The calm before the storm

Ahh, the DLC's handywork:

Ed Kilgore, policy maven at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (which recently accused war critics of "anti-American bias"), urged caution: "At this sensitive moment in Iraq, there's no position unifying Democrats about what to do next. We need to give it a little bit more time. Troop withdrawal doesn't represent the full range of our party. It doesn't make any political sense."

Let's ignore for the moment the ridiculous notion that a troop withdrawal doesn't make any politican sense. Let's really ignore the fact that there's a higher moral issue at stake in Iraq than politics, like people's lives.

Instead, let's focus on that "anti-American" DLC quote. That didn't come from Kilgore. Rather, it was his boss Will Marshall's handiwork.

By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility [...]

Patriotism is the ultimate values issue. Democrats need not be embarrassed by it. And they ought not to let Republicans monopolize the emblems of national pride and honor. Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe. And they need to have faith in their fellow citizens: Americans will accept constructive criticism of their country if they know the critic's heart is in the right place.

My draft version of this post included a whole refutation of Marshall's aargument, but really, it's all irrelevant. Ultimately, this is the modern DLC -- an aider and abettor of Right-wing smear attacks against Democrats. They make the same arguments, use the same language, and revel in their attacks on those elements of the Democratic Party that seem to cause them no small embarrassment.

Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.

No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

•  Republic vs. Empire

  From what I've been reading it boils down to the question of whether we want to be a Republic or an Empire.

  For a long time (decades) most politicians in both parties assume we want to be an Empire.

  And now to ponder. . . lives. .  .engandered by Bremer's economic stranglehold? I bet the MSM won't touch that.

  by LNK on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:24:35 AM PDT

  •  Forgive the dumb, but what happens

    in 2 weeks, please?

    by CalDoc on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:27:23 AM PDT

    •  Kos allegedly has a "master plan"...

      To destroy the DLC he's going to unveil.

      Should be real fun stuff.

      by Fro on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:40:01 AM PDT

      •  Karl Rove is laughing

        while democrats scheme to make other democrats "radioactive". What a great waste.

        by coldeye on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

        •  Who cares?

          If we the people take back the democratic party (and the country), Rove can laugh himself all the way to prison. I am sick and tired of the democratics who act like republicans. If they don't have the guts or a connection to the people, they should get out of the way and let someone else speak. Go KOS!

          by pacificcoaster on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

          •  last time...

            last time a democratic presidential candidate acted like a republican he got re-elected (Bill Clinton)  maybe you people should analyse what wins elections and what leave you powerless.

            by tster123 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:53:51 AM PDT

            •  Bill Clinton

              Political circumstances change.

              Bill Clinton retained the presidency with enormous personal popularity in a time of economic success. Even the DLC couldn't make him lose. He beat HW with personal popularity in the middle of a recession.

              The DLC has yet to prove their new republican centrism wins elections. To be fair, the netroots are 0-fer too, we just haven't been whiffing as long, and we don't tack to the right trying to skim off the redneck fundi vote.

              What wins elections is organization and message, and that's what we're finally doing.

              by forethought on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:22:02 AM PDT

              •  Just a point of clarification

                The recession of 1990-91 ended in March 1991, by election day the economy had been in recovery for some 18 months....

                carry on

                by daisycolorado on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:44:10 AM PDT

              •  Clinton... enormous popularity? Get real.

                Bill Clinton retained the presidency with enormous personal popularity in a time of economic success. Even the DLC couldn't make him lose. He beat HW with personal popularity in the middle of a recession.

                Um... that's why he never won a simple majority in two tries.    "Enormously popular"?  With the press maybe.  With the general public his support was always rather mixed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a vast right-wing consipracy.

                by clt510 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:30:36 PM PDT

              •  Hold on.......

                Huh??

                Well..... Salazar, Johnson, Herseth are a few names come to mind in my neck of the woods here in good ol' South Dakota.

                by ira13ping on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:14:51 AM PDT

            •  yea, we should act like repugs...

              Why not call for an end to abortion.  Or a ref on gay marriage.  or let kill more Iraqis, lets nuke em in fact.  Lots of my republican friends would vote for us.
              How about going back to our roots:  Begining with respect for human rights.

              by Farlfoto on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:46:25 AM PDT

              •  Here's where your wrong.......

                The DLC has (from the beginning) always supported abortion.  Even From personally acknowledges this.  What are you blathering about?

                by ira13ping on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:16:41 AM PDT

            •  Clinton didn't act Republican

              That is a very lame straw-man.

              Clinton was not on the leftier side of the Democratic party, but he acted like a Democrat, not a Republican.  And more to the point, I don't recall him repeatedly using Republican talking points against his own party, or trying to label the bulk of the party "anti-American".

              by cos on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 11:34:22 AM PDT

        •  yeah...

          ... I agree... life would be better for all of us if the DLC leadership qould just STFU and stop attacking the majority of the Democratic party. Their constant attempts over the last 2 decades to make liberals radioactive on behalf of their right wing overlords has been a disaster and it is time to put an end to them so that the Democratic Party can move forward.

          by Andrew C White on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:18:23 AM PDT

          •  Well whoever started it

            I just hope there's a clear winner before 2006. Because if this internal war weakens the party too much and we blow 2006, it will be the biggest missed political opportunity in a generation, maybe a lifetime.

            by coldeye on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:40:09 AM PDT

            •  Me too

              The DLC must be made irrelavent... and soon.

              by Andrew C White on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

          •  Right

            Even if the DLC STFU, Kos would still be bashing and you know it.  He's just a washed up advocate of the McGovern New Politics faction of the Democrats.

            by ira13ping on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:19:05 AM PDT

        •  Rove Ain't Laughing...

          Because DLC Dems are his best friends.

          The DLC, Republican-lite strategy has failed time and time again. It will never win.

          What Rove and the GOP fear are Hackett/Dean type Dems who speak the truth and hold no punches.

          For god's sake, yes, we need to bury the DLC.

          by DeanFan84 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

          •  Huh?

            "The DLC, Republican-lite strategy has failed time and time again. It will never win."

            Never win??? You must be tripping here.  DLC endorsed candidates have won on plenty of accounts.  Remember the Western States? The South?  If the DLC didn't identify with anyone at all then they would be long gone already.  But there not.

            by ira13ping on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:22:19 AM PDT

        •  Please remember, the only people the DLC are

          popular with are corporations and republicans. The DLC DID NOT WANT Dean as chairman. They did everything they could to block him or get someone else selected, even a more centrist 'reformer'.

          Dean got the job because the party (US!) wanted him. No one else stood a chance.

          When the DLC attacks 'Liberals' or Dean, they are attacking the majority of their own party! How is allowing that to continue helpful? How is allowing them to support the right-wing medias portrayal of liberals as somehow bad or anti-American good for Demorcats chances?

          Look at Paul Beckett's near success in Ohio. I would not consider him a liberal personally. But he also wasn't trying to be republican light. He called Bush an SOB and the Iraq war a mistak, got endorsed by Dean and Clark, and only lost one of the most republican districts in the country by under 4%!

          The DLC does NOT represent the party. They are our fringe element and it's past time we expose them as such. This won't split the party - it will unify the majority. And if we can include voices like Dean and Wes Clark (neither of whom are far left of center IMHO) we can demonstrate that we can be a party with a wide range of opinions, capable of comfortably accomidating the vast middle, without being GOP-light or leaving our parties most noble traditions.

          by Gilant on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:54:26 AM PDT

        •  DLC aren't Democrats.

          They are apologists.

          by ABBinMI on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 07:46:14 PM PDT

      •  Thanks!

        by CalDoc on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

      •  Just a guess, but I s'pect we're staying tuned ...

        ... for a message that says "send money".

        How much? Send it where? Stay tuned.

        by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:23:54 PM PDT

    •  TERMS OF SURRENDER

      I HAVE THE SCOOP...

      "
      "Daily Kos, the military headquarters of the fighting Democrats, rapidly issued an e-blog release, "First we should draft the DLC - Draft Loving Cowards - and their 4 star general, Peter Beinart. Then, and only then, we can negotiate the terms of their surrender."

      by ilg37 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:57:45 AM PDT

  •  I can't wait...

    ...to see Kos' cunning plan to drive all the centrist Democrats into the other party.  That'll show 'em!  

    by Politus on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:22:07 AM PDT

    •  Centrist Democrats

      my ass!  The Dems have moved so far right trying to be in the so called middle, they lost the freakin middle about 10 years ago and the left about 20 years ago.   Yet, you still feel a need to caution, chastise, and lay claim to this "right of middle" middle you claim as middle.  BS!  You would be a republican IF there was a Republican Party instead of the right wing religious ideologs who now own it.  

      by dkmich on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:57:30 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, who needs them

        Look how well we did with them, just imagine how well we will do without them.

        by daisycolorado on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:46:52 AM PDT

    •  on the nose

      And that is exactly what will happen.  so by all mean Markos.  Please unleash certain hell on over half your party.  whenever you disagree with people on your team it's really best to try and alienate them.

      by tster123 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

      •  cough

        
        Please unleash certain hell on over half your party.  whenever you disagree with people on your team it's really best to try and alienate them.
        

        
        You're kidding, right?  The DLC (a group I assume you're a support of from your statement) has been launching rhetorical assault after rhetorical assault against the progressive base for over a decade.  Now, after six years of being accused of treason, when progressives finally start to think about hitting back, you complain that we're being mean to you?
        
        You guys really probably should join the GOP - you've got their "I'm a put-upon victim even though I've been running the show" routine down pat.
        

        by tomaxxamot on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:40:50 AM PDT

        •  Wish I could give you a 10

          or a 20.  4 simply doesn't completely express my agreement with what you wrote.

          The DLCer's have been content to drive folks like myself to the Greens, to Independent, to staying home.  

          Face it - those folks will probably still vote for Democrats regardless; liberal/progressives won't support policies that continue to allow the corporations to build and empire in our country.

          by SarahLee on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:25:56 PM PDT

          •  Kos to the rescue

            I can't wait. True Democrats need a rallying call. Kos will no doubt unveil his "Contract for Democrats" which will once and for all craft the platform we can get behind and push to the Presidency. Not just some blah-blah-blah human rights diatribe but real statements that bring clarity to the issue and demonstrate where Democrats differ from Republicans. How we support security and free trade, human rights and autonomy for other forms of government. Go Kos!

            by brahma on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 03:30:09 PM PDT

        •  take a closer look at my post...

          I'm register GOP... I'm way harder right than GWB.  infact, I'm actually a libertarian, but I can't let the fringe-left-wing democratic party win, so I vote GOP.

          by tster123 on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 08:10:06 AM PDT

          •  Interesting

            OK, so if I'm understanding correctly, you're able to tolerate the DLC but you find progressives threatening.  So when the DLC is dominant in your eyes (which would mean a Lieberman candidacy?  A Clinton one?  A Bayh?) you're willing to vote Libertarian but if the progressives are dominant, you vote Republican to ensure that our values, which are dangerous and seditious from your perspective,  don't influence America?

            I'm also totally confused by how anyone who considers themselves libertarian can support the Bush Administration since they're worse on individual liberties than any other administration ever.  Unless guns and property rights are the only civil liberties that matter to you, there's nothing even remotely libertarian about Bush and co.

            by tomaxxamot on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 11:14:35 AM PDT

            •  check your premises

              property rights are the single most important personal right.  that is, behind right to life.  taht means being secure.  The most effective way to secure freedom of life for the american people is to face adversaries on our terms and in their countries.  It's not that I agree with the Bush administration on everything.  It's that on the extremely important issues the GOP has it right.  However, just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I'm for all of their stances too.  I think drugs are a menace to society and interfere with my right to life.  Drug users are must more liable to commit violent crimes against law abiding citizens than the average person.  I am also against MOST abortions.  while I would fully protect a woman's right to her own body, the right to end the life of an unborn baby is not inherent.  As you can well see, my views are not party line or rhetoric.  I vote republican because they line up with the most important priorities of mine.

              by tster123 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:36:38 AM PDT

      •  Half the party? Really?

        See this exactly the problem, sir. The DLC is NOT "half our party", yet when this small group of people makes noise, they are treated by the media as IF they represented half the party.

        That simply pisses me off, and I suspect it pisses most people off who have some sense of DEMOCRACY.

        They completely skew the values of this party. And on top of that, they question our patriotism like a bunch of fucking republican assholes!

        Unreal. For this and many more offenses, their time has passed.
        

        by HolyShitBatman on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 03:19:41 PM PDT

    •  Where you will welcome them with open arms?

      Let's see:

      1. They oppose us on the war.
         
      2. They oppose us on major economic issues.
         
      3. They fight for corporations, not people.

      Somehow, I don't think we'll miss them. If they can help the republicans tack to the left on social issues, so much the better.

      You can have them, Politus.

      by forethought on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:27:34 AM PDT

    •  Define centrist.

      One doesn't have to parrot the Republican talking points to be 'centrist.' Don't surrender the middle so fast.  By all accounts, our view already is centrist:
      

      • about 65% of Americans believe that Iraq was a mistake.  65% is hardly fringe.

      • most Americans want responsible fiscal gov't.
        
      • most Americans believe everyone should have healthcare.
        
      • most Americans want honest representatives.

      by jpeskoff on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:14:43 AM PDT

      •  edit

        When I said 65%, I meant 55%

        by jpeskoff on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:16:28 AM PDT

      •  define please

        when you say " most Americans believe everyone should have healthcare."  should this be read as:
        

        1. "most Americans believe that every single tax-paying american should be FORCED to pay for the healthcare of every person living inside the country"
           
        2. "most Americans believe that every single tax-paying american should be FORCED to pay for the healthcare of every other citizen."
           
        3. "most Americans believe that every person should be able to afford their own health care."

        by tster123 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:42:20 AM PDT

        •  Amen

          That's the problem with polls, and opinions, they are often written to deliberately obfuscate reality to prove a point. Your question would be a valuable addition to any poll on national healthcare.

          by brahma on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:29:59 AM PDT

•  No wonder democrats lose

  Even if the DLC were right, which they are not, only a politically challenged ogre would make such statements publicly.  This drivel proves that the DLC not only lacks values, but has a tin ear to the beltway class and in fact advertises to the world that they will grovel before the electorate and say whatever the polls tell them will get the most votes.

  If I were observing the DLC's behavior from afar, without knowledge of its history, I'd think it's another one of Rove's ringers.  What a brilliant way to smear a party's image!  Create a subgroup within the party and shout inanities from the highest mountain that reinforce all of that party's negative stereotypes, and add a few new ones while at it.

  The only question I have is, are these DLC-types cowards, or are they so terminally stupid that they actually believe this tripe?

  by Subterranean on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:33:39 AM PDT

  •  Neither

    The Republicans serve big business.  The DLC serves big business.  What is good for big business is good for big business.  QED

    by Easy B Oven on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:44:55 AM PDT

    •  That was Nader's main point.

      n/t

      by oratorio on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:30:04 AM PDT

      •  and Nader is radioactive now

        Too bad he favored Bush over Gore; he squandered a real opportunity in 2000. Nader is the real villain of the last few years---the one person who unequivocally could have swung the election away from Bush and chose not to. I hope he rots in hell.

        by BoringDem on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:51:15 AM PDT

        •  nader rot in hell is hillary talk

          
          i worked for kerry hard, sacrificed personally to help his campaign, because he was vaguely better than bush -- disgusted the whole time because kerry chose a losing strategy, and because he repeatedly reendorsed the war.  corporate control of the democratic party lost the presidential election for us in 2004.

          in 2000, gore ran the same idiotic amoral campaign.  he had lots of advantages and wasted them.  and the hillary crowd blamed nader on the loss - instead of their cryptorepublicanism.

          nader at least articulated the right principles.  kerry, hillary, lieberman, dlc articulate pablum or lies.  never ever again will i work for one of those sellouts.  the democratic party, i believe, will never again win a national election unless it frees itself from the control of the corporate types who get richer whichever side wins.

          i don't care if those destroyers of the public welfare rot in hell or not; but for life to be more tolerable in our country, the control of the democratic party has to be wrested from them, or the democratic party has to be dropped.  if all the people who believe more in what nader says than in what hillary says left the democratic party, you'd be left with . ..lieberman, hillary, kerry and a few of their pals and $$$$$$ friends.

          by tamandua on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 06:00:46 AM PDT

          •  Dems to DLC:

            You're Fired!

            by semiot on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 06:20:34 AM PDT

          •  Nader articulated that he preferred Bush to Gore

            He was unequivocal on that point.
            Nothing else makes up for his de facto support of Bush. Nader was unqualified to be president; furthermore, I didn't support his platform either.  Yes I agree that corporate control of the parties needs to be ended. My point is that Nader, by helping the GOP win in 2000, helped cement the very control he claimed he wanted to end. If you hate corporate control of the parties, then you should bitterly hate Nader, as I do.
            

            by BoringDem on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:01:36 AM PDT

            •  It's insulting to voters ...

              ... to assume that Nader voters were poached from the Democratic Party, as if Gore Kerry owned them. "Those voters are marked for Lord Gore and Earl Kerry -- thou darest not slay them!"

              The conventional wisdom for all of my life has been that the Left is the safe consituency within the election game, that it's a foregone conclusion that the Left will march on cue as they're told, but that you really have to bend over backwards for the "center" in a general election, because all the "swing voters" are located to the right of the party. Thus, the party is always focused on scoring voters rightward, as a football team is focused on scoring in the opposite inzone.

              I think it's valuable to demonstrate -- tangibly, painfully -- that that conventional wisdom is dead wrong, that there are actually many times more swing voters and potential new voters in the direction of Left-populism!

              As an ostensibly free man with free will, I will god-damn-very-well not vote for any candidate (like Kerry) who opposes all of my vital positions on foreign policy and economic populism. Sorry, they have to at least agree with me on at least one issue that's actually important (not one of the irrelevant demagogic focus group issues). Howard Dean was about 80% in line with my views, and I enthusiastically supported him until he dropped out.

              Nominate Russ Feingold and see if Nader opposes him or endorses him. I dare you.

              by mildewmaximilian on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:00:12 AM PDT

              •  Fuck Nader

                He got maybe 30% of the vote in my progressive neighborhood in 2000 with wonderful tactics like his campaign (his actual campaign) turning up when Gore came to town screaming "Gore, Gore, Corporate whore." The Republicans loved that, they showed Nader in their own commercials here in Wisconsin bashing Gore relentlessly. Nader got 90,000 votes in this state in 2000, coming very close to throwing it to Bush (Gore won by about 5000).

                Who gives a fuck what Nader thinks? Damn him to hell for saddling us with Bush. Everybody gets it too, everybody but 18 Nader voters in my ward anyway, with 2284 for Kerry and 204 for Bush.
                

                by MikeB on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:35:28 AM PDT

                •  Nader Did "Saddle Us" with Bush

                  Your vitriol fails to address any of my thoughtful argument. It's not just you: a lot of people have this irrational hatred of Nader because they're desperate to blame somebody, and the Democratic establishment and official liberal media have declared that Nader is the correct whipping boy.

                  Perhaps the candidates themselves -- Clinton, Gore, Kerry -- are to blame for selling out the 90% of their base that they take for granted. Should they be surprised that a small fraction of them exercise their free vote for a candidate who actually speaks to their concerns? Maybe if Gore had not actually been a corporate whore, Nader supporters would not have been able to chant that. Maybe they wouldn't have been Nader supporters at all.

                  And I'm still amazed how few people will admit that, by that reasoning, Buchanan "stole" a slightly smaller percentage from Bush in the 2000 election. If there had been no third-party candidates at all, Bush still would have won via voter fraud.

                  by mildewmaximilian on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 12:29:09 PM PDT

                  •  Listen Dickhead

                    I've been involved in Union politics for 35 years, including 11 years as a Teamsters truck driver, and will put my left wing credentials, lifetime, next to yours any day. If those Nader punks (or you) ever tried that crap at one of our Union meetings, you'd know quickly you made a mistake.

                    We are in the middle of a dangerous and effective right-wing offensive standing to change the nature of this country if just a few more of their blocks fall into place. A few more steps and we start the march to fascism in earnest.

                    Ralph Nader did not and does not understand this, he has greased the skids for these bastards. He got 90,000 votes in Florida in 2000, making it close enough for the Supreme Court to steal that election. He did it on purpose in order to 'enhance the contradictions'. Nader's actual words were:

                    After November, we're going to go after the Congress in a very detailed way, district by district. If [Democratic candidates] are winning 51 to 49 percent, we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to lose people, whether they're good or bad.

                    That was unconscionable and stupid, but stipulate for a moment that he didn't understand the menace Bush represented. What was his excuse in 2004? And most people get this, including most who voted for him in 2000 - Nader got 2.7% of the vote in 2000, but just 0.4% in 2004.

                    He is a fraud and an unworthy prophet. He has damaged the country and, by his irresponsible behavior, brought disrepute to third party politics. Give it up, just about everybody else has.
                    

                    by MikeB on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 03:38:16 PM PDT

                    •  Union Thugism

                      Long live the thugs, and so much for intelligent debate. Not that Union support and big business support are different enough to matter. How about trying to convince Gore or Kerry to act like Democrats? How about a platform that supports mainstream Democratic party principles?

                      The problem is that candidates like Gore and Kerry don't trust the "little people" that make up the base to bring the dollars it takes to win. They have to sell out to the unions, and the union opinion is fundamentally contradictory to the base principles. Unions want higher wages and benefits and employee count. Those make our exports too expensive. Companies relocate overseas where unions have not priced the labor resources out of sight. We lose jobs here because of unions. The only solvent airline has avoided union extremism, and the employees love it. Until all unions begin acting that way, we the taxpayers will have to continue to absorb their pensions.

                      Dean was right in taking the battle for bucks out of the backroom and on to the internet. Support more candidates like Dean who refuse to sell out to the unions and their ilk and there will be no need for the DLC.

                      by brahma on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

                •  Nader Did Not "Saddle Us" with Bush

                  Your vitriol fails to address any of my thoughtful argument. It's not just you: a lot of people have this irrational hatred of Nader because they're desperate to blame somebody, and the Democratic establishment and official liberal media have declared that Nader is the correct whipping boy.

                  Perhaps the candidates themselves -- Clinton, Gore, Kerry -- are to blame for selling out the 90% of their base that they take for granted. Should they be surprised that a small fraction of them exercise their free vote for a candidate who actually speaks to their concerns? Maybe if Gore had not actually been a corporate whore, Nader supporters would not have been able to chant that. Maybe they wouldn't have been Nader supporters at all.

                  And I'm still amazed how few people will admit that, by that reasoning, Buchanan "stole" a slightly smaller percentage from Bush in the 2000 election. If there had been no third-party candidates at all, Bush still would have won via voter fraud.

                  by mildewmaximilian on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

                  •  You fail to address my point at all!

                    Nader DID saddle us with Bush. He campaigned so as to sap votes from Gore in those states where it counted most, and he declared that he preferred a Bush victory to a Gore victory.
                    Admit Nader's fault, and you will be   only 11 steps away from political sanity.

                    by BoringDem on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 12:45:41 PM PDT

                    •  THE VOTES DID NOT BELONG TO GORE!

                      Nader did not "sap" any votes from Gore! That is incorrect thinking that surfaced in anti-Nader talking points from the Democratic Party. No candidate "owns" any group of the electorate -- that's why we take time to vote each time there's an election.

                      Why no hate for Ross Perot? He got 19% in 1992! Nader got 4% at his peak in 2000!

                      Stop blaming the small minority of honest progressives who didn't buy into corporate propaganda. The real sickness on the Left is that the party of working people loses elections because it has sold out to corporate interests: "free" trade, imperial wars for oil, bankruptcy reform, low wages. They have nothing to run on but "choice" and "the children" -- which don't mean anything.

                      by mildewmaximilian on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:55:34 PM PDT

                      •  wow someone who remembers

                        It's amazing how quickly a big-old 35 year vet of union politics who is a big-time teamster man can forget that before nader RECIEVED (not stole) a small proportion of the vote Ross Perot RECIEVED a very sizable chunk of votes.  however I haven't heard any republicans saying. "god damn that ross perot, I hate him and I hope he burns in hell."  in fact, most people that remember him still think fondly of how he stood by his values and actually pushed for his truely conservative platform.

                        by tster123 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 09:02:39 AM PDT

                •  90,000

                  90,000 people who voted for Nader DID NOT switch from voting for Gore.

                  My dad (a conservative man) voted for Nader not because he agreed with him or anything like that.  just that he was so tired of the 2 political parties and in politics in general that he wanted to help make a statement that all of politics had gone to shit.  to say that he stole 90,000 votes from Gore is just wrong.  you don't know how they would have voted.  hard core progressives might not have even showed up at the poles!  

                  by tster123 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:56:07 AM PDT

          •  Nonsense

            Sorry, but you aren't going to sell that nonsense here without a reply from me.
            If you weren't so busy listening to Nader's bullshit you would know that Gore ran a very populist campaign...one the DLC condemned him for BTW.

            And the idea that the "Hillary crowd" stuck up for Gore is lunatic.

            by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:10:58 AM PDT

            •  Gore 2000 not populist

              Gore flirted with populism for about two weeks around the Dem convention then dropped it again.  Deregulation, privatization and "free trade" agreements are not populist.

              by flyoverstatesman on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:39:26 AM PDT

              •  inflexible ideology

                See, these are the kind of republican-like statements that get us in trouble.

                Just read what you just wrote. Everything you said was pure inflexible ideology, like a left-wing Limbaugh.

                We can't fall into these traps. I do, in fact, believe that the dems are going to regain a lot of power in 06, but do we really want to take over and enforce a rigid ideology.

                I mean certainly there's widespread agreement that Iraq is a shitstorm, and that the bankruptcy bill was a travesty, and that social security privitization is a fucking horrible idea, and, well, I could go through the list.

                But when you speak about broad topics like free trade, and deregulation, we can't simply act like there's always one answer: NO.

                We are becoming them, and it's worrying me

                by HolyShitBatman on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 03:28:52 PM PDT

            •  Gore Populist?

              Running a populist campaign is laughably different from actually being a populist. Shit, George W. Bush ran a populist campaign -- it's called demagoguery.

              Don't you remember that Gore was actually the high-profile pro-NAFTA spokesman against Ross Perot in the NAFTA debate? I'm sorry, NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, et al, were and are so vehemently opposed by wild, teeming majorities of millions of voters in this country, I fail to see how Gore's corporate position can be twisted into populism -- unless one were to believe his t.v. ad spin.

              by mildewmaximilian on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:06:35 AM PDT

          •  agreement

            I agree with your stance on Nader.  Nader ACTUALLY goes by what he believes.  something that is rare and priceless in politics.  To hate the man (and want him to burn in hell) for actually standing by his core values is a completly amoral and unflattering.  In all seriousness.  If you believe (and/or if it is actually true) that 1 man can swing the ENTIRE presidential election against your favor.  YOur party has more to worry about than Nader (which is what this entire thread is about).  Democrats are coming around to accept the fact that the Democratic party has lost the elections, not that Nader has cheated them out of it.

            by tster123 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:49:13 AM PDT

      •  No it wasn't

        Nader targeted the whole democratic party including Gore in 2000 who had come out squarely against the corporate aggenda.

        by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:07:44 AM PDT

      •  Except Nadar was wrong

        Dead Wrong.

        He said Democrats not DLC. Had he said DLC he would have been right but he didn't and his argument was completely and totally wrong as a result.

        by Andrew C White on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:20:46 AM PDT

    •  Nail on the head (or head on the nail)

      Good or bad, I think the battle for the "soul of the nation" will come down to corporate power vs. people power. The good is that many republicans think government is too generous with corporations. A lot of them also distrust multi-nationals. They just need to put their abortion arguments aside for awhile.

      The bad is, just about everything is owned by corporations, including the media. They can Dixie Chic issues as well as people.

      All that aside, I think we need economic and political input from corporations. Generally speaking, they've got a lot figured out and they provide jobs. We (and our political leaders) just need to be in a position to pull in the reigns when necessary and provide input about what's best for America.

      The Democrats need to be one giant union. It's hard, though, to be that when some of our leaders are negotiating for the other side.

      I think I'll go watch Matewan again.

      hink (born in Mingo county)

      by MrHinkyDink on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 06:43:12 AM PDT

  •  probably the latter

    Based on what I've observed over the past few years, I'm more apt to go with the "terminally stupid" explanation.

    by pine on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:57:11 AM PDT

  •  Want To Shut Up The DLC And War Mongers?

    Use the Dover Test. Why has the netroots campaign not fought as vigorously in the airing of the bodies coming back to Dover Airforce Base as they have against the war in Iraq or even Bush's hand-outs to the rich? I understand BUSH CO. has put a blackout on all media at the bases so let's go to Iraq and get the pictures.

    When the country starts seeing our boys and girls coming home in bodybags then the 1,900 will not be just a number, it will be 1,900 U.S. citizens who were killed to line the pockets of Bush Co.  I'd like to see any candidate/"leadership committee" with big enough balls to support the war when we can see its effects first hand.  Is it using the dead for political gain?  Yes.  But I'm sure not one of those who died would feel used if they knew that their death were helping to stop more senseless deaths of their fellow soldier.

    If the MSM won't cover it then it is our job to show the world, and especially indifferent Americans, the pictures.  Let's use our fundraising capabilities and reward any photo-journalist willing to take the pictures.  Let's turn them into the paparazzi if we have to, paying them good money for coverage of the REAL war in Iraq, and not the sanitized bullshit they feed us every night on the news.  Then let's see how Hillary can justify supporting the war.

    by Left Wing Conspiritor on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:21:20 AM PDT

    •  I agree .....but

      I don't think they make a telephoto camera lense long enough for that task!  You can bet that uncle sam ain't gonna let ANYBODY get near enough to Dover to get pictures like that.

      by TheRover on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:48:24 AM PDT

      •  I Agree, So Let's Take It To Iraq

        Since our government is intent on keeping these all too real scenes out of our line of sight, let's go to Iraq and get them.  Why not team up with Al-Jazeera and the likes?  Allies of Convenience maybe, but I'm ok with that if it means we bring our men and woman home sooner and lessen our casualties (Allies of convenience seems to work well for Fiscal Conservatives and Right-Wing Wackos).  Or we could simply start offering a reward.

        I would think it much more effective to spend money on photo-journalists getting us the those photos rather than supporting a candidate and leadership who is all rhetoric about the war.  When we start diverting our financial support from them to freelance photo-journalist watch how quickly we get a timetable for pulling out.

        by Left Wing Conspiritor on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:50:56 AM PDT

    •  Tom Hayden

      has an excellent argument for using the war dead positively here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/005633

      by clb8 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 09:48:46 AM PDT

•  Nationalism vs. Patriotism

  There was a good diary a couple weeks ago, Nationalism is not Patriotism, which highlighted the differences between the two.  Clearly, it's nationalism Will Marshall is talking about.

  So, how do we irradiate the DLC?

  by xeju on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:34:42 AM PDT

  •  cutting off the green supply lines...

    by lukyluke on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:41:56 AM PDT

    •  That's exactly what I am thinking.

      I'm no more clued in to Kos's diabolical plan than you are.  But to paraphrase Eddie Murphy in Trading Places: "It seems to me, the best way to get even with rich DLC's is to make them poor DLC's!"

      The problem with this is that it will be covered in the media as a big shit-fight within the Democratic Party, oh, no, those nasty Michael Moore type extremists are making trouble for the grownup Democrats, but it can't succeed, here's Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to say so.

      But what if there's just no way of getting around a public airing of some dirty laundry?  It's 2005, not 2006.  There is no more propitious time in the election cycle to do this.  And if it must be done, it must.  Because this can't go on.

      I posted in another thread: If this election comes down to Hagel vs. Hillary, I'll vote Hagel.  Fuck this gutless demagoguery.

      by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:03:21 AM PDT

      •  Even more thinking...

        along the same lines...

        We need to target Democrat incumbents and make them feel uncomfortable.  We can't do this to all the soft-Dems, because, if we did that, we would give the Republicans an even bigger majority, which would be bad news.

        But we don't have to punish all the soft dems.  All we have to do is punish the softest one.  Or two.  Let the fear trickle down.

        Pick some bastard like Liebermann or Biden or Hillary and do the following:

        1. Scrounge for a Dem to run against the soft dem in the primary.
           
        2. Call for a boycott of the sponsors of the soft dem.
           
        3. Get spokespeople on the talk shows to slam this soft dem for being too Republican or whatever.  God knows Fox would love to televise that.

        Make an example.  Put a head on a spike in the public square.

        Part of having a coherent message is having a coherent party, and we can't have that while shitheads at the DLC triangulate about issues of monumental importance like Iraq.

        by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:22:50 AM PDT

        •  Ambitious but...

          how about something less drastic? Something that involved someone like Meeks in NY who usually wins huge but voted for CAFTA. (In an e-mail, his spokesman called allegations against his vote as racially-motivated.) Or, my rep. Steny Hoyer. Very high-profile, he voted for the bankruptcy bill earlier this year. It'd be tough but if we can push out the old, stale Democrats with new, progressive, then the contrast will be even more dramatic.

          by jorndorff on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:36:10 AM PDT

          •  By

            ...less drastic, I meant, going after 'Super-Dems' Biden, Clinton, etc.

            by jorndorff on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:37:36 AM PDT

            •  I would target Biden or Clinton.

              Hillary would certainly survive, but it could damage her enough to sabotage any potential 2008 run.  

              The public discussion would not be about her invincibility and inevitable 2008 nomination, but about the challenge to her from the anti-war front, and a focus on how her pro-war stance is hurting her with her base.  

              That is good for our cause.  She would still probably win the New York Senate nomination and beat the Republican in the general election, but the chilling effect on the Bidens and other weaklings would be substantial.  And it would weaken their credibility as spokespeople for the whole party when they make the Sunday morning show rounds.

              Lots of upside, little downside.

              Now, compare this to what the DLC did back in January '04 when it appeared that Dean was going to win the Iowa caucus and probably sweep the nomination.  (This appearance was probably false, but they didn't know that).  Evan Bayh got out in front, blasting Dean and saying the same kind of shit about him that Marshall said in that quote of Kos's.

              I was not a Deaniac, but I was outraged and fired off a number of hate mails to Bayh and the DLC.  I was for Clark!  The point is, when Dean appeared to be the likely nominee, rather than exercising caution about trashing that nominee, they went on preemptive attack.  If Dean had won the nomination, the DLC's words would have come back to haunt us in Republican talking points.

              That is the extent of their loyalty to the Democratic cause.  I see nothing as extreme in my suggestion in my previous post.

              by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:15:33 AM PDT

              •  the kinds of things people will say

                about hillary to bring her down can also be transformed into RNC talking points if she gets the nomination.

                so you're kind of saying, the DLC needs to understand how it's bringing down the party if an anti-war candidate like dean gets the nomination.  ok.  fine.

                but that works both ways, do you think the netroots should understand how it's bringing down the party if someone such as hillary actually ends up getting the nomination??

                by BiminiCat on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:28:33 AM PDT

                •  Fine. Pick Biden then.

                  I would rather make Hillary's life uncomfortable, and personally, I would like to make sure she can't run for president and screw it for us, but, okay, let's make Biden's life hell, then.

                  You know, this is not hardball.  Hardball would be to run a third-party battle against Hillary or Biden in the general and split the liberal vote the way Nader did in 2000.  A primary challenge only lasts as long as the primary.

                  Personally, if the party nominates Hlllary or Biden, I'm going to stay home.  Why bother.  

                  by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:34:11 AM PDT

                  •  biden too

                    if the next two years are spent by us blaming biden for this war, and biden, by some horrible turn of events gets nominated, the RNC is going to use it.

                    "see, even biden's own party says he's responsible for the war."

                    i don't know.

                    the dlc is gonna spend their time saying dean or feingold is soft on defense.

                    the netroots is gonna spend their time saying biden is responsible for iraq.

                    either way, the RNC is gonna have something we gave them to use against us.
                    

                    by BiminiCat on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:01:54 AM PDT

                    •  Here's the difference

                      the dlc is gonna spend their time saying dean or feingold is soft on defense.

                      the netroots is gonna spend their time saying biden is responsible for iraq.

                         The DLC, operating within Republican frames, attacks Democrats for not being Republican enough, while doing NOTHING to change perceptions. The DLC buys into the GOP frame every time.

                         The netroots, which understands framing, attacks Democrats for enabling the Republican agenda.

                         Which group has the best interests of the party (and country) in mind?

                         The DLC approach is a proven loser, as we saw in 2002 and 2004. That the DLC is yet to understand this raises serious questions as to their true motives.

                         I believe it is fair to question whether the DLC is interested in Democratic electoral victories, outside their small cabal. They couldn't even find it within themselves to embrace Paul Hackett, a freaking Iraq war veteran.

                      The DLC seems to be quite fine with the way Bush is running the country. Even when most Americans aren't. No wonder Congressional Dems are polling even lower than Bush. As long as the DLC is the "voice" of the party, this will remain the case. They've perfected standing for nothing to an art form.

                         Do you EVER see the Republican leadership publicly bashing the religious right?

                         The DLC needs to be expunged from the party. They're killing us.

                       

                      by Buzzer on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:34:42 AM PDT

                      •  every time???

                        this is from the marshall article above.  there's actually more to it than just the incriminating paragraph:

                        Rather than add to Bush's budget deficits, however, Democrats should insist on paying for a larger force by rolling back the administration's unconscionable wartime tax cuts. This would neatly frame the real choice facing patriotic Americans: a stronger military versus tax cuts for the privileged.

                        is marshall buying into the republican frame on taxes??  that if you raise taxes on the rich, the economy will go into a nosedive??

                        i'm gonna guess you don't have that much of a problem with this frame.

                        by BiminiCat on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 05:54:28 AM PDT

                        •  Where's the echo chamber?

                              That point is all well and good, but I sure don't see DLCers like Hillary and Evan Bayh hammering Bush on this at every turn and opportunity. Certainly not with anything remotely resembling the visibility with which they vociferously defend Bush on Iraq.

                              It smaks of a bone thrown to us, to prove their bonafides.

                              Which don't exist. Not as long as they bash Dean ten times for every tepid disagreement they mumble against Bush.

                          by Buzzer on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 06:15:19 AM PDT

                          •  good question

                            they probably think "why should we throw any red meat to people who are only gonna think we're insincere when we do so??"

                            i guess, i don't give a flying fuck about the DLC either way, wether we call them the DLC or if they're tossed out and the Netroots Democratic Winnership Council (feel free to use that if you want) takes over, there are still going to be DC Dems and Grassroots dems.  There is still going to be a National Strategy and a Local Strategy (something we haven't had in a long time, which is, truth be told, i think the single greatest contribution that the netroots will make to our party... with or without the DLC), there will even still be corporate donations coming into this party, there will still even be the centrists and leftists of the party.  centrists who think bashing a wartime prez is no way to win elections, and leftists who think if you don't, you'll never win.

                            what concerns me is how we deal with the natural disagreements that are going to flow out of these things no matter who's in charge.  it's kind of crazy, .. here we want to toss out the vichy dem DLCers and, if that's what it takes to win elections, how can i complain, ... and so markos says he has a plan to do so, but i've also seen where markos will, once a month, say some pretty unforgiving shit about single issue voters (ha! that's where i agree with markos, go figure)....  even within the context of this blog itself, there is a power dynamic that forces some folks into a space where they feel they need to write GBCW diaries.  listen to ME or i won't support you!!!

                            it's a cycle, unless dems figure out a better way to deal with the natural disagreements that flow out of a diverse modern political party, markos will overthrow the DLC, and four years later there will be another markos to come along and do so as well.

                            needless to say, i think repugs profit from all of this immensely.  we will only ever celebrate battles won internally.

                            by BiminiCat on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:15:23 AM PDT

                            •  There is a difference.

                              "there are still going to be DC Dems and Grassroots dems.  There is still going to be a National Strategy and a Local Strategy"

                              Those democrats who oppose this war are ignored by the media or marginalized as "extremists," right now, because of the prominence of the vichy Democrats within our party.

                              Marginalize them, even a little, and the prominence of the real Democrats who oppose this war will be raised, and a real discussion of how we got into this mess and how to get out can take place in the mainstream media.

                              Who is their to voice our concerns about this war now?  Cindy Sheehan?  She's a mom of a Vet, not a party bigwig.  Russ Feingold?  God bless, him, but he's about to be marginalized as an extremist, just wait and see.  Patrick Buchanan?  Chuck Hagel?  Robert Novak?  Robert Jones?  All anti-war Republicans.

                              If we don't move quickly, the Republicans will become the anti-war party.  And the vichy Dems will tag along going "me too!" at the last minute.

                              by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:17:01 PM PDT

                        •  Who's paying you?

                          nt

                          by Dancing Larry on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:08:32 AM PDT

                          •  no one

                            maybe i should be getting paid for this.

                            i'll have to look into that.

                            by BiminiCat on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:17:10 AM PDT

                  •  pigs will fly before Biden gets the nod

                    ...but I don't think primary challenges are the way to get to high-profile Senate Democrats.  It just won't work, they are too popular in their home states.  We need some other strategy, I'm not sure what it is other than fighting their presidential ambitions tooth-and-nail and somehow making them feel the pain everytime they support this regime.  Biden may be a lost cause, but we can bring people like Hillary back.  She is a progressive at heart, but her ambitions make her think she needs to follow the DLC.

                    by peaceandprogress on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:01:16 AM PDT

                    •  You misunderstand...

                      The primary challenge doesn't have to work.  It's perfectly acceptable if it goes down in flames.

                      The point of a netroots primary challenge is to de-legitimize people like Biden as the "voice of the sentiment of the party."  

                      If Biden can win the nomination as a pro-war democrat, fine; that's one more senate seat for us.  But let's make him sweat over it, first, so it doesn't come without a price.  And as I said before, let the fear trickle down.  Other wusses in the party will see what happens to somebody like Biden and go, "I'm not as solid as Biden, I don't know if I should go out on a limb and support this mess of a war just to get DLC support."

                      I think you would see a big change in the dynamics of the 2008 election as well.  The party would unify around the concept that this war was a mistake and any coherent foreign policy must begin by repairing the damage it has done us -- not this  avoidance mechanism shit that they are using now.

                      by Dumbo on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:28:46 PM PDT

                      •  you may be right...

                        ...in my mind the biggest thing in regards to Biden is to delegitimize him as a spokesperson for Democrats.  I'm tired of his corporate-whoring and war-loving comments on political talk programs.

                        by peaceandprogress on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 07:07:41 AM PDT

              •  I know the perfect candidate to take on Hiliary...

                He won't run though.  He would against Lieberman if he lived in CT and not Long Island.

                Someone anti-corporate, anti-censorship, anti-war, with some wealth, celebrity value, charisma, and who is just a plain-spoken good guy.

                by Fro on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:48:43 AM PDT

          •  Amusing concept

            Out out stale old democrats in order to replace them with progrssives.

            Amusing concept if you want to be a minority party forever. And by minority I mean SMALL minority. Sort of like Ralph Nader minority.

            Politicaly, I am probably to the left of Mao or Lenin.

            However, the American voter is NOT progressive. In fact, there is no platform issue, not maketing firm, no slick advertising capaign that is going to make them so.

            Americans are not progressive by and large, and there is little that can be done to convince them to be progressive.

            The only thing dramatic that will occure if the Dempocrats become MORE progressive is that the U.S. will in effect become a one party state, and that one party will be the Republican Party.

            Any attempt to become MORE progressive will simply push people out of the arms of the Democratic Party straght to the Republicans, There is a reason that the Green Party in the U.S. dos not have 20, 30, 40, percent of the voters registered and it is not tradition or name recognition. The fact that there are lats of people registered independent indicates nothing accept the fact that people want the ability to swing their vote and want that known.

            Even in most Western Europe governments ave had to become somewhat less progressive and liberal in order to simply in orderv to be productive enough to keep the state runnning.

            Even the Scandavian states have had tu turn to privatization inorder to stop the collapse of their socilized medicine systems. RAther than having the government own all of the medical facilities, and be the employers of all medical staff, they have reverted to a private systems of providing health care and a single payer system of insurance. Germany has lowered its income tax rates, as have most of the nations of Western Europe. FAr from opposing outsourcing of jobs and things like CAFTA, the Europeans have embraced the World Market, and by and large are doing rather well. Because when they do so, they do it right. More than twice the percentage of businesses in Germany have been outsourced than in the United States. The Germans have a guest worker program.
            THe only difference between the U.S. and Western Europe in this regard is WHO benefits from these policies. In the U.S. the government, the society, and the people are the direct beneficiaries of these policies. In the U.S. the beneficiaries are mostly in the private sector.

            It does not matter if we pass acts like CAFTA and NAFTA. But in order for them to be beneficial to more than the C.E.O.'s of corporations, they must be done in the same way that the European Community does them. In europe, you see few people lose jobs when work is outsourced simply because re-training and re-employment it required by the government. It is rare for a person to lose a job in an outsourcing operation without another job being available, at the same or better pay. Europeans do not have to worry about losing other benefits when out of work either. Unemploymeny benefits are supplemented with housing and food stipends, health care is a given.

            And these policies are all part of the Democratic party platform.

            The only reason that Republicans are in power is that the majority, the vast majority of Americans are NOT progressive, but relatively conservative. At least on some issues. DEmocrats can make a good case on the economic front, but there are other issues that they fail at. And in those areas the public has firmly remianed relativelty conservative.

            Any internal sabotage by progressives will simply give Republicans an even tighter grip on the nation. Period. Even if the public is sick of the war. All the REpublican have to do is come up with another method of cutting taxes in a way that looks different, and they will blow the issue of the war right out of the water.

            Democrats had better look towards the next attempt and hustle that Republicans are going to give in orfder to give more money back to the rich while promising a few dollars to the middle class. And throwing in something about cultural values.

            OR they lose again.

            by Uncle Ho on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 06:44:06 AM PDT

            •  Really, you're simply incorrect

              The only reason that Republicans are in power is that the majority, the vast majority of Americans are NOT progressive, but relatively conservative. At least on some issues.

              First, there is a difference between "conservative" and "Republican party platform." (Many Bush voters didn't even know his platform and mistakenly attributed Kerry positions to Bush.)

              And there is another difference between party platform and what the buggers actually do when in power. And there is a difference between "vast majority" and "approximately fifty percent."

              So now I'm going to turn around and say, "you're right but not how you think." People are conservative in the sense that they are uncomfortable with chaos. They like to feel their world is predictable. They don't really like change. But that doesn't translate automatically to "voting for Republicans." Because, (and this is a big deal, it really is) traditional "progressive" policies foster a more stable and predictable life for the average American.

              A good social safety net ensures that ordinary people do not spend their lives with a constant worry over where their next dollar is going to come from, what will happen to them if they get sick, where they're going to sleep, etc.

              Protecting our environment helps ensure that the very planet we live on -- the air we breathe, the water we drink -- is safer and more predictable.

              There is one thing that is true of "the vast majority of Americans" -- they don't think that hard about the things they claim to believe in and the policies they claim to support. They are perfectly able to vote for six contradictory things before breakfast. They are, therefore, easily led into voting for things they don't really want.

              by McJulie on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 07:42:51 AM PDT

              •  Not really

                That even if YOU beleive that progressive values provide stability to American, Americans dont beleive this, otherwise Ronald Reagan would find no forum in which he could have been voted the greatest American.

                It is you who are wrong and it is the history of te last 30 years history that has proven you to be wrong.

                Ther is a differecnce between the platform and hat they do in office because there is a differnce between the platform and what the elected official hears from his constituency once he is in office.

                And you don't saty in ofice by voting against what your local polls say your constutuencty WANTS once you are in office.

                Meeks voted for CAFTA, Sorry, I know the area he comes from,

                IF he voted for it THEY wanted it.

                and after all no matter what, the first thing an official is elected to do is the will of his constituents NOT his own will, not even to support some vaguie value system, that may be morally right to a progressive, but morally reprehensible to someone who is NOT progressive, but moderate.

                And our representative form of government is just that, you rpresent those who elected you, not yourself, opt some small wedge issue group, not some minority.

                If you justify doing what YOU beleive is right, is correct, is moral, over that of what those you represent beleive, then you are as dogmatic as the religious right when they make statements like, evne if 99 percent of the American public supported Free access to abortion all of the time it is morally wrong and it must be made illegal.

                There is just as much justification for the point of view that a fertilized human ovum is a completely human being in one stage of life and must be afforded the full right of any  other human being and therefore no abortion should be legal as there is for the case that a woman should have the right to choose because a pregnancy is a risk to here life that she doe not wish to take.

                In fact, to simply push values onto people that they do not hold or wish is not much different than invading Iraq to "spread democracy" to them when in fact they never asked us to do so.

                Saying that they dont know any better does not make it any less of a dictatorial and authoratarian act either.

                It is obvious that either the case for progressive values is not being made well, or it is being made well and the public do not want them.

                Given the 2004 election, I would say they understand VERY well, because for many moths when the issues to the forefront were ones of the economy, national health and suh, Kerry was ahead. Winning by every possible method f calculation. Winning in every poll by a large margin.

                Enter culture... and the scenario changed quickly.

                Even now ehnt you hear people talking about gas prices, they EXPECT the government, they EXPECT Bush to do something about it. THey are not against big government doing big things economically.

                But culture trumps even those issues. In interviews with people all over the country when you ask them about gas and oil and whatever, they
                b;ame the oil companies , the war and such, but firmly state they want the PRESIDENT to do something about it. But interspersed in these conversations is how they supprt the president because of his stance on gay marraige and religion and so on.

                Sorry, going progressive is a losing proposition.

                Except for those with agendas dealing with a few issues.And it is is a losing issue anyway, because supporting them will not get a Democrat or anyone else elected and provide fine ammunition for Republicans.

                What proves this is the defection of ethnic minorities, traditionally a core constituency of the Democratic Party , over to the Republicans. ON every front Democrats are losing small percentages of their core contituencies to the Republicans , not to the Greens or any other progressive party.

                by Uncle Ho on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

                •  I think you

                  have some points and I want to discuss two propositions of yours.  First, that either the progressive argument is being sold but not bought (partly because culture trumps economic issues, a part of culture being a fundamental conservatism in Americans) OR the argument is not being sold properly.  I think it is the first predominantly and the second nailing the coffin.

                  Let me say that I spend a great deal of time on Republican 'winger' sites arguing about those things, though not in those terms.  I have noticed a number of things about winger ideology and reason.  First, many--most--wingers' world views, if they hold fundamentalist views (not necessarily Fundamentalism) are generating their belief systems from moral positions.   I also get communications through my blog from Republican lurkers and RINO's who follow my posts that they in fact don't like Bush and hope that the left ousts him one way or another and oddly, at least one of those people is a fundamentalist who believes government should be kept far away from religion and vice versa!  So my point here is that many Republicans seem to be generating their positions from morality (hence values trump economics for that reason) AND the right has many internal divisions that we may not be taking into account; it is not monolithic and we miss an opportunity by assuming all Republicans vote Republican.  

                  As an aside, many from both parties have turned to Independents and in every case I've personally met, it was because during the election they were taken for granted by party canvassers--and I have explained to ex-Dems the reason for this was simply thin resources--which they understand but don't accept, because in every case they feel they were under-valued and their vote should be "earned".  Now that negative sense about entitlement brings me to the first proposition and the conservative nature of Americans; culturally whether we like it or not, we hold hard work (not good work, but hard work) as a positive American value as well as fairness (which I think springs from the Constitution) and whenever a voter gets a sense of either value being at stake regardless of whether it affects his or her pocket-book, they go for the value.  I think they believe they can always earn their way out of economic problems but that laziness and unfairness are fundamentally "unAmerican" and not negotiable.  Hence, taking a voter for granted leads the voter to punish the offending party, not necessarily reward the opposing party (because the other party has not earned the vote either).  A voter's position is really the only power most voters believe they have, so they use it by threatening to withhold it. I think one can extend from the example of the voter turning Independent to national voters behaviors in the main.  That this happens in Dems, who we think should know better because they understand the progressive message goes a long way toward suggesting that the conservative value of hard work (small, not big C) trumps economics and the American cultural value of fair play (requiring the other side to work for the vote, not just giving it up in revenge) may trump all.

                  Now, it is the Right, thanks to twenty years of think-tanks, that has understood and marketed their radical product in packaging of fairness and hard-work.  They first made sure to poison the term liberal and then attach the taint to every policy plank that underpinned the progressive movement.  It was then easy to use the term liberal to taint any opposing person, idea or thing challenging their platform which they meanwhile had aligned with those fundamental American values of hard work and fairness.  Witness, all of our progressive social policies are somehow "unfair", even affirmative action is now "unfair" to whites and a form of reverse racism (and racism we all know is unfair).

                  So, in the end, while I agree America has an essential conservatism that runs against socialist-style programs it is not because they are socialist per-se, but because they have been positioned as unfair to hard-working Americans by progressive opponents.  Were progressives able to create and advertise programs that are incontrovertibly fair (which likely means with little, no or a substantially unique tax program) they could win, because if there is anything else Americans like to be more than fair and hard-working it is fair, hard-working and "good" and giving to those who are "fairly" in need, is good.

                  by clb8 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 11:31:49 AM PDT

                  •  Lets look at how it developed

                    In Europe.

                    After close to half a century of rather conservative political ideas (political progressives were almost always put out of power by militaristic nationalists),finally, economies, exhausted by wars, and infrastructures destroyed by them, Europe FINALLY decided to use diplomatic methods to settle differences, not military ones.

                    Then they move on to establishing, a social safety network, again, relatively slowly.
                    THey showed everybody it worked. Lets look at polling data from October 2003. 68 of likely voters polled placed the need for Universal National Health among the top issues for the 2004 election EVEN if it meant substantial increses in taxes. So American voters are not as econonmically and fiscally conservative as you assume.

                    Now back to Europe. Once they have a few decaded of social safety nets in place and the public has gottten very comfortable, and in fact, very secure, and even would more than likely start a revolution wre the government to try to take them away, we start introducing government policies regarding socially progressive issues.

                    So you see the progression in Europe from International progressivism, to domestic progressivism to Social Progressivis.

                    Kerry was a clear winner when it came to the issues on domestic policies. However, attempts to leapfrog socially progressive issues over the domestic economic ones pushed the economic ones clearly out of the way.

                    Democrats should focus on the issues od internationalizing th situation in Iraq, and on issues like national health where they had a great deal of support, and out issuse of a socially progressive aside until the voter is nice and secure and desiring of not losing their national health. Make them feel economically safe, and they will be more inclined to not worry much about things like gay marriage and stem cell research.

                    by Uncle Ho on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 02:04:31 PM PDT

                    •  Well...

                      those are good points and soundly argued, I think, assuming that American values track like Europeans.  I don't think Americans have reached the level of exhaustion required to overcome the American values I described (and I'm curious whether you agree with my theory on that or not).  

                      I think if Americans are for health care in spite of taxes their willingness is again, based on a sense of fair-play;  every American knows what it is to fear illness and the emotional and financial costs it threatens.

                      by clb8 on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:54:46 PM PDT

                      •  Not so much fair play

                        As self interest. Betweeen the increases in the increases in the portion of the cost they muct beara themselves, and the increases in the cost of medical care in general, the reduction in cost that Kerry's plan suggested appealed to most American's desire to ave the government handle things that are getting out of hand. Just like Republicans in Oklamhoma are bitching about gas prices and expect the president to do something, most people wh seem larger and larger chunks of their paychecks going to pay THEIR portion of their contributions to the insurance programs that covered their kids and at the same time having to pay larger aand larger co-pays, the more a plan that says if you let the government star a program that reduced the everage annual cost of the insurance by 1000 dollars a year, plus lowers the copayments and the cost of prescription and on and on, the more they are going to suport that position. It has little to do with the unconvered. Americans may be sympathetic theoretically, but not when it hits their own pockets...

                        The rates at which the average American gives in all humanitarian causes proves this. On average the United States government spends 18 cents per capita on programs to help the have nots both in and outside of the U.S. If you add private contributions, that increases to 21 cents. Americans are NOT among those who give until it hurts.

                        Yet they do not save either. They are very good at a lot of self indulgent crap.

                        NO, the only way to kill the conservative beast is the way you would a frog. IF you throw a frgon into a pot of boiling water, it will just jump out a bit scalded. If you put it in a point of cool water and slowly raise the heat until boiling point it will sit there an die.

                        Wh do you think that the idea of privatising Social Security is so unpopular. Because it is there, it is relatively painless to pay for and peoplse see that they are not going to have much else to rely on. They dont really save in general, they spend every cent they get on every NEW thing they are told they need, whetther they ned it or not, and their pensions are a pittance for the most part.

                        Get them to feel totally reliant on a thing, and if you attempt to take it away, and they will oppose you. Introduce the social safety net slowly, one element at a time and let them benefit from it, and in a few decades, they are in the middle of a progressive social environment. Like a fish in water, it permeates the environment. Atthis point, the social environment becomes more amenable to change.

                        THAT is how the conservatives took over, slowly step by step. Tax dollars taken from ME and given to THEM. IT is better to give the tax dollars in government programs to all of the "ME'S" and slip the  "THEMS" in along side.

                        And finally after they controlled the economic enviroment, they started scapegoating the minorities, showing how it was the liberals who created this social environment.

                        Reagan and those of his ilk started with economics first, and started moving towards the social elements. So now we end up with FAITH based initiatives. Real good at getting miniroties and their churches on the bandwagon to oppose the civil rights of others. They are getting a piece of the pie to do so.
                        And while Democrats were making an issue of gays and feminazis and stuff, the hidden media was whispering in the ear of the disaffected American who was bein taxed, but getting nothing tangible for it.

                        They were very clever in their  take over, Now we must be equaly clever. WE must put more money into the average  persons pocket by taking it away. Give them their national health at a cost that is much lower than they are paying now.
                        Then other things will follow.

                         

                        by Uncle Ho on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 08:57:23 AM PDT

                        •  FYI...

                          the frog parable was actually tested and it seems frogs are quite sensitive to temperature change and regardless of the slow boil, jump out at a specific, rather low temperature every time (check Snopes).

                          I see your points and can agree...but if you are correct why will Republicans vote against their own financial best interests?  I spend a good deal of time on winger sites and almost to a person they are cognizant of voting against their financial interests and quite proud to do so!

                          by clb8 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:31:11 PM PDT

                          •  If you actually look at the election results

                            From 2000 and 2004, Gore won the popular vote, by the largest margin in history, so the Democratic economic program is the one the majority of Americans favor.

                            Bush won the 2004 election by the smallest margin of any incumbent president, and the major reason given by swing voters for voting for Bush was to "not change presidents during a war"

                            On all domestic issues Kerry wiped the floor with Bush and so Bush and the Republicans riding his coattails won only on the issue of national security and terrorism, which Bush is now losing terribly. If this issue stays firm for the next year, almost all of the vulnerable Republican seats will be lost to Democrats.
                            Republicans are going to try pushing a "Tax Payers Bill Of Right legislation" but by and large in most states this will not pass as Republican economic ideas have already proven to be unpopular, as the Ker