Webb says the future of the Dem party lies in rejecting Rubin wing of party.

[madfloridian]

I am very proud of him for this. Here is a quote from David Sirota of an interview James Webb gave recently.

From Working Assets blog, Sirota says he found this Webb interview in the Washington Times.

Webb lauds freshman power

"He criticized what he called 'the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party,' after Robert E. Rubin, former President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, saying those Democrats share the same problem as many Republicans: 'We're not paying attention to what has happened to basic working people in the country.' He said of the freshman Senate Democrats, six of them take a 'populist' view, and said they are bringing needed reinforcements to the Senate: 'We've got a number of us that pretty well see the economic issues the same way. I think that's the Democratic Party of the future."

Robert Rubin is a good man, but I agree with Webb. Rubin's concerns are not the ones we average people have. He has been given almost exclusive access to the freshmen Democrats, while labor leaders were turned away.

Robert Rubin gets the floor to himself to talk to new Congress folks.

William Greider at The Nation questioned this.

So why does Pelosi begin the education of her freshman members with a seminar on Rubinomics? Robert Rubin, the Citigroup executive and former Treasury secretary, will appear solo next week before the party caucus to explain the economy. Pelosi has scheduled another caucus briefing on Iraq, but that includes five expert voices of varying viewpoints. Rubin gets the stage to himself.

When labor officials heard about this, they asked to be included since they have very different ideas about what Democrats need to do in behalf of struggling workers and middle-class families. Pelosi decided against it. This session, her spokesman explains, is only about "fiscal responsibility," not globalization and trade not the deterioration of wages and disappearing jobs. Yet those subjects are sure to come up for discussion. Rubin gets to preach his "free trade" dogma with no one present to rebut his facts and theories.

I remember Rubin told Howard Dean in 2003 to stop criticizing NAFTA, that he could not get him any big donations if he didn't. There were several articles on this, but this one sticks in my mind. A couple of paragraphs show the difference in what Rubin advocates and Dean's ideas. Dean told him NAFTA needed to be changed, told him to get back to him. Rubin had no response.

The governor has shown flashes of the same bluntness in his prime-time campaigning. Last summer, he told a revealing story on himself--a conversation with Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and Wall Street's main money guy for Democrats. Rubin had warned that unless Dean stopped attacking NAFTA and the multinationals for the migration of US jobs, he couldn't raise contributions for him from the financial sector. As Dean told it, "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him." What I like so much about the story is that powerful, influential Bob Rubin pokes Dean in the chest, and he pokes him back. Then Dean discloses the exchange to the Washington Post. In the higher realms of politics, this is not done. But he is not one of them.
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1126-13...

More on that issue, from an Alternet article by Chris Suellentrop.

Won't Dean's plan make the price of goods go up? "Yeah," he says quietly. "But so what?" My 25 minutes are up. We've arrived in Osceola, the site of Dean's next talk, and I'm being ushered out of McFun by Dean's staff. But I think Dean realizes he's ended the interview on the wrong note because he quickly adds: "Because in return for making the price of goods go up, you've fixed the illegal immigration problem, you've fixed the drain of jobs problem, you've created a middle class that can buy American exports. There's a lot you get for that." Now it really is time for me to go. "I've got to make a phone call," Dean says as I step outside.
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1126-13...

James Webb sounds like a good leader going in the right direction on this issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. As I recall, Dean was just suggesting re-negotiating NAFTA not getting rid of it

If you're going to outsource jobs to a third world country, I don't think it's wrong to have to pay them a living wage and allow them to work in reasonable working conditions with reasonable hours. Apparently Bob Rubin does.

On the other hand, Freshmen Congressmen aren't children. I'd hope that they have critical thinking skills and can seek other opinions, besides the ones that Nancy Pelosi places in front of them. Of course, maybe I give freshmen congressmen too much credit.

[madfloridian]

3. Yes, you are right.

Not suggesting getting rid of it.

[ooglymoogly]

29. that is not at all the point.

influence is influence. to assume (or not) that if that influence is totally wrong well the freshmen will get it right and disregard that influence anyway, is downright duplicitous to the point.

[ProudDad]

54. Do you have any evidence for that statement

"I don't think it's wrong to have to pay them a living wage and allow them to work in reasonable working conditions with reasonable hours. Apparently Bob Rubin does."

Rubin was a major driver behind NAFTA, GATT, WTO -- if he believed that stuff he had his chance.

I don't believe he believes it...

He's in it for the money and doesn't know shit or give a shit about workers.

[cynatnite]

2. I hope Webb runs for President in the future...he'd make a good one n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Webb is a man who is consistently on message, and has a direction for the Party. A leader.

I definitely see him as a possible President, and if he runs he'll have my money and elbow grease like he did in his Senate race.

He seems like one of the few who appreciates the need for the Democrats to return to populist roots, because it's the right thing to do. I happen to think it's good politics as well.

If the right leader, like Webb, brings populism back to the Democratic Party right on the heels of all this robber baron ownership society Bushit, the Republicans will be toast for a generation.

[madfloridian]

5. He is a leader.

He has the background and experience to speak out effectively.

[kaygore]

55. Webb said a week or so ago that he would not run for a second term

It breaks my heart and I hope that he'll reconsider. You may not always agree with him, but he is a person of great intellect and integrity. He doesn't say one thing and then get elected and do something else. He is a rare breed, unfortunately. I wish he would run for president!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

57. Link for this? Did he say why? I also hope it's so he can run for Pres.

[kaygore]

60. I don't read the paper as carefully as I should

However, a good friend who knows how hard I worked during the 2006 elections to get Webb elected mentioned that it was in our local paper (The Virginian-Pilot) within the past two weeks. I have not had a chance to contact Susan Mariner who rallied all of the Webb supporters in Hampton Roads during the primary and then to election. She would have the details. I'll see what I can find out. My sense when I heard the news was that Webb probably feels that he will have served his time and wants to get on with his life. He sure didn't need to interrupt a great life to enter the senate and put up with all that mess. Webb is truly a person of integrity and I assume that every day he serves in the senate with all the corruption and rationalizations there he feels as though he is serving in hell!

For a new, junior senator he has done more in his short tenure than most senators (can we say, John Kerry) do during decades in the senate. Webb went there to do a job and he's doing it. Then, I guess he wants to get back to reality.

[kaygore]

61. I can't find it in a search of the paper

I hope that my friend, who is in his late 70s, misread. There was a huge article on Webb in the paper last week, but it had no mention of Webb's not running.

If I find out more, I'll post it.

[DeSwiss]

6. It's all about the triangulating baby.....

...which is what Bill/Hillary figured out could win the WH. Screw the poor, concentrate on the middle class and the money people and you're in! Pathetic.

[truedelphi]

63. Maybe you mean the new "middle class"

But the old "middle class" is being disappeared every day of the week (not totally disappeared but into the ranks of the poor) because of things the Clintons could care less about

[Peace Patriot]

7. Worries about Pelosi. Very early, about a week after the 2006 elections--after

the American people had done their best to outvote the voting machines, and had put the House gavel into Nancy Pelosi's hands--I heard a confab on C-Span radio, of the new "Blue Dog" Democrats. I listened for some change of tune from the days when Gary Condit led them, and distinguished himself as a Bushite Democrat by voting for the first Bush/Cheney tax cut for the rich, on May 3, 2001, one of only ten Democrats who did so, in a very close vote (--and, curiously, three days after Chandra Levy's disappearance). What these new "Blue Dogs" said was this: They were for "fiscal responsibility," which, to them--as they discussed this issue--meant cutting everything in the budget EXCEPT WAR SPENDING. I was especially alert to their views not only because I knew the history of the "Blue Dogs," but also because the announcer mentioned that Nancy Pelosi was in the studio. She was kind of in the background, and I don't recall her saying anything, but the point was that she was sponsoring them, promoting them, introducing them, giving them her blessing.

I thought I would vomit. We had pulled off this triumph--a Democratic win--not nearly as big as it should have been, but a majority--and, at the first opportunity, Pelosi endorsed a policy of taking the tax cuts for the rich and for corporations out of the hides of the poor.

This policy of so-called "fiscal responsibility" is the last thing in the world we need. What we need is a "New Deal" paid for by CUTS IN THE BLOATED, 'PLEASE FEEL TO PERPETRATE WARS OF CHOICE' WAR MILITARY BUDGET, fair taxation of the super-rich and global corporate predators, and recovery of revenues from thieving military contractors, and oil price gougers, and all the other shits who are stealing from us. We need jobs programs--GOVERNMENT jobs programs--socialist policies of full employment, decent wages, decent schools, free university educations, and universal health care. We need vast amounts of federal money poured into "green" energy and other creative and ingenious ways to save us from a planetary meltdown. We need huge infusions of funds in emergency services, national guards and wild weather infrastructure and safety, as well as immediate action to protect food supplies from crop failure. We need major government spending to pull us out of the multiple disasters that Bushism has created. "Fiscal responsibility" is bullshit. It is merely an extension of Reaganism and the Reagan tax code rewrite, which began shifting the tax burden to the poor.

I mean, what are we "saving" government money for? We've been there, done that. Clinton--with stringent measures against the poor--left the federal budget with a surplus. And the fascists and their corporate puppetmasters couldn't wait to steal all THAT money, and put us into a $10 trillion hole. You do "fiscal responsibility," and they steal you blind. The corporatists consider it GRAVY to be lapped up like the pigs they are. We need an entirely new economic theory. Leave them nothing to steal! Spend it all on the people!

And WHAT THE HELL are Democrats DOING, talking like Newt Gingrich?!

Anyway, this--her implied endorsement of "Blue Dog" economics--came only days after "impeachment is off the table," which I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt about, for a while. Not any more, though. But the Blue Dogism immediately struck me with worry. And I think that, along with shoving the Iraq War down the throats of the American people, shoving "fiscal responsibility" down our throats, was the idea behind having electronic voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations. Not a peep of objection did we hear from our Democratic leadership on the installation of this Stalinist voting system.

"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." --Josef Stalin

Almost all manufacturing has now been off-shored, along with millions and millions of jobs, and now they're fast outsourcing as many service jobs as they can, as well. We have essentially seen our sovereignty sold to China and Saudi Arabia, with our debt paper. We're quickly running out of oil, in an oil-based economy--and are killing Arabs by the tens of thousands, to get theirs, and sharpening our knives to kill Venezuelans and Bolivians for the same purpose. We have tens of thousands of wounded veterans to care for, and untold social costs yet to be paid for the trauma and stress Bush has inflicted on U.S. soldiers. The dollar is shaky. The housing market is collapsing. Everything is going to shit--our schools, our roads, our medical system, our morale. The major remaining employer in the country--small business--is receiving no help. No stimulus is being given to new ideas, creative enterprises, and positive and construction action. They joy of human trade has been drowned in shopping malls full of the same corporate crap, most of it made by slave labor abroad.

Let's try some "fiscal responsibility" on those bastards--U.S.-based global corporate predators. You keep your manufacturing here, or you don't do business here. You get your corporate charter pulled and your assets seized for the common good.

That's what I want to hear from Democrats. And they can take their "ol' boy" Lousiana paintings of their blue dogs and shove them up you know where!

[formercia]

15. Counting the votes

[DutchLiberal]

37. When will you be running for president?

Seriously, you're good.

Can you believe that about 26-28% of the country would call you a traitor and anti-American for saying all this, especially the part where you say 'everything is going to shit'?

[Raksha]

38. First-class rant, Peace Patriot. I don't disagree with you about anything.

This deserves its own thread.

[Qutzupalotl]

40. Seriously, I want to vote for you.

Or how about, if you get elected, I'd move to your district.

Or, can I just post this as its own thread and give you full credit?

[Peace Patriot]

45. I had to go to work. Just caught up with our request. Sure you can use it,

but please correct the typos. I was in a hurry. And, no, have no plans to run for President of the United States, but, if drafted, I will serve.

[dmosh42]

8. Some of these 'newly' elected Senators really impress me.....

Since I have watched them on C-Span, Webb, McCaskill and Tester have done well in making their points when needed. Their points are well thought out, and they're not just blowing wind. You can tell that they have already moved to an area of leadership in getting their opinions acknowledged.

[shance]

9. I still don't believe in James Webb in his support for Military Commissions Act, but I still

continue to trust Governor Dean.

With that said few of us blindly trust the vested, privileged white males who are thrust upon us as the 'only candidates'.

Governor Dean earned his way. He empathized. As such he was a threat. We realize that.

Someone guide us as to the next step.

I do not want to see our best leaders gunned down by the corporate interests as they were in the sixties and as well what was done to Wellstone.

We have to protect and defend our leaders if we really want to give back what has been given to us.

[nikto]

46. Howard Dean...

is still MY choice for President.

He's just too damn sensible, honest, perceptive and wise to
ever become U.S. president.

Too many Americans prefer their presidents shallow, simple and
double-talking them into submission.

I don't care how others feel,
to me,
HOWARD DEAN IS THE BEST MAN FOR PRESIDENT IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY!!

It is to our lasting detriment that most Americans are blind to that fact.

[defendandprotect]

50. We all wanted Dean -- he was terrifically popular -- and they tried to destroy him . . .

The public knew that Kerry wasn't the guy . . . who else was opting for a spot at the time?
Well, they were like all at the bottom of the barrel according to the polls --
and the next thing we knew everything was reversed.

You could see it happening --
and,then, because Dean was still so strong -- they went full blast at trying to knock him out.
The Democrats were just not going to let Dean have the nomination.

[progressoid]

10. Wow. wasn't Webb a republican at one time?

quite a change of heart.

[ellisonz]

11. Kinda.

He wasn't a particularly "political" figure for most of his life, being more concerned about the strength and well being of the military after Vietnam. He endorsed Robb over North in 1994 and then endorsed Allen over Robb in 2000 and then beat Allen in 2006 of course. He's always been a "populist."

His first novel is worth reading for perspective both on Webb and on Vietnam: http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Fire-James-Webb/dp/0553583...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. Yes, he was a Reagan administration appointee (Secretary of the Navy).

He didn't seek or hold elective office as a Republican though.

[B Calm]

12. Damn shame that labor officials were not allowed to speak in

behalf of struggling workers and middle-class families. I don't get where Pelosi gets off calling herself a democrat when she ignores labor and acts like a cheap labor conservative!

[formercia]

14. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker

I privately expressed some reservations about her expected behavior in that she might attempt to run interference for certain agendas. I decided not to speak publicly about it because I wanted to give her a chance to do the right thing.

This thread confirms some of my worst fears. You can bet that there is even more to come.

Please don't ask me to provide details. You will find out soon enough.

[Octafish]

16. Webb wrote an op-ed on 'Class Struggle' for the Wall Street Journal.

Sen. Webb is spot-on: The big money boys are getting the gold, the workers are getting the shaft.

Class Struggle

American workers have a chance to be heard.

James Webb
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/classstrug...

I live in Detroit. There's a whole city full of people here with no jobs, lousy schools and little hope. It's basically an open-air prison, without costing the state a dime. Bushie's Archipelago.

Thanks for an excellent post, madfloridian. Webb is a real leader. No wonder the pukes are afraid of him.

[madfloridian]

19. Yes, that was an excellent editorial.

Your description of Detroit is so sad.

[RedEarth]

17. Excellent........... I really, really like Webb......... thanks for posting....KR

[femrap]

18. OK, would someone explain to me why

both Webb and Tester voted against the working people and FOR the wealthy when they voted earlier this year with the Repugnants on the Death Tax....damn, I'm looking thru my notes and I can't find the exact bill...I believe it was the Death Tax bill.

I even wrote Webb an email because I was so disappointed....especially after he had made that speech about the 'Robber Barons' on TV...and then he turns around and votes for the wealthy.

Can anyone help me out here? Was it the Death Tax or some other pro-rich legislation?

Thx.

When I worked my ass last summer and fall to get these Dems in office, I told all the people who I visited that we have no other choice but to elect Dems but then we MUST HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE....

I don't want Webb getting off the hook by saying he cares for the working people and then he votes otherwise.

[brentspeak]

20. Actually, I think we should hold your feet to the fire on this

Locate the exact bill that you're referring to, link to transcripts of the debate, plus any other info, so that the rest of us can properly evaluate what it is you claim is "disappointing".

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

48. First of all, stop calling it the Death Tax, it's the Estate Tax

The only reason that Estate Tax bills even make it through congress is because the Republicans have convinced middle class people that it actually applies to them simply by changing the name to the Death Tax

Secondly, I don't think there has been an Estate Tax reduction bill that has made it to the floor in the 110th Congress.

[femrap]

58. noted. nt

[brentspeak]

21. I'm definitely on Pelosi's case regarding not discussing trade issues

I understand why she's not going the impeachment route, but no way am I going to tolerate any hesitancy on her part to enact meaningful legislation which would undo the damage things like NAFTA and CAFTA have brought to the nation.

I'm glad I came upon this thread; gives me a reason to call Pelosi's office and demand action on trade issues.

[Snotcicles]

22. We need more real Democrats and less Republicrats. nt

[Vidar]

23. Good for Webb!

[mzmolly]

24. It's amazing how out of touch Webb is for a recovering Republican.

This is so spot on! Webb for VP!

[BlooInBloo]

25. I knew I liked that Webb fella.

[jgraz]

26. Every time I think how close we came to having that racist scumbag Allen instead of Webb...

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Bring back Robert Reich.

[jgraz]

33. Seconded

Or should that be IVed?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Thirded.

[Skidmore]

30. Webb/Whitehouse is my perfect ticket.

One to clean up the war and associated military structure and one to clean up the flagging state of oversight and the judiciary.

[originalpckelly]

31. Good for Senator Webb, he's turned out to be a damn good guy.

Hope keeps it up.

[Elwood P Dowd]

32. Rubin's loyalty is to money

not the Democratic Party or The United States Of America. He is a fucking scumbag!

[Alexander]

34. Sounds like Reagan Dems vs. DLCers.

Never underestimate the Reagan Democrats.

[illinoisprogressive]

35. He is right. That is the DLC wing and they need to go away

[WI_DEM]

36. I see Sen. Webb going places some day.

[LostInAnomie]

41. I'm more and more impressed with Webb every time I hear him.

Having the courage to stand up to Rubin-omics is a VERY big deal and a lot more Democrats should follow his lead.

[ms liberty]

42. A man with a brain and a backbone - I like this guy. K&R and Thanks! n/t

[OHdem10]

43. We must keep this Guy in the Senate and we need to

many more like him.!!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Webb: The Anti-Clinton

I wish Webb were running for President. Honest, smart, courageous, and doesn't hate the Middle Class.

[Cha]

47. "I'll have to get back to you."..

Yeah, right, Rubin.

Imagine! Having a former raygun man speaking out for the working man..I love irony!

[truedelphi]

49. Okay what more does it take to have the majority of people on DU 2consider that Pelosi is GateKeeper

Incarnate

[sbyte]

51. Kinda a defining moment here for democrats

Are you gonna take the rich man's money?

Do ya need it, don't you love to squeeze it?

The repubs, took over congress by identifying the splintered nature of the Dem's. And here again the Dem's are dividing. The leaders of the party seem to be brainwashed by the money from the wall streeters types. Will the re-election campaigns fail without that kind of help?

What is happening in the economy, The Repubs think the economy is good and tax cuts are great. They are saying, that because of the tax cuts entrepreneurs are investing money into growing businesses thru innovation and risk taking. But isn't it that the government is just issuing more money into the banking system. (The implied M3 growth is running at 16% this year.) That is works it way thru the system with bigger loans, weaker dollar and higher deficits and a bigger military complex. And a feeling of wealth. How real is it? How long lasting? Is it more like a candy bar that tastes good and gives energy for a short time without a lot of the vitamins and protein needed to keep the body healthy.

The only thing bother me is, is that the free trade arrangement might be working. Because of the latest reports of an increase in the demand for exports. Helped by the weaker dollar and expanding world growth. Even though the over all effect on the working middle class and wages here and in Mexico so far has been devastating. The implied inflation with wages not keeping up.

Why arn't the cooperate presidents more ashamed of their gross compensation. If they were the dog party I'd stuff there nose in it. It is outrageous the amounts of money pealed away by cooperate owners. And the Incredible greed, disproportionate to the take home wages of those doing the real shit work.

[defendandprotect]

52. We might as well say the DLC is the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party --

[whistle]

53. Jim Webb is absolutely right on target with that statement, the money

...interests really don't care whether they get what they want through republicans or democrats, as long as they get what it is they want first! Then the money folks couldn't give a rat's ass about working class Americans other than what politicians squeeze out of them.

[madfloridian]

59. The big money is shifting parties.

Takes a lot of courage to fight it. Not sure we can.

[madfloridian]

56. Just realized I put the wrong link for an article.

This is the article at Slate by Chris Suellentrop.

http://www.slate.com/id/2086258 /

Sorry about that.

"But one thing bothers me about Dean, and I raise it with him. He wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards—his lone departure from Clinton-style Rubinomics. Dean even says: "I actually had this argument with Bob Rubin, who totally disagrees with me, of course. But I think it's because Bob is fighting the last war. He said they use those arguments to try to undo NAFTA. I said, I know they use them to undo NAFTA, but now you've got NAFTA, and you're going to have NAFTA, now think about what this problem is. He said, you're right about the problem. Your analysis is right. I just don't have the solution. I'll get back to you when I do. I haven't heard back yet." (Dean's theory in a nutshell: The structure of wealth in the United States before labor unions resembled that in Third World countries today, so in order to create middle classes in the developing world, we need to bring labor unions to them.)

Won't Dean's plan make the price of goods go up? "Yeah," he says quietly. "But so what?" My 25 minutes are up. We've arrived in Osceola, the site of Dean's next talk, and I'm being ushered out of McFun by Dean's staff. But I think Dean realizes he's ended the interview on the wrong note because he quickly adds: "Because in return for making the price of goods go up, you've fixed the illegal immigration problem, you've fixed the drain of jobs problem, you've created a middle class that can buy American exports. There's a lot you get for that." Now it really is time for me to go. "I've got to make a phone call," Dean says as I step outside."

[Captain Angry]

62. I wonder just how far this country could have progressed with Dean in charge.

I don't see a President Dean leaving New Orleans to drown.

I don't see a President Dean attacking countries indiscriminately.

I don't see a President Dean threatening other countries.

[madfloridian]

64. DLC put up a reminder that free trade is good for us.

Haven't read it all, but these paragraphs sort of stood out.

http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid...

"On trade, you don't have to like Bush's policies (we don't) to worry that many Democrats are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Support for expanded trade as part of an equal opportunity agenda is the oldest continuing policy tradition of the Democratic Party, supported, without exception, by every Democratic president since Martin Van Buren. There's a reason for that: The alternative of a protectionist approach artificially rewards as many corporate interests as it might punish, and boosts consumer costs in a way that especially hurts the low-to-moderate Americans Democrats are supposed to care about (not to mention the wretchedly poor folk of the rest of the world, who are treated as deadly competitors).

To be sure, Democrats cannot neatly be divided into "pro-trade" and "anti-trade" factions. As PPI's Will Marshall and Ed Gresser recently pointed out in an article for The Democratic Strategist, a third faction -- which they call "social democrats" -- agrees with New Democrats on the unavoidable nature of globalization, and on the critical need for a new social compact to make expanded trade compatible with the economic needs of middle-class Americans. But rhetorically, too many Democrats often sound like they'll never see a trade agreement they can support, or a globalization strategy that can be called progressive. While pledging themselves to help those affected by the "downside" of globalization, Democrats need to make it clear they are optimistic, not pessimistic, about America's ability to compete in global markets, with the right leadership and policies in place.

Beyond trade policy, it's important to note that some self-styled Democratic "populists" are beginning to emulate their pre-industrial forebears by opposing, basically, any economic policies that might benefit corporations, regardless of the benefits to Americans generally. This is truly a momentous issue: In a capitalist system, even the most beneficent growth patterns will create profits; if that's unacceptable, then either growth itself or our basic economic system has to be abandoned.

Specifically, Democrats are being urged by some opinion-leaders to reject any private-sector role in health care or in energy and environmental policies as reflecting an inherently corrupt cash nexus. So while all Democrats are united in opposing corporate welfare and special privileges, there are divisions between those who view public use of market forces to achieve progressive goals as ideal, and those who oppose it like the devil himself.

So there is truly a choice to be made between a populism that relies on Americans' fears, and a progressivism that seeks positively to turn fear into hope. It's no time to turn back the clock."

"self-styled Democratic populists"??

[Hidden Stillness]

65. Get the People Back into the Policy of Government

To me, the most disturbing part of this whole OP is the part where William Greider at The Nation describes a seminar for newly-elected Congressional Dems put on by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, indoctrinating them into corporate "D"LC/Republican pseudo-economics; but nothing on the actual situation of the Nation, and the American people. This shows that the lobbyists who got in by way of the Clinton Administration, and took over the entire Federal Government policy during the Cheney/Bush group, are not only still there, but are now taught as "official" doctrine--of our Party!

This explains the seemingly never-ending Bills and Amendments that make no sense at all, benefitting only one corporation, or one commercial sector under very limited circumstances, deregulating this, lowering taxes on that--no sense, and no progress at all on sweeping legislation for major social-economic problems faced by people, on corporate crime or credit card/mortgage/pension/rent/etc. scams and price-gouging. Once you realize that the pattern for their odd behavior--increasing lawlessness for commercial activity on the one hand, and deafness to our pleas on the other--is that they are all payoffs for corporate contributions and continuing relationships, then it all makes gruesome sense. This is just a continuation of the Clinton/"D"LC, Inc. "new kind of Democrat"/NAFTA-GATT/Wal-Mart/HMO/"business-friendly"/Chamber of Commerce secret club that came in under Clinton, lost us the Congress 1994, and lost us a huge wave of popular support that we had before people realized what a corporatist Clinton would be. I knew something was really wrong during the mid-'90s whenever it was, when Clinton, who would not support unions, suddenly started trying to "explain" to us why "we" should take our tax money and not help the poor, but bail out the corrupt Government of Mexico's economy.

The total takeover of the official public message of the Democratic Party by hired commercial "consultants" also guaranteed the corporate control of what it would be and who would be addressed. Of course, the "framing" crowd was so duped by it all--mainly by themselves--that they were impressed completely, fell for it all, (as soon as someone told them they were "so smart" and that "framing" was needed for "smart" people like "themselves" to finally get through to the thick-headed "simple people," then they were had), and never realized that the new corporate consultant groups, killing the public arena for all of us citizens, merely introduced yet another layer of corporate influence and control. Suddenly, ordinary measures to curb corporate power were referred to as "leftist" and "socialist," where it had been popularly presumed as necessary before, and even the whole non-corporate attitude, once the majority opinion, was now marginalized as "populism," as if it were a mere fringe group now, and not the mainstream majority's will, ignored. As a matter of fact, they have lately reached the point where they actually pretend ("framing") that the Government "can't" regulate commerce, or business practices, but only the conduct of Government. The fact that they never, anymore, use the words corporate or commercial, but only this bizarre, totally undescriptive word "private" (meaning both corporate and none of your business/secret) shows which side they are on, and spinning from.

Webb, many times, during many speeches on the Floor of the Senate, writing essay and editorial columns, and other places, has shown a wonderful and complete grasp of the situation and the problems. These things are not being solved, or even fought for, for a reason--they will not even pass the lobbyist/ethics legislation that supposedly "everyone" supports! Their bizarre behavior is easily understood once you become aware of their corporate ties and connections. This is a very disturbing situation, because it has been allowed to become so endemic, and the huge majority population and its societal concerns totally cut out, and referred to--if at all--with such quaint, "cute" language, and no action. They "gave us" a miniscule minimum-wage raise spread over the next several years--cheer your master, you are not going to get another one! However, your sales tax will hike up, consume it all, and only management will profit from all this.

By the way, the suggestion by Skidmore, #30, of a Webb/Whitehouse ticket, is fabulous!