How Rahm Emmanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress

[bemildred]

"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

CounterPunch

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

29. Not at all

Clinton did not favor war and always did everything possible to avoid it. There may be some people from his cabinet who have turned into neo-cons, but he was not.

[Greeby]

2. There is, however, a counterbalance on the candidate roster

http://www.peaceteam.net/donations.php
AFFILIATED MEMBERS:

Herb Paine (AZ-03)
Bill Durston (CA-03)
Steve Haze (CA-21)
Sharon Beery (CA-22)
Jill Martinez (CA-24)
Cynthia Matthews (CA-26)
Florice Hoffman (CA-40)
Louis Contreras (CA-41)
Louis Vandenberg (CA-44)
Steve Young (CA-48)
Jeeni Criscenzo (CA-49)
Samm Simpson (FL-10)
Bob Bowman (FL-15)
Dave Patlak (FL-18)
Frank Gonzalez (FL-21)
Clint Curtis (FL-24)
Michael Calderin (FL-25)
Steve Sinton (GA-06)
Richard Auman (IL-16)
Danny L. Stover (IL-19)
Barry Welsh (IN-06)
Kenneth Stepp (KY-05)
Stacey Tallitsch (LA-01)
Jean Hay Bright (ME-Senate)
Kimon Kotos (MI-02)
Nancy Skinner (MI-09)
Tony Trupiano (MI-11)
Coleen Rowley (MN-02)
Jack Truman (MO-07)
Veronica J. Hambacker (MO-08)
Bill Glass (NC-09)
Richard Carsner (NC-10)
Viola Thomas-Hughes (NJ-02)
Dr. Robert Johnson (NY-23)
Charles W. Sanders (OH-03)
Richard Siferd (OH-04)
Dr. Steven Porter (PA-03)
Michael Ray Ellisor (SC-02)
Charlie Thompson (TX-05)
David Harris (TX-06)
James Wright (TX-08)
Ted Ankrum (TX-10)
Roger J. Waun (TX-13)
Andrew Hurst (VA-11)
John M. Curry (WI-06)

[blm]

19. Greeby - I hope your post gets more eyeballs.

.

[Monkeyman]

35. You missed one John Laesch IL.

www.john06.com look at his press and talk radio

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. And Keith Ellison, running in MN-5, wants withdrawl from Iraq

:-)

[ThomCat]

3. I wish there was a way to purge the Democratic Party

of these republican lites. x(

But if the party controls nominations and who gets much of the cash then we mostly just get to rubber stamp whomever they pick.

[Greeby]

5. Umm, they're called primaries

There have been many races with progressives who demand withdrawal in the running, often they haven't stood a chance as people don't know about them. I've tried my best to make DU aware when I can, but there needs to be more information out there

[ThomCat]

7. We don't get much control over who runs in the primaries.

For the vast majority of us, we simply choose from a preselected pool. That is my entire point. The party picks a couple of people who all are acceptable to the party, and we select from that group.

It is rare for an outsider to come into primary out of left field. But the party is often able to lock those people out of serious consideration. It is so rare than one of those candidates wins that it's always newsworthy.

Progressives can try to storm the gates, but we still end up with disappointing "centrists" in office.

[sallyseven]

10. Stop whining.

Get up off your butts and look for the best candidate to back./ Back them with money and people and elect them in the primaries. That is how it is done get out and demand good people. It can be done. If the potential candidates are poor then back someone you think would be good and sell them to your friends and family it needs to be done now for 2008.

[ThomCat]

11. While I agree with your post.

Your tone is rude. How dare you call me (or anyone here) a whiner, or tell us to get off our butts as if we aren't already working to get progressive Dems elected.

Get off your high horse.
x(

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ThomCat]

13. Being able to file is not the same as

having the support to win. Moveon.org is pretty revolutionary in showing that money can be raised by individuals, but it hasn't changed the course of any major elections yet. The big support still, and the institutional support that swings elections, is still mostly locked up with the two big parties.

Nobody is being "deliberately dishonest," thank you very much.

[loyalsister]

62. early grooming

The candidates for federal office have usually been elected to state, county, city, and other local offices.
That is where we have to make sure that progressives are running and getting elected.
Challenging the less progressive incumbants in primaries in those race is essential.

[cali]

44. I really object to that turn of phrase and

that way of thinking. Purges are NOT a good thing. Do I wish the national dem party looked more like the dem party in my state? Sure, but I recognize that Nebraska aint Vermont. If we want to win elections, we have to accept that.

[bemildred]

46. Yeah, I agree, "purge" is not a good characterization. nt

[loyalsister]

63. unless of course

you have a senator from a relatively liberal state who acts and votes as if they represent the bible belt.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Typical harsh CounterPunch drama IMO.

Believe what you want, but keep in mind Democrats are not dumb. As public opinion continues to move away from this bullshit war, so will the Democrats. While that is certainly timid, lame, and disingenuous, I tend to disagree with the nefarious implications.

Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean are charged with getting Dems elected. That is their motivation, that is their focus; implying anything else is gratuitous IMO.

[shance]

60. Rahm Emanuel is NO Howard Dean.

It is a shame Rahm has seized power in our party.

He's a gatekeeper and in my opinion seems to be a hindrance and an intentional hindrance at that.

[AtomicKitten]

64. you know what they say about opinions

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=530286940465238495

[shance]

66. Not an opinion Kitty - just stating the facts.

;)

[wyldwolf]

78. A "hindrance" to what?

He was elected by the people in his home state of Illinois, and given the DCCC chairmanship by congressional Democrats. So far he has recieved high marks from them.

He hasn't "seized" power in the party, power was given to him by the people and by congressional Democrats. And he's made good use of it.

But you're right about two things. He is an intentional "hindrance" to continued Republican rule and of your dream of a pie-in-the-sky progressive utopia. He is NO Howard Dean, and of that we're fortunate. It would be a shame if two party leaders wanted to piss away the November election to rebuild Alaska's party.

[Doctor_J]

83. CP is a bunch of anarchists

and socialists. Far detached from reality.

[bemildred]

86. That is certainly more accurate than calling them "right wing". nt

[xchrom]

6. mcnirney's opponent is none other than pombo.

It is noteworthy that McNirney, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNirney is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! MicNirney has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNirney's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.


we've tried hard out here to get more support from emanuel in this race.

it just never happened.


dissecting and discussing some of the left over clintonistas is certainly not a waste of time -- they reamain removed from the grassroots.
and this is more than a little troubling.

i hate this cause i know who is going to show up now and add nothing enlightened to the discussion.

[Ken Burch]

69. I'g glad that McNirney was nominated, but JEEBUS FREAKIN' CRUST...

Where do you get off saying that Cegelis was "weakly antiwar"?

If she wasn't solid on that issue, would Cindy Sheehan have supported her?

That was a cheap shot, especially given the nasty way Rahm treated Christine(now don't get me wrong, Duckworth types, I'm glad Tammy is doing well too, but you and I both know Christine would be doing just as well)this year. Don't kick a good person when she's down.

[xchrom]

70. that was a quote from the article.

how strong or weak she is on the war -- not even cindy sheehan can say -- unless she has said something behind closed doors.

isn't that the point?

[leftchick]

8. This is very instructive...

I just researched Shuler the other day, his pick in the Ashville race. OMG... he is a repuke in Dem clothing! Pro War and Anti-choice!! How did this happen? Get Rid Of The C So Called CENTRISTS!!!!!

<snip>

Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) ­ defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

:arghH

[Greeby]

14. Here's the thing

Since the Foley scandal erupted, more and more races have become competitive, including some involving the pro-withdrawal candidates I listed above.

It wouldn't suprise me that Rahm and the establishment Dems want to set it up this way, because prominent members of the Out Of Iraq Caucus are set to become powerful committee heads in the event of a Democratic takeover

[bemildred]

15. Yeah, you don't want to get carried away with it.

Nevertheless, it is important to understand the the political classes often have hidden agendas. If you want to effect real change you have to ignore the bullshit and keep applying flames to their feet. I remember all this bullshit from VietNam, and it was the same bullshit. The real, fundamental issue is whether we are to continue our imperial ways or to become "isolationist", that is become a well behaved nation that minds its own business and puts the welfare of its population ahead of international dick-waving contests.

[leftchick]

81. I was too young to understand the Vietnam politics

Thank you for reminding me we are repeating history here. I just hope we don't end up killing 3 million Iraqis and 60,000 US troops before this is over.

:(

[bemildred]

85. It's all about control, access to power.

At the top of the Democratic (or Republican) party, the issue of who is to control the party is much more important than who controls Congress. It is control of the party that gives access to power. Once you understand that, everything else that looks so baffling begins to make more sense.

The Democratic Party, because it has an electoral primary system (voters have a say in the choices they will be presented with) has much more contentious and vituperative internal battles than the Republicans, because it is harder to control from the top.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I find your characterizations distorted

Starting with your presumption that any Democrat who does not support a fixed timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is "Pro-War". Funny, I'm not used to hearing Al Gore described that way, not to mention Harry Reid and most of the Senate Democrats.

I am not even trying to make a case that fixing a hard timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is wrong, that isn't the point for me here. Maybe fixing a timeline is the only sensible option, maybe it isn't, but I disagree on a simplistic black and white characterization that simply dismisses every Democrat who opposed fixing a timeline now as "Pro War". Call them wrong if you want. Call them tragically wrong if that is how you feel, but this is simplistic, and this is wrong. Don't tell me there is not difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Didn't we go through this already with Ralph Nader in 2000?

[bemildred]

23. I find your characterizations distorted

She said nothing like "there is not difference between Al Gore and George Bush". I don't see how Nader became relevant. It is perfectly reasonable to assert that someone who opposes withdrawal favors continuation of the war. If they favor staying, they favor continuation of the war. If Al Gore has that postition, then that is what Al Gore thinks. I'd still vote for him ahead of Bush, and I'd still oppose him about the war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Opposing him about the war is not the same as calling him "Pro War"

I can think of few Democrats now who are "Pro" this war, there were more before and most of those have by now apologized for their initial "Pro War" position. Still want them out of Congress for piss poor judgment and/or leadership or whatever you may believe? Fine, but that again is not the same as being "Pro war". Currently most Democrats are debating the best way to conduct what might be called "an orderly retreat" from Iraq. Some think hoping for an "orderly" part is sheer nonsense to hang onto and think we should totally withdraw yesterday. Some think a fixed timeline best accomplishes that goal, some think a fixed timeline is too rigid and a policy of starting withdrawals this year and accelerating them next year is the policy most likely to result in less of a long term disaster in that region etc etc. None of those positions are "Pro War" in my opinion, which obviously doesn't mean that all of those positions are equally wise.

George W. Bush is "Pro War". Bush thinks this war is helping America be safe in the world. Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq as long as it takes for us to install a Democratic Pro Western regime. Bush thinks fighting this war is helping the U.S. win his "War on Terror". George W. Bush is "Pro War" and Al Gore, to use one prominent Democratic example, isn't. Gore, and many other Democrats who are being written off on this thread, believe none of that crap. The Nader reference was to an argument used in 2000 that while there were differences between Gore and Bush, in the larger picture those differences were minor. I think the differences between the Democrats here being accused of being "Pro War" and George W. Bush are not minor at all.

[welshTerrier2]

71. the semantics game: defining "pro war"

there is no such thing as a perfect definition when terms like "pro war" are used ...

i think our troops should be out of Iraq TODAY ... someone might think we should leave tomorrow ... does that make me anti-war and them pro war? of course not ... what if they thought we needed to stay for another month? how about 3 months? or 6? what about a year or two years?

there's no magic date that defines whether you are pro-war or anti-war ... some might prefer to live in a world where they can tell themselves that a candidate they support is "anti-war" ... they recognize the ugliness and the darkness of war ... "my guy is anti-war and so am i ... who could be pro war?"

but there must be some distinction made and some criteria to separate the anti-war position from the pro war position ... and there is ...

i am going to define pro war as a position that calls for the continuation of an existing war (e.g. Iraq) until some goal or purpose is achieved ... that's my definition ... feel free to have your own ... those who argue that the war in Iraq should not end immediately or as quickly as troop safety allows are thus defined as pro war ... they believe that war should be continued to achieve a goal ... if they are PRO continuing this war to achieve a goal than they are PRO (Iraq) war ... it does not mean they LIKE war ... it does not mean they fail to understand the horrors of war ... but they do believe in continuing the war ... whether they like it or not, they see the continuation of the war in Iraq as necessary ... and so, they FAVOR MORE WAR until war, and perhaps other processes, can lead to the goals they seek ... if they favor the continuation of the war, they are PRO war ... it seems contradictory to argue in favor of something you are opposed to ...

so i reject your focus on the concept of many Dems seeking an "orderly retreat" ... that is exactly the essence of the problem ... if, by an orderly retreat, the standard was "as quickly as US troop safety allowed", i would be in 100% agreement with this position ... but your objective cannot fairly be cited as favoring an orderly retreat as long as your primary objective is to achieve certain military and political objectives that PRECLUDE an orderly retreat ... therein lies the rub ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Yes, semantics, and yes universal objective standards don't exist

Your standards have a degree of clarity, I admit, that any criteria less clear cut than "Stop it this instant, it is wrong, and must stop now" will always lack. Put simply, it argues that anyone who does not favor ending a war as quickly as it is humanly possible to do so (issue a command to cease all offensive operations, only use force to protect your forces while they seek to exit the field of combat with utmost haste consistent with their safe withdrawal) is pro the continuation of that war until some objective, other than the physical exit of those forces, is achieved.

Fine as far as that takes us, but I would argue that though such a standard has logical precision, it is an abstract clarity that while creating simple distinct categories ends up poorly suiting the interests of anyone who, in a real world context, attempts to sort out the important differences that exist among people with an opinion about what to do regarding the Iraq contrast. It has a sterile precision but at what conceptional cost, when George W. Bush, Jack Murtha, Donald Rumsfeld, Russ Feingold, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Condi Rice, and John Kerry all share the same label? And while you, given your position on Iraq, may not be bothered by creating a common grouping out of people with such diverse views and attitudes about the wisdom and value of indefinitely prolonging the Iraq conflict, your relatively cut and dry position does not reflect the way a clear majority of those who have opinions on this war perceive how different people line up on it, including quite likely, a majority of those who want to see this war brought to a relatively rapid close. Pure abstract logic may be on your side, but I feel it does not serve public debate to define terms in a manner inconsistent with their common usage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Put another and simpler way...

I think it better serves the purpose of meaningful discussion to state that those who do not share the clear cut anti-war position that you adhere to are not, therefor, clearly anti-war.

That captures the real world meaning nuances much more effectively, I believe, than describing Kerry, Feingold, Murtha, etc. as being "Pro War".

[leftchick]

87. "benchmarks" need to be reached

that is what they say, which in reality means "stay the course". And that is pro-war.

[leftchick]

84. from Shuler's web site

it could just as well be from Duncan Hunter's lips....

<snip>

In hindsight, we all recognize mistakes were made in the lead up to the war. It is past time for Congress to begin demanding accountability from the Administration over the course of events in Iraq and return credibility and competence to Congressional oversight. We must ensure that the advice of our military commanders on the ground is not being ignored for political reasons in Washington, D.C.

We must change the course in Iraq because the status quo is unacceptable. We must begin setting clear benchmarks to measure success in the rebuilding of Iraq to ensure we are making progress toward our goals of stabilizing the government, rebuilding the infrastructure, and training security forces. The long-term stability of Iraq and its government is vital to our national security and the security of all other nations. We cannot leave a political vacuum in Iraq and threaten to further destabilize the entire region. We need new leadership to offer clear alternatives to the current approach of staying the course. We must win this war and get our troops home.

:puke:

http://www.heathshuler.com/issues_details.asp?id=48

[Dr.Phool]

24. My district borders Busansky's just to the north.

We're polling a full 8 points ahead of her. We're anti-war. I don't know about her, even though I live in her district.

She get's husndreds of thousands of dollars from Rahm. Fundraisers from Kerry, Hillary, Bob Graham, etc. We can't so much as get a phone call returned fron the DCCC, much less money, even though our internal polling (Rasmussen) showed our race a dead heat, the day BEFORE Foley broke.

Clarification: I live in Florida's 9th, but I'm working the 5th district race.

www.johnrussellforcongress.com

[papau]

9. Interesting point of view-but wrong solution (stab current Dem in the back

The example he focuses on = CA's 11th - where he claims Emanuel has starved the Dem by giving no funds - because he is anti-war - is enough to call for Emanuel's termination as a party leader, if true.

The rest of his case is rather weak, based on no interviews aparently - just web site review.

I am always wary of items in Christopher Hitchens's former friend Cockburn's site and mag, although I find many interesting ideas and just about no untruths - albeit there are a few - as the Scots would say - conclusions that are not proven - IMHO.

[davidinalameda]

16. or maybe this guy running in the 11th wasn't that strong of a candidate

in the beginning

it's called having limited resources

the congressional committees couldn't give out funds to everyone who asked and who could have predicted the current state of dissatisfaction with the Republicans

[papau]

72. true - the funds may already be committed - which is why borrowing is

being discussed at this point in various public writings.

Still, if it is true that Emanuel has starved those viable Dems that were anti-war as a way of pushing his own point of view about the war or about the position Dems must take, he has a major problem in the future, IMHO.

[brentspeak]

17. Can we do the "Let's pit the Democrats against one another" posts

AFTER the election?

[bemildred]

18. I don't know anyone that intends to vote Repub over this issue.

I would vote for Rahm himself over most any Repub.
That doesn't mean I have to shutup.

Cockburn and Counterpunch have their problems too,
but he is right about the pro-war dems, and the harm
they do our country and our democracy.

[AtomicKitten]

22. they are not pro-war -- they are reactionary

I would be surprised if anyone here thinks that the Dems would have gone into Iraq had they been in power. The Dem "yes" votes on the IWR were orchestrated by Karl Rove before an election to box them in; this is typical GOP strategy demonstrated on issues such as DOMA, Homeland Security, etc.

I strongly disagree with the characterization of the Democrats being pro-war. It is inaccurate and unfair.

[bemildred]

25. I think they would have considered it.

I don't know whether they would have actually done it, no way to tell. I don't think they can shift the blame to Rove, that is just saying they are unprincipled and easy for Rove to manipulate into to doing things contrary to the national interest. Not all Democrats are pro-war, but some are. They need to be outed.

[ThomCat]

21. After the election people will tell us to shut up and stay unified

for other reasons. There's always reasons why the "conformity police" demand that we wait until later to voice any criticisms. Later never comes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. How anti-Democrat leftists try to engineer a GOP victory

That's the REAL title of this piece of shit "article."

When is DU finally going to prohibit linking to Counterpuke - after all, it's anti-Democrat propaganda every bit as much as any freeper site.

[bemildred]

27. You favor censorship? nt

[JI7]

28. yeah, of right wing propaganda

unless it's with the intention of discussing it as such. such as when people want to talk about Drudge, newsmax etc. it's not allowed as a news item.

it is Democraticunderground . it's not an open board for anyone. those who hate Democrats and want a right wing victory are free to post their shit in other boards or start a site of their own.

[bemildred]

30. Counterpunch is right-wing propaganda?

:rofl::rofl:

Cockburn is a bit of a loon, but right-wing he is not.

[JI7]

36. yeah, he wants the right wing to win that's why he spews bs against

Dems.

[bemildred]

38. Well, that's an interesting point of view.

Thank you for sharing it. I always thought he was sort of an old-line marxist type. Sort of like the Hitler-Stalin pact or something, you think this is?

[cali]

45. Cockburn is a complete loon

and Counterpunch is as revolting as its rightwing counterparts. To say it's a rag is an understatement.

[bemildred]

47. But not right-wing, right?

FWIW, I find them questionable, but occasionally illuminating.

[The Magistrate]

67. A Thorough-Going Leninist, My Friend

Would have no difficulty pronouncing him an agent in fascist pay, as the objective effect of his actions is to assist the right by dividing and weakening the left.

[bemildred]

73. That is not a logic that I have ever found convincing.

Mr. Cockburn seems more like a Leninist or Trotskyite himself, than anything. I remember reading him in The Nation (not a right-wing source mind you) and I found him most annoying because of his tendency to indulge in that sort of old-line leftist schismatic vitriol as to who is the holder of the sacred Marxist flame. Although that sort of thing can be amusing.

But this piece was not written by Cockburn, and it puts certain things in evidence to support its thesis, and yet few seem to want to discuss that, they prefer to cast aspersions on AC, who seems like a red-herring issue in this context. It would be an ad hominem except he did not even write the damn thing.

[MH1]

79. YES - advocating NOT voting for Kerry in 2004? What the FUCK do you call

that?

They may CLAIM to be lefties but they are like that asshole who tried to get on the ballot for Senate in PA as a Green - with SANTORUM's money.

Counterpuke works as hard for the defeat of the Democratic Party as any right-wing site. They seem to work harder against democrats than against right-wingers.

[bemildred]

33. BTW, thank you for admitting you favor censorship of political speech. nt

[JI7]

37. yeah, i don't care for right wing shit on this site

did you think this was an open board ?

[bemildred]

39. They don't censor civil debate much, in my observation.

They do have certain rules, most of them well founded.

[JI7]

40. not outright censorship

it depends on how it's presented. something like newsmax would not be allowed to be posted as if it was a real news source unless. it might depend on the content and the poster would have to inform that it is a right wing source.

and discussions of right wing things are allowed also. but depends on the context.

things that just attack Democrats especially in order to help the right wing are not allowed.

[bemildred]

42. Actually, you can post Newsmax here.

We're pretty grown up, we can read varied points of view without getting our minds permanently warped. Hate speech and name-calling are frowned on, so you can't just post anything; but saying some Dems are "pro-war" is nothing new, and it's not a right-wing point of view, whatever else you might think of it.

[JI7]

57. newsmax isn't allowed to be used as a real news source

it's not banned . but if you post it you have to inform people it's a right wing source. you can't use it as if it's a regular news item without any comment. especially if they bash Democrats as they usually do.

[bemildred]

58. Rules for LBN are quite rigid, and rightly so.

"Democrat bashing" has a long and illustrious history here, we are not all sheep to be herded around.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Apparently Skinner does!

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Several anti-Democratic sites are banned at DU. CounterPUKE should be one of them. If you don't like it, tough. Go post anti-Democratic party bile somewhere else.

[bemildred]

43. CounterPuke is sometimes banned, sometimes not.

I fully agree with Skinner's restrictions.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Then don't play the "censorship" card

Yes, DU DOES censor. It censors right-wing viewpoints entirely and also some fringe lunatic far leftists (antiwar.com being an example of a leftist website which is banned entirely from DU). Disruptors - and I'm not saying YOU are one - always play the "freedom of speech" card in order to defend posting abjectly anti-Democratic party rhetoric from either the right or the left.

I have yet to see Counterpuke publish ANYTHING supportive of the Democratic party or any of its candidates.

[bemildred]

55. DU censors "right-wing viewpoints entirely"?

You don't know what you are talking about.

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. Oh, please.

Yes, it does. ANY endorsement of common Republican/conservative talking points is strictly forbidden.

What, do you think supporting Hillary Clinton is a right-wing viewpoint? Please. Only from the vantage point of the extreme wacko left is Hillary Clinton a right-winger. I say that as someone who does not care for Hillary Clinton.

NO actual right-winger would agree with any of the viewpoints expressed on DU. Stop pretending that everything to the right of Lenin is "right-wing."

[bemildred]

74. You are most ignorant.

Such talking points are espoused here all the time. And "extreme wacko left" ones too. This is a political discussion board, we talk politics, and not some santitized and approved version, either.

[bemildred]

75. Here, rule #4:

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

I would concede the OP is inflammatory, although it is modest stuff as these things go. But it is thoroughly within the range of progressive opinion, basically criticizing some for lukewarm support for ending the war. Wanting to end the war is very much a progressive point of view, and hardly a wacko fringe idea.

[DancingBear]

49. Maybe we should just all swallow KOS every day, huh?

Honestly, if some folks around here had an inkling of how much they resemble those people they supposedly are the antithesis of...

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. "If some folks around here had an inkling..."

How right you are. But not for the reason you imagine.

Hint: Free Republic also whines endlessly about RINOs who are secretly liberal.

[OzarkDem]

31. I thought only GOP'ers read Counterpunch

You're vastly overestimating the power of Rahm. The grassroots of the Democratic party have paid for a large share of these races. The party answers to us, not Rahm.

[bemildred]

32. I can assure you am a life-long Democrat. nt

[OzarkDem]

51. Well you proved me wrong

Personally, I've never found any of their articles to be complimentary of Dems, only critical. Not that anyone would object to fair criticism, but theirs doesn't seem to have much merit.

[bemildred]

53. Cockburn doesn't like establishment politicians much.

Dem or Repub. He's an oldline Marxist-Socialist revolutionary type, and he likes to throw bombs. He posts certain writers I like at times, so I run into them that way. Just because I have problems with some Dem politicians doesn't mean I'm going to vote Repub, it just means I work for politicians I prefer, when I can.

[OzarkDem]

54. Cockburn doesn't seem to offer much of anything

other than criticism and bomb throwing, he has little to offer. He seems quite a bit off target on this one, making a lot of assumptions.

[bemildred]

56. Cockburn didn't write this. Some guy named John Walsh did.

I can't say I've run into him before that I remember.

[MH1]

77. Thank you, that has been my observation, too

In October 2004 they advocated NOT voting for Kerry.

IMO, DU should treat them as no better than freak republic.

[wyldwolf]

48. Also from Counterpunch: Howard Dean's Gay Bashing of Ralph Nader

Howard Dean gay bashed Ralph Nader on live radio before millions of listeners on NPR and no one chimed in to stop him. How could the Vermont also-ran, shilling for the anti-gay marriage John Kerry, slander the only presidential candidate who is for gay marriage...

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf07102004.html

...and how could we forget:

Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons

Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That's why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let's save that issue for another time.

The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat...

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
The Lies of John Edwards

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html

Yep! Good old Counterpunch - the NewsMax of the nutcase left.

[loyalsister]

65. Interesting analysis

Given the state of flux that the Dems have been in, I think that I have an idea of what is happening.
I have heard (from the horses mouth) that they are taking Republican positions to avoid attacks so that they can get elected, at which time they will begin to take their votes more seriously.
The important question that arises when it comes to congress is when does that end?
One goal during the past few years after their loses is to try to learn from Republicans.
Do they want to have open possibilities? Will they take the temperature on responses to war and try to use it to their political advantage in 2008 if necessary?
This isn't an indictment, only questioning motives in the context of recent history and the article.
I realize this is cynical, but I have heard and observed enough to develop a healthy cynicism in the interest of caution.

[Ninja Jordan]

68. Rahm = great

I wish he'd stay on on DCCC chair. He will be Speaker someday.

[Doctor_J]

82. As long as Pelosi and Conyers and Waxman can issue subpoenae,

I'll live with whatever else happens.

[The Magistrate]

88. Locking

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.