If you're mad at the Greens, don't bash Left Democrats

[Ken Burch]

We are in the Democratic Party. We are working to revitalize the Democratic Party and lead it to victory. Meaningful victory.
We seek to create a Democratic Era that is clearly more progressive and sustainable than the destructive policies the Republicans and the DLC have given us.

Our goals are positive. Our tactics are constructive. We want to work with everyone in the party who wants real victory and a clear break from the poisonous policies of the last thirty-eight years.

The enemies of the Democratic Party are corporate power and the religious right. They are NOT progressive activists, people of color, unions and the poor.

The time has come for Democrats to be the party of the excluded majority. If we bring all the groups the GOP demonizes and attacks and leaves powerless together, we will win and we will win in a landslide.

Work with us. We're on your side.

The more success we have, the less success the Greens will have. Their voters should be our voters, and they would be if we welcome them in(or welcome them back). Enough "pro-business centrism". Enough defensive politics. It's time to fight to win again.

[rwenos]

1. Amen from a Moderate

You're right. I often disagree with hard-left Democrats on some things, but agree with them on others. We have to look at the big picture. I just posted a sermon on another thread about the far-reaching effect of the Executive Branch agencies. They literally control most of human existence. When a Republican is elected, all those agencies are led by like-minded beetle-brains. When a Democrat is elected, there's some chance new blood will take over and influence all those agency decisions.

I defend hard-left Democrats whenever I can. They're the conscience of our Party. We need 'em to remind us when we're giving up too much to the other side.

[radio4progressives]

17. Now here's a thinking and principled Moderate!

right on! :hi:

[mike_c]

2. most of us Greens ARE left democrats...

...left behind by the democratic party. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Green voters are former dems.

[Ken Burch]

4. In my introduction, I was calling for the Dems to reach out to Green

voters, who would still be Democrats if the party hadn't driven them away.

Sorry if that didn't come through.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

6. You got that right!

I left the Democratic party when Clinton signed the welfare deform act. Dems have done nothing since that has made me want to go back! The Democratic party does not represent me! They voted FOR NAFTA, against universal health care, for CAFTA, For the war, for extended expenditures for the war, and don't even have the balls to censure Bush for breaking the law about spying on U.S. citizens! Why would I support them? They are NOT an opposition party, they are the Vichy party.

[radio4progressives]

12. they absolutely are indeed former Dems...

I'm in Green Party country - two small towns with full green party city council boards and mayors, not to mention a nearby Blue/Green City, San Francisco board of supes...

[mike_c]

22. hey, me too....

I'm in Humboldt County, CA.

[mainegreen]

41. as well me

Also a former dem disgusted with the local democrats.

[MrBenchley]

3. Which "left Democrats" are those?

The ones who announce over and over that they're going to leave the party (although they never seem to go anywhere)?

The ones who spend all their time running down Democrats?

"We're on your side."
It shows. (snicker)

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

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

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

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

The wonder is how transparent this crap is.

[Ken Burch]

5. Holding Democratic officeholders accountable for their actions.

is not "running down Democrats".

And if you had your way, there'd be a DLC Democrat running against Bernie and you'd be demanding that progressives support him.
(Besides, Bernie will organize with the Democrats, so his party status is actually irrelevant.)

[MrBenchley]

33. Yeah, that's why Pelosi is "worse than Tojo" (snicker)

Like I said, the wonder is that this shit is SO transparent most of the time.

"you'd be demanding that progressives support him"
Hell, I don't really give a shit what our progressive purists do. Far as I can see, they're no fucking help to anyone.

[Ken Burch]

45. OK, the Tojo thing was a bit over the top

But Pelosi did bring a lot of the attacks on herself with the absolute contempt she showed for her constituents on the impeachment issue. Why can't she see that holding back doesn't work and has never worked?

[MrBenchley]

94. Like I said

the owndr is that this anti-Democrat shit is so transparent.


Bernie is pragmatic, Pelosi is showing contempt. (snicker)

[rockymountaindem]

42. Calling names like the ones Mr. Benchley cited isn't

"holding them responsible" either. I'm sorry, calling someone "Eichmann" doesn't move the discussion forward, nor does it "hold people responsible". It's just immature, offensive whining.

[MrBenchley]

95. And you will notice there's a daily barrage of such crap from our "left"

[Ken Burch]

114. I've started a thread to try to correct that.

nt.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I too am not convinced of the OP's claims

with plenty of evidence to the contrary here at DU.

What usually happens if a member doesn't subscribe to the groupthink of your clan, they are summarily dismissed as uninformed or a DLC/Hillary plant, a genuinely immature response to stress.

The picture you paint is lovely, if it were only true.

[Ken Burch]

8. Which claims are you unconvinced of?

We are progressive people working within the Democratic Party. We have ideas that can lead to victory.
There are more people excluded from the Republican world than are included. If we bring them in, if we
can mobilize the dispossesed and the powerless, we can win.

This requires a bold, progressive, unashamed party that speaks out as loudly and as clearly for hope and justice as Republicans do
for arrogance and greed. The defensive politics of the DLC and the party establishment have been tried and failed. Saying nothing and hoping to win by default clearly doesn't work, as 2000, 2002 and 2004 proved.

A progressive party is a winning party.

[AtomicKitten]

9. oh, we believe the same things.

I just don't subscribe to the bullying tactics exhibited here at DU.

I've actively worked in the Democratic Party for 30 years and I know how to get along with all kinds of people, and there's the rub. Some "progressives" have no tolerance for others not of their mindset, and I have no tolerance for that. I prefer to call myself a liberal to distance myself from that.

ps: It's unfortunate that DU "progressives" have given a black eye to the image of their branch of the Democratic party and they often make one wonder if indeed they really are Democrats.

[radio4progressives]

15. Hear! Hear! Ken...

:applause::applause::applause:

[MrBenchley]

34. LOL!

"We have ideas that can lead to victory."
Yeah, just look at what a juggernaut that Kucinich bandwagon was.....

[Hippo_Tron]

76. If you would read Will Pitt's posts about the Kucinich campaign

You would know that a large part of its lack of success was largely due to Kucinich's chaotic micro-management style. Pitt (who worked for Kucinich) detailed several problems with the campaign all of which had to do with management and none of which had to do with ideology.

And since you like to pull out your specific examples that support your case, I'll pull out mine. I personally like the one where an unknown college professor with no money and no institutional support unseats a Republican incumbent, with an 8 million dollar warchest, by leading a grassroots campaign from his green bus.

Yup, progressives never win anything...

[IndianaGreen]

77. Let's not bring up Pitt's curious and short-lived role in Kucinich's

campaign while being a Kerry supporter, shall we?

[Hippo_Tron]

81. His analysis seemed pretty spot on

Kucinich just didn't fit the mold of presidential politics. Had he been a charismatic 6'5" alpha male with a top notch organization, ideas like the Department of Peace wouldn't seem like "fringe left" ideas to most Americans.

[Adelante]

145. LOL

Nice one.

[MrBenchley]

98. The largest part of his lack of success

is that voters didn't give a crap. Even in Ohio, as favorite son, he wasn't able to pull 10% of the voters.

You'll notice the Green party is as welcome to voters as an onion fart.

[Hippo_Tron]

100. Ohio is a huge state

Kucinich is only known in Cleveland because he has never held statewide office and in a huge state, a congressman from another part of the state doesn't have much recognition.

And you seem to assert that voters didn't give a crap, but you have nothing to back that up. I've cited multiple things that the Kucinich campaign lacked that cause any candidate no matter how good their ideas are to fail.

[MrBenchley]

103. And Dennis was a sad little candidate

"you seem to assert that voters didn't give a crap, but you have nothing to back that up"
Other than the utter failure of Dennis AND the Greens. Really, what else is needed?

[Ken Burch]

108. Dennis was not a "sad little candidate"

why did he not do better? OK, here's some reasons I can think of:

1)Dean got the votes that would naturally have gone to Dennis, even though, unlike Dean, Dennis actually WAS a dove.
When Dean got out, those voters bought the "Kerry's electable" bullshit and went over to Big John without asking anything
from him.

2)Dennis was progressive and thus couldn't get big donations. The business types the DLC had brought into the party were able to make sure of that.

3)People made too big of a deal about his being a vegan. I mean, so the guy doesn't eat meat. So what?
It only would have meant that Dennis was falsely seen as a flake by some.

4)Dennis didn't have the name familiarity that Kerry and Dean had. A Congressman will always be at a disadavantage to a senator or a governor when it comes to that.

But when he spoke then(and when he speaks now)he could galvanize a crowd. I was priveleged to hear him speak in Juneau(where Dennis WON the precinct caucuses two-to-one and came close to taking the state convention altogether)and the audience loved him.

If you want to say he was unsuccessful in primary electoral terms, that's fair. But sad? Hell no. Just a bit ahead of his time.

[MrBenchley]

117. Yeah, that Kucinich bandwagon was a real juggernaut all right

Dennis was a pathetic joke.

[Ken Burch]

126. Dennis has principles. The candidates you supported have none.

You don't need to slander a good man to make your points. Dennis' candidacy harmed no one.

[MrBenchley]

129. Dennis was a fucking disaster

"You don't need to slander a good man"
Yeah, only our progressive purists are allowed that kind of latitutde. (snicker)

Dennis and his "principles" can kiss my shiny white heinie.

[Ken Burch]

131. Dennis has done nothing to merit your hatred, Benchley.

In Cleveland, he's regarded as a hero for resisting the corporate takeover of the municipal electric utility, a takeover that would have cost the people of Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary rate hikes.

Dennis Kucinich is not your enemy.

[MrBenchley]

133. Jeeze, Dennis has done nothing. Period.

"Dennis Kucinich is not your enemy."
And advice from Kucinich backers on how to win elections is less than worhtless.

[Ken Burch]

144. Dennis has done a lot.

He was virtually the first Democrat in the House to speak out against the Iraq War(a war I assume even YOU would admit was wrong), has brought hundreds of thousands of people back in to the Democratic Party by honoring their ideals and fighting for them.

Dennis saved the people of Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to let corporate power take over the city's electrical utility. Corporate power drove Dennis out of the mayor's race, leaving him nearly penniless, but Dennis fought back and has repeatedly won landslide victories in his Congressional district.

I don't care so much what you say about me, Benchley, but lay off Dennis. He's earned everyone's respect and you have no reason to hate the guy.

[MrBenchley]

148. He sure provided a lot of laughs in 2004

I doubt even his mom thought he'd really be president.

[Ken Burch]

152. What is it with you and Kucinich?

There had to be a progressive peace candidate in the race. Things would have been far worse if there'd only been the passionless centrist hacks.

[MrBenchley]

156. It's hilarious...election advice from Kucinich supporters

is like theatre etiquette tips from PeeWee Herman....

[Telly Savalas]

171. So who should we seek advice from?

Center-right Democrats like Tom Daschle? What's he up to these days?

[wyldwolf]

182. well, electorally speaking

Daschle did win a state-wide race whereas Kucinich has only won a district - and a small one at that.

[Ken Burch]

146. Progressives haven't attacked any Democrats who weren't reactionary

or cynics. The tone some of those attacks took was, I'll agree, strident and angry. But some of those politicians helped provoked that tone by being totally dismissive about legitimate criticisms directed at them.

If Democratic officeholders had treated progressives with respect, they would have received far more respectful responses.

[MrBenchley]

149. Horseshit

"If Democratic officeholders had treated progressives with respect"
Progressives get what they deserve. You guys want to dish it out, and then cry like babies when you get even a fraction of it back.

[Ken Burch]

151. Again with the abuse.

That's all you know how to say, isn't it Benchley. And you probably cheered when the cops beat the crap out of the Yippies and the peace delegates in Chicago.

[MrBenchley]

154. And again with the self-pity on your end...

But DO try and throw out some more silly slurs, Ken. Each one just points up what a load your whole case is.

[MrBenchley]

32. I believe I could happily go the rest of my life

WITHOUT hearing some gumball call a respected Democrat a "corporowhore" or some such childish nonsense.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

189. I was just checking out your journal, benchley. I am amazed.

You have been here at DU for a very long time. Very nice journal. Peace and low stress, mdmc

[ThomasNewton]

57. I don't buy it either n/t

[Aaaargh]

121. Did the same individuals make these two statements?

That is, did the same persons condemn Pelosi for not supporting impeachment, but then excuse Sanders for doing the same thing?

If so, it's reasonable to point out that those individuals are being inconsistent, at the least.

But to lump everyone you consider a 'left Democrat' together, cherrypick statements from different individuals that contradict each other, and then sneer at 'left Democrats' as a group -- 'THEY said Pelosi was wrong but then THEY turned around and made excuses for Sanders!' -- is a TRANSPARENT exercise in bullshitting.

[VirginiaDem]

185. I agree entirely! n/t

[madfloridian]

10. Post after post saying "I'm leaving the party" or saying..

"I'm not going to give another red cent to the party" until they vote and speak just the way I want them to...is not very apt to convince many that they are really for the party succeeding.

Many of us read extensively at other forums, not exclusively Democratic ones, and we are very clued in to what many are doing.

Some of it is fun and games. Hey, I even saw one post that said "madfloridian is defending the party again" and a comment to bug me. ;-)

Some of it is not fun and games, though. That's where the rub lies. Some of it is astroturf...paid and unpaid. It is way to split the party by using a site with a large population.

So many of us are clued in to what is going on, we allow ourselves to be made fun of to stand up for what we believe in. I was called a "mole" at one site because I tend to criticize both the far left and far right. But I was not offended because they said I was a very good mole. B-) ;-)

[AtomicKitten]

11. I've been called a plant. Plant meet mole.

It's all good.

Glad to have you fighting the good fight, madfloridian. :)

[madfloridian]

13. I am better mole than you are a plant.

And they call you funnier names than AtomicKitten. LOL

[AtomicKitten]

14. oh, that's right.

But they said I knew my talking points and could manipulate DU software!

[madfloridian]

31. Well, they said I could take any side and be convincing...

But they never said I could manipulate software. :dunce:

That's funny.

They really think I'm a mole.

[radio4progressives]

16. Ken you should create a blog with this post...

:hi: :thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

18. Who is we, Ken Burch?

Are you a Green?

[Ken Burch]

19. No. I'm a Democrat.

I had a Green period, and I am back now. Dennis Kucinich made a place in the party for progressives and activists.

From 1992 to 2004, people who believed in peace, human rights, workers' rights and social justice weren't welcome to have a real say in the party(while CEO's, defense contractors and Scoop Jackson groupies called the tune. The party's new conservatism cost it Congress in 1994 by alienating the base, and cost it the White House in 2000 by sticking with the same strategy that had failed for six years in a row.

I want to get those people currently in the Green Party, and the millions of others who want a progressive alternative to the status quo, in the Democratic tent. Driving them out led to defeat. It's time to bring them back.

At the same time, I can see that some DU posters need to find a new rhetorical style to fight for their issues. The anger is justified, but there needs to be another way to express it.

And the Benchleys of the party really need to go away or at least be quiet. They have nothing to offer and their rhetoric doesn't help things either.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I wrote for a Green paper for a few years.

They have as much contempt for the Democrats as that exhibited here at DU by alleged "left Democrats."

Perhaps you might want to consider getting along with ALL Democrats and join US if you are sincere in your desire to win. You seem to throw down the gauntlet and that historically has never been a good idea.

It will require good communication, compromise, and respect.

[madfloridian]

21. Trouble is we all have to make compromises.

And too many here are not willing to do that. I think a lot of it is planned, and today has been unreal.

I don't like to compromise, but there are just sometimes we must do it.

I will settle for a party that has a chairman ready to fight the best he can, who is practical, uses moderation, and tries to make room for the people.

Trouble is also that many don't want to work for what they want. They don't want to donate, they don't want to work on the ground. There is no satisfying. As I say, some is planned, some is just being cutesy...planned at unfriendly sites...and some is just not understanding about the party.

[Ken Burch]

24. Compromise is one thing. Complete exclusion is another

Progressives have gone through a period of being blamed for all the Democratic Party's electoral disappointments(even though it was never that simple) and being kept powerless within the party. It's been a party where activists had no voice and CEO's had too much of one. It's been a party of big donors whose money has bought us nothing but defeat after defeat after defeat. "Things fall apart, the CENTER cannot hold" as William Butler Yeats put it(additional emphasis on "center" mine).

I'm for compromise on some things if an overall progressive message and tone is maintained.
That isn't what we've had in this party since 1992. All our party leaders did was try to compromise with the Right, and the right never compromised back. Clinton never got any concessions out of the Republican Congress, for example. It was just the Democrats becoming less and less "Democratic". We couldn't even get our "Democratic" president to close the School of The Americas, for God's sake. Centrist voters were hardly demanding that we keep a hemispheric torture school in session.

In order to even have the strength to compromise, we need to reestablish ourselves as a confident, strong and PROGRESSIVE party. We need to stop acting as if our principles were disgraceful and doomed to eternal unpopularity. We need to stop acting as though we've permanently lost the arguement on all issues except the environment and (possibly)abortion rights.

Voters have turned from as much far more because we've not expressed a clear set of principles than they ever did out of disagreement with liberals or radicals.

We need to start fighting back, and we need to believe we can win on the issues. DLC Democrats will not do either of those things(at least at the leadership level)and neither will our party establishment. So we need to "disestablish" both and fight from the grassroots up to bring down the entrenched power structure.

As Jim Hightower put it so well, "there's nothing in the middle of the road except for yellow stripes and dead armadillos".

And if I've thrown down the gauntlet to anyone, its to Benchley and all the Benchleys, the ones who don't know how to do anything but sneer and lash out and attack. They should just leave if they don't believe in anything anymore.

[AtomicKitten]

25. I might buy that.

However, you posted up-thread that a DU'er should go away or just be quiet. Benchley had a legitimate response to your OP and posted evidence of that, and there is plenty to be had at DU. You also mention purging the DLC. None of this smacks of the inclusivity you have called for.

You'll need to practice what you preach to be believable.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

28. I suppose I was referring to his links.

The discourse could be nicer from all parties here at DU.

Yes, no democrat should refuse impeachment, however, no democrat has the power to even bring it up. I think the frustration by those on the further left has more to do with not acknowledging the abject lack of power the Dems have right now. Their impotence has practical implications that some don't seem to comprehend.

Which is why 2006 is so critical. It will take just one house of Congress for investigations to begin in earnest. I trust you won't be disappointed if some power is shifted to the Democrats. At least give them the chance to fail you when they have the power not to before eviscerating them. Some here are so reactive; it's unsettling.

If nothing else, believe that I want a sea change at least as much as you. And the efforts to effect change will be herculean. You can count on that from all camps, together, in tandem, or any way it happens.

[Ken Burch]

29. I agree with pretty much everything you said in that post

In spite of ourselves, you and I are basically on the same page.

[AtomicKitten]

30. isn't that the damnedest thing.

And I felt the same thing when I worked with my Green friends. Love them and sometimes could wring their necks!

Let us just try to be respectful toward each other. There are some that seek to divide. If we all can muster some good manners, imagine the kick-ass force we will be facing the Republicans.

Nice talking to you.

[MrBenchley]

35. The hell it wasn't.....

"has provided no evidence to support it"
Except to point out that pretty much EVERY Democrat who comes under attack by our "purgers" is
--up for election/re-election in 200t, AND
--beating his or her Republican opponent like a drum.

If you want to pretend that's just a wacky coincidence, feel free. But I'm too old and cynical to even pretend that.

[Ken Burch]

46. nobody in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party

is a Republican agent, and you know it.

It may be a different matter with some of the crazier Greens and Naderites, but those of us IN the Dems aren't in on that.

Stop slandering us.

(And let me remind you that Lieberman doesn't actually HAVE a conservative Republican opponent, so his defeat would mean a better and more progressive senator for Ct. no matter who wins.)

It isn't a question of giving the centrist and conservative Dems a pass or losing.

[MrBenchley]

90. Says you....but the facts sure show otherwise.

"let me remind you that Lieberman doesn't actually HAVE a conservative Republican opponent"
Mostly because he wallops them so unmercifully that the GOP isn't even goping to waste money trying to defeat him. Some 70% of all Connecticut voters approve of him.

"his defeat would mean a better and more progressive senator for Ct."
And a loss of seniority. And it would upset the entire Democratic ticket in Connecticut.

But then to some people, EVERY Democrat anyone's ever heard of is "centrist and conservative"...not to mention "cowardly corporowhores" and all the rest of that childish bilge.

[Ken Burch]

127. All you've shown there, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is

that certain Democrats who are up for reelection and are doing well in their reelection campaigns tend to come in for attack here at DU. That does not prove that those of us here are conspiring with the Republicans. We're not. If we were, we'd have more money and drive better cars. And since Republican conspiracies tend to be effective in election years, the Democrats you mention would actually be in political trouble. They aren't, as you also helpfully point out. They aren't losing, if they do lose it won't be to Republicans, and we aren't swimming in dough. Therefore, no progressive Democrat/GOP conspiracy. End of that one.

If you're a decent, honorable person you'll stop repeating untruths.

[Ken Burch]

128. Second point:

Dennis Kucinich, who you repeatedly and viciously bash with no justification, is also running for reelection this year(as Congressmembers must)and is beating HIS opponents like a rented mule(My God, every rental mule in America must quake in fear at the name of Benchley, btw).

Therefore, we can conclude that YOU, Benchley the Loyal, are in a conspiracy with those Republicans.

[MrBenchley]

147. Geeze, Ken, maybe you'd like to show us

the post where I said Dennis should be driven from the party or anything like that...

"repeatedly and viciously bash with no justification,"
Sorrym Ken. Pointing out that his presidential campaign was a ludicrous failure isn't a vicious bash, but fact.

[madfloridian]

26. I agree with a lot of that.

I am a moderate who was treated that same way because we were Deaniacs. I know the feeling.

I found myself going more to the left than ever, though it was new for me. My anger was taking me there, anger at the way that our party kept pandering to the Republicans.

But then, suddenly, after groups who supported Dean as chair let the true goals come out....use him as a whipping boy to get many to look with disfavor on the party.

Then, that is when I started see how irrational both sides can be when they only want their way. In the beginning in 03 we turned to Dean's campaign because he was practical and sensible....and now we were seeing the OTHER side going after him after they endorsed him for chair.

Then I turned back to more center again, because the outbreak of the no support, no donations, no compromise scared me. No one get all they want, life is never that way. So I guess you would say I am on board with people who are sensible about their demands. I think we should have our say, but not hurt the ones who are really trying to make change.

[MrBenchley]

36. You will notice there are never any posts from moderates

demanding that progressives be purged from the party....

[Bridget Burke]

40. No, but some "moderates" think that progressives are hurting the party.

The "loony left" will cause us to be marginalized, they say!

[Ken Burch]

50. As if "moderation"(i.e., surrender to the GOP agenda)

hasn't marginalized us already.

The truth is, the last three elections have proved that it doesn't work for the Dems to attack activists and distance themselves from the party base.

[wyldwolf]

51. Which three elections would those be? And define this mythical base.

[Ken Burch]

53. 2000, 2002 and 2004

All elections the party should have been able to count on winning in a landslide.

All lost because the party obsessed with not seeming "liberal" and ended up sounding
like it stood for nothing, causing mass abstentions(especially in the first two).

All lost because the party didn't get the NINE MILLION unregistered African American voters registered, which Jesse Jackson could've managed if you'd given him the resources.

The party could have won in 2004 if it had clearly run as the peace party on Iraq. The country was breaking from Bush, and a Democratic lead in that direction would have accelerated the trend.
Instead, the party's whole theme was that Kerry had a great biography. A theme they allowed the Swift Boaters to destroy without a fight.

Caution and moderation equal defeat. The last three go rounds prove this.

[wyldwolf]

55. no, sorry

You can't have it both ways.

Either the elections were stolen by the SCOTUS, Diebold, and voter fraud, or they were not.

All lost because the party obsessed with not seeming "liberal" and ended up sounding
like it stood for nothing, causing mass abstentions(especially in the first two).

This statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In 2000, the voter turnout was about average with the last 7 presidential elections - about 52%. Off year elections always have low turnout, yet in 2002, the turnout was the second highest in five mid-term elections. 2004 saw the highest turnout since 1968, with Kerry recieving more votes than any Democrat in history.

the party didn't get the NINE MILLION unregistered African American voters registered, which Jesse Jackson could've managed if you'd given him the resources.

No proof of that.

The party could have won in 2004 if it had clearly run as the peace party on Iraq.

The way the party ran in 1968 and 1972 on Viet Nam?

Show me some stats to back your claim.

[Ken Burch]

56. The party DIDN'T run as the peace party in 1968.

The Johnson White House forced the party to nominate Humphrey and forced Humphrey(who privately had doubts about the war)to run as an allout defender of the war for most of the campaign. Before Humphrey edged slightly away from Johnson at the end of September, he was 13 points behind Nixon and possibly would have lost his own state(he was at 30% running as an all-out hawk). After that, Humphrey virtually erased Nixon's lead in a month. Had it not been for Johnson being more loyal to the war than to his own party, we'd have been spared Nixon.

In 1972, Humphrey got into the race at the last minute, hurting Ed Muskie(a moderate progressive and a dove on the war who was LEADING Nixon in the polls)and then slandered George McGovern on defense issues during the California primary. Humphrey's smears were quoted verbatim in Nixon campaign ads in the fall. That and the treachery of the Democrats for Nixon, a group that had no reason to exist, gave us the Milhouse mudslide in November. If the party leaders hadn't deserted McGovern, he'd have at least made a respectable showing. McGovern was only five points behind Nixon at one point in May. Humphrey ratfucked him McGovern when McGovern had worked harder for Humphrey in the fall of '68 than any other Peace Democrat did.

And Jesse has been begging the party for enough funds to get unregistered African American voters registered for years, and you DLC types keep telling him no, he can't get black voters registered, that would upset the white suburbanites that don't vote for us anyway.

[wyldwolf]

59. Is that the only thing you can address?

"all-out defender... probably would have could have...slandered George McGovern... ratfucked McGovern..."

and you DLC types keep telling him no, he can't get black voters registered, that would upset the white suburbanites that don't vote for us anyway.

Link?

[Hippo_Tron]

64. If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been shot, we would've been spared Nixon

Fucking Sirhan Sirhan (or whoever he worked for) changed half a century of history for the worse.

[Ken Burch]

65. No arguement there. I was just pointing out that even AFTER

RFK's death, there was still a better choice than obeying LBJ to the bitter end, as the hacks in Chicago did.
What the hell were they thinking? Usually party insiders are SUPPOSED to put getting elected first.
In Chicago, they put it last.

[MrBenchley]

92. Worth noting the left HATED Bobby Kennedy at the time

They used to savage him in ways similar to the left's savaging of Hillary Clinton now.

It wasn't until he got shot that leftists claimed him as one of their own.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. Do you have proof of this?

I have no trouble believing that the left had contempt for the Bobby Kennedy who was Joe McCarthy's junior counsel. But by 1968, he had dramatically changed his views on many issues. He was probably the greatest ally to Martin Luther King in the democratic party (I'm talking about as a US Senator, not as Attorney General) and he was firmly behind ending the war in Vietnam. Considering that the left was mostly concerned with the war, I have a hard time believing that he was the target of their rage in '68 when he agreed with them about their most important issue.

[MrBenchley]

104. I was there, son....

If you wqant to go back and check out old issues of Ramparts magazine for yourself, feel free. Kennedy was condemned for not being against the war...until he came out against the war, at which point he was condemnded for being a coward who only spoke out because McCarthy had made it safe to do so.

[wyldwolf]

124. I can tell you some things about Bobby Kennedy from 1968...

...that the "left" would find dreadful and if you didn't know he was RFK, you'd swear he was some Republican.

How about these:

RFK was a proponent of welfare reform and lobbied for a welfare to work system much like the one that "Progressives" assail Bill Clinton for.

In May of 1967, under the headline "Kennedy Assails Welfare System," The New York Times re-ported on a speech in which Kennedy described welfare and other assistance to the poor as a "system of handouts, a second-rate set of social services, which damages and demeans its recipients." New York's other senator, Jacob Javits, warned that such talk might "get thrown out right now."

Until his death, he remained skeptical of traditional liberal panaceas such as welfare, which he regarded as "better than nothing," but no substitute for employment. He proposed a new coalition of resident-owned community development corporations employing local talent and utilizing local resources, with public funds only a supplement to private investment. The Revolutionary Senator - David Reitzes

As Attorney General, RFK was leary of affirmative action. The Kennedy administration was protested by the left for not hiring more African-Americans, to which Bobby Kennedy angrily responded, "Individuals will be hired according to their ability, not their skin color."

[Ken Burch]

136. Bobby was leery of traditional welfare, AS WAS THE SIXTIES NEW LEFT!

Bobby wanted a major effort to economically rebuild the inner cities, to repair the damage caused by redlining and municipal corruption. Bobby wanted jobs programs. There is no way you can equate Bobby's position to Clinton's gleeful betrayal of the poor when he signed Rush Limbaugh's wet dream of a welfare bill. Bobby would never have approved of just throwing the poor to the wolves, as that bill did. Bobby would never have approved of just withdrawing benefits and then saying "you can make it on your own, poor people, I just know you can". Bobby wanted poverty wiped out. Clinton didn't, because that would piss off the suburbs.

And Bobby changed on racial issues after he was attorney general. His direction in the last five years of his life was clearly left.

[wyldwolf]

163. Let's see some sources

His direction in the last five years of his life was clearly left.

Aside from the Viet Nam war, cite examples, with sources and links.

Like many of your posts on such things, you make bold proclamations but never back them with anything other than "because I said so."

There is no way you can equate Bobby's position to Clinton's... welfare bill. Bobby wanted jobs programs.

Clinto created jobs programs that provided housing and transportation vouchers for welfare recepients, jobs programs for individuals with limited English proficiency, disabilities, substance abuse problems, or a history of domestic violence, jobs programs for fathers to fulfill their responsibilities by working, paying child support, and playing a responsible part in their children's lives, and economic incentives to encourage more employers to hire welfare recipients and other disadvantaged individuals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/1999/0125whfs.htm

Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan was contrived to provide jobs in the Northwest and preserve ancient forests at the same time.

And do I really have to repeat the Clinton record on poverty, jobs, and unemployment?

[MrBenchley]

166. Don't hold your breath....

The plain fact is if Bobby was around today, he'd be as hated as Hillary by our "progressive purists"...just as he was despised by the leftists in that era. Actual Democrats loved him, of course.

[MrBenchley]

150. The plain fact is, the left HATED Booby

until he was safely dead....Bobby was a moderate Democrat. As was his brother Jack.

[Ken Burch]

157. Bobby wasn't a moderate in 1968. He was a progressive dove by then

He started as a moderate and then started listening. The suffering he experienced with his brother's death opened him to hearing about the suffering of the poor. Bobby changed.

If elected, Bobby would've led one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive administrations in this country's history. He was on the side of the activists and the poor in his later years. Bobby was never DLC.

[MrBenchley]

164. Bobby was a moderate, and the left hated him for it

and that IS a fact.

[Ken Burch]

170. Bobby may have started as a moderate and a hawk

but he abandoned the more conservative aspect of his views in the last five years of his life.

Bobby Kennedy started criticizing the war in 1965(Arthur Schlesinger Jr's bio of RFK has an exact date for this), and flew to South Africa to denounce the apartheid regime at a time when LBJ and Scoop Jackson were still defending it as a bulwark against communism. Bobby went to Chile, visiting the poor and going down a copper mine (where almost all the miners were Communist Party members)of which he said "If I worked in that mine, I'd be a Communist".

Bobby was skeptical of traditional bureaucratic liberalism(as was the Sixties New Left)but wanted in many cases to replace it with a more radical progressivism that listened to the poor and responded to their needs, rather than just throwing them to the wolves. Bobby wanted a real effort to deal with the consequences of redlining, the policy choice that was the true cause of the massive increase in urban poverty.

Robert Kennedy may not have been a down-the-line liberal as some would define that now, but there is no way he can be claimed as an enemy of the democratic left.

One sign of the way Sixties leftists and others actually felt about Bobby:
At his funeral, both Tom Hayden AND Mayor Daley were weeping inconsolably.

(On another note, also verified in Schlesinger's book, Abbie Hoffman stated that the Yippies canceled some of their planned protests in Chicago when Bobby entered the race, because they believed that Bobby's candidacy would ensure that progressive and pro-peace views would get a fair hearing at the convention. After the assassanation, of course, those protests were reinstated, since it was now clear that the "moderate" Democrats would deliberately vote to lose the election by nominating the weakest possible candidate in the most divisive way.)

[MrBenchley]

186. The left hated Bobby his entire life...

It was only when he was safely dead that they tried to attach themselves to his memory.

" there is no way he can be claimed as an enemy of the democratic left."
Bullshit. The left of his time HATED Bobby.

[Ken Burch]

187. I've just repeatedly proved you wrong.

And it was the right, not the left, that was obsessed with stopping Bobby becoming president.

Now give it a rest, Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

188. Not even close to true....

The left hated Bobby until he was safely dead.

[Ken Burch]

112. Not that simple. The left's relationship with Bobby was love/hate

as illustrated in the famous Jules Feiffer cartoon of "the Two Bobbies" (which is reproduced in Arthur Schlesinger Jr's RFK bio).
The left was BEGGING Bobby to challenge LBJ as a peace candidate from mid-1966 on. The anger some of them felt towards him at various points was based on 1)his longstanding statement that he would support LBJ for reelection(which even you would have to admit would have been an utter betrayal of his principles)and Bobby's late entry into the 1968 race after he had promised Eugene McCarthy he'd stay out. This is documented in such books as Jack Newfield's 85 DAYS(Newfield, for younger posters, was a Village Voice columnist who actively participated in the RFK campaign)and MCCARTHY FOR PRESIDENT by Arthur Herzog(who managed McCarthy's victorious Oregon primary campaign).

At the time of the California primary, a lot of famous antiwar people, including the singer Phil Ochs, the "dump Johnson" movement leader Allard Lowenstein and active partcipants in the McCarthy campaign, were planning to switch their allegiance from McCarthy to RFK if he prevailed in California. Only that .22 bullet from the Ivor Johnson gun stopped them. And even when these people were supporting McCarthy(because they felt he had taken the risk of challenging LBJ when no one else would)they admired Bobby for his fight for the farm workers and his deepening support for civil rights and a real campaign against poverty(all measures today's DLC opposes to the bitter end, as part of their complete indifference to the non-white and non-rich.)

So no, they didn't exactly "hate" Bobby, and you have no right to associate Bobby with today's DLC, as he was progressive and compassionate, where the DLC is neither and always will be neither.

[MrBenchley]

116. Hate while he was alive, love once he was safely dead....

But then the hypocrisy and the dishonesty of the far left is nothing new.

[Ken Burch]

125. I just provided tangible evidence that that wasn't true.

The left wanted Bobby to challenge LBJ. They were disappointed when he held off and then when he got in after McCarthy had gone in.
That isn't hate.

The left loved Bobby's passion for fighting injustice, his support of the UFW and his growing opposition to the war. Nobody in the DLC opposes war or cares about ending poverty. To say the left "hated" Bobby is to spread an untruth. And not the first time in your case.

If you are an honorable person, you'll take that statement back.

[MrBenchley]

130. No such thing....

"The left loved Bobby's passion for fighting injustice, his support of the UFW and his growing opposition to the war."
But only when he was safely dead. When he was alive, they hated his guts.

And I am an honorable person. You, on the other hand.....

[Ken Burch]

132. They were just upset that he was inconsistent about running in '68.

That isn't hatred. If Bobby had gone in first, he would have had all the McCarthy people with him.
A lot of McCarthy people, including Phil Ochs and the "dump Johnson movement" leader Allard Lowenstein, were planning
to come over to Bobby after the California primary if he defeated McCarthy there. stop rewriting history. I've provided
evidence to refute your mistatements.

The left did not hate Bobby in life. And Bobby would be with the left today agaisnt the DLC, had he lived.

Can you try to make a constructive, positive arguement for once, rather than just trying to shout people down?

[MrBenchley]

134. They were their usual vindictive and hypocritical selves....

"A lot of McCarthy people, including Phil Ochs and the "dump Johnson movement" leader Allard Lowenstein, were planning to come over to Bobby after the California primary"
Yeah, if only he wasn't safely dead by then.....

"The left did not hate Bobby in life"
Bull shit.

"Can you try to make a constructive, positive arguement for once"
That IS rich, Ken. One of us is decrying this endless left wing witch hunt and slander, and it isn't you.

[Ken Burch]

139. "decrying this endless left wing witch hunt and slander"?

This from the person who is leading the endless right wing witch hunt and slander against progressive Democrats.
What you are doing, Benchley, is arguing that no one has any right to criticize any Democratic incumbent, and that progressives have no right to have a say in this party.

I've never heard you make a positive statement, Benchley. I've also never heard you make a respectful response to anyone you disagreed with. You set yourself up as the official arbiter of what is and what is not party loyalty. Why? What have you done that is so inherently superior to what anyone else here has done?

Try to come up with some response other than "LOL!" or "Damn Right". Try to make a case for people to actually disagree with you.

[MrBenchley]

141. Sez the guy who launched this thread with an attack on the DLC

"I've never heard you make a positive statement, Benchley."
Geeze, Ken, I'd hate to have to count all the fucking things you've "never heard"....

"You set yourself up as the official arbiter of what is and what is not party loyalty."
Which is why I started this thread....Oops!

[Ken Burch]

142. I started this thread to defend left Democrats

mentioning the DLC was a necessary step.

I don't think the DLC should be driven out, necessarily, but it should share power with progressives as equals and stop acting as if it is the way, the truth and the light as far as electoral victory is concerned.

And I stand by my statement that your participation in DU, to my experience, has been basically negative and reactionary. You appear to want a Democratic Party that is as indistinguishable from the Republicans as possible, and you appear to want to silence all who disagree with you. If I'm wrong about these points, give me some evidence to support that assertion.

If you'd like to be treated differently, start treating those you disagree with here with respect. We have just as much right to be in the party and to have a say in the party as you do.

And criticism of Democratic elected officials is not a plot against the party, it is simply free speech within the party. You wouldn't argue that Bobby Kennedy should never have criticized LBJ, or that he should have gone through with supporting LBJ for reelection, would you?

[MrBenchley]

143. That IS rich....

Where has there been a thread started to attack "left Democrats," I wonder? You guys do enough pissing and moaning because any one person dares to criticize your fantasies and fever dreams.

"it should share power with progressives"
Whyt the fuck should the DLC share power? Not even our own progressive purists seem to give two shits about the PDA or its "proposals," such as they are, and the PDA's website is nothing but high-sounding blah....

"your participation in DU, to my experience, has been basically negative and reactionary"
Tough titty, Ken. When I care what you think, I'll let you know.

"If you'd like to be treated differently"
I expect what I get, Ken. But then I know the sort of person I'm dealing with. And you don't see me sniveling and crying.

"We have just as much right to be in the party and to have a say in the party as you do."
Which is why you "left Democrats" are always threatening to stomp away in a fit of pique, or screaming vainly for a purge against ACTUAL Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

155. If the left had hated Bobby's guts, they wouldn't have spent two years

begging him to challenge LBJ. And all the histories of mid-Sixties Democratic politics(even those written by RFK loyalists)demonstrate this.

So again, you're presenting an untruth.

[MrBenchley]

165. The left HATED Bobby's guts

and they spent two years calling him names for not opposing the war...until he opposed the war, at which point they called him gutless for waiting for so long. And that IS a fact.

[MrBenchley]

96. More fantasy.....

"you DLC types keep telling him no, he can't get black voters registered"
The wonder is that this antiDemocratic crap is SO transparent.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. So what do you attribute the losses of 2000, 2002, and 2004 to?

Because in all of those elections, the party leadership was mostly DLC affiliated.

[wyldwolf]

84. easy

2000 - the election was clearly stolen by the SCOTUS.
2002 - the GOP ran a convincing campaign of fear after 9/11. There is evidence to suggest voter machine tampering.
2004 - much the same as 2002.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. The thing is that our lack of clear messages didn't help

Gore should have won a landslide in 2000 and it shouldn't have come down to Florida. I blame this almost entirely on Donna Brazille being his campaign manager instead of James Carville.

In 2004 I think that we would have had a much better shot if John Kerry had simply voted against the Iraq War Resolution. I understand why he voted for it, but most Americans don't. Kerry could have easily run a strong on defense campaign saying that he was going to use the full extent of our military resources to defeat terrorists, but that Iraq was just a needless war that Bush started. By the time November 2004 came, about 50% of the country thought that it was a dumb idea to go to Iraq in the first place. A lot of people wouldn't vote for Kerry, though, because they believed that he was wishy-washy on defense because it seemed like he had changed his position on the Iraq War a thousand times.

The reason that a lot of us want to support what you would call "the left" is that they are the only ones who are telling us exactly what they stand for. People like Tom Daschle tell us that supporting the Iraq War Resolution is a sound political strategy so that we can take the issue off of the table and say that we have a better economic record than the Republicans. People like Tom Daschle are the reason that we are always getting our asses kicked in elections. Despite Bush's popularity and America's general support for the Iraq War in the beginning, Paul Wellstone's numbers went up after voting against the IWR. Perhaps this is because people liked the idea that he was taking a strong principled stand, even if they disagreed with it.

Maybe the DLC does take strong principled stands and does fight for them. I just haven't seen anybody who can convince me of that other than Bill Clinton. And frankly there isn't much that Bill Clinton couldn't convince me of.

[mtnsnake]

160. "The party could have won in 04 if it had clearly run as the peace party"

I don't know if it would've been as simple as that, but I agree with the basic premise that we should never have tried running as just another war party. Anyway, I know what you mean.

When you get right down to it, Kerry's campaign (the war theme part) was really all about trying to prove he could do the same things Bush was doing, only he could do it "better"....

'I'll fight the war in Iraq better'. 'I'll seek out those terrorists wherever they are and I'll kill them better'.

Concerning the mess in Iraq, with everything Bush was already doing, Kerry tried to one-up him on every account, and he ended up getting kicked in the ass for his efforts. Running with a war theme against an incumbent asshole like Bush was just one of many major mistakes of our campaign. He got so wrapped up in his efforts to make himself look like a better Commander in Chief than Bush that he forgot to flaunt all his strong points, like the environment for example. By not flaunting his own strong points, Kerry never exposed Bush on his weak ones, which were many.

[MrBenchley]

89. Which is amply supported by the evidence....

But then it isn't moderates running down every Democrat ever heard of.

[Ken Burch]

113. ALL your "evidence" shows

Is that moderate, conservative or cowardly Democratic politicians tend to come in for criticism on DU. That does not support the arguement that those making such criticism here are working in league with the Republican devils. The truth is, we hate Republicans even more than you do, Benchley. We want to BEAT Republicans. And we want the Democrats who beat those Republicans to be clearly distinguishable from the Republicans they defeated.

None of our criticism has put a single Democrat in danger of being defeated by a Republicans. The ones you mention, as you say, are beating their competition "like a rented mule"(although if you keep using that phrase you'll destroy your chances of being elected president of the National Mule Rental Industry Association).

You need to lighten up about these things, and start dealing with the real issues. Everyone on DU is anti-Republican, pro-democratic and mostly pro-Democratic as well. The only enemies of the Democratic Party are on the right and in the boardroom.

[MrBenchley]

119. You know, the more I read your original post, the funnier it gets

Tell me, how much LESS success could the Green party possibly have? It's already in danger of being eclipsed by the Christian Phalangists and the Maharishi parties at the ballot box.

"Everyone on DU is anti-Republican, pro-democratic and mostly pro-Democratic as well."
Hence these constant attacks on respected Democrats and the endless witch hunt threads from the little leftist lynchmob that can't. (snicker)

Like I said, the wonder is that this shit is SO transparent.

[Ken Burch]

49. No, you just falsely accuse us

of conspiring against the party.

Which, as you know, is an absolute untruth.

[MrBenchley]

91. Nothing "falsely" about it

The actual fact can be seen on this forum every damn day with stunning clarity.....

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

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

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

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

[Hippo_Tron]

80. No, only ones saying that Bernie Sanders doesn't deserve dem support

Despite the fact that he caucuses with the dems and adds another vote to our total and that Chuck Schummer and the DSCC support him.

[MrBenchley]

88. That would be non-Democrat Bernie Sanders...

Funny there's hardly any posts urging him to become a Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. Because he is an ally of the democratic party

He caucuses with us and adds to our organizational vote total, which is more important than official party affiliation. In other countries multi-party caucus governments are commonplace. There's no reason that we shouldn't ally ourself with someone who shares our values and is going to help our organizational support, just because he doesn't cary the title "Democrat". Being an Independent doesn't automatically make you an enemy of the democratic party. We need to win millions of independent voters or we will never win any elections.

And of course, Chuck Schummer DSCC chairman and Howard Dean DNC Chairman seem to agree with me on this one.

[MrBenchley]

105. He's NOT a Democrat

"In other countries multi-party caucus governments are commonplace."
But of course, that's not how Congress works HERE.

"There's no reason that we shouldn't ally ourself with someone who shares our values"
If he "shares our values," let the sunbitch BECOME a Democrat. It's funny you "left Democrats" never seem to wonder why he ainb't one.

"Chuck Schummer DSCC chairman and Howard Dean DNC Chairman seem to agree with me on this one."
On what one? That we don't need to elect Democrats, as long as our "progressive purists" approve of the winner?

[Hippo_Tron]

109. He adds a vote to the democratic caucus

If he didn't, Chuck Schummer would be encouraging a Democrat to run against him for the senate. But Chuck Schummer is NOT encouraging a Democrat to run him, he and the DSCC are endorsing Bernie. The goal in 2006 is to take back the senate. It doesn't matter if the 51 votes for Harry Reid for Majority Leader come from 51 Dems or 50 Dems and 1 Independent. My goal and Chuck Schummer's goal is to take back the Senate. Bernie Sanders helps accomplish this by assuring a safe vote for the democratic caucus because he polls 50 points ahead of any candidate.

Answer this question for me. What is the point of running someone who has a D next to his name against Bernie? Bernie will add a vote for Harry Reid as majority leader and running a Democrat against him will only make it a three way race and possibly give a Republican a chance. The MOST important thing about electing Democrats to the senate over Republicans is that Harry Reid will be Majority Leader and the Democrats will control the committee chair. Bernie Sanders is a just like a Democrat IN THIS REGARD just like Jim Jeffords was because he will vote for Harry Reid to be Majority Leader and for Democrats to have the committee chairs. Simply put, why is it not okay that Bernie is not a democrat if he performs the MOST important function for a senator of our party which is to vote for our leaders to control the senate? How is Bernie being an Independent instead of a Democrat going to functionally hurt the Democrats?

[MrBenchley]

115. But he doesn't count as a Democratic seat

Funny we NEVER see posts from our "progressive purists" urging Bernei to join the party, eh?

"What is the point of running someone who has a D next to his name against Bernie?"
We'd have another Democratic snaor, which could help us gain a chairmanship. If we end up with 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and Bernie, we're fucked. Surprised you don't know that.

[Hippo_Tron]

122. That setup is the same as 50 dems 50 GOP in terms of charimanships

If it weren't, Chuck Schummer and the DSCC wouldn't be endorsing Bernie.

[MrBenchley]

135. Not even close to true.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. Prove it

My proof is that Chuck Schummer and the DSCC (the group that has the sole purpose of getting the democrats to control the Senate) are endorsing Sanders. What is your proof?

[MrBenchley]

140. It's in the Senate rules...

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule25.php

Bernie doesn't fucking count as a Democrat unless he becomes a Democrat...funny our "progressive purists" aren't urging him to become one....(but then who is REALLY fooled?)

[Cocoa]

158. independents get to vote for committee chairs

http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Jim_Jeffords_Principles_+_Values.htm

Jim Jeffords (R, VT) told his staff today he planned to leave the GOP and become an independent, shifting control of the Senate to the Democrats, but then postponed an announcement about his plans until Thursday.

With the Senate evenly divided between the two parties, a switch by Jeffords would give Democrats a one-vote edge, elevating Tom. Daschle (D, SD) to the post of majority leader, now held by Trent Lott (R, MS), and complicating prospects for Bush’s legislative agenda on Capitol Hill. Democrats said they understood Jeffords would vote with Democrats on control of committees, meaning Republicans would be supplanted by Democrats as chairs of the panels.

Jeffords would be in line to become chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under an agreement worked out with Democrats. Democrats last controlled the Senate in 1994, before a Republican sweep put both houses of Congress in Republican hands for the first time in a half-century.
Source: Helen Dewar, Washington Post May 23, 2001

[Hippo_Tron]

159. I don't see anything in rule 25 that has to do with this

Also, the words Democrat and Republican don't appear anywhere on the page. There's nothing in there discussing this issue let alone saying that an Independent can't be a member of the "Majority Party".

[Ken Burch]

153. If the Republicans had fifty seats next year, we'd be in the minority

no matter what Bernie did. Cheney's vote would keep the GOP in the minority in that scenario.

As the Republican who would have been appointed to replace Lieberman(had Gore been declared the winner in 2000)would have kept the Dems in the minority then.

And clearly it would be a tragedy if a Lieberman-type were Vermont's senator rather than Bernie.

[Ken Burch]

110. So long as he caucuses with us, what difference does it make

what his party status is?

I don't think you were demanding that Jeffords become a Democrat.

[The Magistrate]

111. None, Sir

But it would be nice if Sen. Jeffords joined the Party, as well as perhaps Chaffee and one or two others....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MrBenchley]

118. Except in determining chairmanships, etc.

But hey, let's not little things, like how Congress works, interfere with the noble "purity" of the cause (snicker)

[Douglas Carpenter]

176. If Mr. Sanders caucuses with the Democrats he is a vote for Chairmanships

for the Democrats in Congress. That is how the system works, Sir.

[Telly Savalas]

162. You do it all the time, buddy.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. The problem is that Clinton was still 1000 times better than Bush

Clinton didn't start an illegal war and lie to the American people about the reasons for starting it. Clinton appointed Supreme Court justices that actually believe in upholding the constitution and not some christian fundamentalist version of it. Clinton supported raising the minimum wage. Clinton didn't appoint his incompetent buddy to be head of FEMA. Clinton didn't open the ANWR for drilling. Clinton didn't force schools to teach bullshit abstinence only sex education. Clinton tried to use the budget surplus to save social security instead of giving the rich another tax cut. Clinton preserved traditional medicare instead of turning it into a multi-billion dollar giveaway to drug companies.

As much as Clinton was a dissapointment, and believe me I can rant about that at quite some length, he is still infinately better than shrub. Of course this is largely so horrid. When it comes down to voting for the lesser evil, the greater evil is sometimes so great that the lesser evil starts to look like a saint. It's pretty easy to go down the list of what the Republican congress' have passed over the past decade and notice the differences in what Clinton signed and what Bush has signed.

I think that eventually a figure with Clinton's political ability but with views like Wellstone's will emerge. That is when we will take back the party. For now, the simple fact that there ARE differences between the two parties (although I wish they were much greater) keeps me voting for one of them.

[radio4progressives]

23. "ignore" is really a wonderful feature

for those who have nothing but poison and venom to spew..
the ignore feature takes take care of the toxic waste that gets dumped here from time to time..

[0007]

37. Ain't that the truth......

[Ignis]

43. If not for the Kooch, I'd still be registered Green.

"Dennis Kucinich made a place in the party for progressives and activists."

Very true, Ken. Talking aobut the Kooch has helped me convince roughly two dozen of my progressive friends to stay with the party through 2008. He's a solid example that there is hope (however remote) that progressives still have a voice (however small) within the party.

[JNelson6563]

38. My question

We are working to revitalize the Democratic Party and lead it to victory.

What is it you're doing, exactly?

Julie--the curious

[Ken Burch]

52. trying to give it a living set of principles, for one.

Working to bring in the people the party leadership has disowned and driven away, trying to make the case
that the party needs to represent the outsider dispossessed majority and stop obsessing on the fussy uptight Sixties-hating, life-hating white suburban bigots who aren't going to vote for us anyway.

[JNelson6563]

85. Could you be a bit more granular?

As in what activities you are participating in? Are you going door to door? Phone banking? Holding events? Doing mailings? How are you reaching people and getting organized and active?

Thanks,
Julie

[Ken Burch]

106. I am involved on a continuing basis in the local Democratic party

in Juneau, have been a delegate to the state convention on several occasions, have drafted resolutions for those conventions(most of which passed), and am trying to find ways to let people get involved in the party on a continuing basis other than just writing checks.

(BTW, that's the first time I've heard "granular" used as a synonym for "concrete" or "specific".)

[Bridget Burke]

39. But some DU'ers just love to complain about the "Loony Left"....

And they are the ones who claim persecution by "Groupthink" at DU.

I like many Green ideas but will continue to vote for Democrats. After all, we are the party of FDR.

[mdmc]

44. progressive liberal checking in...still in the democratic party.

:kick: for your civilized OP.

[wyldwolf]

47. A call for unity that almost had me until the DLC slam

Responding the the opening post in this thread:

We (Left Dems) are working to revitalize the Democratic Party and lead it to victory.

The way left Dems did in '68, '72, '80, '84, and '88?

why is it what when "left Dems" work to revitalize the party, we lose big?

We seek to create a Democratic Era that is clearly more progressive and sustainable than the destructive policies the Republicans and the DLC have given us.

The DLC gave us the policies of the '90s. Hardly destructive.

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.


Our goals are positive.

Yes they are.

Our tactics are constructive.

Well, sure. But not all of them. The repeated call for purging the party and labeling more conservative Dems "DINO" won't win any hearts and minds. So, what constructive tactics are unique to "left Dems?"

[Ken Burch]

54. OK, I'll address your electoral history point.

1968: It goes without saying that the Dems would have held the White House if they'd done the right thing and nominated Gene McCarthy or at least voted for the peace plank. But no, LBJ cared more about keeping the war going than about keeping the presidency in Democratic hands.

1972: Nothing McGovern did justified the formation of Democrats For Nixon. McGovern campaigned hard for Humphrey in '68, bringing more Peace Democrats into the Humphrey fold than anyone else. He did nothing to deserve being hosed by the hawks and the hacks. And I hope you aren't going to argue that it was better for the country that the Trickster got a landslide.

1976: Carter was elected on McGovern's platform. The only reason the election was close was Carter's "lust in my heart" interview in PLAYBOY. Otherwise, he'd have taken it in a walk.

in the next four years, Carter destroyed his own popularity by abandoning the progressive platform he was pledged to carry out and maintaining a Republican emphasis on low inflation over full employment, resulting in cuts in social services(which are NEVER supposed to happen under a Democratic Administration)higher unemployment and, ironically, getting high inflation anyway. There was also the late 70's recession, the Iranian hostage situation(which Reagan's campaign extended for their own benefit)an energy crisis and other problems. NONE OF WHICH WERE THE LEFT's fault. Carter would have lost even if Teddy(who ran an incoherent campaign, in my view, and who in retrospect should not have run if he couldn't even tell Roger Mudd why he WANTED to be president)had stayed out of it. There was just no way for him to survive on the program he was carrying out. Which takes care of 1980.

1984 and 1988: Jesse Jackson was the progressive candidate, not Mondale or Dukakis. There was no candidate to Mondale or Dukakis' right who was doing any better in the polls, and none who was able to put together a compelling primary campaign(we can assume the party leaders would have embraced such a candidate had one emerged).

Mondale lost because he came across as a bland, passionless hack who talked about raising taxes but didn't engage the massive anti-Reagan protest movement that was sweeping the country.
Mondale wasn't even clearly opposed to Reagan on nuclear weapons and Central America, at a time when the polls showed the public clearly to the left of Reagan on foreign policy.

Dukakis lost because he refused to fight back against a smear campaign. The left bore no responsibility for HIS defeat whatsoever.

So, no, your list of election years proves nothing.

[wyldwolf]

58. Next time, use some provable facts.

1968: It goes without saying that the Dems would have held the White House if they'd done the right thing and nominated Gene McCarthy or at least voted for the peace plank. But no, LBJ cared more about keeping the war going than about keeping the presidency in Democratic hands.

How does this "go without saying?" You have some sort of polling data that says the Dems would have won if McCarthy had been the nominee?

1972: Nothing McGovern did justified the formation of Democrats For Nixon. McGovern campaigned hard for Humphrey in '68, bringing more Peace Democrats into the Humphrey fold than anyone else. He did nothing to deserve being hosed by the hawks and the hacks. And I hope you aren't going to argue that it was better for the country that the Trickster got a landslide.

Have no idea what you're trying to claim here. Other than McGovern did lose in a landslide.

1976: Carter was elected on McGovern's platform. The only reason the election was close was Carter's "lust in my heart" interview in PLAYBOY. Otherwise, he'd have taken it in a walk.

No he wasn't. Carter was a supporter of the Viet Nam war, as Governor he declared "American Fighting Man's Day" in support of Lt. William Calley after his court martial on charges of massacring civilians.

At the 1972 Democratic convention, he was a delegate for Henry "Scoop" Jackson's (said by some to be the father of the DLC) presidential campaign (NOT McGovern's), and he worked with Al From of the DLC on economic issues as well.

His presidential campaign was endorsed by Pat Robertson, who aired a profile of him on the 700 Club.

"In 1972, as Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota was marching toward the Democratic nomination for president, Carter called a news conference in Atlanta to warn that McGovern was unelectable. Carter criticized McGovern as too liberal on both foreign and domestic policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

1984 and 1988: Jesse Jackson was the progressive candidate, not Mondale or Dukakis. There was no candidate to Mondale or Dukakis' right who was doing any better in the polls, and none who was able to put together a compelling primary campaign(we can assume the party leaders would have embraced such a candidate had one emerged).

So why didn't Jesse get the nod?

And in '84, Gary Hart led in the polls for several months, and won the New Hampshire, Ohio, California, and several other Western primaries. Quite compelling. In 1988, Hart was the clear front runner until the Donna Rice situation.

Was Hart to the right of Mondale and Dukakis? Yes he was. He is considered by many as an original "New Democrat" and a forerunner to the DLC - a fiscal conservative, foreign policy hawk, social liberal.

Dukakis lost because he refused to fight back against a smear campaign. The left bore no responsibility for HIS defeat whatsoever.

Dukakis lost because of who he was.

As I've asked you to do several times, try to actually LEARN some Democratic history.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. "He is considered by many as an original

"New Democrat" and a forerunner to the DLC"

Lets see, so far you have said that very thing about;

John F Kennedy

Jimmy Carter

And Now Gary Hart

Interesting....

Hmm, perhaps others here are only in need of learning your revisionist history. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

82. show me where I've said that

:shrug:

Looks like you have a problem with DU revisionist history?

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. Mr. Wyldwolf does know a lot about Democratic Party history

And I agree with a much--perhaps even most of it. For instance I have to agree that President Kennedy was somewhat more centrist and a lot more hawkish than many liberals/progressives realize. And I also have to agree that the tendencies put forward by the DLC have been around long before the DLC ever existed.

But some of it seems to be a similar point of view put forward by Mr Peter Beinart of the New Republic and by some of the figures in the "New Democrat" wing of the party. This in my strong opinion is an ideological interpretation. This is something we can all be guilty of at times.

But again I will repeat my prediction that I made elsewhere. If Sen. Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee in 2008.

1. She will almost certainly lose. Although I hope I am wrong and would definitely support her or almost any Democratic Party nominee earnestly.

2. We will be hearing for years and years and years to come that she was the choice of the "left" and that she lost because she was too liberal. And this is another example of how the "left" ruined the Democratic Party. I can just imagine Peter Beinart's editorial right now.

[LincolnMcGrath]

107. Okay here is one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2485906&mesg_id=2486024

[wyldwolf]

123. No it isn't

In the post you provided, I accurately stated:

Contains several excellent chapters on the presidencies of Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton that details their policies and, in the case of the first three, how they (the policies) were forerunners to much of what the DLC proposes today

I never said Truman, Carter, and Kennedy were "New Democrats" but much of their policies forshadowed the DLC's. Hart, however, was considered a "new democrat" by many, and his policy proposals were straight out of the early DLC's playbook.

No brag, just fact.

[Ken Burch]

62. Polling throughout the summer of 1968 showed McCarthy running better than

Humphrey. Go to the archives of the Harris and Gallup organizations and their data will demonstrate this.
In McCarthy's book "The Year of the People" there is a table of Chicano precincts in Los Angeles where the combined McCarthy and Kennedy vote in the California primary was higher than Humphrey's vote total in the fall.


Jesse didn't get the nod for a variety of reasons
a)the party wasn't(possibly STILL isn't) ready for an African American nominee.
b)his campaign made some serious mistakes and it wasn't always clear whether Jesse wanted to be
nominated or just have "a place at the table.
c)Jesse was falsely accused of antisemitism(partly because he dared to commit truth about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the need for a two-state solution)

Dukakis did lose because of "who he was". Who he was, in fact, was a bloodless centrist technocrat who didn't believe in fighting back against smears. Because he didn't challenge the smears(all of which were lies)people assumed the smears were true. Because he was obscenely homophobic(gay and lesbian Dukakis staffers lived in fear of being fired if the boss found out.)
Dukakis was not a liberal, let alone a radical, so the party left, as I proved previously, bears no responsibility for his defeat.
There was no evidence to support the arguement that a more conservative Democrat would have run more strongly against Reagan or Bush the First. There is evidence, however, that a stronger, more confident progressive would have done better in the fact that Senate candidates to the left of the Democratic ticket(Simon and Harkin, for example)carried states the ticket lost. Dukakis WAS NOT A LIBERAL. End of discussion on 1988.

There were also the repeated victories of Jim Hightower in red state Texas(until the right wing smear machinery got him in 1994 when he had no money to fight back due to all the money in the state going into the Ann Richards-Dubya fight)to show that confident progressive populists, who fight back, can win when the party backs them. If it works in statewide races, it can work nationally.

Also, in 1976, the Democratic Platform was almost identical to McGovern's. Had Carter carried it out(and the overwhelming majority of his voters supported him EXPECTING him to carry it out)he would have galvanized the progressive majority and driven Reagan into the boneyard. Carter caused his own defeat by repudiating the platform and governing as a moderate Republican.
If he'd done what he was elected to to, he'd have had a second term in a landslide.
The country wanted a progressive government in '76. If they hadn't they'd have elected the Republican no matter how conservative the Democrat was.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Congress would not pass any of Carter's proposals

And Carter would have run Reagan into the grave if the hostage rescue mission has been successful, that's all there is to it.

[Ken Burch]

75. The greatest tragedy there was that Carter's welfare bill

was defeated. Unlike the reactionary and racist proposal Clinton willingly and cheerfully signed, Carter's proposal was progressive. Among other things, it would have allowed two-parent families to get public assistance. This would have prevented a generation of family breakup. But Republicans and conservative Democrats decided they'd rather see children consigned to single-parent families that were constantly being subjected to gestapo-like raids to see if there was a man in the house, rather than accept the reality that intact families were worthy of government support as a necessary building block for a decent society.

Many of those conservative Democrats who killed the Carter plan went on to help found the DLC. And supported a welfare bill that didn't help the poor out of poverty but merely punished them for being poor.
All to appease life-hating white suburbanites that never voted Democratic.

[wyldwolf]

83. Really? Let's see the numbers

Polling throughout the summer of 1968 showed McCarthy running better than
Humphrey. Go to the archives of the Harris and Gallup organizations and their data will demonstrate this.

No. YOU do that. You made the charge. Now prove it.

In McCarthy's book "The Year of the People" there is a table of Chicano precincts in Los Angeles where the combined McCarthy and Kennedy vote in the California primary was higher than Humphrey's vote total in the fall.

But the combined McCarthy and Kennedy vote in Chicano precincts isn't the same as "It goes without saying that the Dems would have held the White House if they'd done the right thing and nominated Gene McCarthy ."

Jesse didn't get the nod for a variety of reasons

That's right. He didn't get the nod. The "variety of reasons" you list are called "politics."

Jesse was falsely accused of antisemitism

calling Jews "Hymies" and New York "Hymie Towm" qualifies in my book.

Dukakis did lose because of "who he was". Who he was, in fact, was a bloodless centrist technocrat who didn't believe in fighting back against smears. Because he didn't challenge the smears(all of which were lies)people assumed the smears were true. Because he was obscenely homophobic(gay and lesbian Dukakis staffers lived in fear of being fired if the boss found out.)

Links? Prove these charges.

There was no evidence to support the arguement that a more conservative Democrat would have run more strongly against Reagan or Bush the First. There is evidence, however, that a stronger, more confident progressive would have done better in the fact that Senate candidates to the left of the Democratic ticket(Simon and Harkin, for example)carried states the ticket lost. Dukakis WAS NOT A LIBERAL. End of discussion on 1988.

End of discussion on 1988? Not hardly.

Your "evidence" is evidence of nothing. More moderate Democrats also carried states the Democratic presidential ticket lost - Bob Kerry in Nebraska, for example.

Dukakis WAS A LIBERAL.

Also, in 1976, the Democratic Platform was almost identical to McGovern's. Had Carter carried it out(and the overwhelming majority of his voters supported him EXPECTING him to carry it out)he would have galvanized the progressive majority and driven Reagan into the boneyard. Carter caused his own defeat by repudiating the platform and governing as a moderate Republican.

Another example of your historical revisionism.

The 1976 Democratic platform generally stated party goals and avoided listing detailed (and expensive) legislative proposals found in the 1972 document, which many called the most liberal platform ever. Carter also was careful to avoid the platform fights which hurt the party in 1968 and 1972. The platform was adopted with no serious debate.

ECONOMIC: The centerpiece of the Democratic economic platform was the full-employment language, calling to lower unemployment to three percent within four years. The platform also stated, "Direct government involvement in wage and price decisions may be required" and a "complete overhaul of the present tax system" was needed. One member of the platform committee told U.S News and World Report the economic plank avoided the "fringe ideas of the McGovern campaign."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/past.platforms/index.shtml

The country wanted a progressive government in '76.

Apparently not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. what positions did Mondale or Dukakis advocate that were by any

wild stretch of the imagination left-wing while they were running for President?

Mondale keeping ALL of Reagan's military budget and most of his tax and spending cuts? Dukakis' technocratic/New Democrat program?

I would have to agree that Carter himself ran on an essentially centrist agenda as all nominees did after 1972 although he did promise modest cuts in military spending, but ended up increasing military spending.

[Ken Burch]

67. And Dukakis proposed a totally insane 25% INCREASE

in the war budget, at a time everyone knew the Cold War was ending.
Don't blame progressives for the Massachusetts Midget.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. it's interesting that after 72 only two Democrat nominees

advocated military spending as part of their campaign agenda. I wasn't aware that Dukakis had advocated such major increases. But the entire premise that Mondale and Dukakis were leftwingers who ran on a left-wing agenda does not even pass the laugh test.

Carter in 76 (but not 80)

Clinton in 92

[Ken Burch]

69. You forgot Jesse in '84 and '88, also Paul Simon...

Or did you mean nominees?

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. yes, sorry I meant nominees

[Hippo_Tron]

70. How about this

1968: Gene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey were both doomed to failure because the party was clearly divided over the war. Bobby Kennedy was the only candidate who could have beaten Nixon because he took a stand against the war but also had the Kennedy name that could have gotten him the support of party leaders who supported the war.

1972: George McGovern was a political lightweight as demonstrated by his picking of a mentally unstable running mate.

1976: Carter was a conservative

1984: This election was doomed from the start because Reagan was a very popular incumbent. I don't think that Gary Hart could have beaten Reagan but he was a young charismatic guy who would have had a better shot than Mondale who was just too easy for Reagan to paint as a relic of the problematic Carter era.

1988: I don't know what you mean by Dukakis lost because of who he was, but here is what I do know. Dukakis walked out of the democratic convention with a 17 point lead. I can't remember a time when a candidate was ahead by 17 points in a presidential race. Dukakis wasn't the most charismatic guy, but Bush wasn't either. Dukakis lost because Lee Atwater convinced America that he was going to let scary black men out of jail to come rape their wives and daughters.

Also an interesting note. Gary Hart was actually George McGovern's campaign manager. I don't know what to make of this other than perhaps people overblow the DLC vs non DLC thing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. I do not agree with the characterization of George McGovern as

a political light weight anymore than I agree with the characterization of him as left-wing radical.

His record of accomplishments is awesome to put it mildly.

He built the South Dakota Democratic Party up from nothing. When South Dakota had only two Democrats in the state legislature he almost personally turned it into a viable political force based on grassroots organizing.

In his two years in the House of Representatives he played a major role in developing the student loan program and almost personally opened it to students of all majors. His work on nutrition, agriculture, student aid and student loans quickly got the attention of Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy.

As the first Director or President Kennedy's Food For Peace Program he instituted one of the largest school lunch programs in the history of the world. President Kennedy was so impressed with his work that he made his position a cabinet level positing with an office in the White House and direct access to the President.

During his eighteen years in the Senate, he was fundamental in establishing the Food Stamp program and a whole range of various programs spanning from nutrition to education to agriculture; undoubtedly one of the most impressive Senate careers ever.

Before George McGovern began his reform work for the Democratic Party the entire Democratic Party establishment was very much a white boys club. Caucuses were frequently for insiders only were often not publicly announced. At the 1968 Democratic Convention only 14 percent of delegates were women, only 2 percent were under thirty and only 5 percent were black. McGovern changed all of that. The whole principle of
of public disclosure of campaign contributions was introduced and first practiced in a Presidential campaign by Sen. McGovern.

"Of all my colleagues in the United States Senate, the person who has the most feeling and does things in the most genuine way...is George McGovern. He is so highly admired by all his colleagues, not just for his ability, but because of the kind of man he is. That is truer of him than anyone else in the United States Senate."

--U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy

[Hippo_Tron]

74. I didn't say that McGovern didn't have some great accomplishments

But Nixon took to politics in a hard-hitting anything to win manner. Nixon played the game A LOT better than McGovern did. He simply didn't have what it took to defeat Nixon. This was really who McGovern was. He was too much of a good guy to win a presidential election.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. he certainly was not prepared to deal with the viciousness of both

Richard Nixon and certain Democratic Party insiders at the same time.

I think almost everyone agrees that it would have been hard for anyone to defeat Nixon in the particular year of 1972 even under better circumstances. And clearly somethings just plain went wrong.

The Eagleton affair of course damaged him more than almost anything else and probably turned a loss into a landslide loss. Once he had sown up the nomination (supposedly) he had to fend of a last minute effort of more conservative forces who were determined to block him no matter what, no matter how much it damaged the Party. He simply didn't have time to concentrate on fending off this last minute assault and mend fences and work on questions like finding a solid running mate. All of Sen. Eagleton's closest associates recommended him highly and none of them every heard of any problems. Sen. Eagleton himself denied that there was anything that could in anyway weaken the ticket. When the story first broke, Sen. Eagleton claimed that it was a minor issue and involved minor treatment for exhaustion. This is when Sen. McGovern made his famous, "I back Tom Eagleton 1000%" remark. It was based on what he had been personally told both by Sen. Eagleton. When it became clear that his illness and his treatment was much-much more serious. The national media as well as most of the Democratic Party leadership clamored for Sen. Eagleton to step down. A week later when Sen. McGovern concluded that there was little choice, he called upon Sen. Eagleton to step down. Then the same fickle media which had been calling for exactly that suddenly started to paint McGovern as heartless and disloyal. This was especially damaging since Sen. McGovern's strongest asset was his reputation for loyalty, openness and honesty.

Sen. McGovern has frequently said that the one thing in politics he has never understood is, "what is wrong with changing your mind in the face of new information?".
___________________________



link on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E6ESSA/ref=cm_bg_f_3/002-5963463-8581663?v=glance&n=130

to view movie promo/trailer:

http://movies.go.com/readerreviews/movie?name=one-bright_2005&genre=documentary&studio=First%20Run%20Features

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Personally I don't supporting purging the party

I do believe that Ben Nelson is a shitty human being for voting yes on Republican economic policies that directly fuck over the people that he represnts. That being said, I would vote for the asshole in a heartbeat if I lived in Nebraska because I value his caucus vote and no serious democrat is running against him.

I do hope that Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Not because of Joe Lieberman's voting record or his support for the Iraq War. I have no problem with him voicing his opinions even if they differ from mine. However, Lieberman seems to have a problem with me voicing my opinion because he goes on national television and tells democrats to "Accept that Bush is commander in chief" and that criticizing him undermines our foreign policy. All Lieberman would have had to do to get my support is say "I respectfully disagree with many members of my party on this issue". But instead he goes on Meet The Press and gives a toned down version of the "If you don't support the war you support the terrorists" rhetoric.

It should also be noted that certain more centrist members of DU believe that Bernie Sanders doesn't deserve democratic support because he doesn't officially have a D next to his name. This is despite the fact that he will add a caucus vote for the dems (just like Jeffords did), the DSCC is supporting him, and he is securing a senate seat for us in Vermont that could have possibly been competative if popular Republican Governor Jim Douglas had decided to run. Could this be because these people don't like Bernie Sanders?

[Douglas Carpenter]

97. I agree -- talks of purges are silly

Peter Beinart the Editor of the New Republic called on the Democratic Party last year to purge the Henry Wallace/George McGovern wing of the party. My goodness I was handing out Humphrey 68 flyers long before Mr. Beinart was born. Obviously those remarks were not helpful when they were directed against us progressives.

Besides we cannot even purge the Lyndon LaRouch wing of the party. Who is anyone kidding?

[LWolf]

87. Well said.

I, for one, am not "mad" at 3rd party members or independents. I was independent myself for many years, and am still independent minded even though I carry a "D" voting card. Issues are still more important to me than party. The way to bring in the independent, 3rd party, or "I've given up on voting" vote is not to demand that they get in your line. It's to address their issues with action, if those issues don't conflict with party goals.

[mtnsnake]

120. First you tell us "Don't bash left Democrats". Then you bash DLC Democrats

yourself, 4 lines later, all in the cause for Party unity?

With unity like that, who needs enemies?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

137. Irony IS such a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[msgadget]

161. The Greens did help the democrats in '04 by urging their voters in red

states to vote the democratic line for president. Perhaps someone acknowledged it privately but I heard no public thanks for it.

[depakid]

167. The Greens aren't the enemy

We're natural allies.

However, if the Dems continue to legitimize and enable far right policies, then they're going to alienate more and more people- whichis EXACTLY why so many people have choosen to register independent- and it's why the Greens have become the largest growing political party in America.

Start standing up for traditional Democratic principles- and people may start having some modicum of enthusiasm for the party again. Continue pandering to the far right- and allowing members of the party to repeatdly espouse their policies and vote with the oppossition, and the Dems will remain- as they are today- irrelevant in national politics, and leaving candidates vulnerable to challeneges from the left.

[wyldwolf]

168. They were in 2000

The Greens are one issue "my way or the highway" voters.

However, if the Dems continue to legitimize and enable far right policies...

What exactly are "far right policies" and how have the Democrats "legitimatized" them?

then they're going to alienate more and more people- whichis EXACTLY why so many people have choosen to register independent...

Like Joy Binns? Her experience contradicts you. Binns is a registered independent. Seems the Democrat'a "far left" policies moved her into the independent camp.

She said she’s become unhappy with both major political parties, despite her formerly Democratic leanings.

Binns said some of the Democratic Party’s recent political rhetoric is turning her off, particularly as it relates to gay marriage.

“I’m not at all for the gay lifestyle. They are all God’s children and I don’t hate them. It’s just that the Bible says it’s not right,” Binns said.

Nor does she agree with the Democrats’ position on abortion either.

But don’t be so quick to paint her as a conservative just yet.

This former Canadian citizen said she much prefers Canada’s health care system, one providing universal coverage to all citizens.

“It’s very hard for me to pay for certain medications. For me, it’s often a choice between whether or not to buy medicine or buy food,” Binns said.

She describes her politics as either “moderate” or “middle of the road.”

Thus her affiliation as an independent.


http://www.highlandstoday.com/MGBDXDXB4KE.html

- and it's why the Greens have become the largest growing political party in America.

Really? Got a stat on that?

The Libertarian party claims to be the fastest growing party in America. So does The American Independent Party.

The Greens claim over 180 officeholders nationwide. The Libertarian party claims over 525 officeholders countrywide.

In the 2004 presidential election, the libertarian candidate got 3 times as many votes as the Green candidate.

[depakid]

169. Same tired old arguments

They don't even sound sincere anymore. Not that they ever were, or that they were EVER about the issues- or about rational strategy.

At this point, it's obvious what's going on- just as it's obvious that most people are fed up with it.

If the Dem "leadership" keeps on as its been going, as a right wing apologists and enablers- it's going to get the same results- more election losses- and more people leaving the party.

And they'll deserve it.

[wyldwolf]

173. what arguments were those?

I shot down your unsourced and generalized opinions and wishful thinking.
Don't you have anything else to say besides another generalization/opinion?

[depakid]

175. The same ones you and a few others trot out every time

to support the party's continuing lurch to the right (along with the 6 straight elections losses).

And don't flatter yourself. You didn't shoot down anything with your anecdotal voter (as if that's representative of anything other than a perpetual losing strategy- for every one like that one there may well be a dozen who 1. just don't vote- or 2. vote 3rd party instead).

Want to look up Green numbers- or independent numbers- or declining Democratic registration, go ahead.

Here are some Green figures. You can see for yourself how tricky looking at that data is.

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/registergreentrends.html

Botton line is that you're supporting right wing enabler who've alienated their base, damaged the party and damaged the country for the better part of a decade. It's causing people to leave the party. And you want to continue down that losing path.

And I suspect, given the Dems sorry performance this year and the lack of enthusiasm the electorate has for the Dems these days- you'll get your wish in 2006. A 7th straight election loss and more far right policies for the nation.

[wyldwolf]

179. shot it all down, depakid

You made a statement with zero facts to support it.

I showed an example that contradicted your unsubstantiated generalization.

Now, your reply here has eroded into just more progressive purist anti-DLC background noise.

You want to post unsubstantiated generalizations? Be my guest. If they're factually challenged, I'll continue to shoot them down.

And I suspect, given the Dems sorry performance this year and the lack of enthusiasm the electorate has for the Dems these days- you'll get your wish in 2006.

MORE unsubstantiated claims.

[Telly Savalas]

172. So we abandon basic civil rights to make Joy Binns happy?

Politics may be the art of compromise, but some things simply shouldn't be put on the bargaining table. If in order to succeed we have to become gay-baiters who wish to deny reproductive choice, then we may as well throw in the towel.

Listen to what Joy says. Strongly advocating a Canadian style health care system would give us a good chance of winning her vote. But oddly enough it's only the "far left" that's proposing such a policy, even though it's standard operating procedure in every other Western democracy.

[wyldwolf]

174. Is that what I said?

depakid said (unsourced/unproven) that the reason so many people were registering independent was because of the Democrat's embrace of rightwing policies. No examples, no statistics.

I showed one example of where that wasn't the case. An example of someone becoming independent because of "leftwing" policies. The REASONS Binns had are irrelevant. She could have despised the left's stance on national security, gun control, or any number of issues. But her pet issues were gay rights and abortion and she became an independent because of them, dousing depakid's "theory" with at least one example.

[Douglas Carpenter]

177. Is not the DLC pro-gay rights and pro-choice, Sir? You are not suggesting

are you that the DLC or the Democratic Party should repudiate its position in support of gay rights or pro-choice are you, Sir?

Although I personally do not see how these issues have anything to do with being left wing. Even the late Sen. Barry Goldwater was pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

Since neither the Democratic Party nor more than a handful of Democrats in Congress are actively supporting gay marriage, if someone chooses independent or Republican over Democrat on that specific issue, they are clearly mistaken.

I have complaints about the DLC -- but their record on gay rights, pro-choice and general social liberalism is not that bad.
___________

3 prominent DLC Senators records on Gay Rights and Pro-Choice


This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

2005 Senator Bayh supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

_____________________

Human Rights Campaign/Leading Gay Rights lobby

2003-2004 Senator Bayh supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 75 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

[wyldwolf]

178. Sir, do you read my posts or just react?

depakid said more people are registering as independents because the Democrats are embracing rightwing policies.

I showed an EXAMPLE of someone who registered as an independent because of leftwing policies.

That is all.

I made no judgement on the moral or political points of gay rights or abortion and never suggested the Democratic party should back away from their positions on such.

The difference here is not even gray - it's night and day between what I said and what you think I said.

[Douglas Carpenter]

180. Sir, perhaps I didn't phrase things very well

I'm only suggesting that if a given position (IE: support for gay rights and pro-choice) is also a DLC position it is not specifically a "left-wing" position any more than it is a centrist position. Sorry, I didn't make myself clearer.

[wyldwolf]

181. that isn't even the point

One could argue all day about what "rightwing policies" and "leftwing policies" are.

The woman in the example has her opinion, and she registered independent because of it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

183. fair enough

[rman]

184. DLC types like neither

so it's to expected they bash both.