For all you people who say you won't vote for a DLC backed candidate

[mtnsnake]

and/or a candidate who voted for the IWR, I have one question for you:

Did you vote for Al Gore in 2000 and/or John Kerry in 2004?

If the answer is yes, and you're talking like this, then you're being hypocritical to say the least. Both John Kerry and Al Gore are/were DLC members, so you already voted for a DLC member before.

If the answer is no and you didn't vote for them, then why are you worrying about it so much on a forum that's called the Democratic Underground?

Look, to say you don't like the DLC or that you don't agree with a candidate who voted for the IWR is one thing, but to say you won't back ANY Democratic candidate who's trying to knock the Republicans out of power is another.

I wonder if some of you, the ones who consistently throw tantrums about the DLC, even care about the reason why the DLC was originally formed. It was formed because at the time it looked like the Democratic Party was going to become extinct, and thus some Democratic braintrusts decided the DLC should be formed to "save" the party from extinction. Yeah, the whole idea that we needed a DLC to save the party sucks, but at least some people were trying to do something, anything to save it, which is a lot more than what any of you are doing now by promoting an alternative which only means another loss for us.

Now, just like you, I don't like the idea of our party becoming more centrist or moving to the right at all either, but if it's the only way of beating the Republicans for now, then I'm going to support any Democrat who gets the nod, even a DLC member. Until there's a better option, I'm going with any Democrat they put in front of me once the dust has settled from the primaries. And you know what? Once ANY Democrat gets in, DLC candidate or not, we can work on moving our party back towards the left where it belongs, and then maybe there won't be any future need for a DLC.

Until then, let's do whatever it takes to win back the White House. Then you can go to work screaming at the Democrats in power to move left again.

(edited to change "were" to "are/were" for sake of clarity)

[longship]

1. I'd vote for a yellow dog, if it runs as a Democrat.

Of course, I would prefer that Al Gore run. I don't think he's DLC anymore.
Gore and Feingold are the two most liberal ones in the mix for 2008.

Clinton needs to do something different. She's a great Senator but I don't think it's time for a Clinton family regime anymore than there is for a Bush family regime. Plus, the wackos will come out of the walls to oppose her. The result? Hillary loses in 2008.

Clark is great, but I don't think he gains the nomination. Kerry is great, but I think Al deserves the nod if he wants to run. Also, Kerry was hopeless on the Iraq issue and did a very bad thing on election night when he undermined his own running mate. He needs to sit back in the Senate and stew about those things for a while.

I don't particularly like anybody else right now.
I really want Al to run.

[mtnsnake]

4. You don't "think" Gore's still DLC?

Or you don't KNOW?

When he won the vice presidency, he was a DLC member then. That much I know. Whether or not he is now, I'm not sure.

[karynnj]

14. Only elected officials CAN be in the DLC

[mtnsnake]

17. Thanks for clearing that up. The point is that Gore was in the DLC when

he got elected. The reason he isn't in it now is because he can't legally be for the reason you stated. Funny, though, how he seems to be immune from all the DLC antagonists. I guess there's an advantage to being retired from politics, at least on this forum, lol.

[karynnj]

20. You're welcome

Others pointed it out to me. I really think that it might be better to look at the views, positions and votes of the candidates instead. I assume that for all practical purposes Kerry is out of the DLC. His votes on issues where the left of the party differed from the DLC since the election have consistently been with the left. Even before the election, the RW noted he voted with Kennedy 95% of the time.

Many DLC people clearly do not consider him to be one of theirs - Will Marshall and Al From in particular. I haven't seen a recent list because they don't seem to post it. Kerry wasn't at either of their last two annual meetings.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Maybe it's because he empowered us to trash him,

just like the MSM when he championed the internet, giving us a few rocks to hurl at Goliath. Maybe it's because he more than any other political leader has been on the forefront of trying to save life as we know it, from the devastation of climate change. Maybe it's because he helped to rescue 270 patients, doctors and victims of Katrina on his own dime, while Bush was busy cutting cake, pretending to pick a guitar or finally flying a few miles over the gulf coast. Maybe it's because he is the first person to help create two way television where the people can have some input. Maybe it's because he has started an investment fund that is trying to change our economic model from it's cannibalistic self to a sustainable one. Whatever your feelings are toward the DLC, Al Gore has vision, compassion, leadership, he genuinely cares for the people and he is a true statesman. When he said he was fighting for the people over the powerful in 2000, he meant it.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry did not undermine Edwards on election night

I assume you mean by conceding the next day because he was more than 100,000 votes down in Ohio.

I suggest that if someone in the MSM asks, Edwards will NOT say they shouldn't heve conceded. I dare anyone in a position to ask this question in a public forum to ask it. I will admit I'm wrong if anyone has a real clear MSM comment by Edwards that they should have contested - I haven't seen it. I also have heard nothing from him on fraud or any voting problems.

Neither he or Kerry conceded on election night - and the numbers and proof weren't there.

Kerry was actually not hopeless on Iraq - the majority of likely voters were not against the war. He got all but a very few number of anti-war people and won some in favor of the war who bought that he could fight it better.

By the way, Kerry is far more of a liberal than Gore.

[ShortnFiery]

30. OK, I won't make the same mistake again that I made in the past n/t

[blm]

48. Kerry was RIGHT on Iraq - Bush rushed into war when weapon inspections

and diplomatic measures were proving war was not necessary - and he said so repeatedly - You didn't understand that?

it was the media, both left and right who purposely acted like they found that position incomprehensible. WHY? Because they're IDIOTS.

[fooj]

2. "Were" being the operative word, right?

Kerry and Al Gore were DLC members

Peace.

[mtnsnake]

3. Last I knew, Kerry still is, & Al Gore was, when he was still in politics

I just changed the word "were" to "are/were" in the OP to make it less confusing, hopefully. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

5. Right. Kerry still is. As for Gore...

...the only thing I see Gore breaking with the DLC's official stance on is the Iraq war. There is no indication that Gore isn't the same centrist new Democrat he was when he helped craft a press release announcing the DLC's formation.

[wisteria]

28. No, Kerry actually is no longer supported by the DLC. When he

was a member, it was halfhearted and he was the "red headed stepchild", quote a fellow Kerry supporter.

[stillcool]

6. they say the longest distance one ever travels...

is from one's head to one's heart. The democratic party, regardless of how much evidence exists to the contrary, are the only place I have to hang my hat of hope. Watching all this play out, like a slow motion train wreck, would be way harder for me to digest, if the words and actions of the Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, Boxer, Conyers, etal., camp were not in existence. So, while my head grapples with the history that suggests all is an illusion to provide me this false sense of hope, my heart continues to cling ever more to the vaguest notion of a peaceful solution through the transfer of power.

Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.”– Arthur Miller, playwright

[welshTerrier2]

7. "Once ANY Democrat gets in ..."

the OP said: "Once ANY Democrat gets in, DLC candidate or not, we can work on moving our party back towards the left where it belongs ..."

this is, of course, nonsense ... if we elect moderate or conservative Democrats we will end up with moderate or conservative Democrats ... and if we campaign as moderates, we will do nothing to move the hearts and minds of Americans to the left ... when you campaign in the middle, you reinforce "middleness" ...

Democrats need to start making a case for the belief systems that the left ascribes to if that's where you believe they want to take the country once they're elected ... the national dialog is an all-the-time ongoing process; not just a single election campaign ...

the Democratic Party does not need to demand that each and every objective of the left be implemented immediately ... there's plenty of room for leading the country in the right direction at a realistic pace ... BUT, and this seems to always be the missing piece, the party needs to clearly define the values under which it operates ... take the "gay agenda" as an example - it MAY be OK to seek near-term strategies that represent a compromise with the gay community ... for example, it might be reasonable, at least for some, to push for something like civil unions during a "period of transition" ...

but the Party has to state without any tap dancing at all, no political game playing, that it is committed 100% to provide absolute equality to all Americans ... there is no room for compromise on human equality ... the value, i.e. the ultimate objective, must be clearly stated NOW ... the implementation can be viewed in more flexible ways ... it MAY be acceptable to consider the politics and the current state of the American culture ... it MAY be acceptable to request tolerance from the gay community when it comes to tactics and near-term policies ... it is much easier for those whose lives are affected by national policy everyday to tolerate a slower pace of change if they understand the Party is committed to the ultimate objective ... that's the problem we have now; those with progressive agendas truly do not trust that the Party is committed to their values ...

arguments like "let's get elected first and then we can address your concerns" are not very comforting ...

for those who want to squabble about whether "leaving the party" is good or bad or "don't let the door hit you ..." or purity arguments or the inflexibility of the left, don't waste your time ... the intent of this post is to address the cause of what divides us - if your only response is insults and criticisms, you are indeed part of the problem ... if you care about unity, help figure out how we can do a better job finding common ground with those who feel alienated ...

[mtnsnake]

10. Nonsense my ass

As for what I said about working to get our party back toward the left once any Democrat gets in, that is not nonsense. It is fact. It's fact because we CAN work to get our leaders to move back toward the left after one gets elected to the WH.

What, do you think the only time we can get our party to move to the left is at times like this when we're not in power? You think we can't also do it AFTER we're power, depite whether or not the Democratic winner slanted right or slanted center during the campaign in order to get elected? Gimme a break. If anything, it'll be easier getting our party to move to the left AFTER we're in power than it is now. I'd rather win and worry about it then, than lose again because we can't be unified enough to support whomever the Democratic primary winner happens to be.

[welshTerrier2]

12. yes, way to reach out to alienated Democrats ...

first of all, i did not say we couldn't work to try to get elected Dems to move left after one gets elected ... what i did say was that fighting for progressive causes and educating the American people about our beliefs and values is an on-going, all-the-time job ... that includes AFTER the election ...

so your question: "What, do you think the only time we can get our party to move to the left is at times like this when we're not in power?" is totally non-responsive to my post ...

you also did not respond to the argument that if you elect moderate and conservative Democrats, you will wind up with moderate and conservative Democrats ... is your strategy to "trick" the voters into believing they're moderates and then, once elected, have them magically change into left-wingers? exactly which Democrats do you believe are that hypocritical? i'm interested in seeing your list ...

and finally, you completely missed the point and failed to respond to my call to focus on winning as many voters as we can with your statement "I'd rather win and worry about it then" ... maybe the Democratic Party should make that they're campaign slogan ...

imagine addressing anti-war groups with "we don't give a damn what you think; we just want to win" ... that will probably win some votes ... and then gays ... "you people" need to tone it down until after the election ... some of us Democrats want to win; we'll worry about your concerns some other time ... very nice strategy ... and what about all those femi-nazis? it's time to move away from their shrill calls for control over their own bodies ... it's fine to a point but not if it hurts the Party ... who the hell do they think they are?

your post does nothing to look for common ground ... it's just another shut-up until later pack of promises ... it fails to understand or respect those who are sick and tired of the alienation they feel ... if you really want to win, it seems to me you should pay a little more attention to team building and spend a little less time complaining about those who aren't sure they still want to be on the team ... the argument isn't that what they're doing is necessarily right; it's that what you're doing isn't ...

[mtnsnake]

16. Whoa. The only part of your post I responded to was the part

where you claimed what I said was nonsense, where you said this to me:

"the OP said: "Once ANY Democrat gets in, DLC candidate or not, we can work on moving our party back towards the left where it belongs ..."this is, of course, nonsense"

And you're telling me how to reach out. Good one.

"your post does nothing to look for common ground ... it's just another shut-up until later pack of promises"

Oh, bull. My post was the opposite and you know it. It was meant for no other purpose but to find common ground by stressing how we need to vote for any Democratic candidate who wins the primaries, whether it's someone who's far left of center or DLC backed. Arguing about who to support for the primaries is fine and healthy, but when the primaries are over and the dust settles, it's so ridiculous to think that there are Democrats who would refuse to vote for THE DEMOCRAT. It's called PARTY UNITY once the primaries are over, a concept that some people around here don't have the ability to grasp.

[welshTerrier2]

18. party unity has to be earned

your message that everyone should put aside their differences and vote the "party line" doesn't CREATE unity; it just insists on it ...

we can EARN more votes by listening to those who might not support us; not by insisting that they do ... we need to push the Party's elite to reach out to all constituencies ... learn what people want, respect their right to want it, offer what we can to attract them ... the "wait until after the election" is DOA ...

btw, implicit in your thinking is the idea that voters are less likely to vote for Democrats if we tell them the truth ... i infer this from your theme of "let's win first then we can push our reps to move to the left" ...

my view is that Democrats will fare much better if we explain our deeply held beliefs now (and later too) and fight like hell for them ... i don't accept the premise that this is all about the left vs. right polarity ... i think what it really comes down to is whether Democrats demonstrate "the courage of their convictions" ... playing politics to "win" has always smelled bad and i think it's why the Dems have done so poorly for so long ... voters are looking for a big healthy dose of "real" ... one message pre-election and a different one after is NOT real ...

[mtnsnake]

22. I don't disagree with you on this,

where you said "Democrats will fare much better if we explain our deeply held beliefs now (and later too) and fight like hell for them"

That would be wonderful, but since when have they been doing that?

Our Democratic spokespeople have not been saying or explaining much of anything. They seem to be all too willing to let the Republicans lose on their own instead of making OUR identity known loud and clear, instead of taking the offence, pouncing on the Republicans, and taking advantage of them while they're down. Our leaders are playing it way too careful, and it won't win too many of the fence sitting voters over.

Having said that, about the only option for us, IMO, is to vote for the candidate that's put before us, regardless of whether or not he or she is DLC or far left liberal. After all, it's not like we can force them to stand up and explain what our identity is supposed to be. While I might be proposing in this thread that we vote for the Democrat regardless, don't mistake that for thinking I'm happy with how our Dems are responding to bushco in general. They're far too complacent AFAIC.

[welshTerrier2]

23. nor i with you ...

i appreciated the civility of your discourse in spite of our disagreements above ...

i am beyond frustrated with the polarity in the party and i don't see us making any progress on the issue at all ... we've had about a hundred "i'm leaving; i'm staying" threads with no one trying to bridge the gap ... isn't that what building a party and fighting for our beliefs should be all about???

it drives me f**king crazy ...

the message from those who left, those who are alienated and might leave, those who think the "leavers" are losers, those who would stay no matter what positions are taken and anyone else who is genuinely committed to making progress has to be that we should sit down together and try to find a way to build a force against the evil ones ... all we seem to do on DU and all the party elites seem to do is deepen the divide ... truly, it's madness ...

maybe the party should bring in marriage counselors ... what we need to start out with is an understanding that if we can EARN unity, we might succeed in destroying the evil ones' grip on power ... the only process that makes any sense is to start with a real intra-party dialog ... we cannot continue to run things from DC ... we need to "get local" ... if people are pissed off, we need to give them a real voice and we need to really hear their message ... and they need to know that the party supports their objectives but may disagree on tactics or timing ...

if we can't EARN a compromise, we will continue to fail ... for all the energy people put into DU, i just don't see too many threads with this theme ... we seem to enjoy digging in and pounding away ... it might be fun; it's clearly not productive ...

thanks for the chat ...

[mtnsnake]

24. Thank you

It's kind of you to say that.

And, yes, I see what you mean and I agree that you're right that when it comes to compromise and unity, earning them is better than force feeding them, when possible. You expressed yourself very well.

I share your frustration. It's no wonder that sometimes we all can get the best of each other, considering what we've all been through. I've always enjoyed your posts on this forum, btw.

Nice chatting with you, too

[TankLV]

36. Yeah - stressing "common ground" by telling us to sit down and shut up

until some imaginary future that conveniently never comes.

We heard and read correctly.

We ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.

[mtnsnake]

37. I never told you anything close to that.

BTW, I wouldn't expect you to be buyin' what I'm sellin'.

Bottom line, do whatever your heart tells you to do with your vote. What the heck

[TankLV]

52. I don't buy because it's bullshit. Glad you know it!

[mtnsnake]

53. You don't buy it because you're incapable of grasping a simple concept

because of your fixation to lose another election by giving in to your self-serving needs.

Like I said, I didn't say anything close to what you said I did, so the only bullshit is the shit you're standing in up to your hips.

[TankLV]

35. Just like making greater contributions TO THE POOR when we were in the

period of VAST SURPLUSSES, right?

If not then, when?

Nope, sorry, the record indicates it won't happen.

The "middle" constantly shifts to the right, and like eager puppies, the dems shift further right wing.

STOP!

It must be stopped and stopped in the beginning.

If we allow this "moderate" (right wing in disguise) crap continue, they will tell us next time IF they win - "You're being unreasonable, see, we can't do that now, THEY might disapprove!" and we fall every further to the right wing facsim.

[welshTerrier2]

38. "we can't do that now"

that's the problem with the "wait til we're elected" argument ...

first, some of us believe we're more likely to get elected if we "go for it" instead of doing all this "political tinkering" ... show some fight and some conviction and voters will respond ...

second, if Dems get elected, wouldn't the same argument being made today be made then? won't we then hear a steady chorus of "we can't do all that lefty stuff with a presidential election just around the corner" ???

and third, the battle is much more than an election campaign ... the battle is for the hearts and minds of the American people ... it's a battle that is fought, or should be fought, each and every day whether we are the majority or the minority ... we cannot allow republican dogma to stand ... the process of educating the American people about our deeply held beliefs cannot be put on hold so that we can pretend to hold views that MIGHT be more marketable ... the time to start destroying conservative dogma is NOW; not AFTER an election ...

many Democrats take great delight in seeing bush's collapsing poll numbers - so do i ... but it's important to understand that it's bush they disapprove of - not conservatism ... republicans turning against bush haven't been convinced that Democratic values and policies are better ... if anything, they're angry at bush because they see him as failing the conservative mission ... that won't help Democrats in the long-run ... the front in the war is in the hearts and minds of Americans - not in low poll numbers ...

if Democrats win in 2006, and i hope they do, they need to win because their ideas prevailed - not because bush, the man, failed ... he'll be gone soon enough and a new man with similar themes will take his place ... too many place all their focus on bush's collapse and fail to see that he is not the "sustaining" enemy we face ...

[blm]

8. There are DLC locksteppers and others who listen and act independently.

That's the difference and also what made Al From love Joe Lieberman and loathe John Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

11. That's correct, & the ones I'm posing that question to are the former.

[karynnj]

15. so true - not to mention that Will Marshall's latest comments

on Kerry are incredably negative,

He said, to win, Kerry, at his convention, should have renounced 1971, and said that he was wrong on the Reagan military build up. He then went on to say that Kerry's dissent speech showed he was the Kerry who accused the US of VN atrocities.

WHO LET HIM IN OUR PARTY, can we send him back to McCain?

To say Kerry is not a DLC favorite is an understatement.

[TayTay]

19. Kerry was actually in the NDN

If you want to be technical about it. He is not on the roster currently. Al From hates him and Kerry's recent pronouncement on withdrawal from Iraq certainly have not made From reconsider his opinion. The NDN is the New Democrat Network, btw. It was an offshoot, special policy wing affiliated with but not totally a part of the DLC. (The two have since divorced entirely.)

Kerry ran for congress in 1972 on a 'balance the budget' platform. He was always a fiscal moderate, even back in his first race. (It was in the campaign literature.) Kerry was in-line with the NDN or DLC on a lot of the trade issues of the early 90's.

NAFTA is something that I disagreed with Kerry on in a big way. I felt the Dems were selling out their labor base in order to court people who didn't like them any way and would desert at the first chance. I listened when the explanation came down that we would 'fix' NAFTA with the side agreements. There were actual side agreements that would have helped to make this Fair Trade not just 'allegedly free trade.' However, the turnover of Congress by the Rethugs in '94 ended the inclusion of the side agreements. The Dems had to live with the trade agreements they had, which have not worked out. (IMHO. We could fill DU with nothing but NAFTA threads for days on just this subject.)

The other NDN thing that Kerry had that Al From actually liked was a different approach to Charter Schools. (His idea of it still had unions however, which more than a few DLCers didn't like.) Some of those modified charter schools, operating with teacher unions, did start up, but that argument got lost in the Rethug idea of charters. (This was not the same as what Dems like Kerry were saying.) The Charter School stuff has 'evolved' again, particularly in light of the disaster that is NCLB. (The issue evolved because the basic circumstances surrounding it have changed.)

What Al From hates Kerry on are his stands on other issues, environment, defense, civil liberties and all the other stuff that DLCers seem to like to pretend are not a part of the Democratic Party. The NDN broke away from the DLC after the '04 race, and Kerry is not on their membership list at the present time. He is also not affiliated with the DLC and did not attend their convention last year and I don't expect he will be invited back any time soon. (The DLC will emphatically not be supporting the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer/Conyers et all wing of the Dem Party any time soon. There is a war on in the Dem Party, of a sorts, after all. Kerry seems to have chosen his side and Al From is not on it.)

[karynnj]

21. Thanks Tay Tay

There's lots of information I never knew. This really makes more sense given his positions.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Gee, you're actually making sense...

We don't allow that around here!

[mmonk]

9. I will not vote for ANY DLC candidate this time, period.

The time to draw a line in the sand is NOW, perhaps even too late. I voted for Kerry/Edwards because the alternative is what we got. The DLC is more despicable now than ever, and Kerry and Edwards have pretty much seen the light. Of course, I don't think I'll be in a position to vote for many of that organization anyway, THANK GOD.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Thanks for sharing; you're on ignore.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post. See you in November; I got work to do until then.

[mmonk]

43. Unfortunately, most of us

are on ignore.

[MrBenchley]

57. Nothing unfortunate about it...

But it is hilarious to hear pepple who scream and howl that they won't support Democrats turn around and whine that Democrats aren't listening to THEM.

[ShortnFiery]

31. This person is putting all Liberals on Ignore, don't worry ...

It's IMO equivalent to the RWers putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "La la la, I'm not listening to you ... La la la." Methinks this individual is trying to shut us up? :hi:

[mmonk]

45. Those that say those criticizing this policy

are tired liberals and democratic principles of fairness are the ones pushing silence. Sorry but we will continue to make an issue of this foreign policy, torture, spying on citizens, erosion of the establishment clause, etc.

[mtnsnake]

50. "The DLC is more despicable now than ever". How convenient!

That's the biggest copout I've heard yet.

LOL, so when you voted for DLC candidates in 2004 the DLC was fine and dandy, but nowadays it's not the same DLC as it was then. Yeah, right!

I don't think it's the DLC that's changed. The least you could do is admit that YOU have changed, not the DLC.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. John Paul Stevens is in his 80's

And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a cancer survivor. I'm voting for any Dem in '08 because I fear every good Supreme Court decision since Brown v Board of Education being overturned. Sure, I'll have to seriously hold my nose at the polls if our nominee doesn't take a clear stand on getting us out of Iraq, but other than foreign policy, the Supreme Court is probably the most important (and most overlooked) issue on the table.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Party seceders let our troops, Iraqi civilians, and Katrina victims die.

All for their vain-ass showoff pity party.

If anyone pulls this showoff act between now and the election, they are getting put under the red X of the ignore button.

We have no time to fuck around!

[ShortnFiery]

32. "We have no time to fuck around"

"Party seceders killed our troops, Iraqi civilians, and Katrina victims."

Isn't such intimidation tactics the hallmark of Republican thugs?

Thank you sir, may I have another? But still "the left" will not be bullied and brow beaten to vote for a warmonger like Hillary Clinton. So your intimidation tactics will NOT work.

[LoZoccolo]

27. People who refuse to vote DLC need to face their own FAILURE.

There was a chance for them to get a different candidate; it's called the primary. If they couldn't hack that, they shouldn't take their own FAILURE out on the rest of the citizens of the US by helping the Republicans. They need to sit down, shut up, and think about why they LOST and what WORK they might do to WIN next time. They need to learn what is wrong with THEM rather than trying to PUNISH OTHER PEOPLE for their OWN FAILURE.

[inthebrain]

39. DLC candidates are the Rupert Murdoch wing of the party.

They are the conservative wing of the party propped up by the CATO Institute. The CATO Institute was founded by an John Birch Society member. It now has Rupert Murdoch on it's board of directors!!!!!

Why do you think Murdoch is buddying with Hillary?

Keep your on the ball.

[mmonk]

44. When I look at the situation,

the failure is not mine. Those that refuse to see problems of great magnitude are failing.

[mmonk]

46. Maybe if you had a child that was going to lose

their rights achieved through decades of legal precedent due to little or pathetic resistence to rightwing extreme justices because nobody would stand down these bullies, you'd have a different perspective that a victory for a particular seat at any cost isn't a good idea.

[ncteechur]

29. I'd vote for Gumby if he ran against a republican in 06 or 08!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

34. Oh yeah? Well I think third-party spammers need to leave DU.

And the rules agree with me this time!

[ShortnFiery]

40. Not true, we agree that we *all* wish to get DEMOCRATS elected ...

However, we are talking traditional values of the Democratic Party. Thank goodness we don't have to sign a loyalty oath to be considered "supportive of democrats." I'll be thrilled to vote for a honest to goodness DEMOCRAT vice DINO. :-)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

42. We'll just have to stay strong ... and try to build bridges

:hi: I'm tired - time for sleep. ;)

[mmonk]

47. Those that hand the constitution, Bill of Rights, to those

that shred them are guilty of participating in that shredding. Real progressives are who I'm going to vote for and fortunately, the dems I have available to me to vote for are. I'll never stay silent for party unity. That doesn't make me less of a democrat.

[Totally Committed]

49. Many of us who feel this way DID vote for both those mentioned,

and came to our decision of NEVER AGAIN after seeing both lose, and deciding the DLC was responsible for those losses, at least in part. Their advisors with their go-along-to-get-along collusionary weak-ass apologistic version of what a Democrat should be in order to "win" (read: a DINO), lost both those elections for the two good men who bkindly listened to and followed their advice.

Then there was Katrina... desperately poor Black people floating by on logs was the last straw for some of us. Corporatism and the snakes that curry their bottom line over the lives and welfare of this nation's poorest will never have my support again. Until a Katrina victim is more important to the DLC than the bottom line of the big corporations who support them and their candidates and lobby for their welfare over the nations' poor, my opinion is they don't belong in MY CONSCIOUSNESS as part of a Party I support.

Period.

And, before I end -- NO MORE WAR! Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy! So, the DLC's view on this is a major turn-off to me, too. Be tough on terror like a Republican. Be ready to wage war like a Republican. Take care of the fat cats first like a Reoublican. And, never, never, never challenge the Republicans... vote with them... triangulate to the Right -- GMAFB! I'm so up-to-here with that DLC bullsh*t I could scream.

NEVER AGAIN.

TC

[mtnsnake]

51. Well thought out reply

especially the last paragraph, the "And, before I end..." one, which I think is absolutely dynamic!

Thank you for such a relevant reply. I think it's a great comeback to the question I asked in the OP. You handled it nicely.

:toast:

[slay]

54. Another pro/anti DLC thread... *yawn*

How about we worry less about whether they are DLC and about their positions on issues? Just a thought. :shrug: I understand people being upset with the DLC because they are truly not leading effectively, but that would not stop me from voting for a DLC backed person if he/she truly stood up for what is right.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. For the one billionth time.

I will fight them in the primaries and fight for them in the general election. The DLC represents the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party and is emblematic of the pervasive corruption of the political system itself. I despise them. I am also fascinated by our DUers who, while the bush cabal is mired in crisis, has been exposed in yet another egregious violation of constitution and law, have nothing better to post here than yet another divisive screed in support of the war party wing of the Democratic Party.

Feh.

[mtnsnake]

58. That's quite the spin

If anyone's been divisive around here, it's the people who run around starting threads which are counterproductive to our party by promoting the idea that you shouldn't vote for a Democrat if they're DLC.

FYI, this thread isn't about supporting "the war party wing of the Democratic Party". It's about supporting whoever happens to win the Democratic nomination, EVEN if it's a DLC candidate. It's nothing more than that, so enough with the sanctimonious spin.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Well actually it is about supporting the war party wing.

That is exactly what it is about. "Support the war party corporate asshats 'cause otherwise the even worse war party corporate asshats will stay in power." Got it. I'll fight them in the primaries and fight for them in the general election. I despise the DLC. I'm truly sorry you feel the need to run your booster threads for them on a regular basis, at least this one is less than blindly enthusiastic for our ingrown asshats.

[mtnsnake]

62. Get your facts straight. Back up what you just said

about me feeling the need to run "booster threads for them on a regular basis". If you truly believe that, then you obviously have the wrong poster in mind, but I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong by giving me some other examples and not just blind empty rhetoric.

And for the last time, this is not "about supporting the war party wing". Either you're just out to pull my chain or you didn't bother reading the OP and only saw the word "DLC" in the title and decided to pounce.

If I was boosting for the DLC (Good gawd, what a dumb accusation, btw), I wouldn't have said right in the OP the following sentences:

"Yeah, the whole idea that we needed a DLC to save the party sucks, but at least some people were trying to do something"

or this:

"I don't like the idea of our party becoming more centrist or moving to the right at all either, but if it's the only way of beating the Republicans for now, then I'm going to support any Democrat who gets the nod, even a DLC member."

Hey, it's not my fault if you already voted for a DLC'er in 2000 and 2004. Deal with it.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Actually you are right

I seem to be confusing you with some other perennial DLC booster. Sorry. Just curious though, in my research I cam across this:

Would anyone object if Lieberman was asked to leave the party?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2421072

Sort of at odds with your theme in this post of yours, don't you think?

Also - at what point are you going to admit that Hillary's refusal to disavow the Iraq war is bullshit?

[mtnsnake]

66. Yeah, I was sure you had the wrong poster

As for the Lieberman thread you found, it just goes to show that I look at things from candidate to candidate, and not whether they're in the DLC or not. Some people in the DLC have some fine aspects about them and some poor ones, just like any other part of the Democratic Party. Perhaps the reason you're surprised I could say what I did about Lieberman is maybe because you misinterpreted the theme of my OP here at first or didn't fully read it. I am not a sponsor of the DLC, nor am I an enemy of it. I take it day by day and point by point and person by person. Do I like the reason why the DLC was formed? Yes, for the most part. Do I like them moving us to the right? No, I'd prefer that we had another think tank that could find a way to win with traditional Democratic values of the left. Can I accept them moving us a little to the right in order to win? Yes, if it's our only chance of winning.

As to Hillary, there are things about her I don't like and many more that that I do like. However, since you asked, I'll admit to you right now that I think her refusal to disavow the Iraq war is bullshit, and I wish she'd change her tune as far as that goes.

If you do enough searching, you'll find that I've often stuck up for her, even though General Clark is and has been my favorite candidate all along. Most of the times I've stuck up for Hillary are when someone posts complete garbage and innuendo about her, something that happens all too often on this forum. The other times I'll stick up for her are when someone takes something she's done and completely mischaracterizes it in an attempt to make her like something she's not. For example, the other day so many people were creaming their jeans over her saying those gushy things about Bush, making it sound like she was simply a Bush lover period, when in fact she's nothing close to that. What hardly anyone seemed to point out was that right on the very top of that article, she had been asked by the reporter to say ONE nice thing about Bush, only because that reporter knew that Hillary had been one of the few Democrats to severely bash Bush and his administration constantly, calling out his corruption and incompetence loud and clear. Anyway, she responded in a way that only a politician in her predicament should have; she said something about his personality so as to avoid saying anything positive about his job performance. She was being a good sport when asked that question. People just read way too much into it for obvious reasons.

I'll also stick up for her when someone posts that she's a Republican or that she's a neocon or whatever. That's a lie, and it's ususally based on her position on one issue, the war. She consistently ranks in the top 10 progressively voting when it comes to voting on ALL the issues, not just the war issue. Any of her REAL enemies will tell you that Hillary Clinton is the farthest thing from a Republican as one can get. Her real enemies consider her nothing but an "evil liberal". So when someone here tries to blanket her as a clearcut Republican or even Republican-lite, yeah, I'll stick up for her. The main reason I stick up for her as often as I do is because there is more nonsense started about her than any other candidate.

Ya wanna hear something funny? If Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and Hillary Clinton all were in the same presidential election and all had equal shots of winning the presidency, I would vote for Kucinich and my second choice would be Nader. And no, I don't forgive Nader for running against Gore in 2000, either. Having said that, I would never vote for Nader if he had no chance of winning and if it only meant that I'd be hurting the chances of the Democratic candidate. That last sentence, BTW, was pretty much the theme of my OP. Sorry for any confusion. Hey, I gotta get back to mowing my darn lawn!

Peace

[Hippo_Tron]

59. How about we look at the individual candidate, not the organization

I despise Al From and everything that he stands for, but the DLC has more to it than Al From. As far as I know, if you're an elected official all you have to do to join the DLC is just say that you want to join. All of the elected officials in the DLC don't "groupthink" and vote strictly in line with DLC policies. Sure, a lot of them support the DLC positions but not always.

For example... Stabbenow, Conrad, Graham, for example are all DLCers who voted against the IWR. Joe Biden however is not a DLCer and he voted for the IWR. Sure, Al From and Joe Lieberman go on television and say that they don't like Howard Dean. But does that mean that John Kerry (DLC) and John Edwards (DLC when he was an elected official) do the same?

Just because someone isn't DLC doesn't mean that they are progressive. Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS), for example, is not a DLC member but is by no means a progressive. He's an economic populist but he votes Republican close to 100% of the time on social issues. I like Taylor but he would make a far worse nominee than some DLC leaders because Democrats wouldn't vote for him because of his stances on social issues.

So, I would suggest to everyone look at the individual candidate and not the group affiliation next to their name before deciding whether to vote for them or not.

[MrBenchley]

63. They don't get much more right wing than John Murtha

He's pro-school prayer, pro-life, and sponsored an anti-flag-burning Constitutional amendment with Duke Cunningham. And he deserves the support of every Democrat for re-election.