Are we a real Underground Movement anymore here at DU?

[MessiahRp]

(I posted this as a reply in H2O Man's brilliant thread but I sort of wanted to put this out there by itself as well)

When DU was started we were opposition to Bush's illegitimacy. But as time went on DU was the Underground for liberals and progressives that had been pretty much ignored by the right wing controlled media and Congress (and still are today). The DLC and Blue Dogs are part of that same Republican pro-corporation power structure that I thought our Underground was sort of fighting for a voice against. The same people that put Bush into power twice illegally. That supported his wars even when all evidence to disprove Bush's claims were easily disputable. They supported illegal wiretapping. Tax cuts for the rich. The pharmaceutical giveaway in the GOP Medicare reform plan. They supported the bankruptcy reforms and were very strongly in support of an intrusive Patriot Act, not just when it originated but continuing it years afterwards when people were aware of the abuses.

These people enabled what DU was against, the Bush Regime, at the very highest levels and on every single issue.

If our mission statement is pretty much the same, they should have no defense or safe quarter here. And that includes Obama's hatchet man Rahm Emanuel who helped most of these people get into office.

We have a bit of soul searching to do. Are we a genuine "Underground" movement? Or are we just pro-Democratic Party shills who supports the Democrats even if they turn on us and support the very core values of the previous regime that this website was started in protest of?

To me I want us to be a voice on the left, not a voice for a party that at least with it's representation in Washington, leads us down the same path as the previous party in charge on far, far too many issues and will continue our economic ruin as a nation.

I say if you want to just be pro-Democrat... pro-Obama regardless of issue, policy or stance then sign up for the Democratic Party website and use the tools Tim Kaine provides to keep you motivated.

For the rest of us, we here at DU should continue to be what we were.. a leftward resistance to the status quo...

And I feel that the Republican brand being so tarnished is bringing a lot of people, ashamed to be a Republican, to this site thinking it's for all Democrats including the new ones who don't share our values and they go on the attack against liberals/progressives just as they did when they supported the GOP in the past... but now do it under the guise of our party's label.

Rp

[saracat]

1. Wow. great post. Awesome. Thank you!

[derby378]

2. I've been thinking along the same lines, myself

And if that means we have to stir up shit within the Democratic Party once in a while, so be it.

At least we actually want to improve things for our fellow Americans. The teabaggers only seek power for its own sake - they have no real core value structure to speak of.

[Xicano]

3. There's a few shills who attack me for speaking against Dems who act against Dem principles.

Its obvious they only care what flavor armband politicians display. I would of thought more fellow liberals would be smarter than that. I am, however, glad there's many no so easily fooled liberals here at the DU. But unfortunately we need more.

Thanks MessiahRp. K&R

[emilyg]

66. Keep speaking out.

[RKP5637]

4. EXCELLENT!!! n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Sorry, The DLC Wins

We've been split - the folks grateful for a win of any sort are tooth-and-nail with folks who want actual Democratic values.

Bill, Rahm, Larry, and the crew are taking that to the bank - literally.

[keep_it_real]

6. Joining Democratic Underground I never

Knew that the "underground" part of the name really meant an "underground" movement. I just thought this was a site dedicated to the democratic principles of America.

[MessiahRp]

22. Well then we should change the name... as to not confuse anyone right?

I mean isn't what you're saying already in existence in a million other DNC sponsored websites?

Rp

[prolesunited]

39. What part of you don't run the site don't you get?

Now you're going to silence people and change the name?

[MessiahRp]

45. I never said I run the site. You seem to think you know best as well.

Since you're running all over the thread trying to shoot down anyone that disagrees with your "Democrat: Right or Wrong" belief system.

Sorry if you're offended by variances in opinion.

My commentary is based on what I truly believe Skinner said to be the reasoning for the start of the site and asking what that mission statement is at this point if we support the people that support everything the villain that the site was created to oppose did.

I threw in my thoughts at the end but there is a general debatable question in there. Not that you truly want debate.

Rp

[prolesunited]

53. I'm not done with this site

but I'm done with this thread. The only one I'm shooting down is you, who seems to think he owns this place and can dictate what is and is not allowed and what the site's mission is.

You don't know me and I've never said Dem right or wrong and don't hold that belief system. Personally, I'm a socialist, but realize the rest of the country isn't ready for that.

And I'm sorry you don't see the irony in this statement. "Sorry if you're offended by variances in opinion." This coming from a person who softened his position on purges to be zero tolerance on posting anything that is not liberal/progressive enough.

I don't believe in censorship and I think both Democrats and progressives have belong here and have a seat at the table.

And no Obama does not equal Bush.

[MessiahRp]

59. YOU said I supported purges. Not ONCE did I ever say such a thing.

Your inference was wrong.

And yes Obama does equal Bush on a LOT of issues that matter greatly.

I'm not happy about it... I voted for the guy. But facts are facts, the Obama Administration has been supportive of most of Bush's most egregious acts as far as the wars, state secrecy, wiretapping, etc goes. And this constant corporate giveaway shit is just as bad as when the GOP ran everything.

Rp

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. Here's why what you're suggesting is a purge:

You said, in your OP: "The DLC and Blue Dogs are part of that same Republican pro-corporation power structure that I thought our Underground was sort of fighting for a voice against. ... they should have no defense or safe quarter here".

Thus, you want to purge DU of DLC and Blue Dog supporters. Look at the avatars provided, and you'll see a blue dog one, and a DLC one. The Site rules say:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

They say nothing about DLC supporters being unwelcome, or about any part of the Democratic party for that matter.

You suggest 'we' should change the name. The site is run by, and belongs to, the 3 administrators. They get to decide things like name changes, not us. They wrote those rules, too. You also seem to misunderstand how this site is run; you talk about "a million other DNC sponsored websites". This is not a "DNC sponsored website". You've been here so long, I though you'd know that by now.

If you truly believe Skinner said that part of the Democratic Party, such as the DLC, was what DU was founded to fight against, I'd be fascinated to have a link to when he said it. That DLC avatar has been here since 2003 when I joined, I think.

What's your definition of a 'shill'? Do you think that implying people who support the Democratic party, and have views mainly aligned with one section of it, are 'shills' will get you a reasoned discussion? I suggest it makes you look intolerant.

[MessiahRp]

85. Defense or Safe Quarter means post/thread deletion when they start shit, not necessarily banishment

But read into it what you'd like.

Rp

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. so 'safe quarter' is only something you need when 'starting shit', is it?

And people only defend their ideas when they're 'starting shit', do they? OK, it's either novel use of language in your OP, or you left something out - like talking about them 'starting shit', rather than just existing.

[geek tragedy]

123. Yes, censorship and intolerance of dissent. Very Stalinist way of thinking.

Perhaps you should start Stalinist Underground.

[MessiahRp]

127. Quite ironic since the real dissent are the people opposing Obama's policies

(he is in power after all) and the bashing of those who oppose his positions is pretty insane around here. See how they treat DK.

And this is DU, posts are FREQUENTLY deleted here. It's not a democracy.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

129. And you want to be dictator and outlaw posts that you deem

impure.

Sorry, FAIL.

You will have to put up with real Democrats whether you like it or not.

[MessiahRp]

132. Yes you are the REAL Democrats since you deem them as such.

Seems you have more of a Napoleonic Complex than I. I am just suggesting shutting down certain attack threads earlier since most of them are in support of Bush policy continuation or Bush supporters (Blue Dogs) over the rest of the Democrats who actually stayed consistent in their beliefs from the time Bush took office until now. (Unlike the rest of you)

Rp

[geek tragedy]

135. I think there are all kinds of 'real Democrats.'

I think Dennis Kucinich is a real Democrat.

I think Jim Webb is a real Democrat.

I think Heath Shuler is a real Democrat.

I think Barack Obama is a real Democrat.

The problem is that people keep on dragging up this "Obama and his supporters are Fake Democrats" meme up. And it's complete bullshit, because when a group makes up 80-90% of the party, they are most certainly 'real' members of that party.

[robinlynne]

This forum is NOT about a party. It is about the principles which supposedly make up

that party. There are many who belong to the party, but not the principles. Do you consider Lieberman a democrat just because he wears a D? Everyone here might switch parties if another party holds true to the principles which brought us together. Most of us only belong to the party for lack of a better choice. or because it used to mean something better.

[geek tragedy]

160. LIEberscum isn't a Democrat.

And, being a 'real Democrat' means whatever most Democrats say it means.

[robinlynne]

161. glad we agree on one point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. An 'attack thread', such as one that calls certain DUers 'shills' or 'fucking shills'?

And then calling a DUer "a Republican with a slightly costumed name"?

Now that's what I call an attack. You, on the other hand, seem to think supporting policies of some Democratic politicians is 'attacking'. Bizarre.

[redqueen]

183. And we mock Republicans for failing to recognize irony...

:rofl:

[bobburgster]

200. Hmmm, my thought on democratic principles...

is that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing on issues espoused by a democrat. Just because someone calls themselves a democrat, or a liberal, or a blue dog doesn't mean they are immediately right or wrong on a given issue. Christ if we are that mindless we're no better than the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. I believe our number one principle is, or should be, open discourse, and an ability to respectfully disagree in our discussions. Hopefully, that is also the belief here at DU.

[robinlynne]

142. the point is Democarts who think like republicans are NOT REAL DEMOCRATS!

THE DLC is not representative of the people. no way. no how. Anyone who would deny human rights or a woman's right to choose is NOT A REAL DEMOCRAT. Joe Lieberman is not a real democrat. There are lots of republicans who put a D after their names in order to be elected. That does not make them welcome here.

[geek tragedy]

143. Who gets to be the judge of that?

The people who think Barack Obama (86% approval rating amongst liberal Democarats) is a 'fake' Democrat?

[robinlynne]

150. THE PROGRESSIVES, whose forum this is. The DSLC has its own forums.

This forum is not the party forum. It is a PROGRESSIVE forum.

[geek tragedy]

157. And who gets to judge who is and who isn't a progressive? nt

[robinlynne]

166. That is pretty easy. If, for example, you are against a woman's right to choose,

a progressive you are NOT. if you think money for politics is ok, and the party system we currently have in this country is doing just fine by our people, a progressive you are NOT.

[Blue-Jay]

206. The progressives do not own or control this forum

Where on earth did you get that notion?

If that were true, would it not be named Progressive Underground? And, as stated in the rules, why would part of mission be electing Democrats?

You can't just walk into a place, act as if you own it and then just make your own rules.

[question everything]

145. Well said. Thank you

:applause:

[PHIMG]

7. No we must be cheerleaders!

The grand design for the two party system is in full effect. Obama will make Clinton look like a hippie socialist and we have to just accept it.

[geek tragedy]

137. No, but you must accept that not all progressive Democrats agree with you.

Most will not.

You must be willing to share this space with them.

[Mari333]

8. well, Im arguiing with Dems on here about ending wars

and when I first came to DU I didnt have to deal with that. everyone was anti war.
sometimes its republican lite politics on here, with a D behind the name.

[Kaleva]

9. As per the rules, conservative, moderate and even pro-life Dems are allowed to be members

[Bluenorthwest]

77. But so are liberal, human, progressive, and even pro-reason

Democrats welcomed here. And we will always be pointing out the areas the right wing types have with the Republicans, such as opposing equal civil rights for all. Allowed does not mean coddled. People who oppose equal rights for my family are what we call 'bigots'. Those who oppose choice and think the government owns our very bodies are called 'sexist' and 'control freak' and we can easily and clearly say that such people agree with George W Bush on that subject, as well as with Sarah Palin.
So enjoy. I have zero respect for right wingers and those who favor discrimination at all. And I am not required to pretend that I do.

[Kaleva]

92. Nobody should expect to get coddled or receive preferential treatment.

[robinlynne]

144. what rule says that? It says progressive Democrats and other progressives.

[Kaleva]

192. "We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2509862

[Gman]

10. I"m a Democrat and I think Obama walks on water

I will vote for any Democrat no questions asked in any General Election and I will stay right here at DU. I think the health care bill passed by the House is a great piece of legislation. I'm going nowhere because somebody decides to define DU according to what they think it is.

If you knew the history of DU, you'd know this place started out as DEMOCRATIC (as in Party) Underground. The part about like minded liberals, etc. was an after thought after DU had been around for well over a year or so (or so it seems). Many Greens were tombstoned in 2001 as they rightfully should have been. I never liked the idea of including liberal independents for very obvious reasons. They are as bad as Republicans. And when these liberal independents oppose us or support candidates that are not Democrats they become just as much the enemy to all of us as the Republicans. I believe it is extremely clear that after the primaries are over, we come together and WE (everybody here at DU) support the Democratic Party nominee. There are no posts allowed that do not do this.

So no, we're not going anywhere.

[MessiahRp]

26. Wow... I'm glad I don't carry blind ignorance about a party and it's politicians

just because of the letter next to their name.

I sort of pity you for feeling that your guy can do no wrong and that the direction he is taking or by osmosis allowing to be taken by Blue Dogs is not bad for the country and doesn't need to be fought against.

Rp

[ThomCat]

30. Yup. The idea that DU is a liberal place was a fiction added later.

And it is still a fiction. I don't know if it was added for public relations purposes, or as a marketing ploy of some kind, but it has never been true.

[MessiahRp]

61. Not completely liberal, but a different place for sure

Most of the positions we see people fighting over now and see supposed Dems on DU defending were once pro-Bush, pro-GOP positions. Corporate greed and giveaways. War continuance.

These things were completely opposed before. In the 2004 Dean/Kerry battle on this site it was a battle of who was more centrist and pragmatic and it STILL was far to the left of where we are now.

It is completely different in that aspect.

Rp

[ThomCat]

31. Dupe. Delete

[G_j]

67. great point, although we see it differently,

I think the purging of third party leaning progressives, helped lead to where we are today.
Which is somewhat dumbed down in comparison. Cutting out some progressives while allowing conservatives into the tent, doesn't lead
to discussion as compelling and creative.

In My Humble Opinion!

[Toots]

75. Zell Miller..rah rah rah

Any "Democrat" no matter what.....

[redqueen]

114. Fellow Yellow Dog Dem here.

:hi:

[BadGimp]

11. Ah NO

The closest I get to a movement these days is... Nevermind

[prolesunited]

12. Are you suggesting a purge of some sorts?

Get rid of those who put governing and getting things done above liberal purity? I've been here since the beginning.

Excuuuuse me...
"this site thinking it's for all Democrats"

Since when wasn't this site for all Democrats? Do you run the place?

It's *NOT* called Liberal Underground -- it's called DEMOCRATIC Underground.

And, too bad, I've been here from the beginning. You're not going to force me off the board.

Go start your own fucking Website while the Democrats actually get things done.

[Gman]

13. If I could K&R a reply I'd do it..

[LostInAnomie]

16. Amen! This whining about "DU's not pure anymore" is getting old.

I've been here since early 2004 and this place hasn't changed one bit. If you cannot handle people disagreeing with you, or arguments about pragmatism vs idealism, you probably shouldn't enter an internet discussion board.

[MessiahRp]

20. I find your definition of "get things done" laughable..

If you call giving away the farm to corporations JUST LIKE BUSH DID, getting things done, They're doing it.

If you call continuing illegal wiretaps and the Patriot Act JUST LIKE BUSH DID, getting things done, They're doing it.

If you call continuing two immoral wars JUST LIKE BUSH DID, getting things done, They're doing it.

Everything this site was created to fight against was BUSH. And these Blue Dogs and DLCers with the aid of Mr. Hope and Change are CONTINUING the legacy of the entire reason the site exists.

I'm not asking for an outright purge, but zero tolerance for attacks on liberals and progressives by those who stick up for these very Blue Dogs/DLC types who promote the VERY POLICIES that the site's opposition point, BUSH, supported.

Rp

[prolesunited]

25. And writing and enforcing this zero tolerance policy?

Last time I looked, Skinner still owns this site.

Not liberal enough here? Not underground enough? Go start your own site.

"And these Blue Dogs and DLCers with the aid of Mr. Hope and Change are CONTINUING the legacy of the entire reason the site exists."
Sez who? This site is for Democrats and supporting Democratic candidates. Sez so right in the rules.

[MessiahRp]

32. There's some ambiguity to your rules claim... See post #23

And I was a two term Mod here in 2004. Things WERE different even when the infighting was about Kerry and Dean.

I have been here since almost the beginning as well. I just happen to remember why we were started and am seeing a dramatic rightward shift ever since the party tent got bigger and the Democrats decided that it was okay to throw progressives overboard to court disgruntled Republicans.

Here on DU we're getting a lot of that overflow.

And what I am asking is obviously rhetorical. I know damn well nothing will change but I did want to put my thoughts out there and ask what others thought.

Rp

[bobbolink]

205. "America, Love It Or Leave It"

Yup, same mindset.

[LostInAnomie]

40. Name some of these "liberals and progressives" who we should not be allowed to question.

[MessiahRp]

48. It's less about the politician but more about the general tone of nastiness towards

the clear left wing position in an argument.

Single Payer isn't a politician, it's an idea that has merit. More merit than collapsing the economy further with complete corporate giveaways. However the idea itself is slammed very hard by the right leaning Dems here that do not want debate but rather support the pro-corporate policies that Bush fought so hard for.

You're waiting for Kucinich as you're "Aha!" trigger point but this isn't just about him. It's about hammering the left whenever they post anything here to protect pro-corporate Obama just because you voted for him.

I voted for him too, the difference is I can see the forest for the trees... could as soon as he brought Emanuel on board and shut Progressives out of major cabinet positions and Administration meetings early on.

Nothing he has done thusfar has surprised me and he will continue to lurch to the Right because that's where these centrist/blue dog/DLCers go. They are Republicans with D's next to their name because the Republican brand is damaged.

So you are in effect supporting Republican policies because they have a different letter by their name.

Rp

[Egnever]

118. Sounds to me like you don't like being challenged

you are convinced that you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with you is a republican.

You seem to be looking for an echo chamber not a discussion board.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[NoUsername]

58. Lemme clear this up a bit for you.

Republican policies = bad.

Dem policies = good.

Now Dem policies might in fact be the same as the Republican policies in which case bad = good. Got that?

You need to start ignoring the policies themselves and just focus on whether it's a Dem or Republican behind the policy because that's the only thing that really matters. Basic principles and doing what's right mean precisely diddly-squat when it comes to hardcore party wonks and/or paid operatives.

Oh, and as always, follow the money.

[G_j]

70. let me guess

you are in politics, or somewhere in the beltway?

that's the cynicism (and reality) of big time politics.

[NoUsername]

208. Am I in politics?

Oh hell no. Just an observer.

[CBR]

94. Remember when that other site purged all the Rudy911

supporters for being too moderate -- I really hope we do not follow their lead.

[redqueen]

116. It is indeed for all Democrats.

That seems to ruffle some feathers now and then.

It'd be nice if we had proportional representation and could vote for other parties and have coalitions and all that (however things would actually get done much slower, lol)... but we don't, so...

[sabrina 1]

174. George Bush governed and got things done.

Is that what being a Democrat is now about? So long as we get things done, doesn't matter what they are, like continuing two wars and handing over the treasury to Wall St. We used to be against those things, but that was when a Republican was responsible. Now Dems are in control, so we support them, right or wrong?

Was that what this board was all about from the beginning? Someone should have said so, if that's the case.

[Lorien]

187. Liberal=Democrat. Conservative = Republican. It really is that simple

What IS a Democrat if not a Liberal? What is a Republican if not a Conservative? Lately this place has been "Libertarian Underground" and "Homophobic misogynist DINO underground", which is alienating plenty of Democrats. Let's a make DU a safe place for Democrats to come to exchange ideas, not conservative flame warriors who only want to enlarge the GOP by promoting the absurd notion of "Conservative Democrats".

[LostInAnomie]

14. How many threads do we need complaining about DU on here?

Seriously, this is the forth one on the front page alone and the other ones have hundreds of responses. Hasn't this horse been beaten to death already?

[prolesunited]

15. I wish all those complaining would just leave

if they hate it so much.

Just like Obama, it's main mission has never been about progressive ideals. It's about Democrats, electing them and getting the job done.

[anonymous171]

18. Democrats aren't getting the job done. That is the problem.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. Not everybody here necessarily agrees with that statement

but that doesn't mean that we can't all have a sane discussion about it from all points of view.

[ThomCat]

21. The argument has always been about

what that job is.

The idea that anyone who complains should leave is really bad logic, and bad manners. If the arguments in the party had moved in a different direction and you were the one dissatisfied with what the party was doing, would you want to be told that your only option was to leave? Or would you keep trying to be heard within your own party because you feel that your opinions matter?

[Lars39]

23. Might want to reread thos pesky rules again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[prolesunited]

33. I'm all for progressives being here and speaking out

I'm NOT the one calling for purges and zero tolerance policies <-- and silencing others is liberal/progressive, how?

[prolesunited]

34. I'm all for progressives being here and speaking out

I'm NOT the one calling for purges and zero tolerance policies <-- and silencing others is liberal/progressive, how?

[ThomCat]

17. I think you might be imagining good old days that were not

quite the way they really were. :shrug:

DU is a very centrist or "moderate" democratic site, and always has been. It has been about supporting the party in its current form, but not about moving the party to the left. The democratic status quo has thrived here.

DU never really was all that liberal or progressive. Unless you accept that moderates and sometimes even fairly conservative people will consider themselves liberal just because they aren't republicans. DU used to have more real liberal and progressive members, and be a bit more welcoming and accepting of them. Certainly since the election that isn't the case. We have hoards of people happy to move to the right with the current administration.

DU as a whole seems to believe in the old idea of tolerance for minorities, tolerance is cold and not the same thing as equality and respect. We have had only lip service paid to equality and respect. If you are an outspoken minority or a civil rights activist of any kind then DU is often a very difficult place. We are allowed to be here, and given a place, but only if we stay within some invisible lines of not offending the majority too much and not making waves too big.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. I must confess that I'm unsure how to respond to this posting

I can't deny that I am largely supportive of President Obama and the Democratic Party in general but I still enjoy participating in the dialogue/community here at DU and haven't really found any other political forum on the internet that I enjoy participating in nearly as much as DU. I also don't have a high degree of enthusiasm for Tim Kaine's "tools". Sure, there's going to be some disagreements here, even some heated ones at times, but I don't see the need/reason to exclude anybody based on their level of support for the President and the Democrats or their resistance to the status quo. I sincerely hope that DU does not move in the direction of determining its membership based on whether or not somebody is leftward enough or resistant enough to the status quo.

[MessiahRp]

24. I'm not asking for a purge per se... just some moderator backup on certain issues..

I just think there should be zero tolerance for attacking liberals and allowing the same fucking shills to spout the lines of the very Blue Dogs who are basically enablers of the same policies this site was created to fight against.

Rp

[prolesunited]

27. Write to Skinner and ask

Please let us know what he says.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[MessiahRp]

41. 2002... not exactly yesterday and just a year from it's debut

Not to mention I was a lurker for a year before I felt the need to chime in...

I have read a million times over and Skinner himself has said it... this site was created in opposition to Bush. Continuance of his policies is a defacto continuation of Bush, which this site opposed.

And if you think this site was not tooth and nail against EVERY BUSH POLICY, then you weren't paying attention. The reason people like yourself are defending Bush policies now is you are simply a shill for the party, no matter how wrong they are on something.

Rp

[Gman]

46. You apparently think supporting the Democratic Party is a bad thing

That means YOU have no place here and that makes you as much our enemy as any Republican.

[MessiahRp]

49. I think the party abandoned us when it decided to court disgruntled conservatives

and basically use liberals for their votes and ditch them at the door (which Obama's Administration did from the very moment they started to pick their cabinet).

I hope you enjoy putting party over personal values and like being a Republican with a slightly costumed name. Because that's what the party is doing now.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

173. Again, your personal feelings and opinions are not enforceable.

You feel that the Democratic party has abandoned you. You don't get to enforce your personal feelings on other people.

Not here.

If you start your own blog, then you can make it verboten to contradict your personal feelings.

[Forkboy]

44. The purist tag is almost always projection by those who use it.

I don't know anyone on the Left who hasn't compromised. I have in every single vote I've cast, including the one for Obama. How is that being a purist?

People in the center, on the other hand, have gotten exactly what they wanted in Obama. What compromise did centrists have to make in voting for a centrist? The center seems just as eager to drive the left away as the left does the center, so wouldn't that purist tag fit them just as easily as you apply it to the left? And if the purist tag doesn't fit you for doing what you decry from the left, isn't it possible that it doesn't fit them either?

[MessiahRp]

51. +1 Exactly... ONLY the left ever compromises.. and are shouted down if they ever want a concession

That's the problem I am talking about in a nutshell and why we have a right to be pissed here on the left. "Centrists" and Right Wingers always get their way. Thusfar the Democratic Congress and Obama haven't really moved to far to the left of what Conservatives always ask for. However their guy lost and we're acting like there is a Republican majority.

Why? Because the Democratic Party has ditched the Left to court conservatives hardcore.

We ALWAYS compromise. It's the Centrists that never do so they have no right to project anything onto us.

Rp

[LostInAnomie]

29. So you are wanting to create sacred cows and censoring legitimate discourse?

If people disagree with some of the liberal heroes people have on here, as long as they aren't breaking the rules, let the discussion take it's course.

If liberal ideas can't withstand critiques from Democrats, why should the mods step in to bail them out?

The point of a discussion forum is to have a discussion. Not to form a cheering section for liberal heroes and ideas.

[MessiahRp]

36. I hate to remind you of this but Democratic Underground has NEVER been a Democracy

People are tombstoned here quite frequently and sometimes it's over debatable stuff.

There are no sacred cows or posters on either side.

However, I would like a consensus on what the hell the site really stands for anymore.

If this is just a Democratic Candidate shill site, well then I guess we should change a lot of the wording on parts of the site that claim we aren't.

Rp

[LostInAnomie]

52. Skinner outlines what this site stands for in the rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

The site stands for exactly what it did from the beginning. We are allowed to talk about, question, critique, or even lambaste anyone or anything we choose as long as we follow the rules and are generally supportive of progressive ideals. We are allowed to discuss what should or should not be implemented, and how to go about it. And, people shouldn't be called DLC shills for disagreements over implementation. If you disagree with them, do so by posting your ideas. It's childish to push for some kind of a purge when you have your ideas opposed or see ideas posted that you don't agree with.

It's a discussion board. Discuss.

[MessiahRp]

57. I never actually called for any sort of purge...

That's your interpretation but not my actual words.

I am asking what the site actually stands for in the face of a rightward shift from the party that this site is supposed to support. Most of Washington's Dems basically support all of Bush's basic positions. By definition of how Skinner described creation of the site, this site was created in opposition to Bush.

That creates a contradiction in what the site stands for if we are now supposed to stand lockstep behind Democratic Candidates that are not Democrats by the previous definition.

Rp

[LostInAnomie]

64. No, you're not calling for a purge...

... just "zero tolerance for attacks on liberals and progressives by those who stick up for these very Blue Dogs/DLC types...". What do you call a zero tolerance policy that removes a group of posters?

"Most of Washington's Dems basically support all of Bush's basic positions."

Do you really believe that? Or, could it be that it's not be as easy to roll back Bush's policies as many would like to believe. Government policy is a difficult and tedious business.

[MessiahRp]

68. My responses:

1. Zero tolerance to me isn't a purge or a ban... just a post deletion. Not too insane to ask for.

2. Yes I do believe that. There are good Dems left in the party, they are just in such a minority they can't do a damn thing.

It's not because Dems can't roll back Bush policy, it's because they haven't even bothered to try in most cases. They are happy keeping the same corporate campaign donors happy the GOP does. They WANT to feed at the same trough. In fact Dems have been pretty blatant about making these donors happy with the Health Care sham bill and the bailouts. Maybe even more blatant than the GOP.

They don't really want change. They want control of the purse to send more money to their friends and set themselves up with government contracts being issued to their buddies. Feinstein's husband made a killing off the Iraq War. Why do you think she was such a big proponent of pro-Iraq War policy?

They're all greedy, self interested bastards unfortunately. And as it turns out disappointingly enough, Dems seem to think their constituents are corporations and not people just as much as the GOP did.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

122. So, you want censorship of anyone who disagrees with you.

Most of us would prefer to not have this place turn into Democratic Gulag.

Sounds like you just don't like to have people disagree with you.

No, people like you are the problem with this place--people who want to shout down and silence.

[whopis01]

207. Well, at least not a purge, per se, right? n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. When you say "attacking" what do you mean?

Being offensive/disrespectful is one thing and I agree that that kind of behavior should not be tolerated here (or elsewhere) but, as an earlier poster pointed out, Democrats of all *stripes* are supposed to be welcome here regardless of the fact that their views may be anathema to others.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. There are posts on this thread that directly say

they enjoy posting attacks on liberals. I suggest you ask that poster what is meant by 'attack' as well.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

102. I can't (and won't) defend comments like THAT

There are some people, however, who take any criticism of their position on a given issue as an "attack" and that's what I was asking about. :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

109. Does that include rabid attacks on Barack Obama?

Oh wait, he's supposed to be the enemy.

On Democratic Underground.

[Lars39]

35. People are forgetting this site is also for other progressives.

From the DU Rules:

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[JTFrog]

50. People forget alot when it comes to how the rules are enforced here.

Even those that claim to have been Mods in the past. :shrug:

From the DU Rules:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[Lars39]

55. There's a difference between criticism and total asshattery that's flamebate.

A lot of the problems would be minimized if consistant rude trollish behavior was once again grounds for banning.

[BeHereNow]

65. " A lot of the problems would be minimized if...

consistent rude trollish behavior was once again grounds for banning."

I think that observation nails the crux of the problem.
I vote THAT one to return the community to normalcy.
Well, as normal as we can call our little community.

I can NOT believe some of things I have seen posted lately by...
well you all know who they are.

Have the admins gone on vacation or what?



BHN

[MessiahRp]

56. I understand that part of the rules. Frankly there are other ambiguous comments that contradict that

a bit like the one posted in post #23.

I know the rules well. My question is obvious. Are we a strict pro-party website like democrat.org, or are we an underground? And if we're not just a party shill site, what happens if the party we once supported now supports the very positions the opposition party supported and no longer supports what many members who originally signed on support?

Do those members get axed for keeping the same consistent message but seeing that it goes against these new Democratic Principles (that are really Republican principles) it now breaks DU rules?

This is an open discussion about where we are and what we stand for in the face of a party that has shifted to the hard right in the past couple years.

Rp

[JTFrog]

60. That rule is the obvious answer to your obvious question.

Which part didn't you get?

Are you saying you have a problem with the way Skinner is running his site?

Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

[MessiahRp]

62. You're missing the point.

Those rules were written when the party stances were clearly more cut and dry. This newfound Blue Dog dominance (and Washington Democratic obedience) changes the game a bit.

I'm not telling Skinner how to run his site, just having an open discussion about where things stand now and if so how it applies.

Like I said before, I expect NOTHING to change, rather I am just having an open conversation about my question.

Rp

[JTFrog]

72. No, you are missing the point.

If you no longer support the Democratic party it isn't up to Skinner to change the name of his site or change the policies of his site to something that makes you happier. Hence, your freedom to leave.

I expect NOTHING to change either when it comes to this site being a Democratic site. That's why I donate here. Not because I expect DemocraticUnderground to become some political utopia for those that can't even contain themselves for a few months before breaking out the Obama=Bush propaganda and trashing of Democrats who support a Democratic President and a Democratic Administration.

[MessiahRp]

74. Yes all of us were just hoping and waiting to use the Obama = Bush meme from day one

You're so fucking oblivious to what is going on because you're in blind cheerleader mode that you refuse to see any similarities even when they're right there smacking you in the face.

We voted for Obama too. The difference is we voted for him expecting different results and aren't just going to give him a pass because a D is next to his name. And it's not JUST Obama. It's the whole fucking lot of them in Washington that really turned into "Corporations are my only Constituent" toadies.

Rp

[JTFrog]

82. The only thing smacking me in the face at this point is the complete dishonesty of

the claims here that Obama=Bush.

You're so fucking oblivious to any http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8730317">positive changes going on because you're in blind "nothing is good enough" puritan mode. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism. But constructive criticism is a rare commodity around here these days. It's straight to attack mode: Obama=Bush and anyone who supports Obama is a blind cheerleader.

The all or nothing, no compromise crowd isn't getting shit done because they almost always come out on the nothing side of things. If you wish to bury your head in the sands of imperfections then so be it. These pathetic attacks on Democrats are not going to negate the fact that the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8730317">CHANGE many of us voted for is already happening.

Personally, I'm more than willing to give the Democrats a few more years to clean up the shit that Bush and Cheney left behind while they position themselves to push for an even more progressive agenda. The guy I voted for told me it was gonna take time and hard work. That's what I expected and that's what I'm prepared for.

[MessiahRp]

84. Of course the only thing you have is the Cut and Paste thread

The one thread pro-Obama supporters use and littered with false hoods.

Gitmo might have been "ordered to close" as Obama fans say, yet it still open. Torture might have been banned yet it is still being used at Gitmo.

Seems you would rather pretend Obama has accomplished more than he has to cover for the fact that his Administration has continued ILLEGAL wiretapping, expanded Bush's state secrecy, continued two wars that needed to end YEARS ago and continues to give every taxpayer dollar imaginable to corporate buddies, just like Bush did... this time under the guise of a bailout and "Health care reform".

Rp

[JTFrog]

86. Seems you would rather pretend that Obama is responsible for the shit we're in and that he can fix

it with a snap of his fingers. Like there isn't fucking processes involved in our government.

There is nothing blind about my support. But then again, as I mentioned before, I already knew it was going to take time and perseverance to clean up the shit storm the Republicans left behind and move the country forward.

You expect far too much far too soon. That's your prerogative.

It's also a mistake and dishonest.

[MessiahRp]

97. There are processes... however failing to introduce any legislation that actually changes anything..

That is a failure of leadership.

And most of the things I mentioned above, he has the power to stop without Congress.

A snap of his finger and waggle of his pen and we're out of the wars, we stop wiretapping, we stop defending Bush State Secrecy policy, we end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We don't really need Congress to end any of that.

However Obama wants these things to keep going. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is about the only one they signaled any effort to change and it's just to throw a bone to those pesky gays who might not come out and vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012 after the way they have been treated.

Rp

[JTFrog]

108. "Obama wants these things to keep going".

"A snap of his finger and waggle of his pen..."

Pathetic and dishonest.

[MessiahRp]

133. You are disillusioned if you think Obama wields NO POWER

What the FUCK was the point of electing him then?

Yes by Executive Order he can end ALL of those things.

Sorry you don't want to hear the truth.

Rp

[JTFrog]

138. Everything is black and white with you isn't it?

Obviously that is a rhetorical question, given your OP.

I don't think it's all gonna sort out the way you are hoping.

But good luck in your efforts. :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

95. How exactly were party stances more clear cut and dry back then?

In 2001 the party was pretty much still pretty much operated by Clinton people and Clinton was the most moderate Democratic President in the post-FDR era. I think you have nostalgia for an era that never really existed. Perhaps the biggest difference is that before 9/11 there was no debate over Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, GITMO, torture, etc. But I assure you that little has changed in terms of party ideology since 2001. Had 9/11 happened later or earlier the party would've done the exact same things.

[MessiahRp]

101. The party stance was pretty much Anti-Bush, not so much pro Clinton's DLC.

The DLC, while it ran the party infrastructure really didn't control the grass roots and that's basically what this site was. Everyone was on board with opposing Bush and his policies. What baffles me is how if Obama supports those same policies, which in MANY cases he does, it's now an acceptable policy whereas before it was not. A ton of hypocrites on DU.

Rp

[Hippo_Tron]

110. I don't like naming names, but do you not remember MrBenchley?

He was probably the most vocal DLCer I've ever seen on this board and he was definitely here in the old days. There was always a loud pro-DLC contingent on this board even if they were small.

[G_j]

79. expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals

that's worth some thought

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Yes it is.

[conscious evolution]

38. a leftward resistance to the status quo...

I know that is what I plan to keep doing.
Far too many crimes against humanity still happening for me to stop railing against.

[kentuck]

54. Amen

Peace.

[Forkboy]

71. It's all I know how to do.

:)

[Life Long Dem]

43. The media does a good job of leading people astray.

[hfojvt]

47. my questions are

Why can't you debate or persuade these moderates? Why does there need to be a purge? If you want to be an effective resistance, then you/we need as many members as possible. Even ones who don't always see eye to eye with you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Times change. People? Not so much.

We got here because we follow policy, have a vigorous distrust of the powers that be and for the most part buy into at least a few of the issues that we collectively call liberalism.

Hating "the system" is okay, until you win and become it.

At best, we've found that the skills, talents and attitudes which work well as vocal members of the opposition party don't translate all that well to governance. At worst, we might find that the vast array of issues in the liberal suitcase aren't priorities to everyone.

We have less in common than we once thought now that we don't have GWB to hate.

[marybourg]

69. I'm thinking this is a cable TV commentary forum. nt.

[SoCalDem]

73. The milk of human kindness curdled around here in "Primary '02"

and it's not gotten "better"..:( There are not many "oldtimers" left around here.. many have just tired of the nonsense & moved on..

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

78. Don't forget, there IS Project X...

:evilgrin:

[Orsino]

83. Various underground movements are represented here.

It was easier to refer to ourselves in the singular when we were focused on replacing the Bush/Cheney regime. Predictably, many of us are at odds with the Democratic Party leadership at various times, and to various degrees.

We never really were a movement. We're just able to see that more clearly these days.

[robinlynne]

146. as are various right wing tendencies recently.

[Orsino]

177. Isn't it odd how that works?

Dems fragment when in power, Republicans when out of power.

[jmondine]

87. We should rename ourselves Democratic Topsoil

[Toasterlad]

106. Now THAT...Was Funny.

[Hippo_Tron]

88. I don't remember DU at any point being what you speak of

I can see from your profile that you were here a year before I got here so maybe something changed from 2002 to 2003. But when I got here in 2003 this place was a lot like it is now. The message boards run the gamut in terms of ideology: from DLCers to Marxists and it has been that way as long as I can remember.

There was always a contingent here that drastically opposed the status quo in this country and there was always a contingent that was primarily focused on getting Democrats elected. I think the biggest difference is now that we are in power, the debates have shifted from the way things ought to be to the way they are and why they are not the way they ought to be. And while DUers do disagree often about the way things ought to be, the differences about "who is to blame" for the way they are, are even greater.

[Kaleva]

93. +1

[MessiahRp]

98. See what you're saying is that only a fraction opposed the status quo back then...

That's not true. The status quo at the time was BUSH and everyone here opposed them. Now when his policies are continued with a D next to them, this is when the hypocrites really come out of the wood work.

Rp

[Hippo_Tron]

104. If you look at the debates we had over elections...

You see pretty much the same divisions now as you did then. "Kerry's stance on this is too weak, I'm voting for Nader" vs "Fuck you, you're just dooming us to four more years of Bush asshole". "This gay marriage decision in New Jersey is going to kill us in '06 midterms" vs "Clearly you don't give a shit about equal rights". And Bush was certainly a uniting factor for this place as we could all agree that we didn't like Bush. But our visions of a world where Bush was not President were quite different and those debates looked a lot like the ones we are having right now.

Yes it's a bit more intense now that we've gone from the abstract to the concrete. And you are right that some people here will defend Obama for something they would've criticized Bush for. In fairness to them, Obama is not Bush and while I believe we should view everything that a politician does with a great deal of skepticism Obama hasn't blatantly lied to the nation to get us into a war and thus I think reasonable people can put a bit more trust in him than they put in Bush.

[geek tragedy]

172. It is your personal opinion/feeling that Obama=Bush.

Most liberal/progressive Democrats reject your opinion.

So, boo hoo.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. This Is Democratic Underground; Not Leftist Underground. The Whole Point Of This Site Is To Get

Democrats elected and do what we can to keep the republicans out of power.

[MessiahRp]

99. Even when many of these same Democrats are just as bad.

To be honest if the choice was a Blue Dog who will never vote for anything we want anyway or a Republican, it's almost better to have a Republican because at least the party we support isn't going to get shitcanned from the blame that will extend to doing nothing to make positive changes.

Then the GOP takes the heat for what is really their policy of Corporate Government Takeover rather than the good Democrats who actually are fighting against that shit seeing their seat jeopardized because of these assholes.

Rp

[barbtries]

91. i'm with you

i'm a left leftist, and that has always been why DU was my internet home.

[Le Taz Hot]

96. Despite the name,

DU has never been "underground." They're as mainstream as they come. Having said that, they DO let us radical leftists post here.

[MessiahRp]

100. Yeah I suppose we should be happy with that..

Though lots of "radical leftists" have been banned in the past. My point is, when the policies stay the same from R to D, really is supporting the letter more important than supporting the issues you supposedly supported when you opposed the R administration?

A LOT of hypocrites on this board now supporting the Bush Policy continuations of Obama/Washington Dems when they angrily attacked the same policies under Bush.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

121. You have a DLC'er in your avatar.

Someone who voted to authorize the Iraq war. A strong and loyal supporter of your enemy Barack Obama.

Lots of hypocrites around here.

[MessiahRp]

124. Obama is not my enemy. His positions are.

That seems to be your problem. You can't discern the difference between personal vendetta and disagreement over policy and direction.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

128. Why do you have a DLC member who fully supports the evil

policies of BushObama as your avatar?

Sorry, but you are not going to succeed in pushing the actual Democrats here off the board, or in silencing us.

This is not your house.

[MessiahRp]

130. John Kerry is not a DLCer currently IIRC.

And he is way, way to the left of this current batch of Blue Dogs whom Obama has gotten in bed with.

You simplistic argument doesn't fly. I can disagree with Kerry on certain issues and support him as a whole. I support Obama on his mission (Health Care Reform) but I disagree virulently over how he chooses to take us there.

Rp

[geek tragedy]

131. If Obama is the corporatist sellout you're claiming, how can

you say you support his agenda when he's just trying to enrich corporations?

[MessiahRp]

134. I didn't say I support his agenda.

I support the general concept of Health Care Reform. Just not how he intends to take us there (aka Corporate Sellout).

Rp

[geek tragedy]

136. That's your personal opinion. But it's only your personal view.

It's not a fact.

You have no right to silence people who call 'bullshit' on it.

[Blue-Jay]

103. DU was never a "Movement".

It has always been a sometimes informative, sometimes entertaining message board. Don't get me wrong - I like the place and I've make some real swell friends who I'll be in contact with for the rest of my life. Still, I don't get the folks who seem to have their lives wrapped up in the DU goings-on. That's weird.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[rudy23]

107. I think we're seeing a purge in action now, but it's not of DLCers.

The DLC-ers are not going to quit anytime soon. That's why they're here, using bullying language and Rovian illogic to shit on mainstream progressives on the internet.

One year from now, this place will be an echo chamber for the DLC. It will be up to us "Naderites" to convince our low information friends that the Obama we got so excited about during the campaign is a fraudulent Democrat, and that they should put pressure on him because he doesn't live up to our progressive values. The Obama admin is hoping that our lo-info Democratic friends will continue to support Obama as he runs his conservative, pro-corporate presidency.

What we're seeing know is the first step in their years long plan to define their base. Step one is destroying the legitimacy of the blogosphere as a place for progressives to organize and solidify their core values. Step two is to brand all of those who complain about that as Naderite whiners who want Obama to give them a new pony---as irrationally as the teabaggers. Buckle up, this is the road we're heading down for the next few years.

[geek tragedy]

112. "Fraudulent Democrat." More bullshit from the fringe.

Obama has 88% approval from Democrats. So, it is you and your ilk who are the Fraudulent Democrats. You're Greens/Naderites.

This is not your party.

[rudy23]

119. Hear that, public option supporters? The DLC says this is not our party!

The gall, to come on DU and say to those of us who defend mainstream progressive positions that this is not our party! Who's party is it exactly? You tell me.

[geek tragedy]

120. Most public option supporters=Obama supporters.

Sorry, but your crowd is the TINY MINORITY of Democrats. You are not qualified to judge anyone else's credentials as a 'real Democrat.'

[robinlynne]

149. Excuse me. YOU are the fringe here!

[geek tragedy]

152. Being an Obama supporter is a fringe position here?

If that's true, this site really has gone off the deep end.

[robinlynne]

154. calling leftwing views fringe is fringe. This is a left wing forum.

[geek tragedy]

156. I'm not calling leftwing views 'fringe.'

I'm calling the people who refer to Barack Obama (86% approval rating among liberal Democrats) as a "Fake Democrat" of being part of the fringe.

Which, by pure mathematics, they are.

[mod mom]

111. Just remember IGNORE is your friend. DU is much more enjoyable w/o the corporate

lackeys touting the DLC/corporate interest wing's destruction of our party. If they want to lay praise for the repeal of Glass Steagall (which gave way to banking de-reg), destruction of the middle class (most favored trade policies w China, NAFTA) , support for wars based on lies and giveaway of our constitutional rights, then they can post w/o me having to read their crap.

I came here in Nov 2004 after witnessing the election stolen in Ohio to drum up attention for what occurred. The DLC not only was silent but I learned afterward was an active participant in the stolen election:

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

THEIR CANDIDATES WON'T EVER GET MY SUPPORT OR VOTE AND I DON'T HAVE INTEREST IN READING THEIR CORPORATE DRIVEL!

[BREMPRO]

113. I think your analysis is off the mark.

" Are we a genuine "Underground" movement? Or are we just pro-Democratic Party shills who supports the Democrats even if they turn on us and support the very core values of the previous regime that this website was started in protest of?"

"And I feel that the Republican brand being so tarnished is bringing a lot of people, ashamed to be a Republican, to this site thinking it's for all Democrats including the new ones who don't share our values and they go on the attack against liberals/progressives just as they did when they supported the GOP in the past... but now do it under the guise of our party's label."


Sure there are some Dem party shills here, and handful of conservative Dems, and disaffected former Republicans (should be welcome)- there are now over 150,000 members and the site has clearly evolved to reflect a wider range of opinion since it's founding. This is an open public website that does not require a purity test, and although it's uncomfortable to have your ideas challenged, ultimately I think that is a healthy thing. I've been here since 2004 and found it was much easier and more comfortable to be in opposition to Bush/Cheney, than to be the party in power. It's much different to have the rare majority in Congress and the White House that has to govern, manage public policy and shepherd bills through a divided congress and country. I saw the divisions becoming more evident here after the Dems took power in congress and more so after Obama was elected and had to make hard choices. Eight years of Bush disaster and 30 years of bad public policy is not going to change overnight. It just is much easier to be in opposition to something than to govern.

I believe that the vast majority here are still progressives Dems. I would divide those into two camps 1. progressive idealists and 2. progressive pragmatists. Both are believe in similar core progressive values, however the pragmatist (like myself) understand that in order to make steps toward reform given our politically divided country and corporate dominance of politics and media, we need to make compromises in legislation to get things passed in congress and continue to maintain or expand a majority (such as it is). That doesn't mean pragmatists don't believe in similar progressive values, but are more flexible, long-term, and practical about how we get to those goals. Ted Kennedy understood this and was the most successful progressive legislator in our history.

My frustration has been with those who reflexively dismiss any challenge to their ideas (such as single payer- have you read "the cost conundrum" or the Dartmouth Atlas?), or assume the dems and Obama are sell-outs because they make compromises to pass legislation. Look at Rep. Weiner who I admire greatly. He fought hard for single payer and the public option, but ultimately supported and voted for the health care bill because he realized he didn't have the votes for single payer and believed that the bill, although not perfect, has positive steps toward progressive goals. A progressive pragmatist believes in achievable evolution, rather than idealistic revolution.

I appreciate the idealists here and agree with many of their points of view. I will have a civil discussion with anyone. What bothers me is the posters that are rude, dismissive and not willing to examine their own preconceptions. Debate is a valuable process. DU is much stronger as a community if we are open to those challenges.

[redqueen]

125. Wish I could rec this post.

Well said!

[tammywammy]

139. +1 n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

158. Nailed it.

Nicely done. :kick:

Gridlock never produced anything but the perception of a "do nothing Congress."

[Usrename]

211. You left out a whole class of people like me.

Those who are very conflicted about every issue. I think the challenges are too big to blame any single person (President or not) for not getting the desired outcome. I never really expected that much, so my hope is still alive. There is still a hope that the criminals will be brought to justice, and I don't think that would be true under any other scenario.

People don't seem to realize that it will take the courts to bring about justice for the war criminals, but this current Supreme Court is even worse than the one that brought us Bush v. Gore where they deemed it unconstitutional to count legally cast votes. It would make no sense to trust these animals with any decisions to be made about the legality of torture as a national doctrine. I certainly don't trust them, not even a little bit. Something must be done about them first, before any domestic question of war crimes can be rationally dispensed with.

I would just like to see any tiny action that can be interpreted so as to keep my tiny glimmer of hope alive. I think the announcement that lobbyists will no longer be allowed to participate on boards and commissions might be that glimmer I've been waiting for.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Lobbyists-on-Agency-Boards-and-Commissions

Should this be enough to keep hope alive? Maybe it is for me, for now.

Certainly the decision to keep Gitmo open (touted in the press as a decision to close Gitmo, ala the Bush Blue Skies Initiative) was a huge disappointment, and that was his first official act. People have a right to be pissed about it.

[akwapez]

115. Maybe we just need seperate forums.

One for the progressives that look at the issues and one for the DLCers who support anyone and anything with a (D) next to the name.
I say they can have GDP.

[robinlynne]

151. aboslutely!!!

[ecstatic]

117. I guess you never took time to read the rules and mission statement

Oh well....

[robinlynne]

148. did you read them? It says this is a forum for PROGRESSIVE Democrats and OTHER PROGRESSIVES.

NOt for all members of the Dem Party.

[ecstatic]

159. The vast majority of people on here are progressive but just have

different approaches of how to get things done. Some people are realists, others are idealists.

[robinlynne]

163. That is how you see it. the majority of us here disagree. We see your "realism"

as corporate sponsored lying and corruption. plain and simple. no doubt about it.

[geek tragedy]

171. That's your personal opinion/feeling. It is not the site rules.

It is not a fact.

[robinlynne]

188. It is a progressive viewpoint, not a fact. This is a progressive site.

once again, not a party site.

[geek tragedy]

195. Well, when you're named a moderator or admin, I'll take

your pronouncements under advisement.

[robinlynne]

196. I think you shoud now. you offend the amjority of memebrs here. You guys are free

to create a moderate or centrist Democratic website. go for it. This here aint it.

[geek tragedy]

197. I reject your advice. have a nice evening. nt

[robinlynne]

164. realism to me is the knowledge that our current political system is BROKEN,

including the Democratic party. (I don't care about the other party at all.)Realism is knowing that e need to make serious structural changes so that corporate money no longer plays ANY ROLE in what our party members/representatives do. That is not idealism. That is about necessary change. It needs to happen from within the party and from outside.
Real;ism is knowing that money must be removed from politics in order for the citizens to be represented. There is no other way for democracy to thrive.

[ecstatic]

176. Realism is knowing that what you want isn't going to happen

anytime soon. Realism is working the system we've got to get what we need. Obviously what you want (we all want it) is the ideal, but that won't happen unless a major long term catastrophe happens.

[robinlynne]

189. wrong. That is your point of view. not realism. We believe the system is changable.

[Blue-Jay]

168. You forgot something.

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals."

Your omission was probably an oversight and completely unintended. You are forgiven.

[robinlynne]

140. exactly.

[question everything]

141. And you have the authority to determine who belongs here and what ideas should

be posted and supported, or not, based on...?

:thumbsdown:

[robinlynne]

153. whether or not the views expressed here are PROGRESSIVE. That is the definer.

Being anti-choice, for example is not welcome here. being against human rights for any group is also not welcome here.

[ElboRuum]

170. Well, the rules...

state you have to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, however it does not make policy as to what is and isn't progressive. Nor do they speak of strict adherence on every point.

The ones you mentioned, however, aren't where the issue lies. These are axiomatically progressive. Where the issue seems to lie is on where the line can be effectively drawn between generally progressive and generally anti-progressive. HCR certainly is an issue here, while single-payer would be the most progressive, a real honest public option would also be. But in areas of grey as this, discussion and disagreement is essential to the process. The OP suggests otherwise.

[Echo In Light]

147. There's a dozen or more here 110% against "a leftward resistance to the status quo."

[robinlynne]

155. They should go make their own forum, really. I'm sure the "party' has blogs available

for them. the party uber alles. go for it.

[Echo In Light]

162. DU: Love It Or Leave It

[robinlynne]

165. I'll take that over "the D Party, love it or leave it". I love Du BECAUSE

it gathers progressives together to talk. I would not waste my time on a "Democratic Party forum".

[ElboRuum]

167. Very Orwellian...

I so despise these threads and there have been tons of late, but inasmuch as I hate to encourage them by responding, I feel that the danger of permitting them to go unchallenged is the greater of the two evils.

To whit:

So you'd have the left wing echo chamber here? The liberal version of Orwell's Two Minutes' Hate?

If what DU has become is pissing you off so much, if you do want a strict ideological adherence to the "approved progressive platform" with neither an iota of disagreement or apostasy (and I perceive that implication in your words), then perhaps you'd be better off getting a blog of your own, and you can delete, moderate, and restrict comment to your heart's content. Until then, or until the administration of this website decides to invoke such narrow definitions of who is and who isn't welcome, you'll have to settle for merely fantasizing about your "purist" utopia, you know, the one where everyone just recs every thread and says... ahem... "ditto".

[geek tragedy]

169. +1984. nt

[Fire1]

175. What happened to the "Big tent?" n/t

[MerryBlooms]

185. Unless you've been on DU for a very long time

or you happen to disagree with a 1,000+ poster - you're out.

I guess I should apologize for being absent from this site for the last 8 years or so - sorry, I was dealing with losing my husband to cancer and taking care of him here at home, getting two teen boys through high school, running the household alone, a near fatal car accident, 37 surgeries, 7 months in the hospital, contracting MRSA from the hospital, at home care, countless doc visits and 'procedures' ... but I'm still an uniformed newbie. Call banks, war protests, health reform protest, letters to my congress critters, a life-long Dem ... yet I'm still an uniformed newbie here. I've had a warmer welcome from Rethug fundraising douches.

I'm an 'uniformed newbie' which apparently is looked upon as somewhat equal to a pariah on this site. Here all along I was a Dem looking discuss common ground, while swimming in a sea of a family of righties.

I donated very quickly after I joined because I want the left to have a strong voice. I had no idea those on the left, those I have always supported and identified with, would see me as an enemy or someone who is a potential 'freeper' and not worthy of discussion interaction.

I'm going to stick it out, because I'm not a quitter. But the 'long timers' here certainly don't much welcome new subscribers to this site - they're not near against the 'status quo' as they lead us to believe.

[Fire1]

190. If you've been lurking for awhile, you know that MANY of the

best DUers are long gone. Don't let it get to you b/c the jerks you describe are newbies, too! They apparently have nothing better to do than rack up posts in a hurry. We may not always agree but I try to be civil about it. And WELCOME!!!

edit to add: So sorry to hear about your husband and the many trials and tribulations in your life these past years. Congratulations on raising two teen-agers and staying sane.

[MerryBlooms]

194. I've lurked for the last 2(ish) years

It seems the battle between the 'liberal than thou' group has increased, which is ok with me. Sometimes I read posts and it leads me to Googling many hours, which is a good thing in my mind.

Thank you for the welcome.

btw, I have no problem with Kucinich, but the Bluedogicans have been stomping on my last nerve.

[Fire1]

199. Bluedogicans, last nerve? I'm way ahead of ya. n/t

[MerryBlooms]

201. Vicoden?

*snark
*wink

[Hippo_Tron]

193. I've had 1000+ posts for quite some time and been a mod and been told I don't belong here

It's inevitably going to happen and it does tend to happen more when you have a low post count. Out of curiosity when were you told you don't belong? Unless you were repeating right wing talking points, it was likely just a few assholes who told you that you don't belong.

[MerryBlooms]

198. There have been many threads

Not mine personally, but after you've read 'uniformed newbie' 'freeper' 'troll' 'tombstone' so many times, it gives one pause as to if they've chosen the right forum. Maybe the timing of my joining and the paranoia or trolling coincides. Whatever the case, I'm here to stay and for what it's worth - I've read your posts and can't imagine why anyone would tell you you don't belong here.

[SteppingRazor]

179. I have to agree with the poster above a couple posts, that this all sounds terribly Orwellian.

All this screaming over ideological purity sounds awfully like cries of, "Yes! Yes! We must fight against Emmanuel Goldstein with everything we have!" "BB! BB! BB!"

Sheesh. Tolerance is a hallmark -- one of the key hallmarks, I should think -- of liberal thought. The one thing we should not tolerate is intolerance.

I myself am far to the left of most of America -- whenever the regular "Where are you on the grid at Politicalcompass.org?" threads are posted, I take the test again and find I am, invariably, way off down there in the bottom left-hand corner. But I don't let my own politics preclude me from finding consensus with people who -- believe it or not -- have a lot more in common with me (and other decidedly leftist Democrats) than many of us are perhaps willing to admit.

I think there are serious problems in Congress right now. I think, particularly the Senate's relatively recent insistence on needing 60 votes to pass any and all legislation, is having a seriously deleterious effect on our democracy. But I also know that trying to equate moderate, even DLC or Blue Dog Democrats, with the Republican Party is a farce. The difference between even the most liberal Republican in the Senate and the most conservative Democrat in the Senate is sizable. When one looks at voting records for all of them, one finds that even Ben Nelson votes with the Democrats more than Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. (Source: http://voteview.com/sen111.htm ) There is, therefore, a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats, even in the most moderate of their forms.

In the source linked above, note the rankings -- all D's, followed by all R's. There are many other studies that reflect similar, if not exactly the same, findings. The trope that some in the Democratic party are no better than Republicans is simply untrue, and Dems had better understand that fact they want to maintain their majorities.

[rudy23]

180. The DLC-ers are the ones on the attack. If they want to keep their majority, they should back off.

Their attempt to come on here and run roughshod over Progressives who have been here for years is backfiring. It is insulting, and is also increasing the vitriol towards the Rahm Emannuel wing of the party. If Rahm wants to create a schism in the Democratic Party so they can keep sucking up that corporate money, he needs to remember who voted for his candidate in the first place.

[SteppingRazor]

181. You do realize you're saying "The DLC-ers are the ones on the attack" ...

on a thread full of anti-DLC-er attacks, right?


I understand that there are many moderates who dismiss carelessly their more-ideological brethren. But I think it's simply untrue to suggest that these are the only people on the attack, and thread after thread here at DU will certainly bear me out. The thing is, people tend to only notice attacks directed at them. Believe me, after many terms as a moderator, I have found this to be true in literally any issue on DU.

[Echo In Light]

182. And realistically, it's a very minor % - a dozen or so - who aggressively attack

The idea, in my estimation, is to encourage those not of the DLC mindset to refrain from engaging them in the blustery name-calling, since it accomplishes zero, and only provides the DLC/uber moderate types further justification for perpetuating the volleying of that type of caustic banter - and, of course, to insist that it's they who are unfairly put upon by lefties/libs/progressives when in many, not all, but many instances it's the liberal person who is merely responding to the attack, not initiating it.

[rudy23]

184. I agree to an extent, but that's not what this is. This thread is in response to many more anti-DK

posts that have been surging up on here every time Dennis points out how the President is abandoning progressive values in the healthcare reform process.

It happened when Single Payer was being taken off the table--that time wasn't even provoked by Dennis. Another time Dennis spoke out against the bill in October--and sure enough the vile DK attacks surged on DU, from the same band of posters. Now, it's surged because Dennis voted against the bill, AND pointed out that the president pressured Dems to strip the state by state single payer amendment from the bill.

The Obama team couldn't afford to have the blogosphere rally around Dennis on this issue, so the Rahmbots have been on the attack this week. The dozen or so threads defending DK are dwarfed by the hundreds of similary worded, over the top attacks on Dennis and progressives by association we've seen this week. I realize we all see things through our subjective lens, but this round of coordinated attacks is unmistakable.

[Hippo_Tron]

191. Obama and his team have far more important things to worry about than DU

The attacks that you seem to think are "coordinated" are simply the result of infighting that tends to take place on pretty much every message board in the history of message boards. When the left attacks the President and uses DK as their standard bearer, supporters of the President are inevitably going to respond by attacking the standard bearer of the left.

And quite frankly it isn't civil on either side. Lots of people are very emotionally invested in the President just as some are very emotionally invested in DK. People who are big fans of the President get personally offended when people call him the names that they do on this board. Likewise people who are big fans of DK also become personally offended when his detractors call him the names that they do on this board.

[bertman]

186. "Underground" in name only. Only a very sheltered and naive person would equate this

site with ANYTHING "underground" in the true meaning of the word: secretive, hidden, subversive.

I'll bet that the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and every other government "security" organization wished all "underground" organizations were as secretive as DU.

Sorry if this is repetitive, but I couldn't wade through the myriad arguments going on between posters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. Surprisingly, very few have made that point

Yeah, an underground website that is available to the whole world is a bit of an oxymoron. Unless, of course, it's like an iceberg, and 90% of the activity is in PMs that I'm completely unaware of ...

[bertman]

210. which, the "authorities" are certainly aware of. No "underground" here unless DU'ers

are meeting up secretly in other ways. The internets are not secure communications.

[Stinky The Clown]

203. Bravo! I agree with you COMPLETELY

The idea that we on the left get treated with scorn here is amazing and sad.

No, it isn't that much of an underground these days. I see too much conservative philosophy and too much personality driven politics for my taste.

[branders seine]

204. Lots of people who think like you are now W-A-Y underground,

like T/S'ed

:scared:

[Naturyl]

209. Nice. Worthy of the post that inspired it.

Just another example of the ripple effect. Thanks for this.