Lieberman the DLC and the direction of the party

I don't know about anybody else here, but I am getting pretty sick of Joe and the DLC running around the past couple of weeks yakking about how Howard Dean is taking the Democratic party too far back to the left and in the wrong direction. :grr:

This crap is pissing me off ! I believe Dean has the exact right strategy ! The reason we lost the 2000 (S)election to * was due to Nader siphoning off the votes of the more leftwing faction of the Democrats.

The moderates that Joe is extolling as the desireable element in the upcoming elections are just as likely to vote for the Democratic candidate after 4 years of the * disaster, and also because in 2000 the proved the old adage, that when given a choice between between a Repuke and a pale imitation of a Repuke, they will always choose the Repuke. (Don't get me wrong, I don't think Gore was no different than *, I just think he did not do a good job of showing the swing voting moderates how he differed from * )

I truly believe that the right wing has mobilized every single vote that they can in the past two elections. There are roughly 200 million eligible voters in this conutry and in the past two elections, only about half of those voted. I don't believe that the majority of the Americans who did not vote side with the conservatives. I believe they are disillusioned lefties and progressives who felt that their vote would not matter and did not see anything from the Democratic party that would indicate it is ready to go back and be true to it's progressives roots and change this country for the better.

I am thoroughly convinced that progressives are by far the majority in this country and the Dems have to give them a sign that they are ready and willing to stand up against the tyranny and repression of the right wing agenda and say "No more, enough !" The Left is "right" and we need to stop running away from that fact !

Lieberman is a putz.
on edit....I guess that wasn't a very thoughtful comment, but he makes me so mad with his whiney voice. Everytime I hear/see him speak I think of that cartoon dog from a long time ago. Everytime I see him slap Bush on the back and squeeze his shoulders after Bush does another ignorant thing I think of all the Jewish men and women who died in Auschwitz and remember reading about Prescott Bush. I know there are many flaws in this line of thinking, but it just makes me so mad my gut hurts.

They are scared to death of Dean as they are not sure they can control him...

I don't know if he has a chance, but I do know that Joe Lieberman or anyone like him HAS NO CHANCE.

You can't be LIKE Dubya and get elected unless you ARE Dubya.

I think Lieberman is wrong on this issue. He better work on his own strategy instead of lashing out at Dean because there is an element of anti-semitism in the air these days (just listen to CSPAN about every fifth call is a bash the Jews call, and these are the ones that don't agree with Bush). Lieberman could be seen as promoting the Iraq war in support of a policy to help Israel, and could be seen as more loyal to Israel than the United States. I'm not saying I necessary see things this way, but that opinion is out there and that, not Dean, is the key reason why Lieberman has no chance and hell but Dean does.

Of the attacks on Dean.
Dean had months in which he wa running uncontested and used those months to attakc everyone in site including the DLC.

Dean is a DLC style Democrt, of the right wing of the democratic party, not th center. He is trying to put his anti-war stance behind him(as overall, the anti-war stand is not popular) and now the other candidates will not let him forget. Some late polls have Dean seemingly reaching a peak. and other canddates slipping into fitst or second place, but most polls have Dean remaining firmly in 4th place, and not moving past anyone. Regarless of his increase in numbers. Most pollsters state that his policies have placed him up front, but now his record as governor seems to be coming under scrutiny, and as his true record is one of stagnation. Cenesus data shows that health coverage in Vermont declined while he was governor, and the media is beginning to scan through all of Deans records, reparing for an attack on the accuaracy of his own hornblowing,

Kerry's recent attack on Deans statements about repealing the tax cuts as being a tax increase on the middle class will not translate well into voter support, and Lieberman reiterated that last night. A few weeks of thinking if people want Dean to increase their income taxes, NOW getting nothing in return given Deans reversal of the IMMEDIATE need for universal health that he created at the begining of his campaign, will leave middle America thinking, what do I get out of a Dean presidency. I would expect that after labor day, one will see EVERY candidate attacking Deans ever shifting position being repeated on a daily basis in the press, by candidates, and most importantly, by the DLC.

The Kerry campaign has finally decided to attack Dean, rather than remain above the fray, as Dean spent so much time attakcing the DLC and its candidates. Deans entire record as governor will be set out for the public to observe. His failure to assist small farmers in Vermont but back the large coorprate agricultural interests in Vermont will cost him his lead in Iowa, where nothing is known about Dean but what he says. This is good strategy, as the frew months left between now and the first promaries wil give Dean little time for damage control on the MANY favors he did for big business in Vermont. This will be Gephardts play. Lieberman attacks on the war stance, Kerry on taxation and foreign policy and health care, and Gephardt on Agriculatural and Domestic policies, whle the lower polling candidates attack on other issues and lend their support oto the other candidates.

Dean and Agriculture:

Interview with Lee Light
Lee and Bob Light run the Hollister Hill Farm in the Marshfield/Plainfield area. They were dairy farmers for about 20 years, before finally selling their cows in 1997. Now they run a diversified farm, raising beefalo, pork and poultry, making maple syrup and hay, and running a bed and breakfast. The Lights moved to Vermont from New Jersey in 1972 as part of the back to the land movement (the New York Times ran a front page article on them on June 9, 1975). On July 11, 2002, Lee Light spoke with DEMOCRACY IN ACTION in her kitchen, where she prepares scrumptious breakfasts for B&B guests. Speaking generally, she said, "Howard Dean's a real middle-of-the-road kind of guy... He's pretty good on health care, but I think he's very moderate." Asked for her views on Dean's record on agriculture, and she was quite critical.

QUESTION: What can you tell us about Howard Dean and agriculture?
LEE LIGHT: When he was lieutenant governor working for Snelling he made some gestures that sounded like maybe he really understood issues affecting family farms and whatnot. But early on it became clear that that wasn't a priority. He's been governor for 11 years and we've lost a lot of farms, and we've also been a state that hasn't fought against the bovine growth hormone factory farms. I don't even think it's an issue for him. He has a commissioner of agriculture that hasn't bucked that trend towards bigger agriculture. The Agriculture Department he never fully funds; he's always cutting the budget. In a state where farming is so much part of our identity and there's so many people who move to Vermont or live in Vermont that want to farm on whatever scale, that there should be a lot more interest in the Agriculture Department and he's just not there. I mean yeah he goes and taps the maple tree and shows up at Dairy Festival, but as far as really fully supporting an agriculture community, he doesn't. And I don't think he's that different from the world in general, because family farms are sort of like a romantic notion. But I think in the long run we'd be far better off with family farms than factory farms, and rural communities where people have a sense of community.

QUESTION: Has he done anything positive for agriculture?

LEE LIGHT: What he'll say is that he strongly supports the North East Dairy Compact. Well that was the simplest thing for any politician to hang their hat on. But it was not really enough of an increase in pay to really keep people in. And the same thing happened here on our farm. We farmed and our son came on the farm to farm with us and we farmed with us for about ten years... The problem with low milk prices is that the next generation sees it as like, am I going to work as hard as my parents and not make any money and never have a vacation? So the younger generation doesn't want to continue to do it unless they put up those big million dollar operations where there's thousands of cows and the cows never go outside and it's a whole different form of agriculture.


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/lightint.html


The funding faces an uncertain future, however, due to a recent freeze on certain items in Gov. Howard Dean’s budget.

Whether addressing the slaughterhouse shortage will prove to stimulate the meat industry is anyone’s guess. Justis said they need to revive and modernize the industry at many levels, but this is a good place to start.

Even at its best, Cushing said, meat is a high-volume, low-profit industry.

“No one’s getting rich at it,” said Meade.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/33308.html

Dean did nothing to assist the small family owned farms of Vermont and while he was governor, his assistance to large corporate agribusiness was legendary , and the kind of thing hated in Iowa, which has not yet come to the forefront with voters. It should in the
fall.
AS a matter of fact, I have recently located a "HOWARD DEAN" on the doarde of dierctors of a LARGE CORPOREATE" Agribusiness in Vermont, and now must determine if it is the same Howard Dean.
News later.

or they can just pack their bags and go home. People invest a lot into political campaigns and sometimes it brings out the worst in people.

Do you believe the DLC will gradually drift into Kerry's corner, once it becomes apparent that Lieberman simply does not have the grassroots support?

I think what’s underneath most of the anti-Lieberman speech is not his political philosophy but simply because he has a Jewish name. Think about it there are a number of Democratic Candidates, that have the same exact repulsive Republican philosophy of the Republicans, but they never get a group attack with hate speech, as Liberman, gets simply by the mention of his name. I also think they see his name and read nothing he said, and then follow with the mindless group hate like sheeple.

If the Democrats don’t face this problem they will not get the Jewish vote in 2004.

I think it's the weakness and bootlicking that bothers me most.

I look at Lieberman and I see a man who would trust the good offices of the SS because they are God-Fearing People.

I look at Lieberman and I see a man who would walk straight into the ovens without question.

I will NEVER be like that and I cannot support someone who is.

Just look to his conduct during the Bloodless Coup of 2000 and you will see what Lieberman is made of.

"I could carve a better man out of a banana."
--Theodore Roosevelt

Neocons and the like would like to give people the impression that being against thier pro-Isreal agenda makes you anti-semitic racist. Funny how many "anti-semitic" Jews there are in Isreal that vote against Sharon.

so they don't give into feeling like it's a sham not worth bothering with.

exactly because he's standing up and fighting back
the repubs made their gains in 2002 because too many
dems tried to walk the middle.
in my opinion that's already been proven to not work

Though he masquerades as a Democrat he's actually to the right of the Republican, Lowell Weicker, he defeated for Senate in 1988.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2928buckpac.html

That's what Lieberman is!

If you want to win a contest dont do what your opponent wants you to do.
This is also why the pundit shows piss me off they are always asking republicans what the Democrats should do to win.

There is no way that you can say that the millions who don't vote are liberals are progressives. You don't know. And in many cases they are conservatives who don't vote because they are "too busy" to do so.

What you can do is go into heavily Democratic precincts that underpeform and register new voters. You can bring them out because they are going to vote for you. You try to get as many of those voters out into the universe as possible.

But you are making a mistake if you go into precincts that are less than 60-65%+ Democratic to do that, as you are probably registering Republicans who won't vote for our candidates. That strategy will not work in those areas.

I (on edit) *mostly* agree with the original post -- I am early in the process of looking at Dem candidates, but it seems completely fruitless for Lieberman to diss Democrats who are enthusiastic about candidates like Dean.

People who are enthusiastic about *any* Democratic candidate at this stage of the game are the people who *will* show up to vote. People like Lieberman who dismiss this enthusiasm as "going too far" are basically encouraging Democrats not to vote.

However, I wouldn't say that progressives are the majority in this country. I do think there is a majority that would vote in 2004 because they've had enough of Bush's world, and I just hope the Democrats don't blow it...

that will speak up. Dean is not a "progressive" in the liberal sense of the word. If we wanted a more progressive candidate, we would all be for Dennis Kucinich. However, it looms in the back of a lot of minds that no one - no one - from the House of Representatives has ever been elected President, and many think they stand a better chance with Dean and they also think he has a better grasp of where the people are standing and what they are thinking about Bush and the Repubs. Coincidentally or not, he has latched onto something that might be called the "truth". At least, it is the true sentiments of the people.

Has he looked around lately? Where in the hell does he think we are? The Repubs control the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, and the Fourth Estate ! Where is the wilderness?

Though I don't think Lieberman or Dean can lead us out.

Holy Joe debated Cheney in the 2000 selection like he was applying for a job with Halliburton. In retrospect, I guess he was.

I blame the current state of our economy today on the bursting of the tech bubble among other factors. Back in 1995 the newly Repuke controlled congress pass the Securities Litigation Reform Act, which basically gutted all of the protections provided to shareholders by the 1934 Securities Reform Act following the depression.

This single piece of legislation was the most instrumental thing in creating the pervasive environment in corporate America where CEOs felt justified in flat out lying to inflate the worth of their companies to their stockholders in order to get that next big fat bonus.

This legislation would not have passed, as President Clinton vetoed it, had it not been for a large percentage of the Democrats in congress siding with nearly every single Repuke in congress to override the veto. Joe lieberman, being in the pockets of the insurance industry,among other big business interests, was instrumental in convincing these Dems to help override the veto. That is where I lost faith in Joe Lieberman !

he's just enough of an DLC outsider though, to make the diehard DLCers nervous.

100% right. His prescription is 100% wrong.

Any savvy student of politics will tell you you can't win an election purely by appealing to your base.

All the research suggests that

33% to 40% of the electorate define themselves as Democratic

32% to 36% of the electorate define themselves as Republican

and

approximately 30% of the electorate define themselves as independent

The research also suggests that non voters would vote in the same numbers for candidates as voters. The concept of a resevoir of progressive voters waiting to be awoke from their quiescence by a true progressive candidate is a cruel myth.

Facts are stubborn things. We ignore them at our peril.

We need a candidate who can speak to independent voters while maintaining the Democratic base.

P.S. I'm not a big Lieberman fan but can we please talk about him without fucking mentioning his religion. Joe Lieberman's position on Israel is no different than Howard Dean's , John Kerry's , John Edwards, Dick Gephardts, or Bob Graham's. If you don't like Joe's position on Israel bash those guys too.

Mr. Lieberman's ethnicity or religous beliefs in my original post DSB. I simply stated that I disagree with Joe's theory that Dean is attempting to move the party too far left.

I personally don't feel that it is possible to move too far to the left, but that is just me. I also disagree with your assertion that there is no "resevoir of progressive voters waiting to be awoken from their quiescence by a true progressive candidate".

I believe there is just such a resevoir and if it can only be tapped, the headlong rush to the conservative agenda that we have witnessed over the past ten or so years can be stemmed. I do not believe that a majority or even equal numbers of Americans support the agenda of todays conservatives.

explain this to me will ya'

"The research also suggests that non voters would vote in the same numbers for candidates as voters."

yeah, and that research would be where exactly?

including 88 and 84 that showed that voters and non voters would have voted for Reagan and Bush in pretty much the same numbers.

If you feel the information I am sharing with you is inaccurate or misleading I suggest you do a Google search.

For instance, the Dems actively backed motor voter thinking that by expanding the franchise by making resgistration easier they would garner more votes.

Obviously, from the results of the past elections, anecdotal evidence contradicts that theory.

that if you are going to reference material in making an assertion that you provide the data so others can check it out.

what does that really show- not much!

btw, i have a nifty little website i use for political study
http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm

here's a graph-impressive ain't it :eyes:

may have expanded the rolls, but as far as I know it did nothing to increase turnout, which has been steadily decreasing as a percentage of the eligible population since 1960. So I'm not sure you can depend on that as an indication of non-voter party preference, since they still aren't voting.

stuff again.

tell me, how have these polls been tested or proven to be anything than just a bunch of numbers?

this is a serious question.
because that is how scientific theories are worked out, tests that will either prove or disprove a theory.

Theory- There is a difference in candidate prefernces between voters and non voters.

Evidence to butress the theory- polls of voters and non-voters have the same candidate preferences*








*For the sake of clarity it's not a 1 to 1 match but it's pretty damn close. Maybe in a razor close election like 00 it would have been different.

that is what i am asking you?

seems to me,especially when refering to non-voters,polls are the theories that have not been tested.

Here's the link to the seminal study on the preferences of voter and non voters. There are others that compliment it. It was done by renowned Berkeley political scientists , Benjamin E Highton and Raymond E. Wolfinger.

Their conclusion is "Taken as a whole, non voters appear well represented by those who vote."

The data and text is at

http:/www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/July1999/HightonWolfinger/html

by all means go work
and quit wasting time.

i think your attitude is a tad sucky.

you get involved in a discussion and when called upon to provide data i get 'I really should be working' well excuse me savvy political person for not taking your word for anything and expecting info asked for to be provided.

but please manually type it in. If I made a mistake could you please hyperlink it for the rest of us.

I don't know why it doesn't work.

Do you have to hyperlink or do you just type it in .

I will try again.


http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/July1999/HightonWolfinger/html

i saw 'respondents' while quickly perusing the study but it doesn't give the number of respondents.

i'll look further for this info but you know off the top of your head could you share that number.

I am self employed. If I don't work I don't eat.

imagine that.

Joe's sulking cause he's going down.

asswipe. Whaddaya wanna bet he goes Repuke in good time just like his kindred soul, Arlen Specter?

It surely has worked for Dean.

.

none of the nine are perfect but some got pissed off when one of Wellstone's former aides took offnese to "democratic of democratic party" now that I know more about dean I see what he meant, the democratic wing of the democratic party is an all around progressive wing. Dean's not a horrible person I am saying but if you're gonna use the patriot act as your litmus test and you support Dean, I am sorry but thats absurd but I think Dean would have voted for it like most democrats.

Don't you know by now that makes it OK? ;)

NOT!

His attacks did work for him in the short term. But payback just might be in Dean's future.

Convinced by what? Sorry, but progressive candidates don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to winning national elections. LBJ was the last "liberal" presidential candidate to get elected, and he had the good fortune to be running at the peak of public support for liberalism, on the memory of a slain president, and against a right-winger people believed to lead the country into WWIII. And he wasn't a McGovern liberal by any stretch.

Honestly, if you are convinced that progressives are by far the majority in this country, wouldn't you have expected them to have nominated, and elected, a presidential candidate at least ONCE since 1964? And wouldn't you expect this progressive majority to be reflected in polls (where the number of self-identified moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 3-to-1).

Here is one article I read that showed some evidence that non-voters are likely to be progressive.

http://www.spoilingforafight.com/articles/prospect1-31-00.htm

But also I think your statement that "wouldn't you expect them to have nominated, and elected, a (liberal) presidential candidate at least ONCE since 1964" to be a little bit disingenuous.

I say this mearly because I contend that the voting public has little say in the nominees that are presented to them. We have to choose from the hand picked candidates that are propped up by the party establishment, and the Democratic party establishment, in my opinion has long been far more moderate than the party base voters. (Joe Lieberman is a prime example of this)

In 1992 Bill Clinton won by running as a liberal to moderate candidate, but looking back on his presidency,he governed more as a moderate to conservative.

Not so much their positions, some of which I agree with. But their whole unquestioning acceptance of the Right-Wing Sub-Media Fantasy Bubble (which WILL become self-fufilling prophecy if not aggressively challenged) and their overall weak position of "Sure the Emperor has a very nice new set of fine clothes AND HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT, LIBERAL WEENIES?!?" makes me itch.

The thing that is even worse than DLC weakness, Busbevik bootlicking, and their repeated use of the Bushevik Playbook Lite to bash the people who vote for them would have to be the way they are completely and totally in the dark as to the larger and more obvious Bushevik machination in the realms of Media (the creation of the Right-Wing Sub-Media that closely resembles Nazi media in form and function, if not the identical words), the Judiciary (the subsuming of National Loyalty by members of the Federalist Society to loyalty to the Imperial Family -- just like the Stalinist Front Groups it is modeled after), etc. etc. etc.

That complete blindness and refusal to believe that anyone could be so vile as to tear down the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to possess the fat prize that is the Amerikan Empire, is fatal.

FATAL.

No true victory can come if these antithetical-to-a-democratic-republic remain unacknowledged, let alone unchallenged...

14 states, I believe, have electronic touchscreen voting, which means the Busheviks start off with a 14-state head start.