I guess Tim Carpenter's message today makes it official: PDA has sold out

[Bill Todd]

How else can one interpret the statement, "In 2006, the progressive
community must and can work to elect a Democratic majority in the House
of Representatives", after all - especially when clarified by the later
statement "while PDA certainly understands the difference between a
progressive Democrat and a DLC or centrist Democrat, the group urges
vigorous work on behalf of all Democratic House candidates in November"?

Tim seems to have forgotten to read PDA'a 'vision' and 'plan' statements
on its Web site. Neither mentions anything about supporting
non-progressive Democrats for strategic purposes, and for very good
reason: PDA was created as a response to the failure of that same
strategy during the 2004 campaign, when most progressives held their
noses, supported the party despite its failure to embrace anything like
a progressive agenda, and were thanked in the manner many of us expected
for doing so - being told to sit down, shut up, and not rock the boat.

While this was happening, many progressives gritted their teeth and
vowed that it would be the *last* time they'd go along with this idiocy.
After it was over, many progressives vowed, "Never again!" And yet
here we are, only two years later, in the *very next election cycle*,
being offered the same garbage by those who professed back then to be
creating an organization that would be *different* (and who knows?
perhaps back then they even believed it).

Fortunately, PDA's 'vision' and 'plan' statements still make it clear
what progressives (and PDA itself) should be doing, and it's not
supporting non-progressive Democrats.

The 'strategy' section of the 'vision' statement says, "we dedicate
ourselves to beginning the long, patriotic, nonviolent, and ultimately
unstoppable process of transforming the Democratic Party" - nothing
about supporting the party first and *then* attempting to transform it.
It continues with the goal to "mobilize our fellow Americans precinct
by precinct, congressional district by congressional district, state by
state, first to take back the Democratic Party and then our great
country from the global corporate interests that currently dominate our
lives" - again, note that the *first* order of business is to take back
the Democratic party, and only *then* take back the country (and with
good reason: you can't take back the country with a party of the status
quo, even if it's got an ass on its flag).

Just in case there might be any doubt, the 'vision' section continues
with a 'plan' section that includes the statement "We will strategically
target those many districts where progressives are a strong majority to
ensure that our demands are fully voiced by those we elect." This too
says nothing about electing non-progressives Democrats, but rather the
reverse: concentrating on electing progressives and not getting
distracted by districts where they aren't available to elect.

Then comes the second major policy statement under 'plan' (at the same
level as the 'vision' statement, not the 'plan' substatement under
'vision' just mentioned above). An early portion of this section is
worth quoting in its entirety:

quote:

The question is, "What is the most effective strategy for wresting
control of the government of the United States of America from the
moneyed interests, the corporations, and the military industrial complex
that now effectively control it?"

The answer is NOT leaving the country.
The answer is NOT the Republican Party.
And the answer is NOT the Democratic Party as it is now organized
and controlled.

end quote.

Note the last bullet above: it's in direct contradiction to Tim's
suggestion that we need to support non-progressive Democrats to show
what good Party citizens we are, so that if (hah!) we eventually *do*
prevail within the party the rest of the party will support our candidates.

Again, lest there be any doubt about this strategy, when it comes to the
details of the 'plan' and electing candidates we find the statement
"identify and promote progressive candidates and issues on which to
organize and win" - seems pretty clear to me, and (yet again) says
nothing about supporting non-progressive candidates just because they
happen to have a (D) after their name.

It concludes by setting the goal to "Literally take over, by electoral
majority, the Congress of the United States by out-organizing the
corporate interests that now control it." Does anyone here really
believe that that does not include out-organizing and ousting some of
the very Democrats that Tim is urging us to support? And given that PDA
failed in this attempt in all three of the primary battles he felt worth
citing early in his message, does anyone think that we're ready to
declare victory and move on to a new agenda?

Howard Dean's primary campaign had very similar goals to those I've just
described above and an identical agenda (*first* take back the party,
*then* take back the country), with one important difference: Howard
always made it clear that, as a party team player, he'd support whoever
the eventual Democratic nominee might be, whereas PDA seemed to make it
clear that it would support only those worthy of its support.

Until now, anyway. What happened, and how can it be fixed?

- bill

[The Magistrate]

1. What Happened, Mr. Todd

Is understanding the needs of success in an electoral system.

The group has not "sold out": it has done what it must if it is to have any influence at all.

Politics is not the indie music scene, after all....

[Bill Todd]

3. As I already noted, that's exactly the same thing we were told last time

Sorry - no sale. If PDA no longer feels the way it professed to feel when it was created, then it needs to say so and change its declared goals to reflect this. Some of its members may even feel that's appropriate, others likely will not.

What will be interesting is to see just how many of those who so vehemently stated, "Never again!" two years ago will knuckle under 'just one more time' (yeah, right).

- bill

[ClassWarrior]

5. Who except trolls and idiots ever "vehemently stated, 'Never again!'"

Never again vote for the majority party that most closely represents one's values??

:rofl:

Don't let the door hitcha...

NGU.

[Bill Todd]

7. A great many very disgusted progressives

- perhaps you're not familiar with the breed: I haven't kept tabs on whether there are any left around here.

- bill

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

54. You know, when you make assumptions, you make an "ass" out of "u"...

:rofl:

NGU.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

79. Yes, loyalty oath. Ha-ha. Even funnier than the last 15 times you said it.

The loyalty oath is why I'll be doing what I said I'm doing in post #67.

That's the assumption. U-ass.

NGU.

[LynneSin]

65. I love these straw comments

I'd vote for Ted Bundy if he had a (D) next to his name? Yeah sure that's the ticket, let's find a notorious serial killer and assume that somehow he would win a primary and get on the election in order to justify my lameass comparison that some people will vote for anything with a "D" next to their name.

And while we're at it we'll make a lame attempt at 'Nazi-type' comparisons.

Hell when I made my rant in the now deleted thread I was speaking from the heart not making bizarro unreal strawman.

Please - try again. It's not only insulting to me but to the posters here at the Democratic Underground, some of which I have known since this site was in its infancy stage.

[ClassWarrior]

67. The ironic thing is, I'll be voting for a Green against a major Dem...

...in November. A Dem with no Rape-Publican challenger who deserves a good Liebermanning.

NGU.

[LynneSin]

72. I've had some folks suggest voting 3rd party locally

We need to build a 3rd party and I hate seeing these parties spending all this money on the big races with little support while local candidates struggle to get the support they need in races where they might not just be competitive but actually win.

This is how Bernie Sanders built himself into a US Senator - he started at the low end of the ladder and build suport in his state. Sanders is a lifetime Independant who has gained the trust and name recognition in his state of Vermont.

[meganmonkey]

81. So you are voting for a Green

and questioning someone's right to question the purpose of a pro-Dem org?

That seems hypocritical, and I would sincerely expect more from you.

:wtf:

[ClassWarrior]

83. Please point to a post where I questioned anyone's right to do anything.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

85. I'm waiting...

NGU.

[LynneSin]

84. Actually I'm thinking it's not a bad suggestion

for those who would like to see the Green Party to grown and be successful.

There was a green who ran for city council here in Wilmington a few years ago. City council is mostly at-large and one party can control all but one seat - the other has to go to another party. No say that it has to be republican, just another party.

So here is a prime opportunity for the Green Party and a great guy who I've met on the protest circuits ran for office. Wilmington is so fricking liberal that it was in our city that Al Sharpton got like his only electorial vote.

But the guy was frustrated as hell from the lack of support from his own party. They were more worried about the big ticket races where perhaps the voter might get a few percentage points as oppose to a local race where we could not only get a win but start building a viable candidate from the ground.

I will be voting all Democrat and my post was nothing more than some of the suggestions made from folks frustrated by the democratic party but not willing to enable the republicans at at least the federal level. I'm just pointing out the obviously flaw from the OP about the choice of the leader from the PDA and that is coming from someone who is also from the PDA. We aren't going to change shit if we divide the party at this time and allow the republicans to win. I'd rather fight with the bad democrats who might make a few good choices than to fight with the republicans who would make none.

And I expected better from you - making assumptions like you actually know the mindset of who I am and how I opperate. I would expect better from you since the last thing I would ever consider is making wild assumptions about someone I hardly know.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

95. So, you're anxious to be rid of Dem activists, eh?

Ridiculing Dems with a different view from you... but that's not "trolling", eh?

Do you *really* think you're strengthening the party with this kind of attack?

Really?

And, to answer your question, "Who, except trolls...." etc with more flamebait----

The "WHO" would be friends of mine who have given their lives over to working for the party, who were delegates in Boston, cried and agonized over their vote of support for Kerry, etc.

Yes, those who gave their all.

So, go ahead and flame 'em all. After all, they are the party work horses, is all.

And, it's obvious from your flame-baiting that my efforts to answer your question will result in flaming of me. You could try a bit of back-peddling and see if some understanding and peace-making would be effective help in building the party, but I doubt that's your M.O.

It's not the kind of attack I chose to spend my energy with, so have fun. You are hereby graciously given the last (mean) word. Have at it.

Then, maybe give a bit of thought tonight about what your attitude is accomplishing for the party you want to make us believe is so important to you.

[The Magistrate]

99. It Is An Odd Sort Of Democratic Party Activist, Sir

Who selects candidates of the Democratic Party he or she would prefer to see defeated in a general election. For that is the general thrust of the comments commencing this discussion: the P.D.A. has stated officially it will support all Democrats running for office, and some choose to view this as "selling out", and a bad thing to do in general....

"The 'base' of a party consists in those people who can be relied on to work and vote for its candidates. Persons who cannot be relied on to do this are not the 'base' of a party."

[bobbolink]

100. I knew I could count on you to twist and put down those who have

probably given much more than you in terms of not only $$$, but their time and sweat.

"Prefer to see defeated".

:rofl:

Even you know that's a hilarious excuse for a put down.

IS that really the best you could come up with?

Twist.

We can all leave now, if that's what you'd prefer.

Then we can listen for your gnashing of teeth, when your caustic words result in fewer Dems voting.

Driving wedges. Truly the work of a committed Dem.

[The Magistrate]

102. Those Who Will Not Commit To Support Of All The Party's Candidates, Sir

Are the people striking in the wedges, not those who are committed to the support of the candidates produced by the Party's slating process, whatever their views of who the best candidate might have been in any particular instance.

[The Magistrate]

8. So What, Sir?

In between elections, a good deal of noise is made: as elections loom near, results only matter.

"Battle creates clarity."

[Bill Todd]

9. Ah - 'results only matter'

Funny - that's what we were told last time too. Worked out great, huh?

- bill

[The Magistrate]

11. So What, Sir, Do You Suggest Doing?

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[ClassWarrior]

16. I hear crickets chirping, Your Honor...

:rofl:

Not the indie music scene indeed!

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Perhaps he suggests being a noble, ineffectual minority...

exceedingly proud of their purity.

[blondeatlast]

88. Nominated for the best DU one-liner ever:

Politics is not the indie music scene, after all....:rofl:

But far too many DUers fervently believe that it is.

[bobbolink]

96. Ah, yes, ridicule of party members is the "best ever"

And that is accomplishing... what, exactly?

Peace.


REally.

Peace.

Consider it.

With "friends" like this, we don't need the RW.

[The Magistrate]

105. Unfortunately, Sir

The comparison has some merit. Politics on the national scale is an exercise in reaching mass markets: radical politics is a niche market. Niche markets cannot be turned into mass markets, and what plays well in a niche market will never appeal to a mass market. Radicals who wish to have some real effect, rather than be content with the adulation of their fellows, invariably come up against this, and those who are serious about managing to achieve something accept the realities of the world and act accordingly. This is a very old quarrel, that can be seen from the very commencement fo the Socialist movements in nineteenth century Europe, when those leaders who wished to take advantage of the numerical strength of the working class in reasonably democratic polities were denounced by revolutionists as "collaborators" for seeking and accepting posts in government for their parties and themselves.

[NMDemDist2]

2. i have only one thing to say on that---

John Conyers, Chairman of the Judicial comm


anyone or anything that can make that happens is ok in my book

[LynneSin]

12. Seriously, anyone who doesn't see that

Obviously doesn't care about making a change with this country.

Give John Conyers the powers of not only holding investigations in the Committee room, not some broom closet in the basement, forcing republicans to attend AND the power to subpeona the witnesses that we need.

Hell that's so worth it.

I mean seriously, as much as this electorial system sucks it is a 2 party system. Even the head of the PDA recognizes the blatently obvious:

THE DAMN PRIMARIES ARE OVERWITH - WHO THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSE TO VOTE FOR? THE GREEN PARTY BOUGHT & PAID FOR BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Seriously voting for a democratic majority is a no-brainer! You will not change this world with a republican party

[Bill Todd]

20. Not sufficient

Since it's by no means clear that you'll change the world with the Democratic party, either.

That's why changing the party *first* was so appealing during the 2004 primary season. Too bad people got carried away by their fear, because that got them precisely what they feared most.

No one in their right mind could conceive of Dubya getting a second term, let alone losing additional ground in Congress. No one in their right mind can conceive of losing again this year, either. And so it goes, until people stop being incompetent 'lesser of two evils' strategists and start demanding that candidates stand for what they really want.

Or not - we'll see. The one thing that's clear is that all the people taking the same stance two years ago that seems to be the consensus here right now were hopelessly, disastrously wrong.

- bill

[NMDemDist2]

24. I'm a DEMOCRAT, a liberal pay-go DEMOCRAT

I can disagree with my fellow democrats about the dotted i's and the crossed t's but in the big things we hang together

so I vote for DEMOCRATIC candidates. they may not be my favorite guy but when the primaries are over I fall in line and try to get a better guy into the next seat next time

[LynneSin]

25. So when will we be able to change the Republican Party?

Seriously, we'll leave them in power, I just KNOW they'll listen to us.

You want to make a change, we need to start from the ground UP, not TOP down. I've come to the DEMOCRATIC underground to make a grassroots effort to improve this party and in this past year we've had some great success and some not so great success. But 5 weeks before the election is NOT the time to suddenly thing we need to change our election strategy.

Here's a concept, if there are candidates that you know in your heart you can't support - don't support them ESPECIALLY if they are not folks from your state. I spent a day arguing with someone over why we need to support Bob Casey in PA only to find out that person I was arguing with was from fricking TEXAS. Hell what about worrying about your own dingbat elected repukes in your state. At least Pennsylvania is trying damn hard to get rid of theirs (note - I was from PA, moved to Delaware but try to help out in races where I know we can make a difference).

As horrible as this sounds it's a two party system. And the whole Carl Romanelli/Green Party scandal in Pennsylvania shows just how wrapped up some of these Green Party candidates are with republican candidates.

On a democrats absolutely worst day ever, they will still always be better than a republican. Allowing to have republicans stay in office is simply not an option for myself, for Mr. Todd and for plenty of democrats here at DU.

BTW, one poster here at DU gave me a great idea. If you're not happy with your federal office democrats - why not vote 3rd party for some of the local races. If we're to ever build a 3rd party in this system it needs to start from the ground up. How do you think Bernie Sanders, a career independant, made it to the Senate (well he will - even dems didn't bother running anyone against him). The guy started as a Mayor and spent decades in Vermont politics and built his way up to where he is today. In Vermont people know Bernie Sanders. That's how you build a candidate

[Bill Todd]

34. Just like last time around: you just don't get it

No one save those enamored of setting up straw men has said anything about expecting Republicans to do better: the problem is that there's no reason to expect *Democrats* to do better - just to do worse somewhat (or if one is optimistic perhaps even a lot) more slowly.

That's not a prescription for improving the country, and solidifying the grasp on power within the party of people we don't agree with is no prescription for improving the party in preparation for improving the country.

People just like you argued just as earnestly for exactly the same strategy last time, you know. Just how many disasters will it take before you're willing to consider something different? Wishing emphatically did *not* 'make it so' in 2004, but arguably the opposite: Republican-Lite didn't cut the mustard then precisely *because* the rank-and-file didn't dare to demand that we give the voters a real choice.

As for 'changing strategy 5 weeks before the election', I'm in complete agreement: you likely have no intention of doing so, I certainly have no intention of doing so, and PDA shouldn't have either (that, of course, was my point). The fact that we don't all agree on strategy is too bad, but them's the breaks: better luck next time.

- bill

[LynneSin]

35. Oh, I don't get it - Keep the republicans in charge until I do - right?

Here's the fucking annoying strategy that has worked shit for 6 years and I've been here for 6 years and I"ve seen folks like you try this again and again and again.

"We'll teach the Democrats by not voting for them"

How many soldiers have you killed with that strategy.

You think we're leaving Iraq with that game plan?

You think you might ever see an impeachment with that method (and don't worry about what Pelosi said - Conyers is the impeachment guy and not once did he agree OR disagree with Pelosi).

Perhaps if you want to endorse republicans you might want to start a "Progressives for Republican Control Underground" site, you'll find that most people here realize that leaving republicans in control is NOT an option

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

49. There Is Nothing To Be 'Gotten' In Your Position, Mr. Todd

"Give the voters a real choice" has a nice ring, but is essentially meaningless. The usage pre-supposes two things: first, that there is no difference at present between the Democratic Party and the Republicans, and second, that the choice of the voting public at large will be the same choice you would make. Neither of these propositions, to put it mildly, is particularly sound.

The first boils down in fact to disappointment that the Democratic Party is not in any sense an opponent of the economic system and general trend of forign policies followed by the United States through its recent history. It amounts to a claim that no mitigation of excesses and injustices short of complete revamping is worth having.

The second represents a profound mis-reading of the attitudes and interests of the voting public. The views you press for cannot even carry the day among the interested members of the Party that tends more towards the left among the two major parties when these cast votes in primaries. What ground therefore can there possibly be for imagining they would carry the day among a populace containing a much greater proportion of centerists and rightists than leftists? Should you actually present this "real choice" of yours to the voters in a general election nationwide, and usually even state-wide, the chances are that the vote would break at least seventy to thirty against you.

[Bill Todd]

59. Hot air is cheap

- but the reality is that losing 51 - 49 is every bit as much a loss as losing 70 - 30, and after losing 51 - 49 becomes as much of a pattern as it has recently intelligent people start wondering if perhaps it's worth trying something different (since the worst that'll happen is just losing again, and the best that'll happen is changing the nature of the game and not only winning but winning with a better set of players to party with afterward).

Throw in the fact that for some of us winning with the current Democratic team isn't all that attractive in the first place, and you'll start to get a clue. As I said, you don't have to agree with (or even respect) that position, any more than I have to agree with (or even respect) yours - though lack of respect is not the best way to convince people that the Big Tent is anything more than a calculated come-on for the gullible (that wasn't too much of a problem two years ago, but there are only so many times you can cry "Wolf!" to scare people into line before they become somewhat less malleable).

- bill

[The Magistrate]

61. When Your Budget Is Adequate To Specifics, Sir, Please Provide Them

The most important being which Democratic Party candidates you would just as soon see defeated this coming November. Others might be what this "real choice" to the voters would consist of, and why you imagine it would carry the day, when it cannot even carry primaries in the Democratic Party routinely.

[Bill Todd]

71. You haven't been paying attention

since my suggested rephrasing was identical to the question that you just posed (both of which were *not* identical to your two earlier queries), and I answered it in that same post.

Perhaps you'd do better spending less effort on flowery wording and more on actual content; placing form above content is much more the neocon style than what I'd hope to see from Democrats (even Lakoff sometimes skirts a bit close for comfort, though he has a great deal of value to offer as well).

As for 'carrying primaries', surely you don't think that ideology is the main factor there after seeing how the 2004 results were managed. Or perhaps you do, in which case there's a whole new world of political awareness out there just waiting for you to explore it (and no, I'm not going to be your guide: enlightenment is more effective when pursued rather than bestowed - in fact, experience here suggests that bestowing it is often impossible).

- bill

[The Magistrate]

76. Do You Think Calling Me A 'Neocon' Helps You Out Of The Hole, Sir?

You have still avoided any specific answer to a question that has remaoned unchanged since first posed: what Democratic Party candidates would you prefer to see defeated this November? You have stated that you only wish to see certain "progressive" ones elected, and will not support others. Come, Sir: let us have the names.

[ClassWarrior]

77. Hmmmmm... methinks he doesn't know the names, Your Honor.

NGU.

[OzarkDem]

92. You're so right

I don't have a problem with the Dems on the ticket this year, not one bit.

Greens, OTOH, have sold their souls to the GOP for a few pieces of silver.

[ClassWarrior]

19. I love how these so-called Progressives just skim over that part.

Or claim that the evil Nancy Pelosi won't let Conyers do anything.

:rofl:

NGU.

[DancingBear]

28. Oh, this is rich

Why, of course! The minute the Dems regain control of the House/Senate the "leaders" will stand shoulder to shoulder with Conyers and Kucinich, just like they do now.

What's that you say? They AREN"T standing with him now? They don't all show up as a UNITED front when he holds "hearings?" Well, color me shocked on that one.

Well, what about Murtha - remember when he gave his initial speech on the House floor? Surely they were all there to shake his hand and join with him, weren't they? What??? You mean to tell me that several of them almost IMMEDIATELY after the speech ran for the mikes to tell everyone that these we "Mr. Murtha's opinions", and not necessarily theirs? That one even said he would have an opinion(!) on Iraq "at the appropriate time."

Why, if someone I knew behaved like that I do believe I would chastise them for their lack of moral clarity and intestinal fortitude, for starters. and I damn sure wouldn't want them with me in the proverbial foxhole when the bullets start to fly.

But then again, I'm not the forgiving type when it comes to cowardice.

It does seem, however, that many here are.

They just use a different term for it.

They call it "playing politics", and the fact that your team may be able to finally get the ball trumps however you had to go about getting it, even if that means a little torture here, a loss of civil rights there, patting a sociopath on the back and saying OK - stuff like that.

But it's don't sweat the small stuff, right everyone?

What the hell, right?

We might win!!!!

Much easier to pretend you have a conscience than to actually have to use it, and much easier to pretend that 27% of your representatives have one, too.

Gooooooooooooo, team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Tonight's homework: Find out what an FDR Democrat was. Try and find one now. You have from now until forever to complete this assignment)

[welshTerrier2]

33. here's a good article on FDR ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/94

[DancingBear]

36. Can you imagine ANY Dem saying that today?

Hardly.

You'd like to laugh because they won't, but you want to cry because they can't.

[ClassWarrior]

42. I bet they couldn't imagine any Dem saying that THEN.

But then ONE came along and did. Not many. Not even a few. ONE. I've got news for you. People who are larger than life aren't a dime a dozen.

But you hold out for a whole party of FDRs, and hand the nation away to the fascists for safekeeping while you're waiting.

NGU.

[DancingBear]

57. Just a quick note on handing the country over to fascists

46 votes for torture.

Democrats.

THAT is what I despise.

We both see the same picture, but I believe that while the Republicans are building the fascist houses to live in the Democrats are making sure all that appliances work.

We are handing the country over NOW.

Day by day. Bit by bit.

The cowards are too fearful too take it back.

I can not, in good conscience, tell them that is fine by me.

If I do, they will have NO reason to stop.

[ClassWarrior]

63. WHO THE FUCK SAID TO TELL THEM THAT IS FINE BY YOU??

TELL THEM IT'S NOT. PLEASE, PLEAAAAASEEEEDE TELL THEM IT'S NOT. But you might want to try using a telephone or a letter instead of a FUCKING BLIND BALLOT. A lot easier to decipher.

Wow. Score another one for the "logical" people.

Sheesh.

NGU.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[leftchick]

87. you are spot on DB

They are indeed cowards and corrupted by power and greed. Sound familiar?

[LynneSin]

37. Here's what folks don't get about the Pelosi's 'no impeachment' comment

That was the smartest move she ever did and btw, has Conyers, the guy who could get control of the Judicary Commiteee which would be the organization that would start impeachment, ever come out once to either AGREE or DISAGREE with Pelosi.

Nancy is a tactician and if she mentions that "Well if we got enough evidence and the majority we might consider impeachment" then the right-wing screeds would be over it like flies on shit. Pelosi is playing chess here and piss-poor chess strategy is going to your opponent before the game starts and telling them your exact strategy & moves for the game. Pelosi denies impeachment for now, Conyers remains uncommonly quiet about the comment - trust me, if they nail him on something (and with Conyers that won't take long) - you'll see them going after Bush

[FrenchieCat]

4. PDA bought into the art of winning.......

sounds like a smart thing considering the alternatives!

We can only "take our country back" one step at a time.
Sounds like PDA is a rational smart organization.

The last time I looked, wasn't PDA a democratic organization?

[Bill Todd]

6. Yes, but not an indiscriminately Democratic one

(That should have been clear from the material quoted in the original post.)

[The Magistrate]

10. What Party's Candidates, Sir

Did you imagine it would support this year?

[Bill Todd]

13. None, unless they were progressives

Just as its charter describes.

[The Magistrate]

14. Precisely Which Democratic Candidate, Sir

Do you prefer to see defeated next month at the polls?

[Bill Todd]

22. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing

between lack of support and active opposition.

Though I'd happily vote for a progressive non-Democrat against an unprogressive Democrat, just as I did two years ago, I'm fortunate to have a progressive Democrat to vote for in the NH 1st. But I'm sure as hell not going to lift a finger to help any unprogressive Democrats: that would be counter-productive in terms of motivating the party to do better, and I've got better uses for my time and money.

Now, if and when the party starts looking more progressive in general, my attitude may well change: I'd have little problem supporting a generally progressive party even if it occasionally meant lending a hand to less-than-progressive candidates to keep the party in the majority.

But we've had this discussion before: my point here was not to change anyone's mind (given how well that worked two years ago), just to highlight the change in PDA's focus for those who might be interested and/or concerned about going down the same path yet again.

- bill

[LynneSin]

29. I thought Magistrate had a very fair question

I mean, you'll sleep easier at night knowing you voted for "ME" even though that vote may very well help get or keep a republican elected. And you'll come to a website that is geared for everyone left of the spectrum but who's main policy is to help get DEMOCRATS elected and encourage people to feasibly vote in a manner that will keep Republicans elected.

I know the Democrats will do a shitty job if they get majority but at least I know that they will get some things right and there are some amazing shining stars in DC that will glory in having the tools needed to make a difference in this country. I know that if the Democrats get control of the senate, I have an amazing Judicary Committee that during their 2001-2 majority kept over 10 activist judges from every getting a floor vote. That's over 10 times I didn't have to fight the entire democratic party to filibuster because I knew the committee (none of which are 'Gang of 14' and I highly doubt that Patrick Leahy will allow them on that committee) wouldn't ever allow those activist judges to get out of committee.

I know that John Conyers has been working his tailbone off to try and make a difference and you're telling me that your political litmus test is somehow more important that John Conyers having the power of the Judicary Commitee where he won't have to squeeze into an abandoned broom closet in the basement with just the democrats to hold his hearings investing the crimes of the Bush regime. I mean, when I hear folks like you talk about your so-called 'Consciencious' it clearly says to me "John Conyers is worthless to me and I don't think he would do anything as chair of the House Judicary Committee - I'd rather let the republicans run it"

Bill, I know your heart means well and in 2008 we'll try again to get better candidates. We had some successes with Lamont and Tester in Montana. We're not going to change this party overnight but we're not going to change it but assuming an "all or nothing" attitude.

[The Magistrate]

30. There Is No Important Difference, Sir

And the question remains: which Democratic Party candidates do you wish not to win their races this November?

[Bill Todd]

39. Your inadequate command of language and logic is not my problem

Now, if you'd like to rephrase your question to ask "Which Democratic candidates do you care about getting elected in November?", then I can easily answer it: the progressive ones, and no others. As I explained elsewhere, if the party were generally progressive in nature, that attitude might well change, in that I'd be interested in giving it a majority even if I had to hold my nose in a few cases to do so.

Unfortunately, the reality is otherwise. You don't have to approve of my reaction to that, any more than I have to approve of yours: that's what voting is all about, after all.

- bill

[LynneSin]

41. Your hoity toity attitude allow the war to continue in Iraq

Not a risk I want to take for another 2 years!

[DancingBear]

47. Could we come back to reality for just a sec?

There is no consensus even TODAY within the Democratic Party about how long this "war" goes on.

What do you think Casey will say? Ford?

I'm sorry to be crass about this, but stating that by not voting for any Dem the war will continue is just ludicrous.

They're already warming up their lame-ass "well, I come from a very conservative state" argument, and you know why?

Because they know you'll buy it.

You always do.

It's that letter in front of the name - you just can't get past that.

You'll accept almost anything because of that letter.

Hell, you accepted TORTURE.

You accepted the killing of habeas corpus.

You accepted everything that Bush shoved down your throat.

Think about that.

(Note: The "you" in the post is a blanket - not directed at you personally. I just realized that it may have sounded like it was directed at an individual. Not so - it is directed at a mindset).

[The Magistrate]

52. 'You Cannot Get Past The Letter In Front Of The Name', Sir?

Then the question would seem, Sir, to be for you as well: which Democratic Party candidates do you wish to see defeated this November? For if you can, as you say, "get past the letter in front of the name', then there must be some you do not support, and would wish to see fail to gain office in the up-coming election.

[LynneSin]

56. Oh I know those 2 won't be much help - even I know that

But what would Conyers say?

Or Kerry?

Or Boxer?

Or Rangel?

Or Waxman?

Or Feingold?

Or Murtha?

These people (and many more) will fight to try and find an end to that war or at least some form of exit strategy. And I've listed some very powerful Senators and Representatives in this Congress. What will Casey do? He'll be shoved into some committee where it fits what he's good at - Labor & Environment (and he's pretty progressive in those areas), probably the same with Ford. But I do know this much - we have a better chance of getting Casey & Ford to support our exit plan for Iraq than Santorum or Corker. The Casey family goes way back with Murtha, who is one of the "Casey Democrats" (name termed from Casey Sr. to describe the Western PA pro-life democrats). I know I'm just wishful thinking that perhaps Murtha might be of some use to help sway Casey but I do know that Santorum doesn't give 2-shits about what John Murtha has to say.

I'm not expecting miracles with a democratic majority, I don't think anyone is that foolish. But I do know that we might see some change to help make this place a bit better. Then in 2007 we'll start developing new candidates to go after the democrats that we would like to see replaced and we'll keep doing that each election cycle til perhaps we see the change that we want.

But we will not see change if we stay with the Republican party. I can't live with myself knowing that I didn't try SOMETHING that might help end this war in Iraq instead of just leaving what is currently there

[ClassWarrior]

58. Or Waters? Or Lewis? Or Tubbs-Jones? Or Moore? Or Baldwin? Or McDermott?

Or Durbin? Or Harkin? Or Obey? Or... well, you get the picture.

NGU.

[LynneSin]

62. How about control of the Senate Judicary Committee

There are no members of the Gang of 14 on that committee and when we had to drop a member it was John Kerry - I'm sure they'll give that seat back to him.

There was over 10 Activist Judgdes, during that 2001-2 majority in the senate, that we didn't bother filibustering because THEY NEVER MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE. Hell I'd vote for a 1000 Caseys or Fords because I know they will never see the committee (although Casey said he would not support activist judges either) but have a chance of giving control of that commitee to Patrick Leahy.

[PassingFair]

86. You're kidding, right?

It is the "attitude" of rolling over, enabling and capitulation that
has allowed this "war" to be enacted and pursued in our name.

Can't fight 'em in the primaries because WE SHOULDN'T SPEND THE
MONEY FIGHTING OUR OWN DON'TCHA KNOW!

Dems should have taken a united stand LONG AGO.

As voters we should have DEMANDED it.

Look what OUR compromises have wrought.



I'll vote for my PRO-TORTURE, PRO-MIDDLE-CLASS BANKRUPTCY SENATOR,
DEBBIE STABENOW, but I WILL NOT carry water for her. And I will
tell EVERY dem I come across EXACTLY how I feel about her. From
now until she steps down.

[LynneSin]

89. No one is asking you to do more

Hell, I wish I had a democrat like Debbie Stabenow. At least she's supporting Lamont - Tom Carper is still in the Lieberman Court. We need to fight hard at the democratic Debbies and Toms that are in congress, but I know fighting them will still be easier than their republican opponents

I'm in no way asking anyone to stop fighting the corruption in the democratic party - I'm just pointing out the obvious: No change will be made if republicans hold on to power in both the senate & house. Some changes could be mad if we get the democrats in power. And if those democrats don't make the changes we want then we start looking for replacement candidates for the 2008 election. Just because every democrat has their own idea about what we should do for Iraq does NOT mean we just won't do anything. With committee control we have the possibility of formulating a sound policy for Iraq and if a diehard pro-war conservative democrat like John Murtha can have his mind changed, there is hope for this party!

[Jai4WKC08]

93. "Hell, I wish I had a democrat like Debbie Stabenow."

Hell, I wish I had a democrat like Tom Carper. I got two Repubs. Two of the worst Repubs, imo. Roberts and Brownback. I have ZERO representation in the Senate, on any issue.

I despise Joe Liebermann. I am THRILLED that Wes Clark will be campaigning with Lamont this Friday. I have contributed to Lamont's campaign and probably will do so again this week, after I pay my bills and see what I can squeak out for as many Dems as possible.

But I would GLADLY take a Joe Lieberman over either of my two senators. And sadly, very sadly, it would probably take a Joe Lieberman to get elected here in KS.

[ClassWarrior]

90. YOU're kidding, right? Can't fight 'em in the primaries?? That's...

...the time TO fight 'em. Tell it to Ned Lamont.

:rofl:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Sure, let's hand the Progressive Dems' heads to a SUPERMAJORITY of...

...Rape-Publicans on a silver platter. Brilliant!!

I bow to your logical prowess.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

66. Wow. More crickets.

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

50. Distinctions Without A Difference, Sir

And mere swirls of fog without the actual naming of names....

[tkmorris]

46. We're at war my friend

Refusing to man the ramparts because you don't find them ideologically pure is not a neutral stance. It is a stance that enables the Repub horde an easier victory.

Funny thing is I'd be willing to bet that my personal politics are to the left of most of the PDA, and quite likely your own. Unlike you however, I know that right now we have to hold this damned wall, we can make the wall better later. As ironic as it is, this truly is a case where we have to "go to war with the army we have, not the army we wish we had".

Edited to avoid pointless digressions.

[The Magistrate]

55. Well Said, Sir

The thing must be played as it lays now....

"If my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

[bobbolink]

98. Precisely.

Since you want a "precise" name, I'll give one to you. He's not up this year, but I can tell you definitely, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR SALAZAR AGAIN!

You can dump all the guilt and put downs you want on me (if you really consider that's best for the party), but it won't change the fact that I've had it with that hack. I gave him one vote, against my better judgement, for just the reasons you keep trumpeting. And look what he's done.

ANd, yes, I saw all the attacks RIGHT HERE ON DU, ridiculing those who were for Mike Miles, rather than Salazar, and those attacks were not only permitted, but... I'm sure garnered the enjoyment of many mods.

You really and truly think that builds support for the Dem party?

I can tell you, it has turned off many.

So, there's your name. SALAZAR. He can go to hell.

I'm sure you'll have an ever so kind way of putting me down for having the temerity to reply to you. Have at it. It's sooooo.... peaceful... of you.

[The Magistrate]

101. Which, Sir, In The Up-Coming General Election

Would you prefer to see fail to win the seat they are standing for?

At the moment, that is the only question that concerns me, and it remains unanswered....

Your complaints about attacks against supporters of one candidate can doubtless be mirrored by complaints by supporters of other candidates against them: that is what happens here. We ride a pretty light hand all around in primary seasons.

[bobbolink]

103. Yes, I knew you approved of those attacks.

I understand that.

Regardless of how it actually affects the business of the party, and more importantly, our nation.

Maybe you get enjoyment from it?

I told you who I will never support again. He is my senator GAG, and I will never again vote for his sorry ass.

As for others, it's not for me to say. I can only say who I will and won't vote for, and there's nobody in my state who is in those categories. What I'm saying is that I KNOW WHO I WON'T VOTE FOR WHEN HE RUNS AGAIN, and I support others who are in that position NOW.

So, you can come back at me with your laughing attitude, and have ever so much fun, putting me down.

What does that do for you, again?

[The Magistrate]

106. Which Attacks, Sir?

Those against supporters of Sen. Salazar, or against supporters of Mr. Miles?

If your imagination can encompass what brings me the most enjoyable pleasures, you have my most profound sympathies....

"It's the learnin' of fuckin' nothing, Al, that keeps me young."

[bobbolink]

108. Yes, I can tell it's enjoyable.

However much you like to look down your nose at us mere mortals, that gives a huge clue, right there.

I don't wish to continue this useless exercise. You clearly have no desire for understanding or peace-making. It's futile.

I'm sure you'd like nothing better than to continue baiting with your nose in the air, and hope you can bait me into a reply which you can delete, to prove further your superiority. I don't intend to give that you pleasure.

There's a post right here, on this thread, with a clear PERSONAL ATTACK, but since the person agrees with you, you will let it stand.

I really can't abide that kind of obvious favoritism.

So, good day to you sir. :eyes:

May you one day find that you have the heart to accept those who see things differently from you.

Peace.

Oh, yes, and as always, I grant you the rights to the last snooty word.

Have at it.

Peace.

[The Magistrate]

110. But Which Attacks, Sir, Do You Imagine Me To Have Enjoyed?

Those against supporters of Sen. Salazar, or this against supporters of Mr. Miles? Or do you suppose it is simply attacks in general, regardless of direction or object, that bring me my pleasures?

[FogerRox]

15. The goal is to get the Congress , we cant let the Repubs

control Congress. I consider the rebuilding of the Party a long term goal, winning Congress is an short term goal.

[welshTerrier2]

17. great post Bill but i reached a different conclusion ...

after considerable anguish, i reached the same position PDA reached ... i did this based on what i view as the extreme nature of the crisis we're in ... i do NOT believe that Democrats would condone the currently in process repeal of our Constitutional rights and freedoms ... i have ZERO argument with any point you raised ... your argument is extremely effective and very worthy of both consideration and respect ... in other years, i would hold the same views you've espoused ... for me, this year is very, very different ...

if you're interested, check out my "vote the straight ticket post" and some of my subsequent replies to other posters ... here's a link: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/99

btw, at least according to my read of Carpenter's article, i think it's important to highlight that he did NOT call for either support or opposition of Senate Dems ... he specifically referred to House Dems ... this may not alter your reaction to what he said but i thought this was an important point to clarify ...

although i disagree with your conclusion, your post is excellent ... k&r ...

[LynneSin]

21. Here is the absolutely only thing I can guarentee you about a Dem Majority

They will screw things up absolutely horribly, pissing us off on a regular basis.

But even for some of the worst democrats in DC, hell even Joe Lieberman when he was a dem(not sure what he is now) - they do get it right some of the time. Lieberman pissed me off as much as the next person but when it came to Choice, Environment and Labor I knew we could count on Lieberman.

Well since Joe isn't a democrat we can use my senator - Tom Carper. He's VP of the DLC, supports Joe Lieberman and voted for Terrorism. Needless to say I'm pissed at him and I know that he will piss me again. But at least he'll be easier to fight than 6 years of his republican opponent.

BTW, I've had Rick Santorum as my senator for 8 years. I wrote him 1 letter and all I got in return was my name added to his fundraising list. At least Tom Carper wrote back to me!

[welshTerrier2]

27. neocon evil is holding back a Dem Party civil war

that's what i think ...

i understand where you're coming from ... meaning no criticism, i classify your position as "lesser of the evils" ...

it's important to understand that there are many in the party who have had it with the conservative, pro-corporate stranglehold on the party ... i'm voting a straight Dem ticket this year because of bush not because of the Democrats ... given a more moderate republican regime, i would not vote a straight ticket ... i can't imagine, given the current crop of big name Dems for '08, that i'll be voting for a Democrat for President ...

i support PDA ... i like the idea of trying to change the party from within ... i don't want to vote third party and have republicans get elected ... i hear that message ... but i also see the party wafting further and further to the right ... it's not OK with me and i will not continue to support a conservative, corporate agenda ... if compromises can be reached, i'm all for them ... i don't expect the party to whatever the hell i want it to do ... i do, however, expect to have my views reasonably represented ... if corporations are buying our government, that's just not possible ...

there are many on the "left" who believe that we should not "just go along" ... if we crititize and complain but cave in in the end, we have no power ... the only way to gain power, especially IF we are the minority in the party, is to broker a deal ... that deal has to include a negotiation for our votes ... if we give that away without making any progress on our issues, nothing will ever change ...

i hope it doesn't come to an internal war because it will hurt the party ... the right path is via better communication and compromise ... if there is no forum for dialog, and those with control of the party provide no forums to talk, a showdown will be inevitable ... i'm afraid the great battle may occur going into 2008 ... it doesn't need to be this way ...

[LynneSin]

32. We shouldn't "just go along"

But it's not like we just found out about this midterm election. I think you have some fabulous viewpoints that mirror mine. I just get peeved that five weeks before this election and well after the primaries are completed we still get people thinking it's better to just "Take our ball and go home" than to fight to break up this republican party.

I'm hoping that when Nov 8th 2006 comes around that we'll start fighting for 2008 and targetting those Democrats we need to get out office. If we can just get 2-3 out each cycle, that a start to improving this party and this country!

I know you're not giving up moving this party to the left and neither am I. But this is not the time to start making the changes. It's a sad statement for me to say it but either the democrat is going to win or the republican is going to win. This system is not good for people wanted other options - we have to work the system we're stuck with -- for now!

[welshTerrier2]

38. please consider this ...

about a week ago (or whatever) i wrote a post that encouraged the "left" to say on-board through this election ... it was a very difficult choice for me to make ...

i want to specifically respond to your statement that: "I just get peeved that five weeks before this election and well after the primaries are completed we still get people thinking it's better to just "Take our ball and go home""

given what i understand your views to be, that makes perfect sense ... my perspective of your argument, that many have made, is that it's OK to fight like hell through the primaries but, once they're decided, we have to pull together to "win" ... makes sense if you accept the premise ...

but many do NOT ... in fact, i do NOT ... what if what you're trying to win is NOT just an election but rather an end to a corporate-controlled government? ... an end to big money lobbyists? ... an end to the war in Iraq; not just a change in tactics? ... what if what you're trying to win is a "compromise and a voice within your own party" and you believe you do not have either? what if you believe the entire foreign policy of the US caters solely to Big Oil and leads to war after war after war and you don't hear most Democrats, certainly not the major candidates, telling the truth about US imperialism? when does it end? how does it end?

by "pulling together" for the General Election, many believe that their vote will be taken for granted by the party ... why should the party negotiate if they don't need to? if they calculate that the "left" has nowhere else to go and so they move further and further right to gain the center, how should the "left" react? by casting a vote in support of a process that excludes them?

i'm not asking you to agree; i'm merely trying to explain ... and so, in response to your statement about this being the worst time to "take our ball and go home", many see it as the best time ... it's important for the party to understand that ... the best process for the party is communication; i'm afraid the leadership is not interested in too much of that ...

that's about as clear as i can make it ...

[LynneSin]

43. Obviously you have no clue about my ideologies

Assumtions don't work well here!

I know that we will not end the corporate stranglehold and big money lobbyiests when we allow the republicans to control not just the floor votes but also the committees.

We have no chance of making that change with republicans. We might have a fighting chance with the democrats. I'm sorry, I've seen these people come out of the woodwork right before each of the major elections and I wonder "Where the hell were you back before the primaries" (and "you" is not you specifically - you were probably arguing with me about something important and rightly so)

This party will not change overnight, but if we can make a few changes and get a couple of new, great progressive democrats each year - we'll see the change we want.

I joined democratic underground to meet other democrats and find ways to get good democrats elected and meet other like-minded democrats. And I realize that democrats are not "Chocolate" and "Vanilla" but about 500 different flavors out there. We need to fight hard in those primaries and we all had some heartbreak this past one. But heart break will be me seeing republicans running both the house and congress and ESPECIALLY people like Rick Santorum going back to DC.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

53. perhaps i misunderstood you; perhaps not ...

the only statement i made about what i understand your views to be was:

"my perspective of your argument, that many have made, is that it's OK to fight like hell through the primaries but, once they're decided, we have to pull together to "win" ..."

is that not correct?

nothing else in my post was intended to comment on what i think you believe ... i was trying to explain what "i" believe and what many PDA members and others on the "left" believe ...

i understand that you feel the best way to break the corporate stranglehold is to throw out the republicans ...

as for your observation about having lots of johnny-come-latelies on DU who seem to arrive right before each election, i have no idea ... frankly, i don't pay much attention to the comings and goings ... my focus is just on the discussion ... i guess it's a good thing that someone is policing this place ... generally, i assume DU will always be much busier with lots of new members around election time ... might some of them be trolls? i'm sure that's the case ... are all who come here around election time and criticize the party trolls? i'm sure that's not the case ...

[LynneSin]

60. Like I said - don't assume that we're not on the "Left" nor of the "PDA"

You'll find that I'm all of the above and I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Todd has to say. And you'll find that many of us 'democratic majority' folks are the same exact way.

We will not see change with the republican party but we will see some change with the democratic party, perhaps some damn good change - you never know with someone like John Conyers if we gave him the majority.

I have not given up on this fight, this is not me saying "oh well it didn't work". Just because my Philadelphia Eagles lose one game doesn't mean the coach says 'Oh let's just pack it up for the season and go home'. No, we keep fighting for the change we want to see. It's not an instantaneous thing, it never will be. We just keep working on it harder and find new strategy will trying to keep this country in tact while we fight. And one day we'll see the changes that we want.

[ClassWarrior]

64. Again, couldn't have said it better myself.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

73. am i missing something here?

you said that you "agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Todd has to say" ... wasn't he arguing that we should NOT vote for non-progressive Democrats? isn't that directly opposite of what you're saying?

maybe you were right ... maybe i really don't have clue ... am i missing something here?

[LynneSin]

18. Absolutely! It's either our way or just let the Republicans stay in power

I mean we had primaries and cleary since the rest of the country didn't support our candidate then fuck em, we'll show them by allowing the Republicans have control because we all know how much better it is to have Republicans running this country.

Only a dumbass would not understand what Mr. Todd is talking about. You heard it - a dumbass. This electorial system SUCKS - which means you can support the democrats or you can think "It's all about Me" and help elect republicans because some of the candidates aren't perfect.

I was at a booksigning for "Crashing the Gate", which was written by the guys who own the blogs DailyKos and MyDD. They spoke alot about how we need to change the democratic party from the ground up and get into place the democrats we would be proud to support, I mean that's what his book is all about. But the thing is this - even THEY knew that after the primaries are over with, we all might need to support a few bad democrats to get that majority because without a doubt, we need to ge the republicans out of control.

So seriously, this is the democratic underground and we're here to support democrats. We had the primaries, we had some great wins and some disappointments. But I would rather spend the next couple of years fighting my DLC, Lieberman supporting, torture supporting democrat Tom Carper, who will from time to time get it right when it comes to Environment, CHoice & Labor, than to spend that time fighting a republican that I know will get it wrong 99.95% of the time.

I only have so much time to fight this congress, let's not make it any harder than what it is.

[skipos]

23. I am voting my conscience in November

and there is no way in hell I could sleep at night if I didn't do everything in my power to get as few Republicans running our government as possible. Straight Dem ticket for me.

[LynneSin]

26. You and me both

I could not sleep at night knowing that I did ANYTHING that might have enabled a republican to stay in office. This race isn't about "ME" and my political litmus test. I am not that selfish

[Orangepeel]

31. It can (and should) be fixed in primary races

Urging support for all Democratic candidates in a general election is not selling out. It is a step toward trying to have progressive Democrats as committee chairs.

Besides, there are various ways to "support" a candidate. Give your money and your time to those you deem "worthy." Give your vote to the least onerous choice.

[LynneSin]

68. Well, I'd love to spend more time arguing with the Progressives for Repubs

but I have a hot date with a bubble bath and Bob Woodward (well ok, not him, geez if that guy from USAToday is reading this please don't quote me - I'm merely going to relax and read his new book).

And seriously for the bits and pieces I read on my lunch break from the book it only solidifies more why we need a democratic majority

[ClassWarrior]

69. Ewww... thanks alot for that image of Bob W. in the bubble bath!

:toast:

NGU.

[jonnyblitz]

75. LMFAO!!!

:hi:

[LynneSin]

82. Hey Sweetiepie!!

I'd like to say I had a good time with Bob Woodward but I got caught up with my guide to Toronto book I also purchased. Business in Toronto in 2 weeks

[blondeatlast]

91. Passive/Agressive Progressives--no thanks, BT, I've had enough

of your kind for now.

When you get some real power to change things, I'd love to hear from you.

Check back when the Greens make some serious local inroads; I'd love to talk with you then.

[bobbolink]

94. I can tell you other PDA people have NOT forgotten, and are also

pissed.

And these were/are the party work horses, too! But, that's exactly who the DLC wants to be rid of.

So, there you have it.

:cry:

[Radical Activist]

97. What statement are you referring to?

link please. I'd like to judge it for myself.

PDA was set up to help progressive Democrats and it should do that exclusively. This is the same reason I was never interested in DFA: they supported anyone, even conservatives.

[bobbolink]

104. Yes, that should be their exclusive goal.

It was how they were formed.

And, as you can see, it will get endless ridicule from the DLCers.

They're "building the party", donchaknow...

[The Magistrate]

107. When Attacking 'DLCers', Sir

Are you doing anything different from what you have been condemning at length above?

Are you of the view that assailing persons of center-left and centerist persuasion, both very numerous blocs of voters, accomplishes much towards securing a majority for the Democratic Party in general elections?

[bobbolink]

109. First, I'm NOT your preferred gender.

Secondly, not that you would have the compassion or concern to care, but I, along with many others in my state, was PUSHED FROM THE PARTY BY YOUR BELOVED DLCers. We decided to take it back.

So, when they are ready to accept the rest of us, with open arms and common courtesy, we will be happy to reciprocate.

As I said earlier, this is going exactly nowhere, and I don't appreciate your baiting.

Have a fine life. And the last snooty word.

Peace.