Harold Ford - face of the 'moderate" DLC

"People who are giving me this money know that I'm for the Second Amendment, they know I'm against same-sex marriage, they know I'm for the display of the Ten Commandments in public places, they realize I'm not for abortion on demand, and they also understand that I don't want to see the flag desecrated. At the same time, they know I love kids and I want to see them get a good education, and that I think we can win this war by trying some new options."

Harold Ford

Kinda nice when the big tent is so big that the Republicans seem more "moderate", hmmm ?

This says it better than I can:

Gay Foe To Lead Centrist Democratic Wing
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 12, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET

(Washington) Gay Democrats voiced "deep concern" Friday over the naming of former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. as Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council.

The DLC is not an official party organization, but a non-profit organization that represents a coalition of centrist Democrats in Congress and at the state and local level. Openly-gay Democrats have previously joined the leadership of the DLC as members of State Legislative Advisory Board and Local Elected Officials Network.

During the 1990s the Council was led nationally by then-Governor Bill Clinton and includes Vice President Al Gore as a founding member.

•  None of those issues are really what the DLC is

  about, as I see it, anyway.  They seem to be a little more comfortable with business than labor.  Economic class issues are the big diference between the progressives and the DLC, I think.  Free trade, etc.  

  by TomP on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

  •  Free trade (in principle, anyway), is in fact the

    only thing that elected members of the DLC agree on.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:30:24 PM PDT

•  the DLC is a moribund organization

  And "Call me Harold" better get a f****g wife and a cute daughter to boot before he tries to run again.
  He lost because he foolishly was a cute playboy smooth talking, pandering guy.
  I am not sad he lost, as I am sad the lady in illinois (double amputee former Iraq marine pilot) lost to the GOP candidate.
  Frankly I am a borderline Ford hater

  by wuod kwatch on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:35:22 PM PDT

  •  I'm gay.

    I hate him.  I'm glad he lost.  Maybe that would not be the case if we had not gotten the Senate: but as it stands, I'd rather have a foe I know (Corker) than a snake in the grass, self-aggrandizing hatemonger like Harold Ford.

    by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

    •  Me too,

      me too, and me too.  Martin Luther King put it best:

      Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

      Harold Ford is such a douchebag that I damned near donated to the Corker campaign.

      by HarveyMilk on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:07:23 PM PDT

      •  I'm no fan of Ford, but am of Martin Luther King

        and calling someone a douchebag does not do justice to the man you quote.

        by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:28:42 PM PDT

        •  Harold Ford is a Douchebag

          There is no universe in which he is not a douchebag.  If he ever runs for elective office again, I will do everything within my power to help his opponents.  

          by HarveyMilk on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:31:55 PM PDT

          •  You obviously dislike him...

            but King is a hero of mine, and I felt that my comment was appropriate because you used his words in a way that he never would have in a public forum.

            Too much name calling here about those who we disagree with.  By such actions, we lower ourselves.  Call Ford intolerant or prejudiced, but if you think Corker is any more sympathetic to your cause(s), I think you are sadly mistaken.  

            by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:39:27 PM PDT

            •  I concur, but the difference is that

              with Corker it's pretty obvious what to expect since he's got an (R) after his name. I expect more from a (D) than we get in Ford.

              by granal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:41:38 PM PDT

              •  Well

                For TN that is probably the best that you would get from a D. TN is not San Francisco.

                by jiacinto on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:54:37 PM PDT

            •  Mistaken?

              MLK was against violence, but he was not for playing footsie with bigots.

              I stand by every word, especially saying that Harold Ford is a douchebag.

              by HarveyMilk on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:44:42 PM PDT

              •  He may have called someone a racist...

                or a bigot, but not a douchbag.  That is a gratuitous and unnecessary remark and King was way above that.

                If you cannot see the difference, what more can I say?

                by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:48:31 PM PDT

              •  By mistaken...

                I meant Corker, the one you almost gave money to.

                by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

        •  Is it okay if I call him a

          douche bag if I don't quote MLK?

          Just curious.

          by granal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:32:54 PM PDT

          •  You make your own choices...

            but it is a reflection on you.  I prefer not to call anyone a name.  To me, it's a weak way to make a persuasive point.  

            That said, I would certainly be more comfortable absent the quote.

            by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:42:33 PM PDT

            •  Right, it probably is an inappropriate

              juxtaposition...but there aren't that many good adjectives to describe a snake like HFJ.

              by granal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM PDT

              •  I could come up with plenty...

                that I suspect would be more accurate and persuasive to make the case.

                by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:49:37 PM PDT

    •  Ditto nt

      by tiponeill on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:29:27 PM PDT

    •  Well this is the thinking that I hate

      Ford would have supported the Democratic agenda probably 60-70% of the time. Corker will only support it 0-20% of the time. You got your wish. Don't complain when Corker votes horribly on EVERY ISSUE of concern to you. Taking your snake anology further, while Ford may have been a non-poisonous garden snake, Corker is the equivalent of the deadly, poisnonous gaboon viper. I know which one of the two that I would want. I guess that you must like gaboon vipers.

      by jiacinto on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:53:58 PM PDT

      •  YOu know what I like?

        Someone who will stab me in the front.  Because, I hate to point this out, but as a gay man I'm getting stabbed whether it's Ford or Corker.

        And on this point I am sick and goddamned tired of having to sit back and take what comes simply because one of the defining characteristics of who I am is at odds with the political expediency of someone like Ford.

        Because here's another fact: Ford actively courted the votes of those people who believe I can't marry, can't raise children and can't do anything other than hide in the closet and be a "confirmed bachelor".  He's not nonpoisonous, to refute your analogy.  His poison is just slower, because he's going to be held up as a "good Democratic Senator" which makes his mode of Senator all the more palatable.

        You think Hilary Clinton and her triangulation just came out of nowhere?  You think that our centrism just popped into being?  No- it was an incremental death and Harold Ford is an incremental murderer of ideology.  It just so happens that something very near and dear to me (you know- my silly notion that my sexual orieintation doesn't preclude me from humanity or our country) is something he wanted to exploit for votes.

        Fuck Harold Ford and fuck someone who says I have to support someone who hates me and my family just so that you and your coalition can get a lousy 60% voting record out of him.

        by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:21:11 PM PDT

        •  Well

          TN isn't San Francisco. The reality is that embracing gay rights is like supporting toxic waste in a state like TN. TN is not a hotbed of progressiveism. I wish that that were not the case. I honestly wish that a TN Democrat could come out and at least be somewhat supportive of gay rights, but 2006-2007 is not that time period.

          I would agree with you if Ford had run in a state like NY, CA, or IL, where the public supports gay rights by and large. Ford would probably have been more supportive of gay rights in those states.

          Your attitude is frankly unreasonable. The right didn't think that way with Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowe. They realize that Tom Delay-style Republicans can't win in the NE.

          It is unfortuante and I am not saying that you have no reason to be upset. But Corker is going to be 10X worse the Senator than Ford would ever have been. I guess that you would rather have nothing than something so that you can come here all preachy and self-righteous to claim that "you didn't compromise".

          Again I guess that you prefer gaboon vipers to garden snakes. If I was stuck choosing between snakes I sure as hell wouldn't want to be bitten by the one whose bite is almost always fatal.

          by jiacinto on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:10:04 PM PDT

          •  You're missing the point

            And it seems to be willfully so.  Corker is not Democratic.  What he does has nothing to do with the constitution of the party.  His hairsplitting and gay bashing will have no effect on the character of what it is to be a Democrat.

            Harold Ford would be as destructive to the definition of Democrat as Joe Lieberman was.  Do you understand that?  That his presence would allow current and future Democrats to compromise even further and to wend even more steadily away from issues that are important to me?

            Senators like Harold Ford would have made it easier and easier for future Democrats to compromise on gay rights and to further institutionalize discrimination against me and my family.

            So- to return to your snake metaphor, I have to say that you should probably not choose any snake as it has become apparent that you don't know the effects of slower killing poisons.

            by electricgrendel on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

        •  I wish...

          ...I could give you an 8.  Very well said.

          by HarveyMilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:33:39 AM PDT

    •  Just so you know

      While Ford, wrongly, voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment (like EVERY SINGLE OTHER congressman from Tennessee), he did vote against banning gay adoption (which no other Tennessee Congressman did).

      Ford, had he been elected, would have been the most progressive US Senator from Tennessee, on gay rights, that you could have hoped for.

      That's the reality.

      by brownsox on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:58:09 AM PDT

•  This only re-confirms my already low opinion...

  of the DLC.

  And folks wonder why Ford didn't receive the support of many progressives.

  by slatsg on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:40:33 PM PDT

•  Ford and the DLC: a match made in heaven

  A Senate candidate who turned into a cartoon character on the stump gets the call to rescue an organization from obsolescence and irrelevance.

  eHarmony.com couldn't have come up with a better match.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:53:16 PM PDT

•  Harold Ford is an asshole in every sense of the

  word! I wasn't upset when he lost his bid initially, but was ESTATIC when we won the Seante anyway without the doushebag! He's a smarmy dickhead to whom I would love to point out that in taking such a harsh stance against gay marriage, he's no better than the trash who say a black (just like him) has no right to marry a white woman!

  If the Democrats start appointing Republican Lite doushebags like him, more moderates like myself will simply hold our noses and vote for Ralph Nader or any third party candidate or simply stay home election night!

  by sternsieger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:05:03 PM PDT

  •  This comment is borders on obscene

    If you don't like Ford, fine, but there's no need to resort to childish name calling and disparagement.

    What is it with you all who cannot offer a comment without such insults?

    by citizen53 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:21:11 PM PDT

•  Hey, Didn't Ford Lose?

  Way to go DLC.

  by Nulwee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:21:15 PM PDT

  •  Well

    DLC stands for Democrats Losing Campaigns.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:23:04 PM PDT

•  I used to support the DLC

  This is what I wrote in the other thread:

  I used to support the DLC but I think they have become what they sought to replace almost twenty years ago: an ineffective party structure incapable of winning national elections. I am behind Dean and the 50 state strategy.

  I agree with DLC positions on issues related to crime and welfare reform. I just think that they are not in the present. They still think the party is in 1989, having lost five out of six elections, four of those being landslides, two of those four being 49 state wipeouts. They are in the past.

  They were neeed in the 1980s, when the national Democratic Party was clearly noncompetetive in presidenital elections. For various the general electorate did not trust the party with the White House. It was clear that the party needed to change.

  The DLC made the party attractive to white working class suburbanitie who had voted Republican during the Nixon/Reagan era. The DLC neutralized negative influences in the party like Jesse Jackson and other far-left activists who alienated suburban voters away. Bluntly, by the late 1980s, among too many swing voters, the Democrats became associated too much with the poor and racial minorities, along with permissiveness for crime and welfare. The DLC was able to cure that perception.

  For various reasons white working class voters viewed the Democrats as being indifferent and/or hostile to their interests. They saw the national party as offering nothing but higher taxes for social programs that provided them with little benefit. They thought that, while the party cared painfully for the needs of racial minorities (especially blacks) and the poor (many of whom they perceived to be the benefits government programs that rewarded laziness), the party offered them little. They also saw the party as being too permissive on crime They viewed the party as being fiscally irresponsible and direspectful of mainstream values.

  The DLC strategy worked in the early 1990s and during the 1992 and 1996 elections. White suburban voters returned to the Democratic Party. That is why now 3 out of the 5 suburban Philadelphia districts send Democrats to Cognress now, why Democrats represent 3 out of 4 districts on Long Island, and why they have picked up several similiar districts around the country. White suburbanities have come back to the party.

  The party, however, has lost ground in rural America. While Jon Tester and Brian Schweitzer have helped change the party's perception in some rural parts of the country the Democrats still are not doing well in rural areas. What appealed to whtie suburbanities seems to have alieanted rural voters. The striking statistic for me in the 2004 was that rural counties strongly behind Dukakis in 1998 voted for Bush by similiar margins.

  So I no longer support the DLC because they don't understand the country's current challenges. I don't think Ford is going to be able to make the organization influential. It has become what it sought to replace: an ineffective organization incapable of winning elections.

  by jiacinto on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:51:25 PM PDT

•  The truth

  Harold Ford is a douchebag. A selfish twit. He left Memphis suffering while he goes to Playboy parties.  Thank goodness Tennessee could see beyond his fakeness and voted Corker in and Ford out.  Hopefully, he won't fucKKK up the Democratic Party like he did in his "speech" in 2000 for the  Al Gore campaign, which enraged Donna Brazile.

  by punkliberal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:56:09 PM PDT