To All Those Upset Because DU Is "Too Far Left"......

I have noticed in many postings of late the complaint that DU is "Too far left," "Full of socialists," "Out of touch with the mainstream," and on and on and on.

Please remember that Democratic Underground is firmly planted on the LEFT of the political spectrum - and proud of it. It was founded back when "progressive" actually meany "progressive" in the historical sense and everybody knew that meant LEFT. Yes, DU is LEFT of the "mainstream"....We don't follow the polls before making up our minds and we see ourselves as thinking people who want to influence the mainstream and educate them on issues that are ignored in the media. It's hardly fair for you to come to a place that is well-known as being left-of-center and complain about it being left-of-center. It is an argument absurd on its face! If you want centrist discussion, create a large discussion board where, in your rules (like DU), you state up front and in bold that the board is for discussion among centrists. Pardon the silly analogy, but don't be upset because you wandered in to Toon Town and are angry that all that seems to be here are cartoon characters. We know! That's why we're here! This board was FOUNDED as left-of-center - and we're proud to be toons!

I'LL KICK THEIR ASSES. I'M A PROUD WAY-wAY-TO-THE-LEFT-YELLOW-DOG-LIBERAL. PROUD DO YOU HEAR ME. We are quite a DIVERSE group on this board. WE DON'T MARCH IN LOCKSTEP LIKE THE G.D. FREAKS AT FREAK REPUBLIC.

You want "a diverse group," but will "kick the asses" of DUers who disagree with you.

This is a complete contradiction, and shows that you want diversity, as long as it means agreeing with you. That's a hypocritical argument.

DU is for those who agree with the Democratic Party principles. It's not for your, or anyone's, particular ideology, Skittles.

:bounce:

whine about being out of 'mainstream'. gee, what part of the term 'underground' don't you understand?

besides, the 'mainstream' sucks. i landed here coz i found a community of others that advocated real change, not tweakings of the status quo. and there is still plenty of that here. :)

One would have to be just a tad daft to not "get" the "UNDERGROUND" part of DU.

"The Revolution will NOT be Televised", I wonder what the hell the middies think that means?

DLC?

NO!

anyone who can present facts clearly, perform cogent analyses, and concisely defend their thesis from antithesis are not "out of touch," nor are they exclusively moderates.

its just that such a level of intellectual rigor is found with lessening frequency here.

as to your remark that DU ..

"... was founded back when "progressive" actually meany "progressive" in the historical sense.."

i dont know for sure if you live out where the buses don't run, but this site was founded less than 3 years ago, and i doubt strongly that a paradigm shift in defining "Progressive" has occured in the 33 months that have subsequently transpired.

In quite a signifigant way, I might add.

RC

.

than I could ever hope to be, prove it hasn't. At the moment I am putting myself to bed, though I will be more than happy to comply your directive this afternoon.

In the mean time....just remember....While shifting paradigms sans the clutch demostrates thought outside of the box, a quantative analysis will quickly make clear, the negative effects such a practice has on the overall leveraged synergism of the system. :eyes:

RC

Prove that it hasn't! That old throw-away line is getting really old. We have all seen "progressive" (meaning those of a very particular populist liberal-left political persuasion) turn into a term that moderates can even claim as their own!. This election cycle has brought us very moderate candidates using the term, "progressive." How can you deny that? Since this site was founded, "progressive" is now debated on this board if it even means a shade of liberal or not! When this site was founded, yes just 33 months ago, progressive had a historical context that was not worth debating. Today, that's all changed. A paradigm shift? I don't know - but it's changed! By the way, the buses are running fine here....not always on time......but they're running.

you make grandeous statements like your..

"We have all seen "progressive" (meaning those of a very particular populist liberal-left political persuasion) turn into a term that moderates can even claim as their own!."

and expect, with the mental facility of a fanatic that such change is so self-evident that you don't need to show evidence to support your thesis.

perhaps you just dont understand how to think logically. when you make a statement and say that something has occured it is not for the other guy to prove it hasn't happened but for you to prove it has.

Frankly, you seem to be arguing just for the practice of argument. What's up with that? The fact that DU is not as "left" as a community now, as it was two years ago is obvious. You seem like you would argue sunshine in the midst of a storm, or insist that shades of red are actually off-white. Seriously, how would I prove what I said in the post? Please, step-by-step. Did you expect me to commission and pay for a one-year study? All so I could say that I can prove it?

You wrote, "Perhaps you don't know how to think logically..." I am at a loss and don't know how to respond to you as you obviously are just looking to throw around one-liners designed to attack and ask for proof when I simply wrote something that is obvious for all to see. Except, of course, for those who only want to demand proof for something you know I cannot scientifically prove. Not everything is as simple as offering a link to some site on the internet.

as they always feel confident for speaking for the Democrats. If you didn't know anything about Democrats and American history, it could confuse you!

I imagine they fancy they are well-concealed, and successful.

Thanks for the thread.

Come on, DU, like every other political board that is not frankly and proudly Republican or neo-feudalist, is crawling with people who are falling all over themselves arguing about which candidate will cause the least change in the facts on the ground, the least ripple in the implementation of the PNAC strategy, while also presenting a much more articulate and attractive on-camera performance than bush.

(Which even they will admit is damning by faint praise)

Candidates who veer too far from the PNAC path are considered unelectable, which they are, since they don't have any money.

And there has been a shift, although maybe not the kind you mean.

Left now means supporting the constitution.

The new meaning of left was demonstrated very nicely yesterday in Bolivia.

but, as its membership has grown, the tone has moved to the center, kind refletive of the dem party itself. :(

I usually feel that DU isn't far enough left.

There seems to be a concerted effort here , by a group of folks, to move the boundries of centrism so far to the right that those of progressive leanings feel isolated and allied with those "left wing purists" we hear so much about.That which was once the bedrock convictions of the democratic party is now called fanatsy and fringe politics, it is simply dismissed as not resonating with the voters. I refuse, with all my being, to think so little of my fellow americans.

...for the most part...have striven to 'get along' with the influx of NeoDems and others who would fit just as nicely in the Republican party. There's no reason why we can't coexist on DU if we have common goals and dreams.

- I was on another board when the Florida recount was going down...but quickly looked for another forum and found this one when the old board was infiltrated by RWingers who couldn't write a sentence without blaming Clinton and praising Reagan or Bush*.

- NeoDems and others need to come to grips with the fact that the Democratic party was FOUNDED by 'liberals' and that the very existance of the party has always revolved around representing the PEOPLE over the monied and special interests.

- Perhaps the conflict comes about when 'liberal' Democrats see their party going in the direction that we've tried to avoid since the beginning of the 'Reagan Revolution' in the 80s. We witnessed the destruction of the Republican party over the last few decades as they were replaced by Neocons intent on one-party rule.

Didn't Dems used to be pro-slavery? Wasn't it a tradition to vote Democratic in the South for this very reason?

"Founded by liberals" indeed.

contribute to the idea that we are too far left, particularly when posters like Q assert that their values and beliefs are the "core values" of the Democratic Party, or that the Democratic Party is the liberal party. Though the Democratic Party is (now) more liberal than the Repulican Party, liberals have never been the majority of Democrats

It's time for another Bush/Nazis thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=199853

Thank you, drive through...

Why, I hear tell we used to have a whig party...imagine that nonsense!

Q writes:
"NeoDems and others need to come to grips with the fact that the Democratic party was FOUNDED by 'liberals' and that the very existance of the party has always revolved around representing the PEOPLE over the monied and special interests. "

The Dems were not always seen as the party of the "people" especially if the "people" did not have white skin and were poor. Until FDR blacks voted REPUBLICAN because they were voting for the party of Lincoln who was seen as the great emancipator. Particularly in the south the Dems were the party of the Klan and the white ruling class.

It was FDR who, by coopting much of the socialist agenda in the 1930s, moved the Dem party to being one of the "people." In the 1920s and '30s there was a huge socialist movement in this country and the establishment feared that it could grow and possibly win a presidential election (there had been socialists elected as mayors in some of the larger cities, Milwaukee, WI comes to mind).

"progressive" didn't last all that long. You're quite right that until FDR, the Dems had NO CLAIM WHATEVER to consider themselves "the party of the people." Going beyond that, however -- after LBJ, the New Deal coalition had pretty much run its course, and the Dems' claim to being "the party of the people" became dubious at best after the mid-1970's.

So altogether, there was a period of maybe 35-40 years where the party stood for something progressive. Before that - nada. After that - essentially running on fumes. And even DURING that period, it's important to understand that, as you said, the New Deal coopted the socialist agenda. Which means that the party moved left not because it was firmly committed to progressive values -- but because it recognized the political NECESSITY of (temporarily) moving left, since the risk in not doing so was to invite socialism.

I Love You RichM. Please bow at Alta Bates for me. Peyton now says "Dirt Bag Bush" every time she sees his picture.

She has "Loser ARRRHHNOLD" down as well. Complete with accent. She is a trip!

When asked her age she doesn't say two she says PEACE. Taught her the peace symbol first and that is her age!

Beautiful girl child. Gawd I love her!

I will faithfully convey your respects & Peyton's to Alta Bates - probably in a few hours. I have to scoot by there to pick up groceries at Whole Foods, right across the street.

It sounds like Peyton is learning great things. My best to you both. :hug:

Ever wonder why the "Mainstream" is called a stream? Its because a stream is shallow.-George Carlin

"To All Those Upset Because DU Is "Too Far Left"......" Do these groin cookies say the same kind of shit on freetardrepublic? "This place is too far to the right." RimJob would have a field day with your dumbass, the "block user" function at his side like a six-shooter.

That's my only problem with far-left DUers. What the hell good is having a point of view if you present it in a way that's going to be rejected before you get 5 words out of your mouth. It's stupid and pointless. For example, people who are waiting for a candidate to talk about PNAC are actually waiting for total catastrophe in the next election. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, people will not believe it. Why ask a candidate to set himself up for disaster? Then there's the group who is going to reject any Democratic candidate that isn't as left as they are. That's not being a true Democrat, that's just having a spoiled temper tantrum. Have a point of view and believe in it, but know that it isn't held by the majority and in order to make any progress at all, that majority has to be talked to in language they understand. Or we could just have George Bush for 4 more years.

It should be about doing the right thing. The Democractic Party should stand for that, or else make way for something better.

You have a point about people who directly alienate - that's bad but found among all the local (DU) factions.

That being said there should be enough room here for liberals, moderates, radicals, paleocons, PC leftists, real libertarians, greens, centrists, antiwar people, (true) constitutionalists, undecided voters, non-voters, labor, black and feminist activists, deep politics analysts (the much-maligned "conspiracy theorists"), soccer moms, religiously-motivated liberals, doctrinaire atheists, agnostics and brights, and yeah, if they're participating and contributing actual thoughts and ideas, conservatives and the odd libertarian Republican.

So what?

DU should be for exchanging knowledge, debating issues (and philosophies), and organizing an opposition movement. Only intentional sabotage and sheer frothing should be censored.

All else is masturbation.

what the hell is all the arguing about? Im new here, and as advised I am an independent. Like it or not, kiss my ass. I came here to find out more information than i was getting on the outside, not that its slanted or anything, ya think. I have enjoyed debating, arguing and sharing my thoughts back and forth. sometimes I keep my view, and sometimes it changes. But, truly, I do not understand some of the people who ridicule each other with things like, I'm a better liberal.... No I am.... No, your a neo Dem....no, your not progressive enough.... no, your to far left. I dont get it, is it status that counts? So, if your to far left, your brain stops working right? Maybe if you hold a few conservative ideas, your now not worthy of anyones time or to be taken seriously? I really am confused. Is it all in fun or are people that stupid. I may need an antidote due to all the venom me thinks!

Jason

Have you taken a survey to be so certain that it is always those on the left who post without thought or conscience? I believe wholeheartedly that your assumptions as to the wishes of the american electorate would be far better served byan agenda that stood up and spoke with conscience and clarity. the results of the mid term elections taught you absolutely nothing didnt it?

The people will not vote for imitators or for those who do not defend a position. Shit, the democrats dont even have a damn position!

JasonBerry, I am glad for your post. It feels weird to have kept basically the same opinions my whole life and yet migrate from being a liberal to one who is unacceptably radical.

Still, there are kindred souls here whose on-line company I enjoy in between being distracted or berated by angry centrists.

:toast: Cheers!

I am tired of hearing nothing but right wing spiel on TV and other media. Too little of left wing thougt is ever heard anywhere. Thank god for DU.

The Southern Baptist church was not always the jackbooted organization that it is today (I was raised in this church, for better or for worse). The moderates (that's as close as you'll get to liberal in the SBC) were hijacked and thrown out by the conservatives. The moderates tried in vain to work with the conservatives, to find common ground. The conservatives weren't interested in common ground. They were more interested in a complete takeover, which is exactly what they engineered.

Here's a website that explains some of this Baptist stuff, for anyone interested:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2993.htm

And a couple of excerpts:

The Southern Baptist Convention (currently around 16 million strong) is a bottom-up institution, with autonomous congregations and a democratically elected leadership whose proclamations have not, historically, been binding. One crack in the democracy was evident: The president appoints members to committees which hold sway over organizations like the Baptist press, Baptist seminaries and the missionary organization. The fundies (the decidedly non-affectionate term applied to them by detractors) calculated that winning the convention presidency 10 years in a row could gain them majorities on all committees and de facto control of all the national-level bodies.

The tactic was simple: Recruit like-minded pastors to scare people about the evil of liberalism which, they assured their flocks, was quietly taking over their institutions and diluting their theology. Those who did not endorse the literal truth of every word of the Bible – "Biblical inerrancy" – were on the slippery slope to unbelief. You're with us or you're against us.

(snip)

As soon as they could, the fundamentalists issued an ultimatum to the heads of the Baptist Press, who, they claimed, were unfair in their representations. When the two men refused to cease their supposed criticism, they were unceremoniously fired.

My father was a professor (a job considered somewhere in the neighborhood of heretic by the fundamentalists) at Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas when one of the most brazen moves took place there in 1994. The enormously popular, longtime president of the seminary, Russell Dilday, the day after receiving the highest possible job evaluation from the fundamentalist Board of Trustees, was fired, locked out of his office by those same fundamentalists: He was too "moderate." The faculty was outraged. But the fundies weren't interested in the will of a bunch of liberal academics too far down the slippery slope to be saved. They were right, so the fate of the wrong was of no interest. Not long after, my father (and many others) left.

(snip)

The Bush administration's tactics and policies marry religious and patriotic fundamentalism. It's an unholy union.

Bush is in the White House despite losing the popular vote; that has not stopped him from pursuing a black-and-white vision of the world that ignores those who did not elect him. The administration's reasoning is classic fundamentalism: They know best. Those who dare to question their vision are "irrelevant."
(more)

If we let centerists and DINO-types define what the Democratic message is, what the Party is, we'll soon be indistinguishable from Republicans. I choose to stay on the left.

Thanks for the great thread.

It's ridiculous that being liberal and progressive automatically requires a defensive posture these days.

A healthy politics has always been based on a dynamic tension between "left" and "right." The Democratic Establishment screwed up that equation when they decided that it is between "center" and "right." By doing that they ceded the field by default to the GOP and right-wing.

Whether one is moderate left or radical left, we ought to see as a trusim that "left is good."

been accused, on DU, at various times, of being a far fringe, looney, socialistic, communistic, green, naderite, lemming lefty like it was a bad thing! :eyes:

when i consider the source of these accusations, i can't help but consider them compliments, and feel my beliefs vindicated. :)

edit-massive typos

Perhaps I should have said "have to defend" being of the left to otehrs who are supposedly on the same basic side of the road.

(being a follower of your postings)

still, no need to defend the correctness of your leanings. i no longer feel compelled to responding to the gutteral, knee-jerk accusations of the neo-libs and paleo-dems. :)

compared to my views, DU is what I'd call "slightly left of moderate"

It just sounds like what I've been hearing my whole life; as a matter of fact, this week, my boss publicly referred to me as "Moonbeam___________." Insert my last name.

I don't mind there being diverse viewpoints here at DU; there's nothing to be gained by eliminating everyone who disagrees with you. I would like to see the so-called "mainstreamers" engage with respect; without any efforts to marginalize, or move the lefties to the fringe. Or move the country further to the right.

and am situated in the far-left fringe. :toast:

couldnt resist it, sorry. Actually, for a self proclaimed independent, some of my views are farther left than those on the left. weird

I'm leftist and proud of it.

I'm socialist and proud of it.

America needs to learn A LOT from canada and sweden. AND I MEAN A F*CKING LOT

scoialist and feminist. . .all the things to make a repuog cringe. :evilgrin:

And as I am too.

Not ashamed in the slightest. Canada is a far better country than the United States in nearly every way. :)

And damn proud of it

My problem is with those members who seek to diver votes away from Democratic candidates or spend the majority of their time attacking and underming elected Democrats. My problem is with those members who engage in character assisnation, take things about elected Democrats out of context, and urge people to vote Green.

I don't have with those to the far left or to those who have a different opinion. I do have a problem with those who would seek to undermine our party's candidates at the polls via voting third party or not voting at all.

If I read you correctly, you don't have a problem with other viewpoints except as consituted by the absence of a (D) next to them.

But surely an idea stands or falls on its merits, regardless of the political party to which it is attached.

Get back to me (G) when you can.

I'd LOVE to see one.

I've seen people defend Greens, and people even praising Greens...but I dont think I've EVER seen ANYONE who says "...vote Green!" :shrug:

(cough, adjust tie)
Terwilliger, if the best candidate for a given race is a Green, then I am right now encouraging you to vote for him or her.

There, was that dangerously radical and iconoclastic enough? Did the foundations of the world tremble and mountains crash to the sea? Just asking.

a mountain near here just exploded...what were you saying? ;-)

By the way, I appreciate your suggestion.

I (D) can (D) no (D) longer (D) remember (D) what (D) I (D) wrote (D), but (D) I'm (D) sure (D) that (D) it's (D) now (D) in (D) an (D) idiom (D) acceptable (D) to (D) my (D) colleague (D) nearby (D).

:)

Looking at mainstream people, most of them "go with the flow" or quietly do what they're told. They're tools of our increasingly fascist society.

Damn right I'm a socialist. For society. For We, The People - that's a big part of the US Constitution. It's amazing how many "patriots" don't care about it or have torn it to shreds with their policies. And our corporations are not innocent in this either, they often treat consumers "guilty, forget the idea you're innocent" - but I'm stopping here as I could go into lengthy tangents into the music/video industry or the IT realm... They are definitely anti-American, and I haven't even mentioned how they find and make loopholes in order to avoid paying taxes, moving offshore, outsourcing offshore, bribing politicians so they get preferential treatment, and so on and so on and so on!

I loved your post! :loveya: Well, I may be animated but I've never considered myself as being a cartoon... :D

You can't help it! You're just drawn that way! :)

Hate to shatter anyone's illusions, but no one "owns" DU. People complaining that DU is "too leftist" is pretty silly, but listening to laments of "Where are all of these centrists coming from?" is also pretty tired. Because it's ALL RELATIVE.

Extremes on both sides attack each other - that's life. But there's more than one way to boot Bush out of office. It's that commonality of purpose (booting Bush) that I value about DU more than any particular political ideology.

(edited, twice, for clarity)

Because I haven't seen them.

If it's one post, then you're thread is kind of disingenuous. If its more than three in the last week, then I'd be more interested and upset.

But just in case anyone really does say this stuff, I refer you to Ductapefatwa's post above. DU being called too liberal is extremly humorous to you know... actual liberals. :D

More than three posts in a week? Try three posts in a thread! many of the Wesley Clark threads, for example, are full of posters making snide comments about how "far left" DU is and references to the "far left" this and "far left" that. As for any specific posts, how about perusing this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=555910

Or the posts in this one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=547619

Or this one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=520938

Seriously though, just pick a thread! The posts are everywhere that disparage the "far left" (or some other equally loaded label). To say you would be worried if there were more than three a week?. With that standard, you should be mortified.

The first was expressing a personal view, not attacking the left.

The second had nothing to do with attacking the left, but instead saying we needed to reclaim the meaning of the word partiotism - I agree with that.

The third was a post kinda like yours, defending progressives.

I wasn't asking for individual responses - I was asking for threads. I don't see centrists starting threads attacking progressives or "leftists" all the much. If you do, then please post me about three from the last week?

That's all I'm saying..

By the way, don't get your feathers ruffled, I'm about as hard left as they come. But I also am interested in facts and like to see evidence and stuff. :D

have you not seen those constant references to "left wing purists" or those about how the left refuses to compromise thus seeks to cost the democrats an election? I believe firmly that there is a smallish group here at DU that seeks to plant false meme's in the minds of folks here that the goals cherished by the left are not shared by the electorate. As I have stated before I refuse to accept this diminishment of my fellow americans.

To all the people who aren't afraid to stand up for what is right regardless of bitterness of the corrupt and cowardly, I salute you.

"manhood" *rolls eyes*

weeks ago, and was shocked at how many what appear to me to be very conservative democrats post here. And while there are, undeniably, a good many insightful liberal thinkers here, I have read an alarming number of posts with content that approaches embracing republican ideologies. If people think that this board is too far to the left, I suggest that they read this article by Thom Hartmann about the deliberate attempt by the right wing to brainwash people.

Thom's article:

In the last Democratic debate, one of the questioners pointed out that fewer Americans identify themselves as either liberals or Democrats than at any time since before Roosevelt's New Deal. The implicit question was, "What's so bad about you guys that Americans have decided 'liberal' is a curse word and people are embarrassed to call themselves Democrats?"

Richard Gephardt tried to bluster his way through an answer, pointing to a few Democratic victories, but the overall response left the impression that all the candidates (and most other Democrats) are clueless about what has happened in America over the past 20 years, why it happened, or how.

It's not that the liberal ideals are too old fashioned or that Democrats have disintegrated or self-destructed. It's that American public opinion has been steamrollered.

http://www.opednews.com/hartmann1003_New_Liberal_Media.htm

You, as a new poster, make a statement in your post that says it all.

"Left??? I started posting here a few weeks ago, and was shocked at how many what appear to me to be very conservative democrats post here."

You wouldn't have written that a year ago.

Twenty years of consistent propoganda has made 'fringe' theories that were laughed at, at the time, as simplistic, unworkable, and basically falacious - be accepted as common facts and truths.

Watch conversations on "supply side" economics. Watch conversations on extreme deregulation (not loosening up or reevaluating - but putting complete faith in "markets" - in absense of historical evidence within our own national history). Watch conversations about privatization. And watch carefully how these conversations - in terms of what is accepted as "fact" shift over time. Intentional privatization of some areas moves to blind-faith privatization. Mark my words - the way the propoganda has worked (effectively) - the public sentiment will continue to shift and within ten years full scale privatization of Social Security will suddenly become 'common fact' as the desirable way to go.

It has been amazing to watch.

And watching the conversations change, again in absense of evidence in the real world, has been fascinating - though unsettling.

Watching the conversations occur here demonstrate how pervasive the shift in national conversation via the concentrated rightwing talk effort has been across the political spectrum.

Yes, DU has gained more "moderate" members as its trundled along over the last 3 years. There was a time when hard-core lefties were welcomed, and seen as potential allies in an anti-bush movement. Practically everyone here was a "10 percenter" during the unfortunate autumn of 2001. Now the membership has come to resemble that of the overall Democratic population, and in some ways I'd say this is a "good thing". Not because the original sense of purpose has been diluted, but rather because we are now arguing in a more pragmatic way about how to achieve that which seemed damn near impossible 2 years ago.

If I had a single complaint about the direction of DU, it's that we sometimes take our eyes off the ball whilst squabbling amongst ourselves. There is an overriding goal which should unite moderates and liberals and communists and anarchists alike, namely unseating the shrub and restoring at least part of congress to Democratic opposition control.

as I state in my post above, over the past twenty years many public policy debates have been shifted to where very faulty logic rightwing talkingpoints have moved into the mainstream as "accepted fact".

Two years ago there was much more policy discussions. Really talking through different ways (some debating) of thinking about issues. There were some very interesting discussions that went from the abstract, to the concrete, to the 'phrasing for the general public' - ways to understand issues more clearly - that do resonate with others.

Along with the intercandidate squabbling, there is much more 'shouting down' or shutting down of policy discussions that consider progressive premises as opposed to working from the Reagan (faulty logic) framework. I think this makes it harder to reach the public beyond the rw propoganda - and connect why things like full-scale energy deregulation can promote - ironically - WORSE consumer conditions than some of the 'state sanctioned privately run utility monopolies' of the past. The level of market manipulation and anti-competitive practices that have now been unearthed as the root of the California energy crisis - are about to be allowed nation-wide through the new energy bill that is to go before congress next week. As a community we have lost some of our will to build a greater understanding of policies - and thus greater ability to work along side campaigns (grass roots, grass roots, grass roots is where we will win elections in 2004!).

Just my observation/opinion.

I have noticed in many postings of late the complaint that DU is "Too far left," "Full of socialists," "Out of touch with the mainstream," and on and on and on.

Odd. I've noticed in many postings of late people on the far left complaining about "DLC" and moderates... usually when someone disagrees with them, that someone is branded with that label.

Please remember that Democratic Underground is firmly planted on the LEFT of the political spectrum - and proud of it. It was founded back when "progressive" actually meany "progressive" in the historical sense and everybody knew that meant LEFT. Yes, DU is LEFT of the "mainstream"....

I can't speak for the admins (and neither can you) but there is no little "D" in the Democratic portion of "Democratic Underground."

Further, according to the "about us" section of DU, "Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas."

In other words, it protested the election stolen from a moderate, Al Gore, who had been VP of a moderate, Bill Clinton.

It sure wasn't put up as a protest that Ralph Nader lost!

It's hardly fair for you to come to a place that is well-known as being left-of-center and complain about it being left-of-center.

No one to my knowledge has complained about DU being left of center.

If DU is know for being "far left" it is only because of the negative attention some of the radical and conspiratorial threads by some of the far lefties here get by the rightwing media.

I've heard both Limbaugh and Boortz quote some threads from here that would seem way weird to the mainstream. Of course, that was the point - to pick out some of the more radical stuff to paint an uneven picture.

Before you ask, what threads? Two in particular were broadcast by Limbaugh and Boortz: A thread by someone swearing the rightwing planted bombs in the World Trade Center and another thread claiming the planes that hit the WTC were done so by remote control.

On this board, you have democrats who range from far left to liberal to moderate, but ALL of that is left of center.

I welcome those of all stripes here but it appears to me that DU attracted a lot of far left people after it's inception.

I welcome left of center folks of all stripes but you're fooling yourself if you think DU was set up as a haven for far left people only. And you're fooling yourself if you think they are now, or have ever been, the base of the democratic party.

want to reply but......this was just to good. So, I will not mess with it. pretty damn awesome wyldwolf.

And to you, anything even moderately progressive (in the traditional sense) is "far left." You just don't get it, do you?

While you're here.... you haven't answered, in several posts, a direct question:

Do you work for Wesley Clark and are you paid to visit discussion boards and post pro-Clark propaganda? An answer you gave seemed to (accidentally) indicate this is so. I think it's fair to ask for the truth.

And to you, anything even moderately progressive (in the traditional sense) is "far left." You just don't get it, do you?

Rattle off some progessive policies and we'll see if I get "it."
And I'm dying to know your definition of moderately progressive (in the traditional sense)


Do you work for Wesley Clark and are you paid to visit discussion boards and post pro-Clark propaganda? An answer you gave seemed to (accidentally) indicate this is so. I think it's fair to ask for the truth.

More of your conspiratorial slop. It identifies those like you. Really stands out!

I am a paid Democratic party media consultant. I also manage a polling pricinct in an area over-run with Republicans. See, I work for the party and don't sit around posting unfounded and unproven B.S. like do.

As of this moment, the DNC, nor the local Democratic party affiliate I work for, has endorsed a candidate because we can't and won't until he/she is chosen.

Clark is just my personal favorite. Just like he is your least favorite.

The only other difference between you and me if I'm good at what I do, you just make up stuff.

We just had a poll where the two top finishers (by a wide margin) were Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Two centrist, moderate, some even might say conservative politicians. So I find it hard to see D.U as too far left. Reactionary, maybe...

Those on the far left here are, as I've always contended, a very small but vocal minority.

Centrist Democrats are welcome on DU. So are liberal Democrats. And so are other progressives, as long as they're not using this place to defeat Democrats.

DU was not intended to be home to any particular flavor of progressive. We try to welcome a wide range of opinion.

The word "underground" was a reaction to George W. Bush and other conservatives in power. But it was not intended as a wedge to keep out certain progressives.

I think our rules are pretty clear about who is welcome here:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

Skinner
DU Admin