Predicting the Future of the Democratic Party

[Q]

My prediction:

The Democrats will 'lose' the White House again in 2008 and perhaps in 2012 - 2016.

Congress and Senate will be controlled by Republicans for at least another decade.

The Supreme Court will pick up one or two more far-right Justices.

The reason for my prediction:

The Democratic party has been infiltrated by Neocons and their defense/energy industry lobbyists. They have joined with the Bush Republicans in promoting a counterfeit war on terrorism and support for unilateral, aggressive wars in the name of international corporations.

Centrists and Theocrats have taken control of the Democratic party machinery. Their goal is to replace the 'New Deal' with privatization and corporate welfare, repress activism and otherwise find common ground with their neoconservative allies.

The Democratic base and grassroots will become evermore frustrated and disillusioned with voting for 'anyone but Republican' Centrist candidates offering watered-down versions of the Right's agenda. They will either demand a progressive candidate, vote third party or join the millions of other Americans that refuse to vote for the status quo.

The Right will stay in power until Democrats find a Progressive Leadership willing to unabashedly support and promote traditional Democratic values (Blacks, workers, women and the poor.) and take a principled stand against Bush/Republican propaganda, corruption and election fraud.

That's my prediction. What's your prediction for the future of the Democratic party?

[kentuck]

1. It depends on how fast we go down....

The American people always turn to Democrats when the shit hits the fan. For some reason, they seem to support the propaganda and policies of Republicans each generation until the Repubs screw up royally and then they bring in the Democrats like circus clowns to shovel up all the shit left behind by the elephants...

[Q]

11. The problem remains...

...that the Media has never been in this sorry of shape before. While there has always been 'slanted' reporting...never before has the media supported one party over the other or considered profits to be more important than truth.

The question is: how long can Republicans stay in power considering that they dominate all branches of government, the SC and the majority of the media? I submit that it will take decades for Democrats to overcome all these obstacles AND come together under a Progressive banner.

[sendero]

67. But you know what?

Americans by nature distrust the "media". There will be a point at which the prevalent view is "the are all liars, fuck them all".

We might not be far from that point right now. The media can paint a rosy picture of Iraq, and it will sell because most Americans don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

But when it comes to the economy, and policies that affect individuals, such as reduction of farm subsidies - then when the media opens their mouth in defense they lose credibility with every word.

I really do believe that there will be a time, might be 6 months, might be 6 years - when most Americans realize they have been sold out by the media. When it happens, it will take them a decade or two to regain any credibility. And let's face it - we only barely lost in 2004. Had the media been truly fair - we would have won. The media put on a full court press and they still only managed to eek out a squeaker, and that assumes there was no election fraud, a pretty big assumption.

[me b zola]

101. Shit has already hit the fan

Nobody has been paying attention, except for some of us here.

The coup has already occurred, and it has no intention of releasing it's death grip on our Nation & the world.

[Ironpost]

2. only if we continue to allow the thievery of elections

[asjr]

4. Exactly! I become very tired of those that say the Democrats

didn't get out their message. When elections are rigged and not publicized it seems everyone on both sides say that. Until each and every Democrat stands up and tells it like it is we may never get control again. We have Conyers, Waxman and others who have spoken out on it, but until the "media" is called into question there is not much we can do. We all, here at DU, know what happened and are not afraid to say it. I don't know if all the media have been bought, but most people don't realize what has happened. We must take the offense.

[Q]

34. You're very right to say that the media is part of the problem...

...but you have unintentionally defined the REAL reason the media doesn't report on the Democratic message. Conyers and Waxman are among THE VERY FEW DEMOCRATS speaking out against Bush corruption and election fraud. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE PARTY?

The Right and the Centrists simply call them 'conspiracy nuts' when only one or two Democrats speak out on hot button issues and the rest of the party remains silent. This is especially true when it's someone that can be labeled a 'liberal' by the conservative factions of both parties.

[Q]

13. Let's look at the trends...

Most Democrats (especially the Centrists) wouldn't even acknowledge election fraud and rigging in 2000. We saw a lot of huffing and puffing about 'possible fraud' in 2004...but few Democrats demanded any kind of serious investigations or direct reform.

What's the odds that we'll have the very same problems in 2008 and beyond?

[itzamirakul]

3. The "infiltrators" are on the same team...

Here is where you hit the nail on the head:

"The Democratic party has been infiltrated by Neocons and their defense/energy industry lobbyists. They have joined with the Bush Republicans in promoting a counterfeit war on terrorism and support for unilateral, aggressive wars in the name of international corporations.

Centrists and Theocrats have taken control of the Democratic party machinery. Their goal is to replace the 'New Deal' with privatization and corporate welfare, repress activism and otherwise find common ground with their neoconservative allies."

I would go even a bit further in saying that those "Neocons" and "NeoDems" who have infiltrated both parties, are working in cahoots. They are mainly "Israeli-Firsters" and their agenda is not about America but about the future and security of Israel, as well as lining their own pockets. It is about power over the entire globe.

[Clark2008]

6. Which is treason

putting any other country first, be it Israel or Saudi Arabia, is treason.

[Q]

14. I can't say...

...whether Israel has anything to do with the overall agenda of the Neocons or Neodems. But what IS apparent is that they have the same agenda when it comes to favoring corporations and perpetual war.

It's a sad state of affairs when the Democratic party Centrist leadership can't even admit the fraudulent and illegal nature of the Iraq 'war' OR that elections are being stolen in plain sight.

[me b zola]

102. Yep. And just look at Hillary

Supporting faith-based initiatives. 'Scuse me???

Should we take bets on how much longer our Constitution will be recognized by *our* government??

[Just Me]

5. Hmmmm,....let me look in my crystal ball,...

,...yes,....yes,...

,...what I see is,...

A LEAN, MEAN FIGHTING MACHINE AGAINST THE RIGHT-WING!!!

Yup,...that's what my crystal ball is showing! :7

[marcologico]

7. Not sure about '06 yet but I'm pretty sure we'll take the WH in '08

but ONLY if Dean does not try to insert himself as a candidate in the race. If he does, or if "anoints" an equally unelectable disciple, we're screwed.

Dean could be very helpful if he wanted to but frankly I'm not optimistic.

[Q]

15. On what do you base this opinion?

What you seem to be saying is that the NeoDems MUST have their chosen candidate again for the Democrats to be able to take the White House?

Many Democrats believe the exact opposite. They believe the Centrists are killing their party and a Progressive leadership is needed to offer broader distinctions and a platform that better represents ALL Democrats.

It's telling that the only Democrats that seem to think that someone like Dean can't win are the so-called moderates that want to keep their iron-fisted control of the party.

[FightinNewDem]

25. "Iron-Fisted Control"???????

You clearly have no concept of the reality of upper-echelon Democratic politics.

[Q]

62. The 'concept' is very clear for those who care to do the research...

...and I used the term 'iron-fisted' for a reason. The DLC has a lock on the party. They control who runs for office and where the money goes. Dean was dangerous to them because he showed that it was possible to raise campaign cash from the people instead of the corporations. Raising money through grassroots efforts makes a politician beholden to the people and not the corporations. This basically proved that a grassroots, populist campaign would work and the DLC wanted none of it because it offended their corporate masters.

[marcologico]

28. Well for one thing you've got your labels ass-backwards.

Dean is the pro-war centrist. His anti-Iraq war line was a political stunt or more kindly a sudden conversion, and not a consistent one. Read Deano promising to "expand our armed forces" and praising our "capture" of Saddam here:

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

Kerry is the Massachusetts liberal. Specifically, Kerry has the policies (call them ideas) that are going to be necessary to clean up the toxic plume that's been spreading under the WH for the last and next 4 years.

[Q]

63. There is a distinct difference between being a centrist...

...and a DLC centrist. The difference is that the DLC agenda more closely tuned with that of the Neocons.

According to Al From...Kerry was a DLC centrist. One only has to look back on his campaign to know this is true.

[liberalpragmatist]

53. I realize you don't like Dean but stop getting so apocolyptic

Okay, that's a little strong. I realize you don't like Dean. Fine, you don't have to. But as a fellow Kerry supporter I've been quite impressed by Dean lately and I think he'll make an excellent DNC chair.

He was very loyal to Kerry during the presidential campaign and he'll do a great job.

[marcologico]

79. See directly below (#71) if you think I'm kidding. n/t

[Q]

71. What do you mean by 'Dean inserting himself' as a candidate?

I thought we were the 'big tent' party?

It's becoming obvious that the DLCers are worried about Dean. Not because he might lose...but because he might actually win. That would put an end to the DLC's control of the party and show that populism can win over corporatism.

[FloridaPat]

8. I don't think the country will last that long. I believe we're on the

economic brink and there is very little that will push us over it. And I believe the rest of the world is working towards the economic ruin.

[pstans]

9. I disagree

The Cheap Oil era is nearly over. We are on the downhill slide of the Peak oil production and once it gains some steam American life will change dramatically. When the way we are accustomed to live changes, the people will to the Democratic party because the Democratic party is for the people, and when life gets harder, people vote against the incumbants.

There might not be a Democrat in the White House in 2008, but there will be by 2012 the Democrats will be in power of one of the branches of Goernment. Every election the Democrats will pick a up a few seat here and there.


Check out www.kunstler.com for more info on the end of the Cheap Oil era and what America will look like in the future.

[Q]

17. The 'cheap oil era' has at least a couple more decades of life...

...but that's only part of the reason why the Bush Republicans have a stranglehold on our government. Although 'oil' is part of their powerbase...the media, defense and energy industries are where the real power is solidified. This is how they're able to start wars without provocation and without opposition by the 'party of the people'.

None of this will change until our party confronts reality and mounts a campaign against the anti-democratic forces that plan on controlling our nation for a very long time.

[Toots]

10. I bow to your psychic abilities

I believe you are 100% correct and there really is not much we can do about it.

[Q]

19. There ARE things we can do about it..

....beginning with resisting and then voting out the NeoDems that have taken control of our party. The long-term survival of the party depends upon our not voting for candidates that support ANY Bush policies...especially illegal wars and war profiteering. We must weed out those Dem politicians beholden to corporations instead of the people.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Here's proof that you just nailed it

Google - Quinn, Gillespee & Associates LCC.

They are all in bed together.

Then check out this thread for more on this brewing scandal that is going to take down both parties.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1589943

[Q]

22. Of course they are in...

...bed together. But the Neocons and Neodems have chilled discussion about this on a national level by accusing those who connect the dots of being 'conspiracy theorists' or worse.

Notice how many Democrats are willing to defend the status quo even though the truth is staring them right in the face?

[cthrumatrix]

86. it's all about "greed and power"...dems sold out...totally agree

[DaveinMD]

16. this post is complete hogwash

Most Democratic leaders are good people. We are not filled with infiltrators. The Dems will gain seats in 2006 and win the Presidency in 2008 because of Bush fatigue.

[FightinNewDem]

18. WHAT? NO!

You must be a Dino! Or a neocon corporatist skull and bonesman! Only Dean and Kucinich are pure! Even Boxer and Feingold are member s of the evil neocon cabal! You're a Freeper!
:crazy:

[Q]

21. Please...

...knock of the 'purist' rhetoric. Is this all the New Dems have to rationalize their pitiful performance and their enabling and appeasement of Bush corruption? Do you really think the Democratic rank and file are so ignorant that they haven't noticed that the DLCers have betrayed their party and trust?

This is about honesty, integrity and principles. It's about government accountability and public servants not considering themselves above the law.

[FightinNewDem]

23. I've got news for you, skippy...

...it wasn't DLCers that screwed the party over by voting for the egomaniacal Nader in 2000.

[Q]

36. Skippy? Getting a bit frustrated...

...trying to defend the indefensible? Can't say as I blame you.

The DLCers screwed the party long before Nader showed up to challenge their corporate whoredom.

[DaveinMD]

38. Democrats of all stripes have been losing elections

you seem to want to only divide the party instead of doing the work to win elections.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Q]

20. You're depending on 'Bush fatigue'...

...for Dems to regain seats and the White House? Sorry...but that sounds too much like accepting the status quo until a Dem happens to fall into office.

If four years of Bush didn't give the American people 'fatigue' then nothing will.

You don't seem to understand the big picture. We've been had. Aren't you the least bit suspicious about why the Democratic leadership hasn't directly confronted the most corrupt executive branch in American history?

The Democratic leaders have failed the party and the people by not doing their jobs to protect and defend the Constitution. They have allowed Bush & Gang to get away with crimes that would have made Nixon blush.

Those working with Bush are indeed 'infiltrators' as they pretend to be Democrats while working behind the scenes to kill the New Deal and advance the Bush agenda.

[DaveinMD]

29. I'm not depending on anything

You asked for predictions, I made some.

Your comments about Democratic leaders are pure bs. Nearly everything you always say is. Democratic leaders have made mistakes. But these mistakes haven't been intentional. And I'll be on their side any day of the week. They are hard working people who are trying to make the country a better place no matter how much you attack them. You think its so easy, put your money where your mouth is and run for office.

[Sparkly]

24. As I see it, this is a day for optimism

Turn on CSpan -- the DNC is energized and ready to work grassroots-up to build the party, in all states. We've got a fighter in Howard Dean as leader today. And I don't see the things you're talking about in the party's platform at all -- Democrats' foreign policy is far from the neo-cons', as is our policy on privatization for industry benefit vs. empowering individuals through workers' rights, education, urban development, progressive tax policies, etc...

It'll never be perfect, but I think we can only go "up" from here. So perhaps I'm pollyanna-ish, but I choose to be optimistic about our party's future today.

[FightinNewDem]

27. I tend to agree

I am guardedly optimistic about the next two years.

Hopefully, Gov. Dean will allow a greater diversity of thought to flourish at the DNC, not so much in terms of the policy debate, but in terms of inclusivity and innovation in political organizing. The tired old Beltway crowd that glommed onto Kerry hasn't been able to do the job, so let's see who else might be able to get something accomplished.

The one concern I have about Dean is the temperament of some of his supporters. I hope they realize that the obnoxious "Democratic Wing" routine was a clever applause line in a primary campaign, but as head of a big-tent party, Dean will have to reach out to the entire party spectrum. That means DLCers will have a place at the table, as will PDA-style liberals and the Beltway regulars. No one faction should excrcise absolute control, and no one faction should be blackballed from the process, either.

[Q]

32. Playing my usual role of Devil's Advocate...

...I believe that the current 'moderate' leadership will prevent Dean from having any real power in the party beyond raising cash. They've already loudly exclaimed that he won't have any involvement in policy decisions or any power beyond a figurehead.

But this is exactly why they finally accepted him for the Chair. They don't want him mucking up the chances for their chosen DLC candidate in 2008.

There is nothing wrong with the 'temperament' of the Dean supporters. They're finally tired of the bullshit coming from the DLCers. The thing is...the DLC OWNS THE TABLE that you say they should have a seat at.

It's the Liberals, Progressives and Populists that deserve a seat at the same table with the DLCers and an even playing field in the primaries.

[DaveinMD]

35. first they wouldn't let him become chair

now they accepted him because they can control him. Take off the tin foil hat for once. There are many people with a seat at the table. The DLC doesn't control the party. Never has. Take a step back into reality.

[Q]

64. Did you hear the echos from the leadership asking Dean to 'promise'...

...not to run for president in 2008 if he got the Chair? This was their only chance to get his populist campaign out of the way and get some of his grassroots support.

Well...the DLC thinks they control the party. So perhaps you argue with them about it?

[DaveinMD]

73. all this they control the party

is delusional. Its scapegoating plain the simple.

[DaveinMD]

30. the poster

who started this thread is always more interested in attacking good Democrats than in doing anything constructive.

[Q]

31. Isn't it a matter of opinion...

...that they're 'good Democrats'? How can any politician be 'good' and support illegal wars? How can any DEMOCRAT be good and support even PART of the Bush agenda?

Some of us feel that it IS constructive to rid the party of these centrist sellouts. They're the ones responsible for our party's losses since 94 and the watering down of our platform to the point where some of it is indistinguishable from that of the Neocons.

Our 'leadership' is getting to the point where they don't even MENTION many of the issues that face our party and nation. They've completely abandoned unions and worker's rights because the Neocons called them 'special interests'. And they fast on their way in leaving behind women's rights, social democracy and the poor.

I believe it's more damaging to constantly cheerlead for politicians that don't deserve it. By doing this...you're not helping the party...you're hurting it.

[DaveinMD]

37. these Democrats

vote progressive a vast majority of the time. You choose to impugn their integrity. Blaming these people for everything bad is pure bs. You need to step back into reality. And if you think these people are so bad, put your money where your mouth is and run for office. I don't think you'd get very far.

[Q]

41. I can see the 'reality' of the situation quite clearly...but thanks...

...for your sincere concern.

So I should run for office instead of expecting those ALREADY IN OFFICE to do their jobs? That's not the way it works.

The question is: how can YOU rationalize any politician voting for aggressive war, 'Patriot Act' or tax cuts for the rich? If this is the ideal of Centrism...then you can have it.

[DaveinMD]

42. nearly all Democrats

voted against the tax cuts. And what about the thousands of votes where they did the right thing. The vote on the Patriot Act was perfectly understandable at the time days after being attacked. People make mistakes, but these folks work hard every day to advance our cause and you choose to attack them every day. It just proves you have very little knowledge of reality.

[are_we_united_yet]

59. I don't agree with you

Q may not always agree with every poster here. But I have found that his posts tend to be genuine and well thought out.

[Q]

50. The only difference between the...

...Neocon and Neodem foreign policy is how to best fight illegal, aggressive wars. You'll have to look far and wide to find a New Dem that doesn't support the Bush Doctrine.

Take a look at the DLC's agenda. It has nearly the same goals as that of the Bush Regime...it just uses 'kinder, gentler' rhetoric to sell it.

Some of you really need to do more research on the DLC. You would be surprised what they have in store for 'our' party. And like the Neocons...they don't plan on making any drastic changes overnight.

[Q]

52. I think it's great that Dean is leading an effort to 'revitalize'...

...the grassroots. But we should be asking why they need revitalizing' in the first place?

I will gladly say I was wrong if the DLCers give Dean ANY kind of power or opportunity to actually do what he wants to do with the party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Boxes Are For Presents And Labels Are For Clothing

eom

[Dr Fate]

33. Where does Howard Dean fit into all this?

He is neither a real centrist or a theocrat- and we just put him in control of the machinery- contrary to what you just said.

[Q]

39. Dean is the Wild Card the DLCers didn't expect...

...which is why they agreed to take him out of the running in 2008 by 'allowing' him to become DNC chair. The DNC has become irrelevant as the DLC now controls the party and the agenda. Kerry may have 'lost' because he followed their advice to ignore the base and not challenge Bush and call him on his many lies and deceptions.

I expect Dean to resign when he finally realizes he was put in this position to keep him quiet and not have any real influence over party politics.

[DaveinMD]

40. the dlc doesn't control the party

more bs from someone more intent on dividing the party than on doing the work to win elections.

[Q]

43. Yeah, sure...little ole' Q is going to divide the party...

Answer this: who has more power and position to divide the party? Me or the DLC?

I'm very interested in winning elections. But it should be obvious by now we can't do it by selling out the party (New Dems call it 'triangulation') and trying to play both sides at once. It's not working...and when someone points that out the DLCers whip out the strawmen and scapegoats to cover their asses.

Even the DLC admits they control the party. That's their stated goal. That and driving liberals, progressives and anyone against their corporate/warmongering agenda out the party.

[DaveinMD]

45. every post of your's here is divisive

the DLC doesn't control the party. John Kerry was a liberal Democrat. Hardly DLC. Most members of Congress are liberal. The ADA rating for most members is over 80 percent. But you want to kick most of these people out. The DLC is a scapegoat and you are divisive in your rhetoric here. I welcome all Democrats to our party.

[Q]

51. Kerry may have a 'liberal' record...

...but he ran as a DLC CENTRIST in 2004.

And you're simply wrong when you say that 'most' members of Congress are liberal. What gives you that impression? There are probably a HANDFUL of liberals left in the Democratic party and they have been virtually stripped of all power to lead the party in any meaningful way. The Centrists want nothing to do with liberals or their 'out of touch' agenda.

Welcoming 'all Democrats' to the party and giving them a say in the direction of the party seems to be two different things to the DLCers. They may want your vote and cash...but then they expect you to SHUT UP, vote for THEIR candidates and be satisfied with the taste of the BS they feed you.

[marcologico]

57. ... and Dean has a "centrist" record.

Dean RAN as an anti-Iraq I-don't-know-what and got creamed in Iowa.

Kerry RAN as a moderate and came within 100,000 votes of the presidency.

The race and the record are two different things. Welcome to politics.

[Q]

65. I've been participating and studying 'politics' for over 30 years...

...and I'm too much of a cynic to be fooled by political opportunists in either party.

Every Dem should know by now that Dean got 'Gored' by the DLC and their friends in the media. Those who watch the evolving political scene also know that the DLC has many of the same 'friends' in the media as the Neocons. They will attack anyone who threatens the corporate rule of the US or the stranglehold the Neocons and Neodems have on their parties.

[marcologico]

66. Keep studying and one of these years you'll pass the exam :)

p.s. Dean wasn't 'Gored' by anyone, least of all Gore. Gore endorsed him.

[Q]

68. Do you actually have a point?

Or just passing by and thought you'd kick the thread?

What seems to be zooming by your head is that...not only is the nation divided...but so is the Democratic party. I'm not spending my time here just to brush up on my typing. I'm here because DU gives the 'common person' a chance to express their views.

History always seems to repeat itself because we never seem to learn from our mistakes. The DLC is the Democratic party's mistake...but many don't seem to be concerned about them even though our party has now lost everything under their 'leadership'.

It's not really about Dean or Kerry. It's about the direction and future of 'our' party.

It's telling that Kerry couldn't have cared less about the 'grassroots' during the campaign and now is pretending to support Dean's efforts at 'revitalization'. In fact...Kerry even admitted during the campaign that he was taking the base - the grassroots for granted and simply expected their ABB vote as he tried to woo the mythical swing voter with centrist politics.

Democrats need to be asking how it is that our party has lost everything after controlling congress for so long.

[marcologico]

69. Yes, and it really IS about Dean and Kerry.

Kerry ran a smart campaign. He came close to winning the presidency.

Dean ran a smear campaign. He got toasted in Iowa.

I think we should learn from our mistakes, that is if we really want to win in '08.

[Q]

70. Now that's just plain old propaganda...

...and it shows that you have a 'horse' in this race.

Can the Kerry people honestly say they didn't run any smear campaigns? That's simply not believable.

The primaries were a foregone conclusion...so much so that I was able to 'predict' that a DLC approved candidate would end up being the nominee...just as they will in 2008.

The primaries were no more 'democratic' than the 2000/2004 presidential elections.

[marcologico]

72. It's the truth, call it what you like. And if you have evidence to the

contrary I'd love to see it. With links to original sources, please.

[Q]

74. You want evidence without providing your own?

You make a broad assertion...which YOU didn't back up with evidence...and then ask for evidence to counter your unsupported claim?

Besides...you're getting off track. The premise of this thread isn't about Kerry or Dean. It's about the DLC's control of the party and their unwillingness to work with liberals or progressives to form a coalition to win elections.

[marcologico]

76. *sigh* where would you like me to start? n/t

[CWebster]

87. Kerry already proved himself a loser.

The greatest asset the Dems now have is their position to wage class war agaiant the Enron class presidency. As a "non-redistributionist Democrat" who hits the slopes of his private ski resort and summers in Nantucket in one of his Million dollar mansions, his only experience and connection out of his class is his brief enlistment in the Military.

Aside from lacking in charisma and charm, Kerry can not even speak to the issues that would inspire a populist resurgence for the Dems. He is aloof, elitist and creepy, while still managing to be goofy. If he really cared about this party and this country, he would quit jeopardizing our chances. Please. I hate the way wealth insists on their privilige.

[DaveinMD]

60. most in Congress are liberal

there is an incentive to be liberal because there are so few competitive districts. Look at the ADA ratings and you will see that this is so.

[Q]

61. Are you implying that...

...I don't have the right to express my opinion...whether or not you think it's 'divisive'?

Many of us are getting sick and tired of the New Democrats telling the left to 'shut up' and just take whatever they dish out. It seems that the DLC wants the same kind of America as the Bushies...where the only opinion that counts is THEIRS.

And your attempt at projection simply isn't going to work. You're depending on the fact that so few people really know about the DLC that they'll accept your argument that they're being picked on by the nasty, purist liberals.

I'm protesting the DLC and their so-called moderation because I believe they are destroying our party by forcing their agenda down our throats...much like the religious Right and the Neocons did to the Republicans. Only the Neodems goal is not to win so much as it is to transform the party into a mere relection of the Bush GOP.

If you support the DLC...then you've been had. That's your problem...but don't expect liberals and progressives to shut up just to appease Bush or his DLC buddies.

[DaveinMD]

85. express your opinion as much as you like

but I have the equal right to free speech to question the validity and divisiveness of everything you say. Have a great day.

[Q]

88. So then...now that we have decided that we share a mutual...

...right to free speech...how about debating these issues and defending your position?

[FightinNewDem]

48. Yes, we will take your word on this.

Right. It's in their mission statement, right after the part about kicking puppies, pushing old ladies down stairwells, and spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

[Q]

49. Don't take my liberal word for it...

...go to their website and study the issues. They claim they intend to make every elected Dem politician a 'new democrat'. What does this mean for the party? No one knows yet for sure...but it definitely means more Bush enabling and the end of the New Deal.

[FightinNewDem]

54. I've got news for you...

Not only have I been to their web site, I am ON their web site. I have yet to see anything remotely close to what you have claimed.

Let's see a citation.

[Q]

55. No doubt...

...but you're either being disingeneous or obtuse if you can honestly say that they don't intend or have claimed such things. Just exactly why do you think they have rejected the 'old' Democratic party and call themselves 'new' Democrats? They have controlled the party since Clinton smarmed his way into office and were behind (with Reed and other operatives) the sellout issues of 'welfare reform' and union wrecking. They intend to get rid of any remaining remnant of the 'old' party of liberals and progressives.

If you're 'on' their website then you know what I'm saying is true. Either that...or you don't know much about your own organization.

[FightinNewDem]

56. nt

[Dr Fate]

77. I find that a little hard to believe, They did not plan to lose...

...they are just idiots. Kerry's strategists, that is.

I've seen no evidence that the DLC has more power that the rest of the party- in fact, in my years working for the DEMS, I've only met one DLCer in person!!

[Q]

84. You haven't met many DLCers...

...because the DLC is more of a 'think tank' that influences agendas and policies from behind the scenes...(much like the Heritage Foundation on the Right). No elected officials are among the leadership of the organization...just people like Rove who have a lot of cash and connections.

The DLC was created to change the Democratic party from within....a slow and gradual process that would take decades. Two decades later we've seen how much influence they really have: they were behind Clinton's 'welfare reform', NAFTA and the Democratic party's abandonment of the 'labor left' and any other 'special interests' they felt were losing elections.

How many Neocons have you met?

[greenohio]

91. Huh?

"No elected officials are among the leadership of the organization"

Bruce Reed is president; Pennsylvania State Representative

U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is chair for Best Practices;

Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chairman of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network;

U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh is chairman of the DLC;

U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher is vice chair of the DLC.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[Dr Fate]

94. I've met hundreds of "Neocons"- they are called "Ditto-heads"

But keep on stirring the pot Q, I aint gonna stop you.

[leyton]

44. The party has not been infilitrated.

Rather, we grew cocky and forgot to look after our blue-collar base; and we also lost the South, though for a reason that makes me proud to be a Dem. Then, people who are genuinely looking out for the United States and know that the country is better off with Democrats in charge had to toss a coin between centrism and liberalism, and centrism won, and we lost all credibility.

The day we have a vision and are willing to fight tooth and nail for it at every level is the day we return to power.

[Q]

47. Do you think it's the Democratic rank and file...

...that decided to abandon the 'Blue-Collar Base'? Of course not. It's the corporatists in the party who made that decision for them. Why do you think the Centrists threw away support from labor and teacher's unions? That has been the end goal of the Neocons and Neodems since the 80s. Many unions still support Democrats because voting GOP is even worse. But unions are tired of getting shafted and they too are looking for a new leadership not beholden to the Corporate Golden Calf.

Apparently Americans have already asked themselves if they would be better off with Democrats in charge. They said NO...which is why GOPers now control every branch of government and most states. Why did they say no? The answer to this question lies somewhere between widespread election fraud (that many Dem leaders won't even acknowledge happened) and the leadership not fighting for their rights and civil liberties.

The Democratic party vision remains the same. Unfortunately...those who now control the party have a different vision that doesn't include representing a majority of Democrats.

[Dr Fate]

78. The "Blue Collar Base" was not abandoned- the anti-war base was.

So many flaws in your analysis-

I often agree with what you say, but now I think you are just stirring the pot.

Sometimes it needs to be done, I suppose.

[Q]

81. It's not an analysis...it's a 'prediction'.

And I can't agree that the DLC leadership hasn't abandoned the 'blue collar' base. They were thrown away when the New Democrats decided that they didn't want to represent what they called the 'labor-left'.

You're right...I'm a shit-stirrer. If I can piss people off enough for them to demand change and not accept the BS that's being fed to them by both parties...then i've succeeded in some small part.

[eridani]

95. Like hell!

What do you call NAFTA, WTO and outsourcing?

[greenohio]

58. If we continue to lose, it is because the conspiracy theorists in the

party will tear apart any Dem who they remote disagree with. We CANNOT win believing every leader we have is a repuke. We simply can't. We cannot tear apart our own and get anywhere. It is interesting that those predicting our doom are the SAME ONES implementing our doom by telling people to vote against certain Democrats. Fascinating. It makes me wonder.

[F.Gordon]

75. My prediction?

Is that people like you, with your nano-ideology, won't be influencing the Democratic Party.

The Democratic party has been infiltrated by Neocons and their defense/energy industry lobbyists. They have joined with the Bush Republicans in promoting a counterfeit war on terrorism and support for unilateral, aggressive wars in the name of international corporations.

Infiltrated? Once defense money is allocated by the White House and a Republican controlled Congress it goes into a black hole. It is then used for political extortion.

The Democrats have been the only ones attempting to address the real threat of terrorism. I'm not sure which is worst. Right wing assholes attacking the Democrats for wanting real Homeland Security or a "progressive" :eyes: like you that ignores the efforts made by the Democrats.

Centrists and Theocrats have taken control of the Democratic party machinery. Their goal is to replace the 'New Deal' with privatization and corporate welfare, repress activism and otherwise find common ground with their neoconservative allies.

This is just plain fucking insane. I realize that your nano-ideology has a very narrow field of vision, but now your "agenda" is suggesting that it is the Democrats that want to kill the New Deal?

The Democratic base and grassroots will become evermore frustrated and disillusioned with voting for 'anyone but Republican' Centrist candidates offering watered-down versions of the Right's agenda. They will either demand a progressive candidate, vote third party or join the millions of other Americans that refuse to vote for the status quo.

The Democratic base is a moving, constantly changing demographic. But I didn't need to tell you this since you've been "studying" this for the last 30 years. Are you suggesting that Kerry ran on "watered down versions of the Right's agenda"? Oh, and grassroots is what it is. Grassroots. People become involved. There's the rub. I've met many apathetic whiners like you. People who tell me what's wrong with Democratic Party but when I suggest activities and events they can participate in and have their voice be heard they just mumble and walk away.....

The Right will stay in power until Democrats find a Progressive Leadership willing to unabashedly support and promote traditional Democratic values (Blacks, workers, women and the poor.) and take a principled stand against Bush/Republican propaganda, corruption and election fraud.

Traditional Democratic values are alive and well. Sadly, it is people like you with your nano-ideology that re-directs the focus so these values are ignored. You want a "Progressive Leadership" but only on your terms. That doesn't seem very Democratic.

Edit? Why the hell do I try to type before my first cup of coffee.
And Again? Spell check. I don't need no stinkin' spell check.

[Q]

80. That's not a prediction...

...it's an attack disguised as debate. Suggesting that my argument is 'insane' is a very weak debate tactic.

What the hell is 'nano-ideology'? Would that apply to someone that has voted a straight Dem ticket for the last 30 years?

Congress allocates 'defense money'...not the White House...and both sides are voting for it even though they know it's going in a 'black hole'. Strange that some bitch and moan about how Republicans vote for bad legislation...but never about Democrats who join with them.

How have the Democrats 'addressed' terrorism? By helping to pass Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts? I'm not 'ignoring' the 'efforts' made by Democrats. But for every Democrat that is trying to fight a REAL war on terrorism...there are ten that think Bush is doing a great job and call him a great and bold leader. The common theme of most Dem leaders is that we're actually 'fighting the war on terror in Iraq'. It's time for the conservative Dems to drop the charade. The whole world knows what's going on in Iraq.

I'm not just 'suggesting' that the Centrist DLCers want to kill the New Deal...they're in the process of doing it. Like their Neocon friends...they want the New Deal gone...replaced with the NeoDems version of supply-side economics and privatization.

Once again...I'm SAYING that Kerry ran on a DLC centrist agenda...not suggesting it. The facts and Al From of the DLC support my argument. The DLC's agenda IS a watered-down verion of the Right's agenda. In some cases it IS the Right's agenda.

The only reason the 'grassroots' and the base of the party voted for Kerry's centrist politics is because they didn't want Bush in office. In fact...it pissed off many Democrats that someone with a 'liberal' record like his would betray his own past to whore for the centrists. Most Dems would have voted for Daffy Duck or Joe Lieberman if they thought they had a chance of beating Bush.

I'm saying that the grassroots and the base of the party will no longer support a DLC candidate. You'll find out if this is true in 2008. Blacks have been disenfranchised by Democrats refusing to defend their civil rights in 2000 and 2004. Women are finding out the Democrats are going to sell them down the river on reproductive rights. And the poor? They're not even in the picture anymore.

If I 'mumble and walk away'...it's because you're exceedingly trite and presumptuous. It's always assumed by the Status Quo'ers that because someone wants more out of their party leadership that they must not be knowledgeable or involved.

I agree that traditional Dem values are alive and well...but they're NOT represented by the current leadership. They're alive in the rank and file...not the Dem politicians who enable Bush and cooperate with fascists to take away civil rights, enrich the ruling class on the backs of the poor and start illegal wars for greed. profit and power.

I don't want a Progressive leadership on MY terms....but on the terms of a majority of Democrats. We know the difference between good and bad leadership. That the leadership thinks they can do anything they want and still expect our votes and support suggests that they don't understand or care about that difference.

[F.Gordon]

82. I don't know where to begin

First, maybe "insane" was a bit harsh. Then again, maybe it wasn't since your original post and this exchange would hardly qualify as a debate.

You lost me when you said; "But for every Democrat that is trying to fight a REAL war on terrorism...there are ten that think Bush is doing a great job and call him a great and bold leader."

Over 90% of Democrats are Bush enablers? And the Democratic Party wants to kill the New Deal? Those are not rational statements. They are not based on facts.

And what is with your fixation with the DLC and Centrists? I know that this is what you have determined to be the "enemy" but I'm clueless why you fixate on this. Personally I think it's misguided and a waste of time, but hey... everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm hardly a Status Quo'er. Actually, I'd say you were. I consider myself to be pro-active. An exceedingly trite and presumptuous pro-active. :evilgrin:

The dynamics of the social/political climate in this country has changed so dramatically over the last four years that it now requires a completely different approach by the Democrats than it did four years ago. The Status Quo aint goin' fix the problems we have in this country. I suppose that is the only thing the two of us may agree on. We just part ways on the remedy.

Like I said. I don't where to begin. So I won't........

[Q]

83. I've used the word 'insane' before...

...but usually to describe the Bush presidency or his followers. But I try not to use it to describe someone with a simple difference of opinion.

Try not to get stuck on numbers and percentages when someone is making a rhetorical point. What is the 'true' number of Bush enablers? It would be difficult to know the exact number because politicians that defend the status quo have a friend in the new corporate media. Democrats like to pretend that the Corporate Media only attacks those on the left...but they'll be nice to anyone that stays on message.

For instance...you'll seldom if ever see a negative story in the 'mainstream' media about the DLC or other conservative groups 'within' the Democratic party. When is the last time you heard or saw a negative story about Al From or Joe Lieberman? They and many other Dems are in the protected class of politicians. As long as they leave corporations alone to make their outrageous profits...the good news will keep on flowing.

A good question: Why do I fixate on the DLC? Because...despite my tirades against the weak-kneed leadership...I'm a very loyal Democrat and I hate traitors. The DLCers have HELPED the Right reverse decades of progress in everything from civil rights to worker and women's rights. Like their GOP counterparts...they think that money and power is more important than the rule of law and people. If you're not already aware...I would suggest you visit their 'new democrats' online websites.

Those who seek to address issues that provoke change can't be part of the Status Quo. Status Quo'ers are those who accept things the way they are and resist change. Other Status Quo'ers insist that changes need to be made...but that we need to WAIT until just the right moment and that moment is never NOW.

Voters don't care about 'dynamics'. They care about what politicians do and say in their name and the end result of their politics. They care about their family, home, healthcare and jobs. Most are too busy to get involved in politics on any level. They depend on politicians and ACTIVISTS to duke it out and for the good fight to win in the end. They believe that democracy is always self-correcting and that good always triumphs over evil in the end. But as we've seen since the 80s...that's not always the case.

I agree that the social/political climate has changed...but it's been over the last two decades...not the last four years. This is where the DLC comes into play. While the Neocon factions of the GOP were busy catering to the defense industry, international corporations and the religious Right...a faction of the Democratic party split off and became the 'New Democrats'. They wanted a piece of the corporate cash pie and felt that the traditional base was holding them down. That is...corporate lobbyists wouldn't support any candidate that believed in social or equal justice...causes that siphoned tax dollars away from corporate welfare and gave it to social welfare. This is the motivation behind 'privatizing' government services and many aspects of the New Deal. They would rather completely privatize social security and social services...but they know that they can't quite get away with it...yet. Instead they'll settle for partial privatization to get some of the social security and 'entitlement' cash moving in private circles.

It seems the DLC has been able to fool many Democrats into believing that they're moving the party forward. But in reality they're moving us backwards...to a time before the New Deal...when people were at the mercy of the ruling class and their industries. Like the Neocons...they want and need perpetual war to keep their corporate benefactors happy and flush with cash for their perpetual campaigns. The DLC has quietly thrown off the mantle of the 'party of the people' and 'modernized' Democratic politics so that they no longer have to cater or represent those groups and interests that drain tax dollars away from the corporations.

This is why there was little if any challenge to the election fraud of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections. The ruling class WANTED CEO George to win. They also wanted the New Democrats to do nothing about it or get in the way of their new corporate state. Although liberals and progressives complained...the DLC now had control of the party and they were doing the bidding of the corporations who wanted an everlasting 'wartime economy', elimination of environmental and workplace regulations and 'tort reform'. In other words...they wanted the US treasury open to them instead of the people. This is what 'smaller government' is all about.

Suffice it to say that the DLC is NOT the friend of the Democratic party. They are funded by corporations and work as their silent partner to transform the Democratic party from within. The 'problems we have in this country' can be directly traced to the Neocons and Neodems. But the real problem is that they're working under the radar and The People haven't become fully aware of their true intentions.

[F.Gordon]

90. Let’s clear up the word: insane

I thought your comments were insane. I did not call you insane. Can we get past that now? The idea that the Democratic Party, the DLC, or the ‘NeoDems’ want to kill the New Deal is ins… err… a little off track.

Quotes: "As this budget squeeze intensifies in the years ahead, we will see the paralysis of domestic policy, as automatic entitlement growth underwrites present consumption, while leaving no room for investing in people. If progressives really care about better schools, universal health coverage, safer streets, a cleaner environment, scientific and medical research, upward mobility for poor families, and modern energy and transportation systems, they'd better start raising hell over this state of affairs."

"On Social Security, lawmakers in both parties remain locked in a phony war on "privatization" instead of taking tough actions now to close the system's long-term funding shortfall."

Quick…who said this? OMG it’s a DLCer!!

Take a look at the hand full of victories the Democrats had in 2004. They were mostly DLCer’s that were endorsed by the DFA and MoveOn.org. How do you explain that? Was it because the Democratic base was “fooled” by the DLC, or could it be that your nano-ideology is out of touch with the Democratic base?

Let’s get to the real meat of your fixation on the DLC, shall we? You’re pissed that Bush is still sitting in the White House. Who the fuck isn’t? Instead of moving forward, as even your “evil” DLC wants to do, you would rather pull in the reins of the Democratic Party and take them to some mythical place that is completely out of touch with this present day country.

You also seem focused on corporate influence. The Republicans figured out, starting with Reagan, that money could buy an election. It took the Democrats 12 years to catch up to this idea. If we hadn’t , we probably would be going into our 20 year reign of having a Bush in the White House. How do you remove the power that corporate influence and money has on politics? Real CFR. Unfortunately, with a Republican controlled Congress real CFR will never become a reality. The same problem exists with real Election Reform. There are DLCers that would work to fix these problems, but they can’t do anything as long as they are the minority.

Voters don't care about 'dynamics'? Oh, yes they do. They just don’t call it ‘dynamics’. Voters see the issues that matter most to them changing. Changing rapidly. Most are real problems, but a few have been fabricated by both the Right and the Left. Most Americans have never even heard of the DLC, and if you were to suggest the idea to Democrats that the party is being “infiltrated” and the DLC and Centrists want to kill the New Deal they might pull that “I” word out themselves.

You can have the last word, if you choose. I’m done with this “debate”.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

97. "insane":doing the same thing over&over again & expect different result!

[Q]

100. Good morning!

It's rather telling that some on this board make great efforts to convince Democrats not to look behind the curtain of the DLC.

And the DLC doesn't mind that doing something over and over again is bringing the party down. Their goal is not so much to win elections as to make permanent changes in the party. They always have liberals and progressives to blame for everything else.

[F.Gordon]

105. By proxy? Now I'm blaming the liberals & progressives?

Many of the "liberals" on this board are neither liberal nor progressive. This fixation on the DLC by "liberals" is no different than the right wing morons that continue to blame Clinton for everything.

Why did I even bother to response to this......
:spank:

[F.Gordon]

103. Are you offering a diagnosis?

I only used the word insane to describe a particular statement. It wasn't my intention to make a medical diagnosis of the author. If so, I would have used the phrase:

obsessive-compulsive

Relating to or characterized by a tendency to dwell on unwanted thoughts or ideas or perform certain repetitious rituals, especially as a defense against anxiety from unconscious conflicts

But, I would never use that phrase because I'm not qualified to make that diagnosis nor would I ever use it in a political forum to describe any one in particular. Are you a psychologist?

I've tried to approach this "debate" regarding the DLC from a variety of angles. Facts apparently don't work. Logic apparently doesn't work. I've tried to re-direct the OP, and that was unsuccessful. I've tried to diversify my responses.

The Democratic Party tried that "over and over again" thing about 30 years ago and it didn't work so well. I'm all for making wholesale changes in the Democratic Party and I will work toward that goal. What are you going to do? Say the same thing over and over again and expect things to get better?

Since at least two people here didn't like my use of the word "insane", I'll let you choose an alternative from the Thesaurus. Take your pick. Use one that you feel more comfortable with....

abnormal, absurd, apish, asinine, at fever pitch, batty, bedlamite, befooled, beguiled, bereft of reason, besotted, bonkers, brainless, brainsick, buffoonish, buggy, bughouse, bugs, certifiable, cockeyed, crackbrained, cracked, crackers, cranky, crazed, crazy, credulous, cuckoo, daffy, daft, dazed, delirious, deluded, demented, deprived of reason, deranged, disordered, disoriented, distraught, dizzy, doting, dotty, dull, dumb, eccentric, fanatical, fatuitous, fatuous, febrile, feverish, flaky, flighty, fond, fool, foolheaded, foolish, frantic, frenetic, frenzied, fruity, fuddled, furious, futile, gaga, goofy, gulled, hallucinated, hectic, hysteric, idiotic, imbecile, imbecilic, inane, inept, infatuated, irrational, irresponsible, kinky, kooky, loco, loony, loopy, ludicrous, lunatic, mad, maddened, maniac, maniacal, manic, maudlin, mazed, mental, mentally deficient, meshuggah, mindless, moon-struck, moronic, neurotic, non compos, non compos mentis, nonsensical, not all there, not right, nuts, nutty, odd, of unsound mind, off, out of it, overanxious, overdesirous, overeager, overenthusiastic, overzealous, perfervid, potty, psycho, psychoneurotic, psychotic, queer, quirky, reasonless, reckless, ridiculous, round the bend, sappy, scatterbrained, schizo, schizoid, schizophrenic, screwy, senseless, sentimental, sick, silly, spaced out, spacy, stark-mad, stark-staring mad, strange, stupid, tetched, thoughtless, touched, ultrazealous, unbalanced, unhinged, unrealistic, unsane, unsettled, unsound, wacky, wandering, wet, wild, witless

I still believe that the idea that the Democratic Party wants to kill the New Deal is insert word from list above.

[Q]

98. Have you ever heard of a politician...

...that says or 'promises' one thing and then promptly 'forgets' about those promises when the chips are down and they have to protect their careers? A 'DLCer' also acted tough and promised to 'count all the votes' and fight against any RWing election fraud...but THAT DLCer ran away when the time came to fight.

I always have to wonder when someone just 'shows up' on a thread and defends the DLC out of the blue. Many Dems don't even seem to know anything about them. But here you are..champion of the oppressed DLCer.

The real meat of the problem isn't ONLY that Bush is still in the White House. It's that the DLC is spearheading the effort to hold him harmless for all his criminal acts. Hell...you can't even get the leadership of the DLC to admit that ANY election fraud has taken place since 2000 or that Bush lied this nation into war. Sins of omission and sins of commission. The DLC is guilty of both.

This quote from you sounds like it's right from the DLC playbook: "..you would rather pull in the reins of the Democratic Party and take them to some mythical place that is completely out of touch with this present day country."

The key words in your DLCish quote? "pull in the reins" and "out of touch". These are the codewords used by the conservative left for their repudiation of social democrats and their new deal. It's their very rationale for taking the party away from liberals and progressives and 'moving forward' to the politics of the New Democrat Corporatists. To a DLCer...being 'out of touch' is support for the traditional Dem base instead of the Yuppie middle.

What is this 'mythical place' the DLCers refer to all the time when they argue about 'not going back'? Back to supporting labor and unions? Back to supporting Blacks? Back to supporting women's rights? Back to something other than the trickle-down economy of the Neocons and Neodems?

The DLC is not an official arm of the Democratic party. They were formed with corporate money to represent corporate interests within the party. Not ONE rank and file Democrat voted for them or had any say about their influence on the party's agenda. They are the 'Heritage Foundation' of the Democratic party...working behind the scenes to influence policy, primaries and elections.

Of course most Americans/Democrats have never heard of the DLC. That's how they operate. Like their Neocon buddies...they can't work in the light of day because their agenda is the antithesis of traditional Dem values and principles.

I'm not sure why you 'joined the debate' in the first place. You're obviously a supporter of the 'third way' and the DLCers don't believe in debate. It's their way or the highway.

[Geek_Girl]

89. It's hard to say if we will win in '08

If we can get it together and start working together cohesively then maybe we will have a chance. IMHO any politician that enables the Bush administrations disastrous polices that go against democratic core values should be voted out of office.

But I'm starting to see some cohesiveness in the senate. Harry Reid is doing well at keeping the dems solid on SS. So I have hope the democrats can hold the line and fight for our principles.

As far as the DLC, either their grip is loosening or they never had much of a grip to begin with. Dean is chair and has the energy of the grass roots behind him. So maybe the DLC will realize the power of the base and start to tap into that energy as well.

[Q]

99. It's nice that they're getting togther to support Social Security...

...but what other choice do they have? I hope that they're successful...but there are many other issues that they haven't paid attention to over the last four years. In many cases...they're indeed 'enabling' Bush by supporting HIS calls for no real investigation into 9-11...Patriot Acts, counterfeit war on terror and his illegal invasion of Iraq.

It's dangerous to assume that the DLC doesn't or never did have a grip on the party. They were the brainchild of Welfare reform and NAFTA and their influence is still seen today with THEIR candidates (like Kerry) being pushed to the forefront and their support of Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation.

What many Democrats still don't seem to realize is that the DLC DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE BASE. They get their money and support from corporations...not the people. Their 'job #1' is to change the Dem party from within and 'move on' past the New Deal.

[John_H]

92. You may be right but for 100% wrong reasons

There are plenty of progressives in the party. Look at the donor rankings, look at the staff, look at the ideological balance of elected officials. Liberal base group donations outnumber corporate donations by a wide margin. The overwhelming majority of staff--the people that do the day to day work--are solid progressives. The balance of electeds is about what it has always been.

The reason we may lose in 06 and beyond are:

1 Sometime around 2000 we stopped fighting as hard and as viciously as the GOP. If we do not start doing this we will lose every time.

2.Since the late 90's a culture of blackmail on the part of consultants has crippled the Dems financially and strategically. The money we spend on "consultants, " who are actually people being bought for connections to voting blocks or slimeballs benefiting from inside jobs (you get the DNC contract iof you hire me in 6 month).

3) No mechanism to ensure party loyalty. In other words, we need tom delays and karl roves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. Maybe Just Maybe More Folks Like Their Dog Food Better Than Ours

[Q]

96. I've been right for the wrong reasons before...

...so that's not an issue. I agree that there are 'plenty' of progressives in the party. But none of them are in the LEADERSHIP. The Party Bosses like to use progressives to raise money for campaigns...but they're not invited to participate in making policy. This is exactly the disparity I've been discussing.

It's easy to say that 'we' (our leadership) stopped fighting in 2000...but why? That's what has everyone so baffled. Why did they stop being an opposition party?

You call it 'blackmail'...others call the problems of the 90s the 'triangulation of the third way'. No one forced the party to the Right in the 90s...it was intentionally moved there by Reagan Democrats (aka the DLC) who wanted nothing to do with the social democrats or their new deal.

Party loyalty can never be 'ensured'. We already have a Rove in our party...he's called Al From. He and the other DLC operatives insist on loyalty...but to the New Democrats and not the Democratic party.

Republicans are expected to act like robots and clones...following the leader without question. Is this what you want for the Democratic party? What the Democratic party needs is LEADERSHIP willing to break outside the DLC 'centrist' mold and join with liberals and progressives to rebuild the base of the party.

[knight_of_the_star]

104. You seem to have a prediliction for doom and gloom

How about you stop whining and bitching and moaning and start doing something productive with yourself Q.

[Q]

106. How about you...

...minding your own business and allow others to hold their own opinions? It's also very arrogant of you to assume that I'm not being 'productive'. That's one more thing that you're in no position to judge.

That you and others can't seem to accept that the party is changing for the worst and losing because of it is not my problem. But as a 'loyal' Democrat of 30 years...I have no intention of sitting back and watching the party of Jefferson and Kennedy usurped by the party of Reagan and their allies in the Dem party.

Speaking of productivity...certainly YOU could offer more than a one sentence hit and run post?

[sampsonblk]

107. Depends on what happens with Dean

My guess is that serving Dems will wait to see what success he has alone before they pitch in to help (themselves).

If Dean's aggressive head-on approach pays dividends, perhaps the weaklings in the party will have the guts to start taking and holding principled stands.