They are on a mission. I think many of us have a problem with people using lies and smears to further an agenda, particularly when that agenda is to cause unrest in and ultimately split the party when it comes to crunch time at the polls. Because when push comes to shove, pragmatism trumps purism in my world. What's most important to me at this particular time in the history of our country is that the Republicans be driven from office.

I support Lamont, I pray Al Gore gets another go-round, I don't align myself with DLC policies but would like them to give their money to Gore, I hate this war, I hated the IWR resolution and won't vote for anyone in the primary that voted yes on it, I support the legalization of marijuana, I'm pro-choice, I support the Kyoto Protocol, I want a ceasefire 4 weeks ago in the Middle East, and I am pro-union/labor.

I don't think my ideology is too far off most here.

Yet I am slammed mercilessly here because I don't hate the DLC (just not liking them isn't good enough), because I will support any Democrat in the general, and because Cynthia McKinney isn't my favorite politician and I'm not sad she lost.

So, kudos on your eloquent rant with an underlying tone asking for tolerance. Good luck with that. Really.

[RealDems]

42. That may be fine, but

The big tent notion is usually supported by those who are already leading it. Not to say you are, but that the "bomb-throwers" are usually those shut out of the process.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I think the difference is

that I care about facts and data and am a reasonable person, I don't consider things from the standpoint of a predetermined conclusion, and I don't expect to agree with anyone including politicians 100% of the time. I am pretty open-minded and try to consider all aspects of issues, and that drives some people nuts when they are on the warpath about something. In other words, I like to make up my own mind. I believe it will be much more effective to move the party en masse as a herd rather than chipping away at the edges.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Except the DLC never supported Kerry

Jesus, if you're going to "rant," at least get your fucking facts straight. They actually WERE for Lieberman.

I challenge you to find me a primary endorsement of Kerry from Al From or Will Marshall. When you do, let me know.

The New Republic, the DLC's de facto magazine, not only endorsed Lieberman, but provided a profile for every candidate EXCEPT KERRY.

So your assertation that the DLC backed Kerry is nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit and lies.

I'd welcome you to DU but I really don't think DU needs more people who distort the truth for their own agenda.

[wyldwolf]

7. "I really don't think DU needs more people who distort the truth..."

"...for their own agenda."

You can say that again!

[wyldwolf]

8. oh, and speaking of "getting facts straight."

The New Republic, the DLC's de facto magazine...

No, that would be Blue Print.



So for the DLC to be behind something, that something must be endorsed by From or Marshall? Just asking, because often on DU, the DLC is accused of being behind something when there is no evidence that From or Marshall have spoken word on it.

[CrushTheDLC]

12. Will "PNAC" Marshall was Kerry's foreign policy adviser in 2004!!

Senator Kerry is a strong supporter of multilateralism in principle, but he has in the past favored the use of force even without the UN's formal authorization. Consider Kosovo. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute points to the exemplary nature of the 1999 U.S.-led intervention in that troubled Balkan region. According to Marshall, Clinton's policy was "based on a mix of moral values and security interests with the parallel goals of halting a humanitarian tragedy and ensuring NATO's credibility as an effective force for regional stability." Notwithstanding the vague reference to "security interests" -- were those U.S. security interests? -- the fact remains that the events in the Balkans never posed a threat to the United States.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2863

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=450004&subsecID=900020&contentID=252795

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. Kerry was the Democratic candidate in 2004

Of course the DLC rallied around him after the primary was over. That does not mean he was their initial choice.

Most Democrats set aside their individual differences with a candidate and work for his election after the primary is over. That's not shocking news.

[RealDems]

13. Factually incorrect

Some in the DLC (like Al From) were strongly for Lieberman. Al From is the CEO and founder, so it's easy to extrapolate that the DLC was entirely for Lieberman. But they weren't. Bruce Reed supported Edwards. And Ed Kilgore, who writes the New Donkey blog was for Kerry from the beginning.

[RealDems]

14. And, by the way...

I'm about as anti-DLC as they come. So, my "agenda" certainly does not include being an apologist for them. My point on Kilgore's support of Kerry is that he always assumes the anti-DLC crowd monolithically makes assumptions about the DLC. This is his jumping-off point to make assumptions about us.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. What I assumed you were trying to imply

I assumed you were sarcastically trying to imply that "the DLC" was actually behind Kerry all along - it's a very common accusation I hear, particularly from bitter supporters of other candidates who need a conspiracy theory to rationalize why their candidate lost. So they create a fiction that "the DLC" took out ____ and shoved Kerry down our throats. Which, of course, is laughably false, not to mention impossible as the DLC is not, as you point out, a monolithic entity.

Your wording in your OP is still not clear and it sounded like you were saying that "the DLC" (meaning collectively all of them) supported Kerry in the primaries, which isn't true. It seems that's not what you meant so I apologize for being rude.

[Totally Committed]

16. I have a dream...

Someday, Senator Kerry will just drop-kick the DLC through the goalpost of life because it is THE RIGHT THING FOR HIM TO DO. Period.

Wild-Eyed is right about one thing... the DLC doesn't much coddle Kerry. But, he was better than having NO horse in the race at all last time, so he did help further their agenda in that way. Plus he also took the political advice from the dipsh*t "advisor" they saddled him with. I will believe until my dying day that Kerry would NOT have conceded within HOURS is he had not had the DLC ordering him to do so, so as not to make them look like sore losers. It's the price you pay for taking their money and corporate backing... they sort of own your campaign.

I hope someday he breaks publicly and decisively (and hopefully -- VOCALLY) with the DLC. Just my own wish. And certainly, just my own opinion.

TC

[RealDems]

17. The problem is that they disowned Kerry...

My rant was directed at Ed Kilgore -- who supported Kerry as early as 2002. Ed is probably the most progressive person in a leadership position at the DLC, which, admittedly isn't saying much.

As for the DLC as an institution... they did not coddle Kerry, and endorsed him enthusiastically only after their close call with the Dean campaign (which would've been a disaster for the DLC). In one of the more entertaining moments of the campaign, Al From and Bruce Reed wrote an op-ed about the "positive populism" used by Kerry and Edwards. It was cute to watch them try to build up the concept of populism after they had spent years trying to tear it down.

But after the election, they wanted to completely disown Kerry -- say he was Mike Dukakis redux, and claim that we lost because Kerry was too much of an "old Democrat." They were used to definitively analyzing the success and failure of the Democratic Party, and they assumed the same rules applied this time. But, of course, the election analysis didn't go their way, and rank-and-file Democrats are not looking for a "moderate" alternative to John Kerry.

[Totally Committed]

18. All I was saying is... I'd love to see Kerry disown THEM publicly,

once and for all.

TC

[RealDems]

19. Me too :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. This post makes a lot more sense

I objected to your OP because I thought you were using the old tired line that the DLC installed Kerry as our candidate - I hear that a lot from some of the more out-of-touch elements on DU, so I pointed out that most of the DLC leadership did not like Kerry any more than they liked Dean.

It seemed in your OP that you were saying that the "DLC" secretly supported Kerry all along - like I said it's a typical tactic of those who are incapable of accepting that Kerry was the primary voter's choice, so they need a bogeyman to "blame" his candidacy on.

I apologize if I misread you and for being rude. Welcome to DU, btw - I appreciate your willingness to explain your position in greater detail.

[RealDems]

23. Thanks, no problem

[Zodiak]

31. Nope, I honestly think they were looking

for the other side of Kerry. The side that was supressed for the 2004 campaign but has come raging out in the last year. The same side of the politician that was supressed in Gore in 2000 but has come raging out in the last two years.

Gore and Kerry were not presented as the men they really were. They were presented as the men who will lose by the media and partly, but their campaign handlers. Both had astounding records on helping the american people, but instead their moderate positions were amplified as if Republicans were going to be the ones voting for them.

I know she is supposedly on my side, but Donna Brasile makes my eyes roll every time I see her. I seriously and honestly believe that *I* can do a better job than she can, and I have zero experience in public relations. That is a sad commentary.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. He has certainly learned from his mistakes of 04

Of that you can be certain.

I'm honstly not sure Kerry considers himself to be part of the DLC anymore. It's really an issue I suppose of being an active vs. a passive member. He's certainly not an active member - he doesn't go to the meetings, doesn't support the DLC's stated issue postions on many issues, and is often trashed as being "too liberal" by DLC leadership. On the other hand I doubt he thinks about whether he is still nominally a "member" since it's clear he has no real relationship with them.

I think in many subtle ways he has been disavowing their policies. In his health care speech at Fanueil Hall recently he took a shot at "Democratic leadership": "Meanwhile, there are some in my own party who say we don’t have the power to pass legislation anyway and don’t have the platform to out-shout the special interests. They propose baby steps to solve a giant crisis. Or they fear to take up the cause because they know the political risks. Well I don’t believe we have to choose between doing too little, downplaying the issue—or fighting for a complex plan that would discard wholesale both the good and the bad of today’s health care system. I know we are smart enough to fix health care if we are brave enough to try."

And as for the election concession - it was actually Terry McAuliffe, at the DNC, who explicitly told Kerry that the DNC would not stand by or support another long, embarassing recount. It was more important for him to not get made fun of by the Republicans than to ensure the voting rights of millions. The message to Kerry was: you are alone. We will not have your back.

It was a despicable and treacherous thing to do and I will never forgive him for it. After the election McAuliffe leaped to blame Kerry for being a bad candidate and his since expressed his desire to see Hillary run in 2008. Go figure...

[RealDems]

25. Good distinction between active and passive membership

Kerry was never a poster child for the DLC. He did used to go to the meetings though. Actually, he gave a speech in July 2002 at their convention (the National Conversation) about Iraq, and about how the Administration had not made its case for going in. It was a good speech, notable for its defiance of the conventional wisdom (everyone else there talked about the emerging Enron/WorldCom scandals, and dodged foreign policy entirely). I was truly disappointed when Kerry voted for the resolution two months after giving that speech. Because I believed his speech better defined his principles than his vote, I came to see that vote as opportunistic, and that's why I didn't support him in the primary. I'm glad to see he has moved away from that vote now. I hope... and think... you're right that he has learned a lot since the election.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Here's a good Huffington Post piece by RJ Eskow

In which he has a conversation with Kerry and Kerry explains why he voted yes on IWR. He now recognizes that the whole "case for war" was a complete sham and has apologized for his vote. In 2002 he was for Biden-Lugar, which would have stipulated that independent UN inspections must turn up evidence of WMD before invasion could be authorized. B-L was the best resolution and had bipartisan support.

Until JOEMENTUM fucked it up. Yet one more reason to hate Lieberman.

Read it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/kerry-calls-to-respond-_b_18844.html?p=2

"It didn't happen in a vacuum," he said. "I'd been supporting the Biden-Lugar Amendment, a bipartisan effort that would have required that the inspections be completed before any military action took place. We had a good chance of passing it. That amendment reflected my position on the war.

"Then one day we turned on the TV and Joe Lieberman was in the Rose Garden with the President, saying that he was supporting the resolution - as is. We realized that, as of that moment, the amendment was effectively dead."

Then why vote for the resolution without the Biden-Lugar Amendment?

"Colin Powell," said Kerry. "I've known him a long time. I respect him, and I trust him. We sat down one-on-one and he showed me the evidence. He has since made it clear that he was fed false information, that he was misled too. And Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked closely with him, has been even more direct - that there was a small group there, a cabal run by Cheney and Wolfowitz, directing all the planning and leaving the rest of them out of the loop."

He explains his vote further here:

"We know a lot more today than we did then. We know we were misled about weapons of mass destruction -- and misled by an Administration that made promises about going to war as a last resort, good diplomacy, and careful planning. That's why I regret my vote. It was a mistake. I said in 2004 that I wouldn't have gone to war knowing what I knew, and I have said that I wouldn't vote to give the President that authority knowing what I know now. In fact, I don't know anyone who would.

"I accept my share of responsibility. But I don't think it's fair to question my motives.

"If I had argued behind closed doors to vote against the Iraq resolution, I would've voted against it. Period. War is personal to me - and those decisions about sending soldiers to war are now and always have been far more important to me than being President. You may not believe that, and you're welcome to your own opinion - but I want you to know that the facts as you relayed them are simply wrong, and it matters to me. It's a criticism of my character that is untrue."

[alvarezadams]

46. I don't buy the

ex post facto rationalizations.

I am just a humble poster yet it was clear to me long before the resolution was chaired that the admin was angling for war. Abundantly clear even before Blix's second visit. And a good number of pundits and analysts on this side of the Atlantic agreed.

The DNC's support for the IWR is simply shameful (while the DLC's is egregious). Kerry's support for it has been rationalized every way possible but IMO he (and almost the entire party) were emasculated by the jingoistic post-9/11 environment.

I can imagine myself in Congress thinking about the vote. I can imagine that the atmosphere was not unlike the red scare atmosphere of McCarthy's day - who would stand up for the decent thing and risk being labelled anything from "weak on security" to downright treasonous? A lot to chew on while contemplating a plate of freedom fries, no?

I WISH Kerry had asked "have you no decency sir?", but he didn't. And after the fact has he lead a crusade against what is tantamount to a war crime, a crime against peace? What of the actual provisions of the IWR regarding accountability?

Yes, I know that the electorate is basically ignorant of the whole picture. The unwired and the cogdissed are basically unaware of how they've been manipulated into supporting a war. To date, 50% of America thinks that wmd's were FOUND in Iraq, for fvck's sake. But that's no excuse to not make waves over what has been a hangable offense in our parents' time - make waves and sooner or later, with or without press support, and Americans will finally open their eyes.

They opened them over Nixon despite his landslide victory, no?

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. Did you even bother to read the post?

Bush could be impeached for breaking the provisions of the IWR, to answer your question about accountability.

The IWR is the biggest moot point on DU. If you truly think the war was going to be avoided because of a vote in the Senate, you seriously need to get a clue. What matters now is that Democrats put pressure on to end the war. I can think of one prominent Democrat doing that. Can you?

[alvarezadams]

50. Sure I read it

And yes, he could be impeached but... he won't be.

"If you truly think the war was going to be avoided because of a vote in the Senate, you seriously need to get a clue. "

Only Congress can declare war - Bush could have used executive powers to start one but he wouldn't get very far without funding.

"What matters now is that Democrats put pressure on to end the war."

Sure.

"I can think of one prominent Democrat doing that. Can you?"

A few.

[Zodiak]

26. Kerry is a clear DLC outlier

I cannot figure out why he is a member of the DLC other than opportunism (after all, they were a rising force in the 90's) and free trade (Kerry and the DLC agree on this issue wholeheartedy).

Other than that, Kerry is not the typical DLCer. Neither is Hillary for that matter (although to a lesser degree).

Most DLC Democrats in the Senate are just as much if not more conservative than Leiberman. Kerry and Clinton are not among them. There are a couple more. I do not like lyng to make a political point, and I have done the analysis myself. I wanted to know where I stood in the DLC-wars on the blogosphere because that issue is defining to one's identity here and elsewhere (what "faction" you belong).

I do despise the DLC and its undue influence over Democratic politics. I make no bones about that. However, I want to torpedo the organization, not its members. There are salvageable Democrats in the DLC, but they needed a message from the grassroots that the DLC is no longer the power base and it is time to come home.

They got that message with this primary.

Now we see the DLC-lite Democrats peeling away from Lieberman and the DLC-heavy Democrats cozying up to him. This primary has successfully split the DLC, and it is about time. In this way, the organization (and the corporate activities that go along with it) become moribund without having the pain of a major purge of personalities.

But one DLCer had to be used as an example. Joe was than man, and he asked for it. He wasn't the worst of them; he was just the most vulnerable, visible, and replaceable.

I post this a lot, but it illustrates my point. Notice that the Republicans are really one big damn group in the Senate, voting with Bush almost 100% of the time. The Democrats are split into three groups. There are Democrats (the big hump around 75%), moderate Democrats (falling around 50%), and conservative Democrats (30% and below) who fall into three humps on the chart. The latter group I would rather change, but I know many come from red states. The middle group has a lot of blue-staters and DLC-lite types, and these are the ones who will respond to the Lamont/Leiberman primary by embracing the grassroots.

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. I've always liked your chart

You do a really good job of analyzing how often each Dem is on our side.

As for why Kerry "is still in the DLC," it seems to be more neglect than anything. He's in the DLC simply because he's never publicly said that he's not in the DLC. It's clear from his speeches, policy positions, etc that he doesn't take the DLC into account when making decisions. It's also clear from the words of From etc. that the DLC leadership doesn't hold him in high regard.

Sometimes I am highly inclined to agree with TC and wish the connection would be severed once and for all just so people in the netroots would stop throwing the DLC bugaboo at him as if he's in any way comparable to Lieberman on the issues.

[Zodiak]

30. Thanks...I admit all of this is from my perspective

I try my best to remind people that Kerry's membership to the DLC is in name only. As far as bugaboo thrown at him from the netroots, I admit that many do not actually look at the issues themselves and only parrot what they hear from members that they respect.

Don't get too mad at them. They just don't have the time to do the homework themselves and are fighting for what they think is right. It sure does put a lot of pressure on prominent members, who in the heat of an argument, may not realize how many others will repeat a lazy assessment on another thread because they heard it from someone they respect.

In the end, argumnts on DU are usually between 3-4 people who know what they are talking about and 10-20 others who do not, but want to weigh in and get a few jabs.

That "Leiberman votes with the Democrats 90% of the time" meme was a recent example. Another is the idea that Hillary is a consistent corporate whore. Neither is true, but the memes spread nonetheless, and I saw them both first presented here by prominent members in the heat of battle.

Something for the Will Pitt types to think about (and no, Will, this is only a comment on your stature, not your homework...you do good work).

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. Very true

It's not easy for me to give a pass to people in the "netroots" who can't be bothered to do their homework, however. I thought the entire point of being an activist meant that you researched the facts and were an informed political observer. It's just a personal beef I have, I guess.

Oh and one minor gripe with your post: Kerry voted against CAFTA so he isn't 100% in line with the DLC on the issue of trade. He does believe in setting labor and environmental standards before making a trade agreement, which is why he voted down CAFTA. He is more pro-free trade than I would like (note to all those people who say I can't honestly critique Kerry), but I am glad he does not support CAFTA.

[Zodiak]

41. final note

I agree somewhat with point #1, but they are here, so I feel inclined to be nice.

You are, of course, right about #2.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. The DLC had several candidates

in the 2004 election. Frankly, they didn't give a shit who won -- just as long as their candidate would agree to do their corporate bidding for them and they all were. Lieberman was just one of them. Iirc, the rest were Kerry, Clark, Edwards & Gebhardt. The DLC is not stupid enough to throw all their eggs in one basket. In 2008 it will be Hillary, Warner, Vilsick (sp?), Biden and Edwards (so far).

[PassingFair]

6. K & R

A lovely post!

Did you happen to catch Pariser on Colbert last night.

What a sincere fellow, and Colbert was HILARIOUS!

[RealDems]

15. Yeah -- Pariser is awesome. n/t

[Totally Committed]

9. Awesome post!

I totally agree with you, and wish you welcome to DU!!!

That was such a great rant. :yourock:

TC

[RealDems]

33. Thanks a lot!

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. Great response: DLC came up with the idea for dems to sit mute

...while Bush-and-Co. railroaded us into Iraq. Instead of shouting from the rooftops, the democrats sat in silence for fear of being labeled traitors. Because of their silence, Iraq is their war too.

History has proven that DLC was wrong--IS wrong.

[Mass]

11. Good answer. Now, if I have one reproach to make to Feingold, it is that

he seems to want to preserve his image as a maverick rather than push the party to the left.

Why is he not trying to organize a progressive caucus in the Senate? Dont tell me he cannot find a few senators to caucus with him and unite in order to change the dynamics of the democratic caucus. Durbin did it a few years ago, before he became whip. May be it would be time to do that again! That would show me that it is not all about presidential ambitions.

[paulk]

28. “Yeah, there’s a big F*** You to the DLC!"

I doubt that there were that many voters in CT who saw their vote this way.

Ned Lamont still has an uphill climb to win the Senate seat in CT, and the Lamont camp needs to stop looking at this race as an anti-DLC/anti-Lieberman contest. They need to start giving people reasons to vote FOR Lamont, rather than reasons to vote against his opponents.

[boolean]

32. Fuck the DLC

They're nothing but a bunch of Repuglicans disguised as Democrats. They're the side of the Repuglicans who are not wacko fundamentalist Christians: The heartless capitalist pig corporation sucker uppers. As much good as Clinton did for the country, let's not forget Don't Ask Don't Tell and media consolidation. (Gee, what a great idea that turned out to be! Oh, wait. It wasn't so much an idea, as it was a kick back to the billionaire lobbyists from Clear Channel and News Corp...)

The DLC is part of the problem. They need to go.

[wyldwolf]

34. LOL! Let me try my hand at that kind of rhetoric... (clears throat...)

FUCK the far left! They're nothing but a bunch of hippie commies disguised as Democrats. They're the side of the communists who actually own their computers...

(wow! this is ... liberating, being all reactionary like this!)

... As much good as Wallace, McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich did the country... wait... ah fuck it!

The far left is the problem. They need to go!

(whew! Sweaty work being all boisterous like that!)

[boolean]

35. Here's what your problem is

The "far left", as you call it, is actually the center. The part of the political spectrum where sane, rational people fall.

The DLC supports war.
The DLC supports anti gay rhetoric.
The DLC supports big business.

These are all right wing agendas. We already have a right wing. We don't need two of them. Democrats have to start being an actual opposition party. Until that happens, we can expect GOP after GOP after GOP victory, as has been the usual course for the last 20 years.

It's the DLC that has been consistently undermining any attempt for the Democratic party to shift away from the right wing for years. You got lucky with Clinton because he's well spoken and charming. But every single time an actual liberal starts to take control, the DLC works to break him/her down while the GOP points and laughs.

It's the DLC that's causing division within the party. It's the DLC that's allowing the Repukes to accuse the Democrats of being wishy washy and having no unity. How can the Democrats have unity when they have right wing operatives in their own party working against them?

I, for one, am tired of having two right wings.

[wyldwolf]

36. thank you, Dr. Boolean

but is isn't anything I haven't seen a million times. The question is, were you pumping your fist in the air after you typed it?

The DLC supports war.

The Democratic party, and the American people support war.

The DLC supports anti gay rhetoric.

Link?

The DLC supports big business.

As most elected officials.

The "far left", as you call it, is actually the center.

Ah, the lefty rebranding project rolls on.

[boolean]

37. Pumping my fist in the air right now...

The Democratic party, and the American people support war.

No they don't. And if they do, they should not.

Link?

"Don't ask don't tell"
"Civil Union"

As most elected officials.

Which is what I'm saying needs to change!!

:woohoo:

[wyldwolf]

38. I'm sure

The Democratic party, and the American people, do support war.

Don't ask don't tell"
"Civil Union"

DLC how?

As most elected officials.

Which is what I'm saying needs to change!!

So most elected officials are DLC?

[Hawkowl]

44. Fuck the DLC

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR. You arrogant smug #@!%^&.

Link please. Where is YOUR link? Every skewed right wing, MSM poll shows that the majority of AMERICANS (I.E; Republicans + Dems are against this war) with most polls showing 80%+ of Democrats AGAINST THIS WAR.

Your Bart Simpson like defenses for the DLC are worthless. "all politicians support big business so why bother"???? That is your defense? THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The average citizen sees no point to voting when there...is....no.....choice.

The DLC's philosophy is vote for us because we're just like they are! People stay home when the choice is best summed up by that incorrigible liberal, Henry Ford: "you can have any color as long as it's black".

That's why under the DLC guidance we've lost the last two presidential elections to an incompetent weak candidate. That is why under DLC guidance we've lost the House, the Senate, and allowed Nazi's in conservative clothing to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[wyldwolf]

48. I didn't say the American people supporter this war...

... you smug arrogant simple minded #@!%^&.

LOL on the rest of your factually challenged revolutionary rah rah.

[alvarezadams]

45. Bravo!

If I might add my 2 cents...

I'm sick to death of being sold rightwing policies with a liberal veneer. It's an insult to the intelligence of any progressive.

[Vidar]

47. Great rant!