I'll deal with a Republican majority as long as we get out bad democrats

Seriously - is that what you're all about. Step up and tell me just how much you think all democrats who aren't as far left as you need to be removed from office even if that means a republican could take over the seat.

I mean, as far as I know we need more of us if we want to have the Majority leadership Reid & Pelosi both want timetables out of Iraq, hopefully we'll get to investigate an impeachment and we want the committee control (remember that short time we had majority and our judiciary blocked all the bad judicary nominees so we didn't have to worry about filibusters).

I mean, if none of that is important then as getting rid of all the 'bad' democrats (and btw, who's yardstick are we using to define these 'bad' democrats?) then maybe I just need to shutup about this talk of "Wouldn't it be nice if we had majorities in the house and/or senate" stuff.

I don't care who you vote for in the primaries, that's your time to fight your asses off for the best candidate. But if the democrats of your state feel the best candidate is a member of the DLC damnit, hold your nose and vote for the idiot.

I want a democratic majority. I want Pat Leahy's judiciary committee to put an end of these idiot judicial nominees coming in to stack the courts. I want Harry Reid's leadership to put legislation on the floor to create a timetable out of Iraq. I want Nancy Pelosi's House to look at all the crimes committed by the Bush Regime and possible consider an impeachment.

All these dreams will NOT happen if we have true "R" republicans (not these democrats we don't like that we call 'republicans") controlling the house and/or senate.

Fact: Even after Jeffords defected, Zell Miller could have crossed over to the republican side and give the repukes back the majority BUT HE DIDN'T.

So come on - stand up and be heard!!

Sure I get just as pissed off at Lieberman as the rest of you do, but the D behind his name still counts, and when there are more D's than R's the D's chair committees, set the agenda, decide what bills come to the floor, and yes, CAN call for impeachment hearings!

We really all need to recognize that there is nobody we will agree with ALL THE TIME!

There will be fovorites, and those not so well liked too, but they are still Dems!

We will have a majority in 2006

But all I want for Christmas is to.....



GET SENSENBRENNER OUT OF OFFICE IN 2006

and say, Gee- we've lost 6 elections in a row since the DLC started influencing Democratic policies. We went from being perennially in control of the House- and usually in control of the Senate- to a point where the Party is now basically IRREVELVANT in national politics.

And yet, people seem to want to keep on repeating the same mistakes- they want to keep pandering to the right- and allowing members of the Party to cross over and vote Republican without any consequences.

How many elections will the Dems have to lose before some people get it. The only way the Dems will EVER return to power (or relevancy) is through standing up and fighting for the same traditional Democratic principles that made them the majority for 50 years.

Republican lite is a loser "strategy." Those Dems who support and legitimize Republican policies- make them seem tolerable- keep us from nationalizing the elections and hurt Dem candidates all over the country.

Want to lose a 7th election in a row? Welp, keep on doing the same cowardly wishy washy things you've been doing- and you'll get the results you ask for. Just like 2000. Just like 2002- and just like 2004.

we've lost 6 elections in a row since the DLC started influencing Democratic policies. We went from being perennially in control of the House- and usually in control of the Senate- to a point where the Party is now basically IRREVELVANT in national politics.

You obviously have reams of evidence to suggest this is the DLC's fault. Let's see it.

I made the prima facie case that your "strategy" has been losing elections.

No denying that the Dems have run as Republican lite in the last 3 elections. What did it get them?

Also, as to the poster below's comments- what I hear people who are independent or even Dems say (over and over and over) is that the Dems have gotten so that they don't seem all that different from Republicans.

Why should I vote for them?

The only reason lots of people see to vote for Dems is that they're not Republicans.

And if the last 3 elections (and I would argue all 6) tell us anything- it's that that's not nearly enough.

YOU make a bold statement, YOU provide proof. Otherwise, your credibility is ZERO.

I will admit that you articulated that little piece of factually challenged mythology better than it has been done in a while. Still, with no evidence to support it, it's bunk.

Gore ran in 2000 as "Republican lite"? We picked up seats in 1998, an off year election we were expected to lose. As to 1996, certainly some Greens/Naderites call Bill Clinton "Republican-lite" but most of us on DU certainly don't feel that way. No one ran as Republican-lite in 1994 that I remember. :shrug:

It shows how a party can nationalize an election and create a shift of power with a strong and articulate (if utterly false and unsupported) message.

Yet due to the influence of the DLC- the Dems can no longer do that. What's more- some of their ostensible "leaders" no longer even challenge the other side's policies, further blurring whatever contrast is left.

And I think next year there is a very real possibility of that happening. But going to war with the DLC just before primary season cranks up really isn't the way to do that. In many states in the south and west, progressives don't stand a chance. South Mississippi representative Gene taylor is a good example. He often pisses me off with his individual votes, but on most issues he is with his party. He's the very best (and only) Democrat you could possibly get elected in south Mississippi. Would you prefer a Republican in a case like that? God knows, I wouldn't.

John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Al Gore-these guys and a majority of our national officeholders are members of the much-hated DLC. Do you want to lop off half the party? Who's left? Feingold, Kucinich, Boxer and....."

I don't like the DLC, nor do I identify with their positions but it takes more than progressive Democrats to make a majority. And if you don't have a majority, then you have nothing. I want our guys to run things again and, for that to happen, we must co-exist with other Democrats who share many, if not all, our core values.

When we have the majority then maybe we can focus more on the moderate/conservative democrats knowing that our majority will still be safe even if we lose one here or there.

Your position has resulted in election loss after election loss.

Now, if you care to show that maybe the losses wouldn't have been as bad as they might otherwise have been- that could be a point for discussion. As it stands, the Dems have a losing "strategy," and it's the same Republican lite "strategy" that DU'rs (and analysts) warned about and argued against in 2002 and 2004.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't be a loser again (which, sometimes- is exactly what I think some in the DLC want).

..and in formal debate, you don't throw a claim out without proving it.

Your position has resulted in election loss after election loss.

Prove it.

showed that the set of policies emphasized has resulted in election losses for 6 straight years.

The only reason that I can conceive you'd argue about it- or where the burden of proof might lie- is because you're in denial about the results- or about the so called "strategy."

Is it your contention, then, that it's not been a so called "centrist" DLC strategy that's been emphasized- especially during the last 3 elections?

Also- to look at the opposing strategy- would you say that the Republicans have been playing to (or moving toward) the ephemeral center- or playing to their base (i.e., standing for something).

You made a claim but didn't prove it.

Your reasoning is little more than, "Democrats lost while the while the DLC was in existance, therefore it must be their fault."

You're obviously have no source material, no statistical analysis, no polling date, zero, nada, nothing to prove your claim.

and maybe the problem is for the past 6 elections maybe it's been us screaming about how we need to get rid of these "bad democrats" and we'll vote 3rd party or just not vote at all - that'll teach them a lesson.

Why are you blaming them? I mean 69% of the people in the state of Connecticut approve of Joe Lieberman. Is Connecticut filled with nut jobs or maybe, just maybe there is more to the democratic party than just us here online? I swore in 2004 that Howard Dean was going to win the nomination. Every internet community, blog & online web poll (even at major news outlets) had Dean the winner. How the hell did John Kerry get the nomination unless for some crazy reason maybe people who don't rely on the internet for their information maybe just happen to like Kerry better.

I'm not saying give into them. That's what we have primaries for and we need to run candidates against the democrats we don't like. But if we don't win then we need to at least keep the seat because we do need the majority.

Consider this:

Right here, right now every single democrat could fall into line behind the Murthas & Feingolds of DC pledging their support to setup a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Every single one of them including Joe Lieberman. And you know what that gets us??

How about more war.

We don't have the majority and the war will not end until we get it somewhere. And even with the majority it might not end but at least we have the leadership with Reid & Pelosi to bring the debate to the floor. Then it's our turn to bombard our senators & represenatives with calls & newsletters and flood the media with the reasons for why the war must end. Representative Murtha use to be a loyal backer of Bush's war plan and look at him today. We can make a difference but we won't until we have the majority

What would (and have) the Republicans done over the past 11 years? Why have they been so successful?

How have they dealt who their base considers to be RINO's- or who cross party lines on votes.

Is there a reason why they now control every branch of government and almost every major mass media outlet? If so, what is it?

And if you can identify the set of things they do- then wouldn't it make sense- as a purely procedural matter- to try to adopt a few things from their playbook?

I'm hoping more people follow your advise, split the party even further so I can enjoy even more decades of Republican leadership - creating harsh laws that I'll never bother to follow.

Yep, Republicans love you and hope that you tell me to fuck off since obviously my advise will make their job of getting more republicans elected even that much harder

and that's why you're still advocating the same losing strategies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Free up your mind to be flexible. This is the same sort of thinking that Clinton used to justify media consolodation (despite the fact that the corporate media didn't give him- or his wife- a break from day one).

Want to make life difficult for Republicans?

Start challenging them. Start standing up to them and their allies within your own party.

Start calling them out and exposing them AND ESPECIALLY their polices- for what they are, in no uncertain terms.

Have a little courage- talk straight.

Progressives have the facts on our side- on damn near every issue- in poll after poll, and yet we quibble over whether or not it would be "appropriate" to use them. Pretty sad.

You do realize we, the online political communities of dicussion boards & blogs, are not the only ones out there voting for our candidate.

Have you checked out SurveyUSA's current approval list of all 100 senators just posted today? They gather information from all the major polling organizations within each of the states to rate the candidates

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/100USSenatorApprovalRatings051213byNetApproval.htm

There he is 63% approval rating - Joe Lieberman.

Take your head out of your ass and realized that we are NOT alone. There are millions of democrats across this country and the majority of them do not form their opinion from the internet.

I'm not saying that Lieberman is the only choice for democrat. What I'm saying is, after a primary, if Lieberman is still the candidate then for those of us who live in Connecticut (which I know I don't) will vote for him. And I'm surely not going to waste my time and effort unseating what seems to still be a very popular democratic senator in a safe seat when I have some many choice republican seats I can go after.

We can win elections and when Bill Clinton was in charge we had the formula - get a message, stick to the message. But now Democrats are so all over the board trying to please everyone and not offend anyone that they end up losing races.

Joe Lieberman needs to please one group of voters and that's the ones in Connecticut. Right now he's doing a damn good job. And Tom Carper, my DLC Vice-Chair of the Senate DLCers needs to make sure he's keeping Delaware happy because he represents us. And I will pull the lever next to Carpers name with a GOD DAMN FRICKING SMILE on my face. And then after I pull the lever I'll drive up to Pennsylvania where I'll work my ass off to get people like Santorum out of office.

I've been doing this for way too long to deal with this purity shit. There is only one democrat that I know of who supports every single issue to a "T" like I do and that is ME. Everyone else is a compromise but I support the cause because I know that by dealing with the little issues I can hopefully work my way into solving the major issues.

I think the "Democrats hate America" meme is a helluva lot more damaging to the Democrats than anything the DLC does or doesn't do....and every day on DU you can find our "progressive purists" practically knocking each other down to proclaim how much they personally hate America.

and as big spenders who wanted to spend working peoples tax dollars on people who didn't bother to find a job, and as people who were anti-religion. That has certainly been the spin I'ver heard from republicans and even independents.

I'm sure many DLCers are sincere in their belief that 'getting in power no matter what' will save the Democratic Party.  But it won't.  It's too late.  People are done with voting the bastards out.  They've been doing that the last few elections.  A 1995 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans polled would vote for a third party candidate.  That's right 1995.  62%.  Third Party.  This during (what many at DU seem to think) were the good ol' Clinton days.
 
The DLC may mean well, but they don't get it.  People don't feel ANY party is representing their interests.  A few DNC leaders ARE starting to get it, and the Dems must let them speak.

And that 1995 poll explains why the Greens took control of Congress in 1996...

:eyes:

:shrug:

we want to go back to those days when our Democratic majority was thanks to segregationist Dixiecrats and big city machines. We ran things real good back then, eh? The history of the Democratic Party did not begin and end with FDR.

Nor should we forget LBJ's one really, really bad idea-- the one that wiped out all the good he did and could have done. Or how he courageously, but ominously, lost the South for the party with right and proper civil rights action.

Quite frankly, I haven't seen much in the nature of national strategerizement by anyone in the party lately, although some are trying and there are some fundraising networks.

The simple truth is that all politics is really local, and if the Republicans in Utah want to elect Orrin Hatch, they're gonna do it and no hellraising liberal has a chance.

We lost vast numbers amongst farmers, labor, and a number of other core groups for various reasons, and we haven't figured out how to get them back or replace them. Many of the old issues we ran on just don't play any more, and we haven't found a great longing in the public for new ones that we can address.

So, we can sit back and blame the DLC and the DINOs for all our problems, or we can go out and solve them.

Curiously, it seems DINOs are getting elected at at least the same rate as "real" Democrats. Can't imagine how that's happening...

totally, dude!

Because if you do a DLC member has won the last 4 Presidential elections!

"I'll gladly vote for the Democrat, period."

:spank:

:hurts:

His Republican replacement certainly does not. I would happily vote for a conservative Democrat like Gene Taylor, David Pryor, Phil Bresenden or Kent Conrad before I'd support a "liberal" (hahaha) Republican.

I can't WAIT for us to retake control of the house and senate. When that day comes baby, payback is a mother.

We're no position to be picky.

who may or may not be, but who sticks toward the center on a lot of issues. I don't think we are quite at the point yet where we can either impose Liberal ideology onto all of our elected Democrats, or throw them out the window. I live in NY and am very seriously considering supporting Hillary's new Dem challenger in a primary (I will unless I find out something pretty bad about that person), but I won't vote against her in the General.

Of course we only get to have one Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008, so whoever wants to run better be prepared to defend their record.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves.

We are gonna have to FIGHT for a Democratic majority....and it ain't gonna be easy!

Let me get my boots on .....cause regardless of what we want....we better be glad with just about any outcome that's better than what we have now. Desperate times calls for desperate measures....gotto be satisfied with what we might not normally want.....if its's an improvement!


KICK ASS DEMOCRATS WANTED - WIMPS NEED NOT APPLY!

and right now the enemy are the candidates that have an "R" next to their names. That DLC is not important to me.

I live in Delaware. I could spend all my time and efforts trying to rid a DLC democrat (Tom Carper Vice-Chair for the Senate DLC) OR I could drive 30 minutes north and spend that same time & effort trying to get rid of Rick Santorum.

Who do you want out of office more? Tom Carper, pro-choice, pro-environment, questionable on war, DLC democrat OR Rick Santorum 100% Republican and 100% Pro anything Bush wants?

The clearest example is Murtha. The guy is really conservative, but he gets a lot of DU street cred for actually having the gumption to take a stand.

zell, out!
Lieberman out!
Fuck em! These are people who made me leave the dems and register Green. When the Democrats once again represent the working people of this country, I will support them. As long as they support WAR PROFITEERS like Di Fi, or idiots like Zell or Lieberman, I cannot support them! On the other hand, I have met and talked to Zoe Lofgren. Hell, you can run into her at Safeway, buying her groceries like you and I. She is the real deal, like Howard Dean. These people I will support with my heart and soul. I don't believe either of them belong to the DLC.

because as long as republicans are in control that's what I'm getting. Because as I've said two trillion times - every democrat right now including Lieberman could demand an end to the war but if we don't have a majority it'll never even get through the first round of committee.

Enjoy watching the body bags come home.

Me? I know that Reid & Pelosi are on my side with getting our troops out. A few DLC dems will put those two in a majority position and then we have a fighting chance to end this war.

Republicans in Dem clothing just dont make enough sense to make me vote against my best interest.

easier to fight for the changes we want with Democrats in power. Instead, there are some people that feel compelled to vote again and again for 3rd party candiates who have no chance of winning but who will pull votes from the Democratic candidates. And in so doing they keep helping to keep Rethugs in power. We are on the verge of having all 3 branches of Government controlled by Republicans. This plan to clean house with the Democratic party has so far been disastrous imo. No, I don't like them all. Lieberman is my Senator. But with Gore or Kerry in the White House we'd be in a much better situation.

With Lieberman we would be better off? Compared to what? I'm sorry, A Republican, working for the war profiteers and corporate Fachisim is still the enemy of the people. Again, I ask, compared to what? Are you willing to give up Democracy and your civil rights. ie:patriot act to get along and move towards the so called, re defined, "middle"? I will not! As my bumper sticker states " You can have my civil rights when you pry them from my cold, dead hands." Fuck em, I am willing to fight and die for what I believe this country was founded on. Freedom of, and from religion and the right to dissent!

I said Lieberman was my Senator. (I live in CT). But since you made the comment, yes we are better off with Lieberman in the Senate than we would be if the child molester who ran against him had won.

What I did state was that with Gore or Kerry as president we'd be in better position than we are today. Neither would have watered down environmental laws, given huge tax cuts to the rich, we probably would not be in Iraq, neither would have nominated a hard right wingnut to serve on the Supreme court, etc.. My point is that even though all Democrats are not as progressive as I would like, it would be a whole hell of a lot easier to fight for what we want with Democrats in control than with hard line Republicans in control. Continuing to vote for people who cannot win and who will only take votes away from Democrats only serves to keep Republicans in control. The Republicans are now one vote away from having control of all 3 branches of Government. Please explain to me how that helps progressives.

End of discussion

Because you know as well as I do that if we don't get a majority then we have no chance of ending that war. You tell me how a minority in the house and/or senate will bring the discussion the the main voting floor where we have coverage on C-Span.

Because last I checked Minority = MORE WAR

So for now on when I here this crap about "I ain't voting for this DLCer" to me, I'm calling you a war-mongerer because it's obvious you aren't going to do anything about getting that majority we need to at least have a fighting chance at ending this war.

John Murtha was as pro-war as Lieberman. They can change. But John Murtha can't do jack shit with Dennis Hasert and Tom Delay in charge (let's face it, he's pulling Blunt's puppet strings).

So you want to say you're so anti-DLC you'd not vote for them even if it was a close race and could give the seat to the republican - then FUCK YOU for making this war last longer. I blame you and I will post this over and over again.

Fight in the primaries for your candidate but general election fight for the people who want this war to end

Seems to be a common theme.

:hi:

or trying desperately to defend people who just want to take the money or get on TV every week and stand for nothing- even if it means losing over and over.

That would be your province.

I'd rather win- both in terms of political power and on the policy level.

I've been here on DU since the beginning and I've seen this "I won't compromise my standard one bit" voter mentality and it's done shit to help turn this around.

It's called the primaries. If you can't be bothered to put the good candidates on the ballets to run against these 'undesirables' and then go out there and campaign like hell for them then stop looking at me like I'm to blame.

When I realized that PA might end up with Bob Casey Jr as their governor (I'm ok with a pro-life senator but NOT a pro-life governor), I went up every single fricking weekend to campaign for Ed Rendell even though he was the overwhelming underdog. We ended up not only winning that primary but the general election to boot.

I campaigned like hell for Howard Dean too but he wasn't the candidate that the rest of the democratic party wanted, which if you haven't figured out, is overwhelmingly NOT a member of the online political culture.

I'd like to think my democratic tent is big and welcomed to all sorts of people. Who am I to hold up the yardstick and declare "I'm the judge of all good things democratic". But I suppose your shit doesn't stink when it comes to political ideology. I suppose I should be lucky just to be in a debate with you :eyes:

I've been here too, for a long time.

I don't have any particular ideology. I look at things and analyze situations with the facts I have- thats what I do, and what I've always done, since I was a little kid. I rarely post anything about what I've done, nor where I've been. That seems- I dunno. Crass to me. People will either get what others say, or they won't. I'd rather have ideas stand or fall on their merit.

That said- the way I look at things is from what used to be called a systems perspective. There are still a few general systems people around today, but the Renaisance in systems has a different component about it-

Where there was once a worldview- there's now emergence. Eats right into the heart of what some people tried to put together after WW II, IMO. Long story, that.

If you want to give up your rights to compromise, have a ball. I will not compromise my right to elect people who actually support the American citizan. If you are willing to give up your civil rights to win a compromise, fine, they are your rights to give up but as for me, come get em mutherfucker! I am armed and dangerous and willing to die for the constitution and Bill of rights.

But if the rest of the folks in my state feel the other democrat is more important than the one I'm fighting for then I'm not going to make it worse for the party by helping republicans (true republicans, you know, the ones with the "R" next to their name) get elected.

I know that as long as republicans have the majority they won't stop the war. Bush was very clear in his message in Philadelphia on Monday and when he spoke to the cadets at the Naval academy. And I know that the bulk of republicans including the leaders of the house & senate will follow Bush like 99.99% of the time. I've seen Joe Lieberman's voting record - he'll follow Bush about 35% of the time, which in my book isn't good but a hell of alot better than a republican

And, sorry about the language. I Shouldn't drink and internet at the same time.

... is that they dilute the ability of real Dems to have and hold any values. When half your party votes with the Repugs it's REALLY HARD to claim you have a better vision.

I'd rather bite the bullet.

but a selfish, childish brat who does not care about the welfare of his/her fellow Americans.

which is exactly why I say we need to put forward a united AND prgressive front- because that's what will win back the Dem majority.

Debasing most of the party's core- including lots of those who choose not to vote- won't do that.

Make a stand for something- and people will rally and follow. Play Milquetoast, and mostly, people don't get on board. That's human nature.

Leadrship involves inspiring people- something that the Lieberman's and Biden's of the world long ago abadoned (if they ever really knew or believed).

...are the "D" lawmakers who vote for extreme, theocratic-based legislation to pander to cultural conservatives and wishy-washy soccer moms, solely to get reelected.

A 'majority' fraught with many of the worst offenders often flogged here and around the country, is not really a 'majority'.

I generally hear two things from the disenchanted workaday Joe and Jane six pack crowd, 1. They are all crooks anyway. (Not true, but many on the right love that millions of the working poor feel that way) 2. Yeah, republicans whore for big business, but Dems support NAFTA, Bankruptcy Bill, etc.

"When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

I read that Truman quote here a few months back. Bet, you'll never guess who posted it?

Given the choice to vote between the asshole in charge and a weak candidate who can't defend some of the lamest charges thrown against him or where he stands on the issue, we tend to go with the asshole in charge. Outside of obvious election fraud that I believe happened in Ohio and Florida, Kerry loss because of a crappy race where he he was easily slandered by his opponent. I mean Kerry was a fricking decorated war veteran getting trumped by an asshole who went AWOL during his time served in the national guard position he got through favoritism.

Don't think like an educated voter who researches and follows this stuff online. Think of this as disenchanted workaday Joe and Jane six pack crowd. Kerry looked weak and did nothing as Bush made him look weaker. All Bush needed was some help from Diebold to ensure a victory.

And explain why my republican parents who live in a republican district in Pennsylvania not only voted for the democrat for their representative but the moderate (some my call Repuke-like) democrat easily won. Because Tim Holden representated what the people in that district wanted and he was clear-cut in showing the case of why he was the better case not just once (when he was redistricted into a republican district in 2002) but TWICE when he ran against Joe Paterno's son.

I'm not defending the DLC, I'm defending a democratic majority and what we need are candidates that are willing to come out with a strong message of WHERE THEY STAND. That's why Bill Clinton won. You might not agree with what he believed in but he let you know what he believed in. Gore didn't do it and neither did Kerry

;)

:popcorn:

Not enough people know who Eugene Debs is.

I agree, really was an inspiration but today his name is a murmur.

Are we better off with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker instead of Hastert and are we better off with Reed and Durbin running the Senate instead of Frist.

The answer of course is obviously yes.

If having a few yellow dog or moderate/conservative Democrats with a big D next to their name gives us a majority, than that is the only important thing.

A lot of the "purists" on this board don't get that in terms of Congress, having the majority is virtually the whole ball of wax. YOu set the agenda, you design the legislation, you control the committees, EVERYTHING.

SO the answer to your question is obvious.

in either house of congress, or in my state legislature (which doesn't now have a republican majority, but in which the "Christian Coalition" is a force for evil.)

No. Fucking. Way.

I guess it goes w/o saying that I don't want them in the WH or on the Supreme Court, either.

...and that means NO HILLARY CLINTON NOMINATION in 2008, or the downticket magic just ain't gonna happen!