Why we should not be surprised that it is hard to make our "left" voices be heard.

[madfloridian]

When Harold Ford took over the helm of the DLC, he said it would be the "policy shop" for the Democratic party. He made it clear they would be deciding the issues. So far he was pretty much right. All is going according to what they want in education issues...they touted charter schools for years.

From Mother Jones 1997

From 1997 forward they have made it clear they want education, Social Security, and Medicare "in the new marketplace."

In other words they want them run by corporations, not government.

DLC President Al From is urging Clinton to undertake a "fundamental restructuring our biggest systems for delivering public benefits -- Medicare, Social Security, and public education, for openers." Similarly, Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the DLC's think tank, argues for moving Medicare and Medicaid "into the new marketplace."

And read more from 1997's Mother Jones about they presented their goals as making Americans dependent on each other. They described themselves as being unitary.

The New Democrats condemn bureaucracy and exhort Americans to be mutually responsible for one another. But why, then, does the DLC want the nation's most popular and administratively efficient public program, Social Security, to be partially diverted into millions of individual accounts managed by Wall Street brokers? By pursuing the breakup of unitary programs for Social Security and Medicare, the DLC is promoting social division, regulatory complexity, and a vast corporate subsidy -- rather than furthering the mutual responsibility, administrative simplification, and "end of corporate welfare" it claims to favor.

The major members of this administration are claimed by the DLC as The New Team. They are in top positions to make the decisions they talked about long ago. A picture from the DLC website:



There's a lot of criticism when anyone compares the escalation in Afghanistan to the drawing out of the Vietnam war from the 50s, to the 50,000 troops sent in 1965, to the final leaving in 1973.

I will never forget one of the DLC's most vicious attacks on Howard Dean and those who basically opposed the Iraq invasion...in 2003. They tried to make it sound like we needed to forget about Vietnam...and basically start the Iraq invasion anew. They were even uglier in that article to Dennis Kucinich. I call it mocking.

From the DLC website in 2003:

Good Night, Vietnam

The onset of the war in Iraq has created a dilemma for those Democrats who opposed last year's resolution authorizing military force, and this year's decision to use force when the United Nations could not come up with an alternative means of disarming Saddam Hussein.

Former Gov. Howard Dean, whose antiwar rhetoric has made him the unlikely darling of liberal activists in Iowa and elsewhere, has been visibly struggling to criticize the war without appearing to undermine the troops. He vowed not to "personally" attack the president on the war, but has instead continued to attack his Democratic rivals who voted to authorize force.

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.

They even attacked "aging baby boomers".

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

Right Web has extensive coverage of the Progressive Policy Institute, the foreign policy arm of the DLC. Notice the snide references to the left.

Progressive Policy Institute

"PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission “arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy.”

..."According to its press release, PPI's security strategy “takes issue with left-wing activists who routinely call for deep cuts in military spending, reflexively oppose the use of force, and embrace an anti-trade, anti-globalization agenda that would damage the U.S. economy and condemn developing nations to perpetual poverty.” From the report itself: “Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.”

..."In a January 2004 article titled “Stay and Win in Iraq,” Marshall took a blithely nationalist view of body counts in a war in which most of the dead are Iraqi civilians. “Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor,” wrote Marshall, a leading voice for the liberal hawks in the United States (Blueprint, January 8, 2004).

Another reason we need to not be surprised that "the left" is still marginalized by our Democratic party...the views of the former DCCC chair who is now Chief of Staff.

Rahm Emanuel does not think there is a "base" in the Democratic party.

If you believe you have no base, no group you need to inspire...then you can easily stand for anything.

From the book by Neftali Bendavid called The Thumpin'.

Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win." This kind of single-minded, values-be-damned vision is anathema to some on the party's left.

Of course it is anathema to those of us who worked and dreamed and donated to get the Democratic majority.

It is anathema that the Catholic Bishops are actually helping to write the health care reform bill. They want to make sure their religious creed involving women is included.

It is infuriating to see the educational policies of Newt Gingrich coming to fruition under this administration.

I don't have a clue if any "lines will be drawn in the sand" on the Democratic values we expected to see pushed forward. We will have to fight a battle within our own party with those who think there is "no base"...thus freeing them to stand for little or nothing.

[madfloridian]

1. Quick unrec....no time to read.

I seldom unrec but when I do I at least read the post first.

[Dr.Phool]

23. I think it's your traveling fan club.

They would unrec you for giving away free ponies and pizza.

[madfloridian]

26. heh heh

I think you are right. :silly:

[Dinger]

58. madfloridian Fan Club Member Reporting & Reccing & Kicking

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. Me too

I hate the DLC with a passion.

[debbierlus]

2. Sad but true.

Principles have been abandoned in the name of compromise for WAY to long.

Amen, sister!

[madfloridian]

20. And look at how they have pandered to Olympia Snowe.

Our Democrats worried more about her than about the progressives in the party. There will be a price to pay for that someday.

And now she says she is not supporting the Medicare buy-in....and I guess that dooms it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/snowe-says-she-opposes-medicare-buy-in-idea.php?ref=fpa

"Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says a Medicare buy-in approach will be a hard sell with her. She told reporters this afternoon that she's not inclined to support the idea, currently being discussed by liberal and conservative Democrats seeking a compromise on the public option.

"We looked at it...we evaluated that, because it's an attractive approach. This has appeal...but we examined that issue this summer and a number of issues cropped up."

She's expressed her doubts to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "I told him I have concerns," she said. "The Medicare buy in is problematic."

A reporter asked if that meant she's not inclined to support the idea. "Correct," she said."

[liberation]

41. ... and that is precisely why pragmatism can be a dangerous qyality in a politician...

We have gone from electing politicians to participate in a popularity context for an open management position. Without ideology, our elected officials are not accountable... because we now can't expect them, or we don't require any longer, a conscience to which to answer.


That is why if you analize most of Clinton's policies (the previous supposedly liberal president) one can make a very good case that most of those policies were to the right of Nixon's, who was a fairly reactionary president by any standard. Once ideology was rendered irrelevant by pragmatism, it is easy to see how most of those presidents were governing more as a CEO than anything resembling a President of a nation. I.e. I am sure that most wars we have engaged since VietNam were probably discussed under an economic cost/benefit ratio before any other sort of consideration (be it political, humanitarian, etc) made it to the discussion in the cabinets which "managed" those wars (funny how the term war was deprecated by the more business-friend "action" or "operation").

Then it follows that the pragmatism of a person that operates under a CEO MO fits to a T into what Mussolini considered fascism to be: the merging of corporate and government interests even if that means subsuming the public and personal interests. As long as we are insisting in consider pragmatism more of a priority than ideology, we will continue seeing the country turning further and further towards the right until it ceases to exist. Under this POV Obama makes all sorts of sense, I may see him as more of a corporate moderate conservative even though he ran under the supposedly liberal party's banner. By his admitted pragmatism Obama was already stating his independece from the banner (and it supposed political leanings), so he doesn't probably see himself as a moderate conservative because he has probably never stopped to think how his supposed pragmatism is making him act like... In fact, I am sure that Obama was sincere in his admiration he expressed for Reagan, and probably we have gone so much off the deepend of pragmatism, that maybe Obama never saw anything wrong with a supposed moderate/liberal candidate to wax poetic, in the middle of a motherf*cking election, about one of the most reactionary and inept presidents we have had.


I dunno if this made any sense. Sorry... loooooooooooooong day coding!

[bertman]

59. Yes, it did make sense to me, liberation. Your point about being a CEO versus a leader who

pursues governmental policies based on ideology is a good one. I had never really thought of it that way, but I believe you are correct.

This goes back to the old complaints about government programs "losing money", the US Postal Service for example. I always try to explain to the complainers that it's not SUPPOSED to make money. IT'S A SERVICE. Making a comparison to the fire department or police department or health department usually works in these types of exchanges.

Obama's running under a "supposedly liberal party's banner" is the perfect description of the campaign. Unfortunately, the only reason the Democratic party is now considered liberal is because the corporate media refuses to recognize that it is a centrist party and has not been a liberal party for decades. Of course, they could never admit any such thing because their corporate masters would have their heads.

The sad truth is that the Democratic leadership, the big money people, would never let an ideologically-driven candidate into the race.

[debbierlus]

3. Wow. It must be DLC night here on DU.

Unrecommending at the speed of light.

Wow.

[Bjorn Against]

4. I got it out of negative territory, now hopefully others will put it on the greatest.

[madrchsod]

6. it`s been dlc since 6 o`clock this morning

there`s been a more than a few threads and posts by the du war hawks.

[CoffeeCat]

31. They must...

...be east coasters.

Makes sense.

They post in herds. You would think the people who are cutting their paychecks
would tell them to be a little less obvious.

[bvar22]

50. The "Message Discipline" Talking Points came out early this morning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

I hope they are getting paid.
Stupid to work that hard for FREE.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[tnlefty]

70. When I first read Jane Hamsher's description of those groups

being put into the 'veal pen' I pay no attention to the e-mails and I don't show up for any of their events. Thanks for the additional link as it is most informative.

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

Excellent links, as usual

[Individualist]

7. K&R

I'm not at all surprised but am thoroughly disgusted. When Obama began surrounding himself with DLCers and Bush holdovers as soon as he was elected, the path this administration would take became quite clear.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Thank you for an important summary and reminder.

You certainly captured and put in one place a lot of things that we need to remember and pay attention to. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party seems to be getting smaller every day. Sometimes voting Democratic seems like thinking you hired a lot of sheep dogs and discovering they're all wolves in mufti.

I see the DLC trolls are out; you had negative recs when I got here. I guess the Rahm-style "pragmatists" are out in force tonight.

[chill_wind]

9. k & R. We were just taking note of another recent DLC hit piece

(in another thread) on the health care debate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7177154&mesg_id=7177264

[madrchsod]

10. rahm has always been a republican

i won`t dignify him by calling him a chuck percy republican. percy had integrity and compassion.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. So why is he given such a central role in the Administration?

As far as I'm concerned, his appointment was one of our first cues that "all is not right" with the Obama style. I remember trying to rationalize it--He won't let Rahm make policy decisions, he wants Rahm to be an Enforcer to accomplish Obama's agenda, etc. etc. I was trying to whistle past the graveyard, ignoring the fact that I can't whistle.

[loudsue]

35. Anyone who read Obama's books before the election, knew where

he stood. He wrote enough in his books to show that he was an economic globalist, with all that entails, and that Joe Lieberman was one of his mentors, and that elections being stolen had to do with "conspiracy theorists". He's VERY "conservative", for a "democrat", in the lingo of today's political atmosphere.

I think Barack Obama, himself, is an exceptional human being....probably the brightest man who has been elected president in many generations....maybe ever. He is honest to his values, he's consistent. As a person, and as a president, I respect him tremendously. Some of his values are liberal. By far MOST of his values are conservative. He is miles and miles to the right of where I wish he was politically. Most of his decisions I find abhorrent, and supportive of the corporatist state. (The war in Afghanistan, the choice of Gates and Rahm Emmanuel, the decision NOT to support Seligman, but to support the bush crime family...there are many others I disagree with vehemently. )

[EFerrari]

37. You cannot be an exceptional human being and continue to

make decisions that hurt so many people. In our government, that's not exceptional, that is the norm.

[moodforaday]

44. loudsue: yours is the most fair

and the most rational assessment of Obama I've seen on DU, thank you. Much fairer than any of my ranting for sure :) It's important to differentiate between the man's character and intelligence on the one hand, and his views and actions on the other.

[liberation]

47. I aggree with intelligence being a neutral quality, and one which Obama excells at no doubt about it

But I think that character and actions are directly correlated.

[glitch]

46. The audio books are especially telling, you can hear disdain for progressive ideas in his voice.

Very disturbing and I suspended judgment in the hope that I was wrong.

edit: I actually think it is worse than merely disagreeing on policy. He does appear (to me at least) to have very little respect for progressive ideology, especially on economics and foreign policy.

[bertman]

60. To answer your question, Jackpine Radical, Rahm got that role because he knows what the

corporatist DLC leadership wants and HOW to make it happen. He's known as the enforcer. He has NO liberal cred. He's not a populist. He's a company man who doesn't mind twisting arms or breaking kneecaps to get shit done. As has been the case for the last two Democratic administrations, there was no intention for them to be liberal beacons, just to put on a liberal face often enough to keep the serfs sending in their money.

I'm guessing that President Obama only got to say "good idea, guys" when the DLC leadership told him that Rahm was going to be his COS.

[snagglepuss]

12. Bookmarked. K & R.

[AdHocSolver]

13. Face reality, folks! Both main political parties have been taken over by the corporatists.

Even with a Democratic president and majorities in congress, progressives are shut out of policy making on health care, education, trade, jobs, and making (or ending) wars.

Just as religious fundamentalists are appealed to (thrown "bones") by Republicans to get their votes, progressives are thrown "bones" to get votes for Democratic Party politicians.

When it comes to implementing progressive policies, though, enough "Democrats" have been bought off to allow the corporations to run things "as usual".

Progressives have to learn from the fundies who gained influence in the Republican Party. The only way progressives can regain influence in the Democratic Party is to build a power base from the bottom up. We have to take over the local and state parties to be able to control enough votes to force the national party to take us seriously.

When the unions were large and influential, they had influence over national politics because they could field large numbers of votes and campaign contributions. Even more than their ability to make demands on corporations on behalf of their members (and, by extension, much of the middle class), union power meant political power.

This is another reason for the extraordinary efforts by the corporations to gut the unions. Today, with weakened unions, the corporations have little competition to buying enough Democratic votes to control national policy.

The only hope of changing (really changing) the direction of national policy, is to make common cause with enough people at the local level to field large blocks of voters and campaign donors to elect true progressives to national office. In other words, replace the former union influence with a "populist" movement.

This means abandoning political "purity" for coalition building. This means, for example, stop haranguing your local NRA members about gun control and, instead, convince them it is in their interest to work with you to bring jobs back to America.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Mements are NOT party based and that is what we need

MOVEMENTS

[Dr.Phool]

25. I already had one.

Damn habaneros.

:rofl:

[niyad]

15. k and r--and bookmarked to read later.

see the un'rec squad is busy tonight.

[Greyhound]

16. K&R

They've fucked us again, put another way, "We told you so".
:kick: & R

[defendandprotect]

17. k i c k

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. Great Op! Thanks!

This is pretty much the problem in a nutshell. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party can no longer let itself be taken for granted and shoved to the side. More and more, the only answer someone gets when they protest the Republicanization/corporate take over of the party is the rote response - "Enjoy President Palin". I'm getting really sick of that.

I agree with the poster who said he whistled past the graveyard when Rahm was appointed. Me too. Not to mention the influence his brother Zeke may have in healthcare, which scares the shit out of me. Google Zeke Emanuel and health care and or Medicare if you want to see what I mean.

Al From, Harold Ford, Rahm and the DLC in general will end the Democratic Party as we know and remember it. Both Hillary and Obama have embraced them apparently, and left us old guard Progressives out in the cold. A big backlash is coming.

[ChiciB1]

45. You Say Progressive... I Say I'm A Liberal... That's Left, But I Really Think

more like Bernie Sanders! I recall when he was called a Socialist and he got elected! I miss Paul Wellstone so much, he died (or was killed) on my birthday, was it 6 or now 7 years ago??

They are ignoring us so we will "go away!"

[madfloridian]

19. Rahm and Will Marshall on Soc. Sec...Marshall uses "ownership" theme.

Remember the words of Bush about "ownership". We fought him hard, but it will come up again.

Rahm in his article, which is partially posted at the link....but which I can NOT find at DLC now...hmmmm...uses the words "universal savings accounts" for the poor. Obama also has used those words. I have never understood how they will help "save" Social Security.

Rahm and PPI's Will Marshall discuss Social Security.

Rahm's words

Democrats and Republicans have approached these goals in different ways, and its time to combine the best of both parties’ ideas. Republicans have long advanced the idea of personal accounts inside of Social Security. And it’s true that an accounts-based system that supplements, not supplants, Social Security is feasible. Democrats have argued that 401(k)s and personal savings are important supplements to Social Security, but that fees should be kept low so that lower-income Americans should enjoy the same opportunity to save as upper-income Americans. We can make that happen.

Here’s how. Building on the principles of personal accounts, universal savings and the desire for simplicity, we should create “Universal Savings Accounts” to supplement Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1 percent of paychecks on a tax-deductible basis. Additional contributions could be made to the accounts at individual worker’s or company’s discretion.

To ensure low management fees, these accounts would be managed by the private sector but overseen by a quasi-public board with fiduciary responsibility for the types of investment options that workers could select.

Will's words. He calls Social Security a system of "wealth transfer" and thinks it should become an ownership society.

Personal accounts would refashion Social Security from a system of wealth transfer into one that also promotes individual wealth creation and broader ownership. Workers would own their accounts and could pass on any assets they didn't use to their heirs. This approach would address a prime source of economic inequality in old age: relatively low savings among poor minority families. According to Rand Corporation economist Jim Smith, the median black or Hispanic older household has no financial wealth at all, making those households utterly dependent on Social Security. Indeed, most economists believe that Social Security's progressive benefit structure dampens low-income workers' incentive to save.

More at the link.

[Tailormyst]

21. Ugh- that's alot to absorb.

It gets harder everyday, not to give up on it all entirely. I feel like I am treading water in circles.

[madfloridian]

22. I know what you mean.

We can't give up though, we just have to examine our tactics. We have trusted too easily for too long.

:hi:

[Dr.Phool]

24. Harold Ford and Rahm are beyond useless. They're dangerous.

Rahm's tactics against progressives are pretty well documented. Especially in Florida. recruiting repukes to run against dems as dems.

In 2004, when several of us were running for Congress, we couldn't get the time of day from Ford. We had no trouble getting support from Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, and Jan Schakowsky.

[Peregrine Took]

36. Excellent point. We need to have a left version of the "teabaggers" to get

our message out - loud and clear.

[CoffeeCat]

27. I always knew that if our next president...

...wasn't a true reformer--that this would usher in a new era--where Democrats
finally realize that their party has been hijacked by corporatists. In effect,
the parties are a distractive facade, designed to fracture America while the
corporatists destroy our democracy and install powerful interests and multinational
conglomerations into the upper echelons of THEIR own government.

Republicans put up with this nonsense. They've defended the destruction of
our Constitution and the erosion of our civil rights and our democracy--with
reckless enthusiasm.

Democrats don't put up with this nonsense. We expect our leaders to fight
against it and to be the party that fights for "We The People".

So now...it's becoming more apparent that the heist of our democracy continues
on--seamlessly. Our government still illegally wiretaps. The telcos
still have immunity. Habeas Corpus has not been reinstated. We are still funneling
trillions to corporations through unnecessary wars. Meaningful healthcare reform
looks highly unlikely.

In my opinion, the lack of change under Democratic rule, is more disturbing than the Bush Administration
ever was--because the cold truth is exposed; that if the Democrats (with the White House and
a majority in both houses of Congress) can't affect change--change is not
possible through our political system because the system is corrupt beyond repair.

Bleak, but true.

[loudsue]

63. Best. Post. Ever. #1 rec.

:applause:

[conscious evolution]

74. Well said.

Wish I could rec a reply.

[fascisthunter]

28. madfloridian, you are one of a few real gems on this site.

well, more than just a few... there is a lot of intelligence on this site.

[loudsue]

64. I whole heartedly agree. Madfloridian rocks the house.

:grouphug:

[Ignis]

29. K&R

You'd think most DUers would get this by now, but thanks for spelling it out.

Here's hoping you turn a few heads. :hi:

[Mithreal]

30. K&R

[democrank]

32. I`m not the least bit surprised that "the left" is ignored.

After all, Neo-Democrats want to "win" more than they want to stand for something. They support torture and oppose unions. They RARELY speak of poverty and think some people, not all people, should be equal. They learned nothing from Vietnam, nothing from the sacrifices of those who fought for civil rights and equal rights.

The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party has some soul-searching to do. I, for one, will never again waste my vote. If "Democrats" with a large majority of American voters behind them, can do no better than to rehire Bush-era thugs and rubber stamp Bush-era policies, we may as well have just one giant political party and call it a day. Then Progressives in the party would be free to join with Greens, Liberals and others who truly care about economic and social justice and begin a movement of real...not fake...change.

[axollot]

33. Creepiest DLC statement

"But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era."

All this "New Era" talk/reference reminds me so much of the RNC. Toto we're not in Kansas any more.....

Cheers
Sandy
a fellow Floridan by way of Australia

[conscious evolution]

75. A new error

Same as the old boss.

[GreenTea]

34. DLC is corporate loving swine - Rahm fancies himself a ladies man, loves big corporate parties,

gala White House functions for wealthy corporation heads, as well as the BIG corporate bucks & deals, along with the back slapping with the corporate rich, the elegance & frills that too goes with it...However, more than ANYTHING Rahm loves and lust the power!

Just look at the way this corporate DLC laced administrations bends over for the Banks, embraces the insurance companies, sucks up to big oil & coal industries, caves into the military filthy rich weapons makers and on and on....

But, we all knew the conservative DLC was just a corporate take over of the democratic party.

Yet we were left with no other real choice, the corporate DLC have taken over the Democratic party and they just toss us crumbs to keep us quite!

All other candidates were smothered one way or another by the DLC and the corporate media, while bullshitting us into thinking that the DLC was actually liberal & progressive, because we wanted more than anything to believed it....In so much as we wanted anything, anything except the other 100% corporate fascist party, the republicans.

Remember Rahm Emanuel screaming at Howard Dean, chair of the DNC because Rahm demanding more DNC money for his DLC candidates, but Dean wanted a fifty state strategy - (and of course Dean was correct).

the Fucking corporate DLC, the power of the DLC really got rolling under Terry McAuliffe, then the DLC chair & corporate money man, friend of DLC prez Bill Clinton.

We have very few FDR democrats and liberals now, what we do have are corporations DLC controlling and catering to the corporations who already have far too much control and even more to come.

[xxqqqzme]

38. During the last administration I visited

both the PNAC & PPI sites. The ideology @ both sites was basically the same 'defend American global interests' (support corporate interests). PNAC was just more upfront w/ their hawkish rhetoric. PPI had all their hawks hiding behind 'liberal' language. Never a big fan of the dlc, when I saw what was being promoted @ PPI, I seriously doubted whether I could call myself a democrat or not under their warring 'leadership'. It is time for the emergence of a democratic party w/ the old democratic party values. If we don't start now we are going to be facing what the rethugs are going through now in just a few years.

Forgot to add - I understand the old PNAC site is gone. Don't know if it has been replaced. Haven't looked for it in the last year.

Last edit to add - "...His only criterion, he said, was who could win." The funny thing is rahm's hand picked candidates were not all that successful. (Well at least they were not in California.) It was Howard Dean's work and dedication that got democrats elected on '06.

[Gravel Democrat]

67. The PNAC Site has been restored or rebuilt... http://newamericancentury.org/

It's a good thing it's been restored because lots of people didn't believe me (putting it kindly)
when I said the Kosovo attack was a PNAC project. Many thought the wayback machine was faked.

Now they look silly don't they

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

[MissDeeds]

39. K&R

Your last sentence nails it. For eight years I said I wanted my country back. Now I want my party back as well. :(

[Kermitt Gribble]

40. K&R! n/t

[JoeyT]

42. That's a lot better thought out than my usual answer.

When people ask me "Why do politicians listen to conservatives but not liberals?" I tend to say "Because we don't have enough money and we're not crazy or mean enough to blow shit up."

[madfloridian]

43. lol

Your point on why they don't listen to us is quite true. "we don't have enough money and we are not crazy or mean enough."

:-)

[liberation]

49. That is so true...

.... but we're the lefties, we're the working stiffs, and there are a hell of a lot more working folk... than these patrician DLC whores. Meaning that we really own the votes, but we need to figure out an organization and approach to counteract this DLC pox.


I knew we were in trouble when the two front runners for the Dem nomination were a former president of the College Republicans chapter at her Alma Mater and a half black dude waxing poetic about Reagan. The complete shunning of Dean as soon as the DLC figured out they didn't need to piggy back on his success no more was another eye opener.

The DLC are the political luminaries who want to throw the liberal base of the Dem party into the toilet, in order to appease the moderate conservative voters who would rather skull f*ck their own mother than vote for a Dem. So they basically manage to lose election after election, but when they finally manage to viper their way into power.... watch out!

F*ck at this point, I am expecting the Dems to lose the houses in '10, and then Obama re-hiring Dick Morris's polling services for 2012... and then it is clear this nightmare is nothing but the encore of the Clinton years Rahm Emmanuel always wanted...


ugh

[Jakes Progress]

48. K&R I wish you were writing current events

rather than history. I feel that our country and our party are already gone.

[madfloridian]

55. I think so, too. Already gone, I think.

[bvar22]

51. Thank You, madfloridian

:patriot:

K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

52. Bookmarked, K & R

Thank you madfloridian for all the time and effort you put into your posts.

They are always excellent, informative and worth bookmarking.

:thumbsup: :hi: :pals:

[d3m0l1sh3r]

53. We can't start working backwards now...

We can't work backwards. We need to start NATIONALIZING things, not PRIVATIZING them. Yes, having private industries for a lot of stuff in America is fine, especially in our capitalistic society, but having a government option is necessary, too. For all those extreme capitalists out there, think of it as another contester to the market.

[Atticus]

54. Another thoughtful "quality" post. Thanks. K&R nt

[wial]

56. DLC

is stupid evil. highly paid stupid evil, but stupid evil.

[varelse]

57. The truth hurts

I must be a masochist - I keep reading AND recommending your threads :(

[certainot]

61. it's impossible to try to improve dem performance while the left

ignores the right's most important weapon- the talk radio monopoly

and the left will keep getting punked by limbaugh and spawn.....

[amborin]

62. agree! and, Kick! (too late to recommend)

[Kitty Herder]

65. If, as Rahm Emanuel says, they have no base, it's because they abandoned their base. nt

[madfloridian]

72. Yes, you are right.

They have abandoned those of us who would make up the base.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. MF

You continue to be DU's greatest asset. Once again, outstanding post, backed by FACTS and well researched. Too late to R but here's a K.

:hug:

[madfloridian]

69. A nice thing to say.

I feel like these corporate Democrats have been pushed into power by the committee chairs of the DCCC and the DSCC....and allowed to run everything.

I blame Rahm more than most because he has been given so much power and fame.

I knew the day Obama chose him that things were not going our way.

[tnlefty]

71. Thanks for the great post yet again!

I worked for Ford even though I REALLY detested some of his votes and most of his positions. I want to break my TV screen when I see him on Morning Joe and Joe is slobbering all over him and talking about how Ford is his favorite democrat.

I made the decision months ago that I won't work for DLC, hard right leaning candidates ever again. After the Stupak and Nelson stunts with women's rights I'm not sure that I would even show up to vote for one either. I'm thinking I'll write someone in.

I don't see that much difference between Rahm and Harold, except that Rahm has a position of power and Harold just goes on teevee to spout his crap. Dangerous both. :hi:

[Hawkowl]

73. I hate these motherfuckers

They are worse than rethuglicans. Rethuglicans are honest enemies. These scum sucking dirt-bags profess to be your friends and then sell you out for MONEY! They are without honor. They cloak their lack of honor, lack of duty, lack of traditional hard core democratic values and lack of moral compass by proudly proclaim their "pragmatism".

They are in it for themselves.