From, Reed and Marshall lay it out.

[ulysses]

First and foremost, we need to bridge the trust gap on national security by spelling out our own offense against terrorism and clearly rejecting our anti-war wing, so that Republicans can no longer portray us as the anti-war party in the war on terrorism. We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents nor defines our party.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=173...

What leftish elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon. And while heartland voters may be too reluctant to hear reasoned criticism of U.S. policies, they are essentially right in believing that America has mostly been an indispensable force for good in the world. So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=171...

Bothered by folks threatening to leave the party? Figure out who started the fight.

[Mojambo]

1. Gee, I feel SO welcome in the Democratic party...

Fuck them all.

[ulysses]

2. don't you just?

Let's hear it for building bridges on the center-left!

[burn the bush]

4. really! I guess they are saying that they don't want us

well, that's ok coz i really liked that Cobb stayed with us on the vote issues. Maybe we can bring the third party into full swing since the dems have stated that we don't belong with them.

[ulysses]

8. one has to imagine, yes. n/t

[MissWaverly]

14. don't want us/why do they keep asking us for $

just wondered why, and they are busting down our door asking for help every day.

[itzamirakul]

62. Hold on! Who GAVE From, Marshall and Reed the Democratic Party?

I know I didn't. And from the sound of this board it doesn't seem like a lot of other Democrats gave it to them either. They will understand when they wake up and see the competition for leadership that they have now.

They have the NERVE to SPEAK for the ENTIRE Democratic Party as if they were voted into office. Shee-it!

[BrklynLiberal]

3. THAT is why we need someone like Dean at the head of the DNC

These guys sound just like the PNAC!!!!

[Zhade]

17. Marshall might as well be in PNAC. He's endorsed their views four times.

IMIO, he's a goddamn traitor to the Democratic party, and Dems should be pissed as hell and calling for his head.

[LizW]

70. Is that the same Will Marshall who signed this?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

[Zhade]

79. Yes.

NT!

[joanski01]

5. This makes me so freaking mad,

that I'm speechless! What the hell is an elitest anyway? I sure don't think that I am one. If they elect one of those war-mongers as DNC Chairman, I'm through.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. What a crock of crap!

"And while heartland voters may be too reluctant to hear reasoned criticism of U.S. policies, they are essentially right in believing that America has mostly been an indispensable force for good in the world"

Jan. 31 issue - Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.

You had only to listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America—one that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is to spread the word.

The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe "American ideas and customs" should spread globally.

Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58 percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's second Inaugural positively.

Tellingly, the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism. A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country. Says Doug Miller of GlobeScan, which conducted the BBC report: "President Bush has further isolated America from the world. Unless the administration changes its approach, it will continue to erode America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence world affairs." Former Brazilian president Jose Sarney expressed the sentiments of the 78 percent of his countrymen who see America as a threat: "Now that Bush has been re-elected, all I can say is, God bless the rest of the world."

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions—globalization, in a word.
<snip>

more....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek

[WI_DEM]

10. Gee, I thought Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois

were part of the "heartland"? I guess Indiana, Kansas and Nebraska must have bigger hearts to the DLCers? but they sure don't have more electoral votes.

[WI_DEM]

7. So when did Michael Moore get into the DNC race?

Finally someone running who truly could compete with Dean.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. I hate these fucking goddamned traitors even more than I hate Bush

Junior is supposed to be a Republican, so nobody is surprised when he condemns those who oppose him.

But these DLC infiltrators hide behind the name "Democrat" while actively pursuing the total destruction of anything and everything the Democratic party ever stood for. And they do it in such a way that even some otherwise well-meaning Democrats are even deceived.

Cut them out like the cancer they are before they kill us all. And considering where Bush and the neocons are heading, that's no exaggeration.

[Zhade]

20. I'm STILL waiting for a DLCer to explain Marshall's pro-PNAC stance.

Not once has a single DLCer on these boards been able to answer why Marshall endorses PNAC views and policies. Not once.

I think they know they can't defend the indefensible. And there's the rub: I simply will not work with anyone who willingly - hell, enthusiastically - works with PNAC. Ever.

How they can support a man who does is beyond me.

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. DLC really has it in for Michael Moore, don't they?

I bet none of From's, Reed's or Marshall's kids will ever see combat in Iraq or wherever BushCo. takes us next.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. Nah, Reed's kid fights his battles right here on DU....

Look in most Dean bashing threads, and you'll find him

Er, no names mentioned, of course. That would be against DU rules.

[WI_DEM]

16. I think I know who you mean

Just have to check the dead thread file.

[jonnyblitz]

22. I am surprised they haven't shown up yet , whining about "purists"

[Zhade]

40. Yes, it's so "purist" to not work with traitors like PNAC...

I echo your !

[Cheswick2.0]

12. Notice the right wing rhetoric

Liberal eletists.
I'm liberal but I have been waiting my whole life for the eletist part.

[Robbien]

18. They use the GOP words and tactics,

they keep reaching for the GOP membership.

Why are they even calling themselves Democrats, new or otherwise?

[IndianaGreen]

32. Perhaps it is because there is no difference between PPI and PNAC

Both support rampant American militarism to subjugate the world to the ruling class, and at the expense of the workers. They are as much a threat to freedom as the Bush family!

[Zhade]

41. If I'm not mistaken, a DUer proved they SHARE AN OFFICE AND PHONE!

Wish I could find that thread again.

[Robbien]

50. Will Marshall of PPI signs both PPI and PNAC declarations

Zhade I also remember a thread where someone called both PPI and PNAC and got the same person both times.

[Zhade]

61. Damn! We need to find that thread.

NT!

[IndianaGreen]

80. The WWII poster titled "Know Your Enemy"

we could a similar one to illustrate the PPI/PNAC threat to peace and freedom.

[Zhade]

15. Wow. The sheer arrogance of these men.

"Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

Do these guys think that the administration's failure to prevent 9/11 (at best) is just a "conspiracy theory"? What about the real conspiracies to get us into an ILLEGAL war with Iraq, or to pay columnists to disseminate WH propaganda, or cover up any number of crimes ranging from outing Valerie Plame to the AIPAC spy and so many more? It's "anti-American" to point out the truth?

Have fun with the smaller party, guys, and remember that your selling out and rabid attacks on truth-tellers is what caused it to shrink.

EDIT: And let's not forget that Will Marshall has endorsed four PNAC letters to date.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. causing us ( the democratic party) to shrink is their main motivation

IMO.
Either the organization has changed drastically since some good democrats belonged and were active, or they have just done a good job of fooling the hell out of people up until now.

[Zhade]

21. I'd even be willing to listen to the former argument...

...as long as DLCers would be willing to understand that a leading DLCer supporting PNAC is a BAD, BAD thing.

The DLCer who denounced Marshall for colluding with people like Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et al, would gain some respect from me.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. but their real argument is not "take the party center where the voters are

that is a cover for "take the party right where the corporate payouts are".

[Zhade]

25. I know.

I just want DLCers to admit that, by supporting Marshall, they support a traitor to their party (unless, of course, they LIKE Marshall's stance on PNAC).

[CTLawGuy]

43. The DLC has a purpose

1. To keep the Dems too weak to oppose the Repugs...
2. To keep the Dems strong enough to crush anything that might replace them.

[Cheswick2.0]

73. that about sums it up

and the have paid people posting here.

[moggie12]

24. Ummm,...... at the risk of being flamed......

Those guys said it pretty stupidly and in an unnecessarily combative way, but I think there may be a kernel of truth in there somewhere -- or at least something to think about a bit.

(I'll wait while everybody hits the alert button............)

Okay, now that you're back, let me lay this stuff on you:

1) I do get the feeling that some anti-war protesters are reflexively anti-war, i.e, that there is no war they'd ever be in favor of. For example, some were against going into Afghanistan, correct?? In my mind, that was an action that needed to be taken. Maybe that's what From et al meant by "being portrayed as the anti-war party in the war on terror"...

2) Now about Michael Moore. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Michael Moore against the Afghan action? (I read a lot of mainstream media so I admit I could be dead wrong about this). Also, the heavy anti-Bush, somewhat conspiratorial tone of F-911 made it a less than persuasive "documentary" in my opinion-- it was more like a political polemic in my mind. More people would have listened to his message (which was a very important one)if he hadn't been so heavy-handed in his approach. As it was, he ended up being the poster boy for the anti-Bush movement, which I think was unfortunate: Anything that sounds extreme is automatically discounted by many Americans who might otherwise be open to a more reasoned approach. Just from a PR standpoint, Moore getting awards at Cannes didn't help either. Like it or not, the French are seen as "socialist sissies" by many Americans. The French lauding Moore didn't help the anti-Bush, anti-war movement's ability to get its message across to Americans and, in fact, probably hurt it.

I'm not a DLC fan (and I thought Peter Beinert's article in the New Republic urging Dems to join in with Bush stupid "crusade" was the worst piece of drivel I've read in years), but somewhere between the two sides (DLC and left) I think there's important issues to talk about. It's very unfortunate that it seems to be turning into a "war".

[Guaranteed]

28. Your concerns are legitimate, but they are not the concerns

of these assholes.

[moggie12]

53. Yes you're right -- but I hate to see them lost in the scuffle

While I am very anti-DLC these days, I don't like the idea of tossing the whole centrist thing right out the window. Some of what the centrists said was legitimate, in my opinion -- e.g., that the Democrats shouldn't be "weak on defense".

What the heck happened to them though? They do seem to have been taken over the Wall Street types. And Beinert and others' foreign policy ideas are nuts! I just hope that some semblence of true centrist thought can be salvaged from the "war" that's going on these days.

[Guaranteed]

57. When Al Qaeda attacked us, we had to respond.

I don't think anybody can really argue that we shouldn't have gone after bin Laden. We truly didn't have a choice.

But, that's the thing- I actually agree with Ulysses, in a sense, in that there's nothing wrong with being reflexively (note I didn't say "purely") anti-war. Wars are only to be engaged in in self-defense, which basically means that you don't have a "choice," at all. Someone else has the made the choice to attack you, and you're simply stopping them. If you ever have a choice of not going to war, you shouldn't. It's never worth it.

I think that once we're in a war, though- a war that we didn't start- a "legitimate" war- we have to pull out all the stops. No playing around, just finish it.

[Zhade]

63. DLCers like these guys aren't centrists. They're traitors to the party.

NT!

[Cheswick2.0]

35. Excuse me but what exactly did Afghan get us?

What problems did it solve? Did we get Bin Laden, slow down the growth of the taliban, stop terrorism?

[moggie12]

44. Well, since you asked...

I thought it was the right thing to do in that it was OBL/Al Qaida's current base of operations.

"Catching" Bin Laden was and is probably impossible, but forcing him to operate on the run isn't a bad result. In my opinion, I'd have liked to see the US publicly say that we bear some of the blame for what happed to Afghanistan (i.e., using it as a cold war playground and then abandoning it) and commit to rebuilding it. I'd have also liked the US to commit to helping Pakistan -- that's a powderkeg waiting to go off, in my opinion.

But no, Instead of building schools, hospital and housing in Afgh and Pakistan, Bush is blowing up Iraq and recruiting more to Bin Laden's side than OBL in his wildest dreams could ever have hoped for.

[BrklynLiberal]

45. I think Bush only went into Afghanistan so that he could eventually go

into Iraq. He wanted to go into Iraq all along,(I think Richard Clarke, among others, made that perfectly clear) but the s**t would have hit the fan so badly that he and his minions would have fallen flat on their faces. They HAD to go into Afghanistan first..so they could then justify going into Iraq afterwards.
There were no longterm good results of going into Afghanistan. The country is just as bad off as it was before we went in. The opium trade is flourishing. Women still have no rights. We never did capture OBL. Exactly what was the net positive gain for the US, aside from the PR for Bush, and the opening for the opportunity to go into Iraq?

[moggie12]

49. Do you think it would've been "good' had it been done right?

I think Bush screwed up big-time in Afgh. Like you say, I think he was hell-bent on moving right on into Iraq, which he wanted to do all along. We did the minimal amount in Afgh and then ran off, not spending the resources that should have been spent in Afgh. Had it been done "right", however, I think it could have been beneficial to US interests.

[BrklynLiberal]

54. IF we had gone in, gotten BinLaden, actually helped to setup a government

tht showed some respect for human rights, and not gone on to Iraq, perhaps the U.S. would still have some respect in the world, and 1300+ Americans would still be alive, thousands would not be horribly wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis would not be dead and wounded and their country would not be laying in shambles.
I am not even going to mention the billions of dollars that we could have spent on constructive projects here in this country that have gone to military spending in Iraq.

[Zhade]

64. If the (as yet unseen by us) evidence shows bin Laden is fully culpable...

...going into Afghanistan to get him was the right thing to do.

Carpet-bombing all those civilians, not so much. Google "Convoy of Death" for other sordid details on our military going, uh, "beyond the call of duty".

[Cheswick2.0]

75. fair enough, but you can see how it might be perfectly legitimate to argue

against the war in Afghanistan. Making Bin Laden run has not hurt his movement at all.
They are doing better than they ever have. All we have done is locked up a lot of people who are going to get out eventually. Some of them have already left Gitmo and are suing us.

[Guaranteed]

51. Well, the idea was to get bin Laden.

Of course, maybe that wasn't Bush's hope in invading. Who the hell knows.

But, you know we need to get that guy.

[ulysses]

37. even if some are reflexively anti-war,

so what? So the hell what? There are certainly worse stances to take in response to the reflexive pro-war stance of the Bush administration.

Anything that sounds extreme is automatically discounted by many Americans who might otherwise be open to a more reasoned approach.

Michael Moore would have been painted as an extremist, by both the GOP and the DLC, if he'd appeared in F9/11 surrounded by furry kittens.

It's very unfortunate that it seems to be turning into a "war".

It's been a war for some time already.

[moggie12]

46. What do you mean "so what"

It's not an either/or proposition, i.e., that you're either reflexively pro-war (like Bush) or reflexively anti- war (like some on the left). Somewhere in the middle is an appropriate response: E.g., our response to terror should mostly involve "soft" actions (economic and political means), only using force when necessary. Democrats can't win elections if they categorically reject the use of force.

Your second point misses the point I was trying to make. Sure they would've tried to discredit Moore even if he'd been surrounded by kittens, but they would have been MUCH LESS succesful at it had he not be so virulently anti-Bush.

[ulysses]

59. "Somewhere in the middle is an appropriate response"

Where were the folks who hold that appropriate opinion during the run up to the invasion of Iraq? Where?

[ulysses]

72. I'm still interested in a response here.

Maybe there is a more appropriate response to warmongering than simple opposition, but where were the folks making that response?

[Cheswick2.0]

78. what you fail to admit is that the people you paint as too extreme were

right. Can you say where MM was wrong or where the anti-war movement is wrong? You can talk all you want about being effective, but MM didn't lose the election....moderates, appeasment politicos, lost the election.
The war, both of them were wrong. We gained nothing and we are losing billions and american troops. We are also killing our fellow human beings, not in self defense, but for greed.
We were right and it would be nice if the moderates would admit that.

[cosmicdot]

26. "If Democrats want to be a majority party again..."

... they need to win back the middle class."


"If Democrats are going to be born again as a majority party ..."

(both from page 1)

"if" and "again" sell the idea that we're not; and, that's participating in 'the Big Lie' that we lost in 2000, 2002, and 2004 ...

what middle class? the one disappearing under Republican and Republican-lite economic policies?



"The No. 1 issue on voters' minds on Election Day was something that we don't discuss in polite company in the blue states: moral values."

queue up behind Karl Rove's memes

the full-voice of the Democratic Party isn't being heard in the corporate-controlled Bu$h-friendly MSM ... when you DLCers get air time, like those 3 against 1 gang-up shout-downs ... try to sound like Democrats ... the image and message may not 'appear' so narrow ...


page 2

"Instead of scoffing at Bush's faith-based agenda, we could fight for a stronger safety net in which both government and religious groups do more."

note to ponder: the one doling out the graft will likely benefit with votes ... so, why tear down the Founding wall between church and state by giving the Republicans means to buy influence in 2006 and 2008? We can innovate and lead without destroying the Constitution.

page 3

"This was a turnout election. The next one will have to be a persuasion election as well."

if the next one is another dishonest one, guess what?

You 'Democrats' at the DLC should have helped with the 2000, 2002, and 2004 election fiascos ... you might have more credibility.


Al From could, at least, stop referring to himself as 'CEO' of the DLC (who is elitist?) ... for me, it's like someone scratching their fingernails on a chalkboard or putting salt in a wound ... it just doesn't go, imo, with the Democratic Party ...


try this blueprint: come home to the Democratic Party

left, right, center ~ whatever ... I yearn for the return to being old-fashioned, New Deal populist Democrats ... it's only in the age of Reagan-Bush-the DLC that that means liberal elitist bastards*.

sure hope these DLC elitists aren't laughing over coffee and tea with Karl Rove while reading the reactions ... still can't figure out how these egotists elevated themselves to salary-paid 'player' status ...

*thanks to another DUer for that description

in the 2nd linked commentary:

"Annual surveys by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations make clear that most Americans are instinctive internationalists."

it's quoting a conservative right-wing think tank survey?!

[janx]

27. These guys are about to become irrelevant.

They're trying to tell everyone else what to do, but anything they say makes no difference. The Dem party has a chance to become completely revitalized, starting at the local level.

[Guaranteed]

29. They are presently irrelevant. They do nothing but lose. nt

[janx]

31. By Jove!

You're right!

[BrklynLiberal]

47. If a little more than 50% of eligible voters actually voted, and about

50% of those may have actually voted for W, that means that 75% of the total population of eligible voters did NOT vote for Bush.
I do not see that as an indication that those who are not in Bush's camp are in the minority.
I believe that the Democratic party, the TRUE Democrats, who appeal to the basic principles on which the party was founded, have a better chance of appealing to that vast population of people out there who are learning exactly what Bush and his minions are doing to this country. Most of the people in this country are on the losing end of what is happening here, and it is dawning on them that if they don't do something about it very soon, it will be too late.
The answer is NOT to make alliances with the Republicans, but to distance ourselves as much as we can from them and their ideas.

[IndianaGreen]

30. From, Reed and Marshall are neolibs: Democratic version of PNAC neocons

and their militaristic and imperialist views must be soundly rejected just as much as we reject the neocons.

We are in a cultural war against the rightwing of both major parties!

[KoKo]

33. Progressive Dems have split with those folks. Let them spit into the wind

They don't run the Progressives... They can "bug off." They are irrelevant.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. HOW COULD THESE IDIOTS MISS THIS VITAL FACT:

Michael Moore is NOT
repeat NOT
a registered Democrat
Neither is Ron Reagan.

They are both independents.
NOT Democrats
Independents

Even if you think that an anti-war stance is wrong, how hard is it to distance yourself from someone who ISN'T IN YOUR PARTY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Unless there is another agenda at work here....

[KittyWampus]

36. The DLC Gasbags Bash The Progressives. And The Progressive

gasbags bash the DLCers. Both are unable to speak in moderate tones regarding the others.

While I believe a subset of the "DLC" ARE primarily Corporate Tools and PNAC'ers... I don't think they are ALL that way...

Similarly while I believe a subset of Progressives ARE primarily unwisely anti-war and anti-American in their assessement of American foreign policy... I don't think we are ALL that way...

The Left has an image problem when it comes to Security issues. Even Howard Dean admits this.

Also, there are those on the Left who simply start from the position that America is evil, has done nothing worthwhile ever and then go so far as to defend people like Milosevic.

Too bad the gasbags cited here used such harsh, inflammatory language... it simply mirrors a lot of the divisive crap DU'ers post here.

[ulysses]

38. well, as I said in the OP,

figure out who *started* the fight. (Hint: it wasn't the left)

[KittyWampus]

42. Uly, I'm Not Into Two Camps Of Chimps Flinging Poop At Each Other

any more than I'm into two kids in a sandbox throwing sands wailing "HE STARTED IT"!

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Then why are your shorts full of sand?

[ulysses]

58. high-minded of you.

It seems clear to me, though, that when someone has already started a fight with you, it's best to fight back. For progressives, that's as true of the DLC and any other centrists who want to shut progressives in the party up as it is of the neocons.

[IndianaGreen]

39. You better take a good look at what the USA has done to the world

and rid yourself of those rose colored glasses you have.

Did you know that most Germans thought that Hitler was responding to Polish aggression when he sent his armies into Poland?

We are the Germans of the 21st century!

[BrklynLiberal]

48. And the rest of the world is waking up to this!!

As indicated in the article in post #6.

[w4rma]

52. Well, all three of these guys are that way. And they lead the DLC. (nt)

[Cheswick2.0]

55. you mean the divisive crap where you keep misrepresenting Dean?

Such as Claiming he said we lost because of defense issues? Or how about when you claim we claim he is a victim?
You are not in a position to cry about divisiveness.

[loudsue]

60. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT DEMOCRATS!!! They are INFILTRATORS!

Bought and paid for infiltrators of the Democratic party. They have TREMENDOUS funding behind them, from the same groups that fund the republican machine. They are ONE AND THE SAME.

There is PLENTY of room in the Democratic party for "REAL" centrists... NOT for republicans, which these people are, no matter what label they try to put on themselves.

When they offer the big bucks to help Dems in their campaigns, they're making them sign contracts where they will swear not to support a "populist agenda". There was a lot of information, with links, on the old DU...all inacessable now. But the DU researchers found all kinds of things out about these skanky assholes.

Anybody that supports the DLC is actually supporting the people who ARE republicans, and have infiltrated the Democratic party, for no other reason than to further the corporate take-over of our Democracy. THAT is where there is no middle ground. Infiltrators are infiltrators, I don't give a rats ass what they "call" themselves.

Democrats need to start working locally with their local chapters of Democracy for America, so that we can start re-taking our party, at all levels of government.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com /

But the VERY first thing we have to do is get our votes back from the corporations.....the SAME corporations that these assholes, Reed, Marshall, and From have supported from day one: Diebold, ES&S, Triad, etc. They are totally complicit in the take-over the our voting machines.

[Zhade]

65. It's not all lost information, thankfully.

And there's plenty of juicy info on the DLC PNAC-collaborators, even on the current version of DU.

Check my signature; Eloriel compiled the links. Interesting reading...!

[Cheswick2.0]

67. If you really want to be disgusted go read some of the articles they

put on their web site NDOL. I have read a lot of investigative reports on them. But I have rarely read their right wing ideas from their own web site,.. GAG

[welshTerrier2]

66. "the anti-war wing"

first, let me offer a great big

FUCK YOU DLC !!!

second, let me say that showing America that we, as Democrats, can "handle" foreign policy and are tough on defense DOES NOT MEAN that we should support every single war and invasion that idiots like bush dream up ... it is absurd to suggest that criticizing what has happened in Iraq shows weakness ... our Party should call for war when war is "the last resort" ... didn't we just have a candidate who took that very same position? are these DLC jokers attacking even that position now ???

it is inconceivable to me that anyone valuing unity in the Party would issue these statements at this time ... either they realize their days of controlling the Party are over or they were infiltrators (i.e. a combination of infidels and traitors) from the "republican-wing of the democratic party" ...

the next person who stands up for these assholes is going to get a very painful tongue-lashing ... let's drive these bastards out of OUR PARTY ... they are clearly not on our side ...

[ulysses]

68. .

[mdmc]

69. we are the GOP

paging Dr. Dean...

[Zhade]

71. Kick

Kick

[Jack Rabbit]

74. Once again, the DLC identifies the problem with the Democratic Party

There are too many Democrats in it.

[KissMeKate]

76. with friends like this, who needs enemies?

eom.

[Jack Rabbit]

77. Will Marshall? Do you mean this Will Marshall?

The one who signed this letter with so many other fine scions of democratic principles?

[RogueTrooper]

81. Goodness me

What is it with these people. Is beating up the left the only electoral stategy these muppets know?

One wonders.

[CWebster]

82. Well, I guess they don't have Ralph Nader to kick around

anymore.

Hopefully, more will get clued in to their strategy of attack and divide.

Ya really have to wonder whose side they are on since they advocate no criticism of Bush, but engage in constant loathing of his opposition.