DLC arrogance - is there no limit???

[welshTerrier2]

i rarely post about the DLC ... we end up with threads just filled with namecalling ... the whole issue becomes unproductively divisive and nothing changes ...

but there are times that these political "porky pigs" (yeah, that's right - it's namecalling) need to be outed ... this is such a time ...

today's "worst person in the world" is good old Ed Kilgore ... you see, Ed is not happy ... those nasty progressives are challenging "his people" in the primaries ... how dare they???

here's what Ed, not just a rank and file worker bee of the DLC but the "Vice President for Policy of the Democratic Leadership Council" had to say on the subject:

"At a time when we're desperately trying to take back Congress and win a majority of governorships, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense for Democrats nationally to be wasting money on primary challenges," Kilgore said.

Well Ed, I'll tell you what ... Let's see what we can work out ... Here's a thought: tell your war supporting, right-wing clones to drop out and we won't have to waste all that money fighting you to win back our party ... Democrats don't want your Liebermans and your Harmans anymore; a strong majority of Americans are fed up with the war they've been pushing and the numbers among Democrats soar off the charts ...

maybe when you back candidates that genuinely represent the majority in the party, primary battles will no longer be necessary ...

link to the article ...

[LA lady]

1. Link?? n/t

[welshTerrier2]

3. sorry ... it's there now ... n/t

[acmavm]

2. See this illustrates the problem PERFECTLY. These clowns who make

a living off the party forget who/what really constitutes the Democratic Party. That's you. Me. The Dem next door. NOT THESE CLOWNS. They're just hacks trying to look out for Number 1.

And we, the Democratic Party of the United States of America, are fed up, sick and tired, of all the quisling political hacks with their hands out to their corporate masters. And who don't give a fat rat's ass what is best for us and best for the country.

[Cascadian]

48. YEEEES!!

That is exactly my feeling. You stole my thunder but I am glad somebody else feels the same way! Thanks!


John

[Cascadian]

49. dupe.

<dupe posting>

[acmavm]

76. You're very welcome.

[madfloridian]

4. This is going on at state levels also.

I was just trying to get a post together about a conversation I had with our state chair. Trying to be fair to her, be honest, yet call it like it is.

I have been trying for two days to figure out how to write it up.

They deny it and admit it in the same breath.

[welshTerrier2]

6. are you saying?

are you saying that the "power elite" in your State party are making it harder or impossible for primary challengers to jump in??

not quite clear on what you're saying is happening ...

[madfloridian]

8. Trying to write it up now.

It is hard to be fair on this topic. It deserves its own post, but it will piss some folks off here...I do that just by being alive here anymore. It was a nice conversation, just wanting to be fair.

Yes, they are doing what you say, but saying they are not. Got it? :evilgrin:

[acmejack]

10. Everyone is all for Democracy

It seems they hate for you to get to excited about getting overly involved. The established folks are very comfortable with things the way they are.

[oneold1-4u]

5. Recent posting from my journal

Just a reminder
Posted by oneold1-4u in General Discussion
Sat May 20th 2006, 02:26 PM
Gore and Kerry were not the right people or the world would have ended before the US fell into this mire of utter futility. I sure hope that the Dems find the "right" leader before another party does, or the exodus from both parties may well change the nation. Consider that a Joe or Joan Brown or Beige from the Smith or Jones or Purple Party may well be the best choice of an honest american president and new world leader!

[leftchick]

7. war supporting ,corporate owned , right wing clones

they are as in bed with coporations as the repukes are. That is the problem.

[redqueen]

97. Hear hear! n/t

[brentspeak]

9. It's not "arrogant" if it would result in Democrats losing seats

There are only a few -- a few -- Dems in Blue states or districts who could be pretty much be called "DINOS". If it's pretty obvious that the primary challenger to say, Diane Feinstein, wouldn't have a shot in the world of beating the GOP candidate, then Kilgore's comment is accurate.

Before supporting a primary challenge against a Democrat, it's the responsibility of that challenger's supporters to

1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat (just because somebody out there in the peanut gallery calls Democrat Joe/Jane a "DINO" does not necessarily make it so)

2) Have VERY good reason to believe that the challenging Democrat would have a very legitimate shot at defeating the GOP candidate.

Anybody who supports replacing incumbent Democrats but doesn't adhere to those two requirements I just mentioned is simply destroying the party.

[acmejack]

15. Who makes these determinations Brentspeak? And when?

You? Me? Perhaps an independent third party? Before or after the results come in? Democracy, lets practice it and not go with this "hurting the party" lameness. If you don't like the job someone is doing, you are supposed to challenge them, otherwise they can rightly assume we approve of what they are doing, for Deity's sake!

If we base our actions on positioning ourselves to I say we are engaging in the same sort of Mr. Twister Brand triangulation which leaves the Democrats looking messageless and dumbfounded most of the time as it is. We end up losers and valueless.

[brentspeak]

17. That makes zero sense

Your local politician can't do a thing for you from his seat in Congress if he doesn't have any real power due to having few colleagues. And he won't have a seat in Congress in the first place if he has no shot at defeating his GOP opponent.

[welshTerrier2]

22. nor does that ...

how many elections in a row has the current power structure in the Democratic Party lost? and you want to blame those who are seeking to take control from them?

did you think it weakens candidates to have them compete in the primaries in the marketplace of ideas? maybe you think the party should do away with primaries completely?

after all, what if the voters make the wrong choice ... surely, party insiders and experts know what it takes to win ... yup, the last thing this party needs is a bunch of wasteful spending on democracy ...

[brentspeak]

29. If you had read my post in its entirety

you would have seen that I think primaries are OK given 1) there's a much better and more effective Democrat that could replace the current Democrat; and 2) the challenging Democrat has a more than reasonable chance at defeating the GOP candidate.

Otherwise, it would be pretty lame-brained to engage in primaries simply for the purpose of having a 'marketplace of ideas' (like there's not enough venues available for political debate?). In case you haven't noticed, campaign dollars don't grow on trees; there aren't many of those dollars left following hard-fought primaries.

[wyldwolf]

31. damn it, brentspeak! Stop.. being... logical!

Political reality has no place here!

[welshTerrier2]

34. you are defending the suppression of democracy

shame on you and your "DCL crowd" ...

[wyldwolf]

75. LOL! Were you wagging your finger when you said that?

[welshTerrier2]

77. laugh away war supporter ...

as to your question, you are half right ...

[wyldwolf]

78. yep, I'm a "war supporter." LOL

Though I didn't support the Iraq war.

Viva Le Revolution! Or some nonsense like that...

[welshTerrier2]

79. do you now?

have you posted about your opposition to the war?

are you longing for the nostalgic days of the protests of your youth?

are you critical of Democrats who keep voting more money for bush's war? do you work for or fight for candidates who oppose the war? which ones? have they supported Kerry's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq if the Iraqis don't form a real government by this Monday?

you squarely behind Murtha's thinking on Iraq? have you posted about your support for him?

i'm glad to hear you didn't support the war; what about now?? do you think the war is in the best interests of the US now? do you think if we stay longer, bush will achieve a stable Iraq and help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure?

i ask all these questions because i haven't seen you supporting the anti-war point of view ... here's your big chance ...

[wyldwolf]

82. I've never supported it

[welshTerrier2]

32. you won't know until you try ...

a better and more effective Democrat? isn't why opposition candidates are running? do you think they don't see themselves as both better and more effective? trust me, they do ...

and a reasonable chance of defeating the GOP candidate? do you think their motivation is to just sink the incumbent Democrat? yeah, they think they have a chance to defeat the GOP candidate ... they are running with the expectation that they can win ... in fact, they are running with the expectation that voters are sick of the current incumbent and are looking for changes ...

[bemildred]

84. Voters do.

Various other people read tea leaves and claim to predict who will win, but they do not in fact have such powers, and their motives can easily be seen to be self-serving.

[NashVegas]

98. Primary Challenges to Incumbants

Expose the incumbant's flaws within his own ranks. The DLC needs to embrace the little wake-up call they're getting instead of telling us all to be good little girls and go sit down.

[wyldwolf]

11. I'm not one to take issue with "context" but...

... the quote came from an article called, "Democratic Activists Seek to Punish Their Own for Backing Bush." I believe it is also a bit arrogant for such a small group within the party to believe they should be meting out punishment for anything.

While I see nothing wrong with primary challenges, I do find it odd they, and their supporters, feel that these challengers are the face of the party. And that in a year when we have our best shot in a decade to winning control again, they want to give the public the impression that the Democrats in power aren't really Democrats.

You can't win something back that was never yours to begin with. And as The Magistrate so eloquently put recently in this very forum:

Another is the perennial brouha here about what constitutes a "real Democrat", most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. The idea that figures like ______________ are not "real Democrats" is nothing but the punch-line to a very poor joke... What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple.

[welshTerrier2]

13. please ... don't change the subject ...

Ed Kilgore demonstrated incredible arrogance by referring to primary challenges from those passionately fighting for change as "wasteful spending" ... period ...

don't try to twist this into a focus on "real Democrats" when that's exactly who Kilgore is saying should not be "wasting money" fighting for their beliefs ...

i'm glad to see you disagree with Kilgore's arrogant, undemocratic assessment ...

[wyldwolf]

14. In other words...

...join in on the DLC-dumping or shut up?

No, the subject wasn't changed. The other side was presented. It's called a "discussion."

Primary challenges are one thing. The vitriolic "He/she's not a real Democrat" coming from the left is arrogant as well. When you and the moveon crowd actually win something, then you'll have reason to be arrogant/confident.

[brentspeak]

18. ...

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

19. Oh, wait...now you are using "the Move-on" label on activists.

That is the wrong thing to do. MoveOn is a great group which has done a lot of good things.

[wyldwolf]

28. So because moveon is a great group I shouldn't paint activists with them?

LOL!

Hey, when "activists" of the moveon variety or other ever actually win anything, let me know.

[madfloridian]

33. What did you guys win in 2004? Waiting...tapping my fingers.

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

71. gee... up until that very moment, you would have said Kerry won

[welshTerrier2]

20. in other, other words ...

how will I and "the MoveOn crowd actually win anything if we don't field candidates and try to win?

sorry, but your blatant hypocrisy is showing ... you know damned well you disagree with what Kilgore said ... this is not about "real Democrats" or DINOS or anything but his arrogance ...

for you to fail to acknowledge that and and try to change the subject by focusing on those you oppose is pathetic ... we have every right, even every obligation, to participate in this democracy and you know it ...

and yes, we are smaller; we are weaker; but we are growing and we will eventually topple the power structure that you and your "DLC crowd" cling to ... you're hearing our footsteps and you know the change is a-coming ... your fear is palpable ...

btw, how's that war in Iraq thing working out for you? glad we got in there to show America how tough Democrats can be? kinda thinking the media only show the bad stuff? could you be, well, maybe just a wee bit out of touch with reality?

when will you and your "DLC crowd" acknowledge that it was the left, and not YOU, who was right every inch of the way about the war?? yeah, i know, you never will ... you'll be backing bush's war for years to come ...

[madfloridian]

21. And to that I say Amen!

:applause:

[brentspeak]

24. The "DLC crowd" and the Iraq War

Can you tell us how the DLC Democrats are in any way responsible for the Iraq War? The last I checked, it was Bush and Bush alone (on Cheney and Rumsfeld's word) who launched the invasion -- even though there was no declaration of war from Congress.

[wyldwolf]

25. shhh... don't try to be logical here.

[welshTerrier2]

37. perhaps you can read the DLC's website

there you can probably cite all sorts of references to their policy recommendations about the war ...

i assume you're confident that they have not been supportive of waging it ... feel free to make the case ... i'd welcome the support of the DLC to the anti-war movement ...

and to your last point, i'm confident you'll be able to find all sorts of references on the DLC's website making the argument you made so well: "even though there was no declaration of war from Congress."

or is it possible they didn't oppose the invasion even though there was no declaration of war? i believe one of their editorials referred to the motivations of the anti-war movement as nothing but "nostalgia for the protests of their youths" - hardly the words of an anti-bush opposition force ...

[madfloridian]

38. They supported the damn thing.

That's how. They posted about it, they called the anti-war people fringe activists. They made fun of us and of Dean and of Kucicich...a good start is to go to their site and search for "Good Night, Vietman"

They were for this war, and they don't want to leave.

[welshTerrier2]

40. excellent!!

to make the argument the DLC did not fully back this war is absurd ...

i forgot the name of the editorial you referenced but quoted a line from it in my post above yours ...

[brentspeak]

80. You didn't answer my question

Here's the original question, which you're waltzing around: How are the DLC Democrats responsible for the Iraq War?

Here's some new ones:

Did more than one or two Democratic senators urge Bush to launch the war?

Suppose that every single Democrat in both House and Senate took a strong vocal stand against even the very idea of military action against Iraq -- how would that have prevented Bush from launching the invasion? (We know now that Bush would have started the war even had the Republicans in Congress largely opposed military action.)

What's Howard Dean's stance on the Iraq War? How different is it from say, Hillary Clinton's?

[madfloridian]

44. Read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=244x2328

I have lots more.

[MrBenchley]

51. So criticizing Howard Dean is being responsible for the war?

Jeeze, even for you that's a new low.

[madfloridian]

54. I don't call anyone fringe anything. I don't call people losers.

That post was about calling us names...which they did. The DLC made fun of our anti-war people.

Have you ever even read the site?

[MrBenchley]

68. No, you're too busy hurling false charges

and screaming in rage.....

"The DLC made fun of our anti-war people"
Boo hoo hoo.

[madfloridian]

69. They did, Mr. B. They will not be forgiven for those words.

I don't mind what you say to me anymore. They are just words you use. But when it is the people who are setting the policy for the rest of us, I do question it.

The war was wrong. They urged the Democrats to vote for it, and now they want to stay there and do it right.

[MrBenchley]

70. Boo hoo hoo.....

Why would anyone dare make fun of the ludicrous and melodramatically outraged?

[SOS]

89. False charges?

"Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left" -Will Marshall, 12/13/2004

And to what rancid, leftist, anti-American conspiracy was Marshall referring to?

The notion that the Iraq catastrophe was launched as " the expression of a new U.S. imperialism, or as a Bush family vendetta, or as a plot to grab Middle East oil, or, most ludicrously of all, as a pretext to enrich Halliburton." - ibid.

His drivel isn't worth reading, let alone compel anyone to "scream in rage". So much easier to sit back and laugh as the DLC slowly sinks into irrelevance. Amusingly, their membership has fallen so dramatically that they pulled the members list from their web site. Who cares if Will Marshall makes fun of anti-war people? People stopped listening to him a long time ago.

[MrBenchley]

92. False charges....

Turned out the claims that the DLC is responsible for the war arre just so much horseshit.

"So much easier to sit back and laugh as the DLC slowly sinks into irrelevance."
Which is why every day there's at least 15 threads screaming in rage about the DLC....laced with ignorance and dishonesty.

[SOS]

95. Share your puzzlement

as to why there are many threads on the DLC.
The unelected think-tankers From, Marshall, Kilgore etc. imagined themselves "kingmakers" after the 1992 elections.
They actually believed that Democratic candidates needed to sup at their magic table if they wanted to be elected.
By 2004, not one of the nine Democratic candidates accepted the DLC annual lucheon invite.
None of the nine wanted to even be remotely associated with the DLC.
The DLC peaked 14 years ago. An eternity in our current news/political cycles.
Today MoveOn has over three million members, the DLC has less than 5,000.
It seems highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack will be our next President.
If the DLC candidate in 2008 fails, it'll be strike three and they're out.

And no the DLC is not responsible for the Iraq War. Bush had the sole authority to start the war based on the IWR.
It's 100% Bush's War.
Let's just hope 29 Democratic Senators don't vote for an Iran War Resolution!

[NashVegas]

100. Who Said The DLC Was Responsible?

I didn't see anyone in this thread saying the DLC was responsible for the Iraq War? Could you point me to the place where an anti-DLCer is accusing the organization of being responsible?

I would say that what they possibly were responsible for was the incredibly weak response to the proposition of an Iraq war from Democrats, thus removing the Democrats from being an opposition party.

[SOS]

103. Responsible? No.

But supporting the fiasco all the way:

"Why the Iraq War was Right"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=252474

65% of all Americans disagree.
Not going to win any elections with this nonsense.

[madfloridian]

12. I strongly believe that primaries are the only way to change things.

You can not get new people into the party without them.

Still trying to figure how to write-up my talk with the state chair.

[Totally Committed]

16. F*ck the DLC.

Ed Kilgore, Al From... the whole arrogant bunch of a-holes. Just f*ck the whole damned bunch. I'm sick of them, their cynical, triangulating strategies, and their mealy-mouth appeasist candidates.

TC

[The Magistrate]

23. Mr. Kilgore, Sir, Makes A Sensible Point

Particularly from his own point of view. For after all, he does not consider the Democratic Party to be the property of leftist activists who simultaneously proclaim themselves to be its "base" and threaten to depart for Greener pastures if they do not get their way. He does not agree with their claims that most Democratic office-holders are not importantly different from Repuiblicans. And he probably has the numbers on his side. The candidates supported by the most left elements of the Party do not have a very good track record in Party primaries at the state level, and in national contests: they do not seem to be the favorite choice of rank and file Democratic voters. The power the most left element has is a purely negative one; in close contests, they may be able, by inaction or desertion, to secure a Democrat's defeat, but they cannot press candidates to victory. From a professional's point of view, catering to their views will probably cost more votes in a large general election than it could possibly gain.

[wyldwolf]

26. and to that I say AMEN!

[welshTerrier2]

27. i'm truly sorry to see you take that position

i appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the issues but find it bewildering that you make this about "the left" ... it is also not about whether those who disagree with the direction of the party have a winning or losing track record ...

this is democracy, plain and simple ... should we be silenced because we are extremists? should we be denied a right to participate and support other DEMOCRATS because some of our numbers may not eventually support the ticket? indeed, should the party hierarchy just select their preferred candidates and not put other views before Democratic voters in the primary?

to focus on whatever disagreements you may have with the party's progressive wing is not what this is about; to criticize any Democrat for seeking the opportunity to work for the vision they have and the government they want is blatantly undemocratic ... to attack and criticize those seeking a changing of the guard because you disapprove of them is nothing but ad hominem argument ... and to suggest that "a professional's view" should preempt the fundamental basis of a democratic society, the right and responsibility to seek both change and power through democratic elections, is truly misguided ...

[wyldwolf]

30. YOU made it about the "left" in your OP

Who were you talking about when you said, "tell your war supporting, right-wing clones to drop out and we won't have to waste all that money fighting you to win back our party... maybe when you back candidates that genuinely represent the majority in the party, primary battles will no longer be necessary ..."

You're talking about the left, because these candidates you despise keep gettng elected by "the majority of the party."

[The Magistrate]

36. If It Is About Democracy, Sir

Then sooner or later the activists on the left-most points of the spectrum are going to have start paying attention to simple arithmetic. They are going to have to stop pretending that positions that do not routinely capture anything even approaching a majority in Democratic Party primary elections are actually the true face of the Democratic Party. It seems to me that there is as much disregard for democracy, and every bit as much elitism, in such quarters, as can be found among the professionals and the centerists.

My views on primaries have been stated pretty often; they do not strike me as good in and of themselves, and seem to me just one of many ways for a Party to draw its slate of candidates. They are certainly the mechanism available to those who wish to mount an insurgency within the Party to take their shot at it. But several things need to be recognized. First, it is an insurgency: the persons mounting are not "the true face of Party" or anything remotely describable as the "real" Party --- they are a fairly small pressure group within, and partly without, the Party, as things now stand. Second, their perremial threat to desert the Party if they do not get their way makes them inherently unreliable, and the general way professionals react to unreliable elements is not to placate them but to seek to work without them, just as if you were in a business, and some supplier was routinely late in deliveries or slipshod in the quality of articles delivered, you would not react by trying to sweeten the terms on which you did business with him, but rather would try and find someone else to purchase from. Third, primaries do in fact require the expenditure of funds, and funds are not as plentiful for the Democrats as for the Republicans, so that all expenditures by Democratic campaigns must be carefully managed and stretched somewhat, and the expenditutre of monies in the primary can prove harmful to prospects in the general election.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "left-most points of the spectrum" ???

your argument is that those seeking to compete in the Democratic Party's primaries as challengers are the "left-most points of the spectrum"??? you can't be serious ... is Ned Lamont the "left-most point"? the guy is a serious challenger to Lieberman ... will he win? i have no idea? does he have a right and obligation to campaign? you're damned straight he does ... do object to his candidacy???

neither you nor the DLC nor Ed Kilgore nor anyone else gets to arrogantly define who the "true face of the Democratic Party" really is ... that is something to be demonstrated via a democratic process ... period!!!

these candidates and their supporters, be they good loyal (read "automatic") Democrats or otherwise, are fighting to offer all Democrats a choice and they are running because they BELIEVE a majority will support them once they get out their message ... whether that is the case or not, to do or say anything that in any way disrespects their right to run, and as i've said, even their obligation to run, is blatantly undemocratic ...

to pre-judge the process and defer to incumbency, is not anything i recall reading in the Constitution ... to suggest that competition may be costly puts the focus to much on winning the election and not enough on providing the voters with a real choice ... yes, democracy may be a bit inconvenient; you either support it or you don't ...

[The Magistrate]

52. Mr. Lamont's Candidacy, Sir

Does not bother me in the slightest, and his victory would bother me less, but the chances of the latter strike me as slim.

In this very forum, Sir, there is abundant indication that certainly the most vociferous support for Mr. Lamont comes from quarters it would not be unfair to refer to as on the left-most points of the political spectrum. As you are frequently about the place, there does not seem any particular need to cite examples of something we are both familiar with.

Once again, there is no point describing me or anyone else as "arrogantly" defining anything. The face of the Democratic Party is indeed defined by the voters in Democratic primaries, as well as intra-party caucuses and meetings and elections, and the results of general elections. The result is a good deal closer to Mr. Kilgore than to the left insurgents you are championing, and has produced a whole raft of elected officials these insurgents expend a good deal of effort denouncing as not being "real" Democrats, and demanding be replaced by figures more to their liking. The problem remains that simple arithmetic does not back their claims, and they are demanding something they have not been able to date to muster sufficient votes to secure. That, too, hardly reflects a great commitment to democracy, and seems as much rooted in a desire to dictate results as anything the professionals display.

As to your claim that my view puts too much emphasis on winning elections, it is indeed difficult for me to see how it is possible to put too much emphasis on winning elections, since these determine who will hold power in the government, and if people from our side do not win, people from the other side will. Put bluntly, Sir, the attitude you express in this regard puzzles me.

[welshTerrier2]

59. "left-most points of the political spectrum"

the left most points on DU can hardly be called the "left-most points of the political spectrum" ... those who once walked among us have been long since banished ... it's in the rules ...

and once again, you focus on "the face of the Democratic Party" which is a totally specious point ... the issue here is not about who is or is not the "face of the party", it is about offering the voters a choice ... period ...

i'm glad Mr. Lamont's candidacy does not bother you; it seems that Mr. Kilgore, on the other hand, is troubled by all primary challenges ... it is therefore with him, not with you, that i disagree ...

finally, please note in a post above (by both Madflorian and myself) the DLC definition of who is, and who is not, a "real Democrat" ... is it fair to assume you object to the DLC's dismissing any registered Democrat as "not real Democrats"?? ... to deny the divisive nature of the DLC and blame only those who oppose them is clearly not "eyes wide open" observation ...

[The Magistrate]

62. It Is Not A Specious Point, Sir

You closed yourself, in commencing this discussion, with the statement that "maybe when you back candidates that genuinely represent the majority in the party, primary battles will no longer be necessary .." That is a claim that the persons you prefer represent the majority of the Party; my view is that in most instances they do not, and by a wide margin.

Nor is the matter in question really that of "offering the voters a choice." It is, rather, disatisfaction with the choices the voters have generally made in Party contests.

That both sides in this intra-party quarrel denounce the other as not "real" Democrats is an unfortunate fact, and like the Hatfields and McCoys, it is pretty hard at this late date to determine with accuracy who first gave the offense: both have been hard at it for some while. But it does seem to me that anyone who employs the threat to leave the Party and adhere to some candidate other than the Party's in a general election is, at the very least, calling into question their credentials as a Party stalwart, and at minimum ought to cease top refer themselves as being part of the "base" of the Party or any similar formulation. We both knowe that sort of threat is made routinely by many who spend their time denouncing the D.L.C. and "DINOS" and such.

[welshTerrier2]

66. specious because the voters should decide the face of the party

whether my opinion of who will win in a primary is right or wrong is not the issue here - it is that it is NOT WASTEFUL for all to participate ...

and to argue that "It is, rather, disatisfaction with the choices the voters have generally made in Party contests." while true, dismisses the passage of time and the evolution of events ... what is at issue TODAY is not who won the last time but rather who will prevail NOW ...

and, because you stated you were puzzled by my comment about winning in an earlier post, my intent aligns with this quote (stolen from another DU'ers tag line): "if a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." - General Eisenhower, 1956 ... my reading says that the good General believed the highest obligation for a political party was to do the right thing; winning is critically important but we must first debate our ideas among the voters ... to dismiss that competition as "wasteful" seems, at least to me, to put winning as the first priority ... perhaps you're comfortable with that; i am not ...

[The Magistrate]

85. With All Peace To The Good General, Sir

Just about everyone who has ever engaged in a conspiracy to seize power was of the belief that they were advancing a cause that was right and moral: there is a class of statements that sound wonderful and high-minded on first glance and dissolve into meaninglesness at close examination, and that one falls squarely into it. Merely because someone is doing the right and moral thing according to his or her lights does not mean that it is not an evil and enormous wrong by someone else's view. Thus it is best to concentrate on what can be objectively described, and accept political parties are organizations aiming at gaining and maintaining control of government for the purpose of enacting policies their membership preferes.

A conflict within a Party is generally wasteful in light of that definition, as it must subtract energies and resources from the struggle with rival organizations aiming toward the same purpose. The only question is whether the degree of waste involved is meaningful, and this calculation is conditioned by two factors. First, the total sum of resources available, which if large can stand some waste and if small cannot. Second, the degree of discipline within the organization. If this is great enough that members who lose in such a struggle will nonetheless accept and vigorously support without complaint the ascendant line in external conflicts, the organization will take little harm from such an episode, but if it is not, and if members who are out-voted and out-manouvered in the internal struggle will continue to press their disagreement, then the organization will always be compromised in its struggles with external rivals by such an episode.

Your second paragraph, Sir, draws what to my mind is a distinction without a difference. As you acknowledge, most of the myriad complaints that various Party officeholders and officials are not "real" Democrats, or do not represent "true" Democrats, or betray the "base" of the Party, owe to the views of the persons who make them not having prevailed in previous Party contests. There is no particular reason to believe the current round of contests will have a much different result than have the earlier. The cry of the insugent faction that its favorites are the "true" Democrats is wholly rooted in disatisfaction with the earlier results, and the people who raise that cry show no signs that, if they do not prevail in the current round, they will accept that result as repudiating that cry, and will accordingly cease to make it, and will fall in behind the line that emerges ascendant from the intra-party conflict they are promoting.

[madfloridian]

In Florida the DCCC picked two millionaires...

Both admit they don't have a clue what they are doing. They both sound like it, too. They are already getting training as handpicked DCCC candidates...training by the Third Way and Jane Harman's PAC SecureUS.

They are already spouting the words "tough and smart."

That is not Democracy. In both races lifelong Democrats were running. These two were former Republicans, one just changed last fall.

[MrBenchley]

43. Jeeze, in CT, the unknown millionaire is the darling of the far left

Guess only moderate millionaires are bad....

[madfloridian]

46. It is his choice, not the party's choice.

In our state these are only two races they are picking.

[MrBenchley]

47. So in other words, moderates bad, left wing losers good....

Gotcha.....

[The Magistrate]

56. On The Other Hand, Ma'am

When Mr. Lamont loses, as he almost certainly will, will the choice of rank and file Denocratic voters in the primary be accepted by his supporters as the expression of democracy? Or will it be denounced as some outrage to be explained by chicanery or skullduggery or any other thing but recognition Sen. Lieberman enjoys great popularity with Democratic voters in his state?

[madfloridian]

57. Sir, Lamont chose to run....ones in Florida who did are being suppressed.

I am sorry you guys are so upset with Lamont. I really am. I think it is an important step in saying we want a voice in our government.

[The Magistrate]

58. Suppressed, Ma'am?

They are being opposed by the Party organization, but that is something rather short of being suppressed: the Party organization is simply working againmst them, which it has every right to do.

[madfloridian]

61. I used the word "suppressed". I know whereof I speak.

I am not idle here, my husband and I are active in our party locally and in DFA locally and nationally. I am well aware of what goes on, and active participation is not a preference unless you are "asked" to actively participate.

I wish you would not talk down to me as though I don't know what is going on. I do.

[The Magistrate]

63. To Me, Ma'am

"Suppression" connotes activities well in excess of anything going on in the Florida contests you refer to. It strikes my ear as hyperbolic.

[madfloridian]

65. Hyperbolic...not at all.

"enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness."

No, what I said is not hyperbole. What the various factions of the party, the chair of the state, the DCCC, and Bill Nelson, who is really in charge of it all, have done....is inexcusable.

But since they are at least building the party, since they are getting organized...I won't post some of it. In the nature of working together.

[MrBenchley]

42. Well said!

[Jim Sagle]

86. Ever see him on TV "representin" us?

He's a drooling, shambling mouthbreather.

[madfloridian]

35. Question for the DLCers...what did we win in 02 and 04?

Did we win the House?

Did we win the Senate?

Did we win the WhiteHouse?

I think you see my point. We tried it your way for a decade, it is time to change.

[Cascadian]

53. In the timely words of a great former President....

"If they have a choice to vote for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican everytime." - Harry S. Truman.




DLCers ought to take some inspiration from that quote!


John

[wyldwolf]

72. what has the far left EVER won?

I think you see my point.

[madfloridian]

73. Why do you call everyone "far left"? Talking points?

I am not especially far left, and I finding that the term is being used here in a derogatory manner in these threads.

Most of the people are just Democrats who hate the war that group got us into. We hate the way the jobs are going overseas...etc.

But you hurt your own cause by such words. Ned Lamont is not far left, not really. I am not sure who you are referring to.

[wyldwolf]

74. I don't

The candidates themselves aren't usually far left, but their rabid supporters are. They've sunk many campaigns.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. falsely labeling candidates and their supporters "far left" sinks

many campaigns and harms the entire party including DLC Democrats themselves.

It only gives strength to GOP talking points.

When Gov. Dean first got attention in the national media there was no mention of him or his supporters being "left-wing". Suddenly that line was coming out everywhere and frequently, in fact usually quoting prominent Democrats.

This has gone on for a long, long time - long before the DLC existed, to be fair. I can remember how almost 34 years ago to the day--the man Time Magazine called the Prairie Populist and "the voice of compassion from the Heartland" morphed into "the candidate of amnesty, acid and abortion". Who said so? Again it was prominent Democrats who picked up this GOP talking point and ran with it no matter how much it harmed the party as a whole.

The GOP is always going to say these things. It harms the entire party as a whole when "prominent" Democrats repeat GOP talking points.

[MrBenchley]

93. Consider that they're dancing around like loonies

celebrating their the "victory" of losing by two to one in Connecticut.....if that isn't arrogance I don't know what is....

[cmkramer]

101. Maybe it's just me

But it would seem that a better use of time would be to concentrate on races where incumbent Republicans are vulnerable instead of targeting a safe Democratic seat for no good reason.

[eridani]

102. Social Security

Unemployment compensation
End of Jim Crow
Environmental protection
Dramatic expansion of opportunities for higher education


Ideas ripped off from socialist and other minority parties, but who cares, as long as stuff gets done.

[karynnj]

41. I guess Kilgore doesn't like the democratic process

I am disturbed that they are doing this. I think primary battles can also show which of 2 new people could most credibly run in the general election.

[welshTerrier2]

45. the arrogant point Kilgore is making is ...

that he and his "DLC crowd" know best who "could most credibly run in the general election." ...

what if all those "stupid" voters are duped into making the wrong choice ... and all that money ... yeah, democracy is good as long as we get to pick the winners and it doesn't inconvenience us ...

[Cascadian]

50. The DLC divides the Democratic Party

It isn't the progressives are the so-called "lefties". It is these pro-corporate, pro-union busting, pro-war Vichy Democrats aligned with the DLC who are ruining the party. I truly wished that I did not have to bash those Congress Democrats who have let all of us down. I really wished it wasn't necessary but they really anger me more than the Neocons. At least with them you know what you are getting, but when you have lawmakers in the party you support that vote along with the Neocons to get along then it becomes a problem. You have no more opposition party!


The DLC and those like minded people have been the ones who have been trying hard to undermind the party and they must go~! The Democratic Party may have a fighting chance after they are pushed aside.



John

[democrank]

55. WT2....Guess I`ll slide in along side you on this one.

One of my fondest memories of the DLC didn`t come from Ed Kilgore, but from Memo Man Al From. Remember that one? He claimed the anti-war activists all wore Birkenstocks and drove Volvos. I almost collapsed in laughter over that one, although I must admit to buying a pair of used Birkenstocks at a yard sale once. The Volvo bit is a stretch, though. I owned a 15 year old wreck at the time of the memo. It`s dead now but I`m still anti-war.

The DLC leadership pumps out the same crap as Paul Begala. Anti-base, anti-activism. I guess they`re afraid we might embarrass them when we mention homeless children or unsafe coal mines. That kind of talk kind of puts the damper on those Renaissance Weekends. I`m also certain they don`t like our Bring Them Home Now posters. Many of those posters come right out and say that Bush lied. I guess civilized people don`t write those things. They say...colored the truth...or something gentler.

If the Democratic Party`s base,"those MoveOn types" can`t rise up and speak their mind, something is wrong. Let the DLC hire the consultants and rent the limos and order the room service. I`ll stick with the Vietnam Veterans for Peace and the pissed off steel workers.

[Greyhound]

60. I am with you on this one.

It is, and has been the re:puke:-lite DLC type Democrats that have brought our party to the sorry state we see today. For my part, I'm not sure things are bad enough yet for the Citizens to rise up and install the truly liberal government that is required to make the radical changes that are necessary to turn our country back on the path of Government of The People, By The People, and For The People.

To that end, in the long run, another 6 years of re:puke: rule is preferable to another "breathing space" of the kinder, gentler, march toward corporatism that a DLC (type) of government will surely pursue.

IOW Things have to get worse before they get better.

[madfloridian]

64. "Good Night, Vietnam", a slap in the face to anti-war folks everywhere.

How dare they do this to any fellow Democrat? This was the ultimate insult.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

This article will be remembered forever by peace activists everywhere. I am one of those. I am a moderate in many ways because of my religious background, but I am strongly anti-invasion or war or whatever you call it.

This insult to Kucinich is tasteless, and it is totally without class or redeeming qualities.

"But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam.

Like rock musicians, antiwar protesters tend to keep going back to the 1960s and early 1970s for role models and inspiration. But few are as fearlessly faithful to the Vietnam War era of protests as presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who made a speech on the first day of the war in Iraq that consciously echoed George McGovern's "Come Home America" acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic Convention.

"Come home, America," said Kucinich to the National Newspaper Association on March 20. "Come home and fix your broken streets and mend your broken dreams.... Come home and establish a living wage.... Come home and provide single payer, guaranteed health care for the forty-one million Americans who suffer illness without relief.... Come home and provide guaranteed social security for generations to come without privatization and without extending the retirement age, which would be devastating for minorities.... Come home and make non-violence an organizing principle within our society through the creation of a Department of Peace, America!"

The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion."

There were other insults in there as well, but this was totally inexcusable in any way.

[AtomicKitten]

67. self-delete

[mmonk]

81. Ahhhh

forget those Dumb Lieberman Conservatives. This is America and democrats can have primaries if they want too. I'm getting tired of them telling us what to do and telling how our ideas are outdated or looney left, etc. I'm tired of them defining what is important and their supporting the bush administration on the new war foreign policy and police state.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. As always...

I'll let my signature line speak for itself....

[burythehatchet]

88. Someone said it best ( UL, I think)

The real Democratic party is the new 3rd party

[Greyhound]

90. K&R

:kick:

[Beacho]

91. I wonder what Kilgores' take on this is?

What's good the goose is good for the gander, eh?

It's The Other Way Around In Hawaii

Wonder if this lout will tell this Case character to not challenge Akaka?

[cmkramer]

94. Yes

Note how he said that primary challenges are not helpful. He never said it's okay for liberal Democrats to be challenged in the primaries but not okay for moderate or conservative Democrats to face opposition.

[Zodiak]

96. Note how this post is about the DLC

and the issues and not other DUers.

I just wanted to point that out.

[radio4progressives]

99. Excellent Response to Chicken Hawk Ed 'My Way or the Highway' Kilgore

:applause: :applause: :applause: