Rule of thumb...bring your enemy down first. Then clean house.

[madfloridian]

Really cheery to come here and see that so many here are not critical of the Republicans especially. Instead of banding together, so many are going after the Democrats.

I guess I always thought there was a rule that first you defeat your enemy, then you clean your own house.

I see that there are very many here who do not see the need to even have the officially designated DNC anymore. They get it confused with the DLC, which is a think tank. So they are going to withhold support from the DNC to hurt the DLC types who were for the war.

Okay, think about the hilarity of that position. Think about it.
Don't support the Democratic National Committee whose new chairman is trying to grasp back financial control from the corporations....and put it into the hands of the people again with small monthly donations.

That will most definitely keep the party under the thumb of the corporate lobbyists who have bought off so many of our Democrats.

Then send out people to call all our Democrats names. And if someone here at a Democratic forum protests that it is a little overboard, we get called worshippers, we get made fun of.

I guess the rules here are broad enough to allow for advocating 3rd party and withholding support from the current one. I guess they are, at least. The 50-State strategy be damned, silly idea anyway to think our party had the guts to matter in all 50 states.

So let's keep track of all the "I told the DNC off" threads, and God bless this country. We are throwing it all back to the right wing of the party...the power that is.

Here are the rules:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted.
When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this
website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media
against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive
attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not
welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of
the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work
for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you
are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or
advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other
than the Democratic party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain
other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan
activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."

Cheers.

[papau]

1. Well said. :-)

:toast:

:-)

[PATRICK]

2. Well

there was the French and Indian War when the idiot redcoats would march straight into disaster and the backwoods Americans would work hard to help and not get sucked into their protectors' massacre.

If they would loosen up as an organization(with some very obvious exceptions in the organization tree) and accept help and support their their base and not attack us first it help dissolve the divisions in the current relationship- in which the DNC etc. holds the main power and hope for victory still.

It bodes ill for the future that the relationship, even if successful now, continues on a model destined for ideological warfare down the line- if anyone can think that far ahead. A war that the DNC and DLC misled and misthinking as it currently is, is bound to lose.

But no king from afar controls any of the party organizations and they are not that foreign or remote. Reforms are active within these organizations now containing people respected by those who brand the organizations themselves as bad. It need not be a hopeless division, now or ever. Nor will the victory of democrats mean another super party. IF progressives help it should guarantee the broader participation of sane, well-meaning yet different points of view either within the party or within competitive progressive parties. Hopefully it would be more than burying the hatchet temporarily. Settling scores is not the healthy rebirth of democratic discourse, but a remnant of the GOP disease.

[cmd]

3. Thank you n/t

[populistdriven]

4. thanks! you made some great points and this really makes sense of

what we have to do to accomplish our goals with reforming the DNC and restoring its power

[chalky]

5. Nommed.

n/t

[DerekG]

6. There's a reason Jesus assailed the Sadducees, and not the Romans

When I look upon the leaders, and the upper crust, of the Democratic Party, I think of the Sadducees. They were the Hebrew elite, who respected Rome's sovereignty, out of their own desire to salvage their clerical, ecclesiastical state. They were unprincipled charlatans, who exploited, and betrayed, their own people; in some instances, collaborating with butchers like Pilate in dooming zealots and undesirables to torment and death (complicit, perhaps, in the most famous crucifixion of all).

I'm not surprised when a Roman conducts himself as a Roman; the deeds of the Sadducee, on the other hand, are beyond reprehensible. They offer us hope, and then snatch it away.

You can wage your campaign against the Right. But some of us on the loony Left are gunning for the likes of Clinton and Biden. What can I say? I don't like Vichy types.

[Frances]

7. You are entitled to your opinion

There are people on both the right and the left who do not like Democrats.

But if I understand the DU rules correctly, then you should be posting on another board. This board is for Democrats.

[DerekG]

8. I am a liberal Democrat who discriminates

Notice the Wellstone avatar. There is a vast gulf that exists between principled ground soldiers like Kucinich, Conyers, Lee, Kennedy (and a few dozen others), and neo-liberal hawks and corporatists like the Clintons, Biden, and Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

9. And because you don't support the effort to include the people....

you are contributing to the power these guys have. We have to have a support base before we can change things. Sounds to me if one is "gunning" for certain candidates, it might be interpreted as breaking the rules...or nearly so. Just a thought.

[DerekG]

10. No, we need only struggle in order to change things

The socialists and communists didn't have a vast support base, but their efforts managed to light a fire under Roosevelt's feet (with help from Democrats like Huey Long). The result? The Social Security Act, and some of the more radical New Deal legislation.

And though I consider the political destruction of pro-war Democrats to be elemental to progress, I'll try to keep my more extreme comments out of the DU (lest you become a moderator).

[Frances]

11. I think you are getting the point

You will accomplish much more for this country if you focus on helping the Democrats you do like.

Never fear, the Repubs will go after the Democrats you don't like, as well as the ones you do like. There is no shortage of attackers.

[madfloridian]

13. But the ones doing it now.....

are targeting the ones who are not really the bad guys. Why bring down the good guys in an effort to hurt the bad guys?

Seems like some groups have their priorities out of order.

I won't mention names or group names now, but they are attacking the very ones who are trying to change things.

I was never much of one for anarchy myself. Never thought it would work.

[DerekG]

14. Actually, I'd like to know: what progressive is attacking the good guys?

I haven't seen one instance in which a lefty attacked Kucinich, McDermott or any member of the Black Caucus.

And I'm not an anarchist, either; I just fear God too much to be a supporter of politicos who apologize for the murder of children.

[madfloridian]

15. We have a different definition of "good guy."

I like the ones you mention, but good grief, there are so many others as well.

[Gronk Groks]

18. Remember, we are the big tent guys...

...I'm not a fan of Lieberman myself, but when you compare him to Santorum he doesn't look to bad.

Got to get the re-Thug fascists out before you start persecuting the vichy Dems...

[ginnyinWI]

31. this bears repeating

notice it's not if you criticize, but how:

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted..... Highly inflammatory or divisive
attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not
welcome here."

[Iowa]

76. Excellent post by DerekG - I agree completely...

While this is a Dem board, I take that to mean it is a board for people who support Democratic ideals espoused by the likes of FDR, LBJ, and other genuine Democrats. Hell, Richard Nixon was a better Democrat than some of the corporatist jokes who now wear the Democratic mantle. They deserve all the derision we can muster. To suggest that we should all remain silent while these traitors sell us out is ridiculous. Unfortunately, membership in the Democratic party doesn't necessarily mean squat.

[lateo]

88. Indeed...

It is easier to defeat your enemy when your house is in order.

[welshTerrier2]

77. a few words from Sarducci

i can't see why the Democrats are attacking him ... i think some of his stuff is pretty good ...

The Pope, he's one amazing guy. I remember when he came to New York. He gets picked up at the airport by a limousine. He looks at the beautiful car and says to the driver, "You know, I hardly ever get to drive, can I drive?" The driver, he can't say no to the Pope, so the Pope gets behind the wheel, and the limo driver climbs in back. The Pope is a speed-demon, hits the gas and goes about 100 in a 45 zone.

So, a cop pulls him over, goes up, looks in the window, and runs back to his squad car, and radios headquarters. He says, "I just pulled over somebody really important". What do I do? Well, they say, "give the guy a ticket". I can't do that, he is REALLY important! "What", they say, "more important than the Governor, or the President?"

"I dunno," says the cop, "but he's got the POPE drivin' for him!"

When the Pope was a young priest, he was hearing confessions one Saturday in his small church in Poland, and a drunk comes in, and goes in the confession box next to him, sits down, and says nothing. The Pope coughs to attract his attention, but still the man says nothing. So, the Pope, he knocks on the wall a couple of times, trying to get the guy's attention. Finally, the drunk says: "No use knockin', there's no paper in this one either."

[Rowdyboy]

12. Another way to say the same thing...."Don't start redecorating when

the house is on fire".

Lets stop the hemorrhaging first, then we can perform cosmetic surgery.

[AntiCoup2K4]

56. How do you stop hemorrhaging without knowing the source of the hemmorhage?

If it's internal bleeding that's killing this party, then it doesn't matter how much outside pressure you put on the wound, does it?

Fact is, that Republicans, whether they be normal conservatives (are there any left?) or neocon fascist radicals, will always vote against us and campaign against us. That's expected. But when those who vote against us, and slander us in the press are calling themselves "Democrats", then that must be stopped. And concentrating on the Republicans is not going to make any difference as far as the internal threat is concerned.

[Beam Me Up]

16. I hear you.

And I hope you understand that, after what some of us went through in the last election cycle, some of us out here are going to have a very hard time supporting Democrats who do not take strong outspoken positions against the war on Iraq and the many ills of our society, the festering boil of which is the *Bush administration.

Our country has been hijacked by a bunch of criminals. We haven't had a PRESIDENT in FIVE YEARS -- the man occupying that office being nothing but an embarrassment to the human species -- and that is not a joke. But everyone is acting as if this is "normal." Business and politics as usual.

It is NOT NORMAL! Our nation is in PERIL. Al Gore said it: This administration is a threat to our national security. You go Al! Meanwhile, everyone else is acting as if its no big deal.

If this madness is not brought to a halt and soon, believe me "Constitutional Crisies" will be the least of our worries! They are seriously considering the first strike use of nuclear weapons. Do you think the rest of the world is going to just sit by and let what was once the United States of America get AWAY with that?

I don't.

[madfloridian]

23. But we all went through the same election....that's why we have to rebuild

and fight. I am a fighter. I just see more and more of this destructive attitude toward the DNC which is about the only place we can effect change right now.

The DLC folks don't need us. Our money means nothing to them. The DNC if we help rebuild can take away the reliance on the corporate money to a great extent.

Sometimes we have to get stronger before we can make a difference.

[Gelliebeans]

17. Well put.

We are fighting over "who" is gonna be in charge. Hello....no democrats are in charge YET. If we bide our time and stick together a bit longer for the sake of unity, then we can squabble about "who" gets to be in charge after we get back in the driver's seat. To be honest, I no longer read through the in-fighting. It's unproductive.

[Neil Lisst]

19. Anyone who isn't FOR the party is against it.

Anyone who abandons the party because some of its members are too much like Republicans is helping Republicans.

Those are the people who assured Bush the presidency in 2000 by helping the sell out Nader.

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. That subject line...

"Anyone who isn't FOR the party is against it."

sounds uncomfortably similar to a well-known line by a well-known chimp.

[jonnyblitz]

24. yeah...quoting bush is kinda creepy if you ask me. nt

[DerekG]

28. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. Chimpy, is that you?

Sure sounds like it. And the sell out DLC is killing this party, not Nader. Nader's a fucking non-entity after 2004.

[Acryliccalico]

84. sounds to bush like !!!

I don't care to adopt his words or ideas in any way. There is room enough for all. :kick:

[Brundle_Fly]

20. Well said.

Watching the stupid Republicans, backing this admin, in lock step should be evidence enough, that if we are not united, NOW. We'll have an untold continuation of this utter SHIT, for god knows how much longer.

I will back anyone, who will work for the people again.

[Guaranteed]

22. Mad, I'm hoping that you're not referring to my thread,

because I most definitely did not "tell the DNC off," in any sense. In fact, I gave them money, and I have a full understanding of what they're doing. I did feel the need to explain the fact that we need Paul Hackett heading our 2006 campaign, though, and I also think it's maybe a little irritating that they're calling everyday.

And, yes, I know that Dean is a Hackett supporter. That's entirely expected. He needs to act on that, though.

Mad, you can take things the wrong way sometimes. Read my thread very carefully. I don't hold anything against the DNC- and I'm not referring to the DLC, at all- whatsoever. However, there are *reasonable* messages that they- the DNC- need to hear.

[madfloridian]

25. I was not referring to your thread.

But many did not appear to understand what you were saying.

Actually Dean is not a Hackett supporter, he can't be. He can not support one candidate over the other. Hackett was supported by DFA, but Dean was not really involved in it. I have not seen DFA come out on this campaign yet. Not sure what is going on.

I have read more and more threads on this lately. Yours was not about withholding support. I do the same thing when they call me. I give them my opinions as well as a donation.

But let me say one thing....please don't make it sound as though I am the one taking things the wrong way. That is a major characteristic of members here.

I make it clear where I stand, I don't insult. I think we have to have priorities, and I don't think a lot of folks here are thinking that way.

This is a vulnerable time for the Democrats. I have had some of the leaders of PDA and some affiliated groups tell me that their goal is to hold Howard Dean's and the DNC's feet to the fire.

Two ways to look at that. Some actually think it will pull the party leftward. I don't think so. I think we will be lucky to just pull it back to the middle. It does great harm to have all the criticism publicly of Dems by Dems. I think most understand the DLC part now or should, but many don't.

I did not take your post the wrong way. I knew what you meant. However, I posted along the same lines today, and I was told I was jealous that Cindy likes Kerry better than Dean. That was one of the WTF moments I had today. That was a real eye-opener for me.

I think many here are skirting the edges of the rules. But that is not my business. Just remember, BGL, I always am honest about where I stand. I don't care about being liked....been there done that...had my popular years in high school and college. It means nothing now at all.

You know the term well-behaved women seldom make history? That sort of applies here. Fitting in is not my goal. Saving my country is.

[welshTerrier2]

29. "He can not support one candidate over the other."

cannot or should not ??

isn't Dean supporting Bob Casey in PA over his Democratic primary challenger, Chuck Pennacchio?

[madfloridian]

34. Schumer and Reid chose Casey.

They never discussed it with anyone else. Schumer called Rendell, decided on Casey though he was anti-choice. I doubt Dean even knew it was happening.

He did say nice things about Casey, but Casey had already been hand-picked by then.

[welshTerrier2]

46. is Dean not "SUPPORTING" Casey?

here's an interview i found with Casey who claims Dean is "SUPPORTING" him:

IgnatiusInsight.com: You are supported by the national Democratic Party and Howard Dean. Dean, who is backed enthusiastically by such groups as NARAL, is promoting your candidacy. Why?

Casey: Leaders in the Democratic Party as well as voters in both parties are supporting me in this campaign for a variety of reasons: I have a strong record as Auditor General and State Treasurer of being a tough and independent fiscal watchdog and an advocate for children and older Pennsylvanians.

[madfloridian]

52. Dean said a few nice words about him....

He never said he was supporting him. Casey said that. Perhaps Casey misspoke.

I am backing off from debating you on this, as I have been asked not to react to being baited. I do know that you advocate against the Democratic party on principle, so it really does not matter what he does or says..

Backing away.

[welshTerrier2]

59. that's total crap ...

i do NOT advocate against the Democratic Party !!! that's a fucking lie ... the truth is, i really don't think you can tell the difference between criticisms of policies and attacks on the Party ... it's pathetic ...

when you say "you have been asked not to react to being baited", it makes me wonder who it is who is who is "asking" you ...

too bad you have to resort to personal attacks to make your lame-ass points ... but since you did ...

"back away" as far as you can ... i put no credence in anything you say anyway ... the last thing we need is Dean "worshippers" around here ... those who aren't afraid to address the issues are the ones who will ultimately bring about the changes we need ... those who want to blindly follow Howard Dean even when he is wrong are of no value to real Democrats ... you see, it is really you who are advocating against the Democratic Party ...

[madfloridian]

60. "the last thing we need is Dean "worshippers" around here"

Ok.

I know you put no credence in anything I say.

[autorank]

26. I give but today I told DNC I was fed up with their timidity.

I know the difference between DNC and DLC. I also know a timid party and that's what we've got. Dean made his name when he fired up CA DEMS by saying, "Hi, I'm Howard Dean from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Well, what has happened to that stance? They issued a 200 page report on Ohio which quite correctly decried minority voter suppression and then spent 100 of the 200 pages conducting an obscure statical analysis which few in American could ever understand to prove that Kerry lost! Ohio. :wtf: Oh, and did I mention that the report was under the management of Donna Brazile.

If people are not giving to DNC because it's confused with DLC maybe that's because DNC has virtually no identity and is a surrender monkey on the fundamental issue of our time -- stopping the republicans from stealing any more elections through the varieties of election fraud. They did it in Florida, that did it in Georgia (at least in 2002), and it happened all over in 2004 but noooooo, we Democratic leaders can't say anything about it. We'd look rash, angry.

Well I'm angry as Hell at the Republicans for allowing the worst factions of their party to destroy democracy and I'm very disappointed in my DNC for rolling over and taking it.

Why won't they move on this, why won't they fight, why should I give them any money?

I got a call today and said I'd give money again but not today. I gave them a message that they were blowing it on election fraud. The lady said, "we're doing something about that. We've got the lawyers committee." That means they get a lot of complaints, enough for a scripted telemarketer to have an immediate comeback (this is encouraging). I told her that I knew a lot about the subject and that they'd had a lawyers committed in 2004 and did nothing.

I'd like to see the Democrats do something to fight the forces that are driving America down. I'd like to see signs of life. I have not and I'm not hopeful.

[madfloridian]

27. I think there is a lot going on right now on that issue.

This lawyers' group was just formed when Dean became chair. Many are volunteers, some are paid. Many more than before. It takes money to fight money.

[autorank]

30. There are people who have put together extraordinary material.

These include the litigants in Ohio and New Mexico. Did you know that in Lopatiguii et al Plaintiffs vs. Rebecca Vigil-Giron in her capacity as Secretary of State in New Mexico, a suit has progressed to the point of real discovery on election systems, election systems vendors, state and local boards of elections? This suit is by voters who "wish to have (their) vote(s) properly counted and weighted in any forthcoming election." This is not the recount case but a demand for free and fair elections in the future. This could blow open the horrible record of election irregularities that were unique to Hispanic-American and Native American precincts (some of which had no recorded votes for votes for Kerry, many of which had "undervote" rates 3-4 times the rate of non Hispanic precincts). The attorneys involved are doing this on limited funds and succeeding. Why won't DUNC step in? (Maybe because Ms. Vigil-Grin is a Richardson cohort--the Gov who wanted 1.5 million for the 2004 recount and who then blew off the request when a legally required deposit was proffered for the recount.)

This stinks! They have enough information from a variety of sources to know that the election was trashed and that irregularities exist all over. South Florida Democrats had a great year in 2004 on registrations, money, activism, yet Bush did much better than expected with out any sign of successful organizing on the part of Republicans there. DNC knows this.

I respect Eric Holder, who heads up the Dean created election fraud group, but it's 12 months before election day 2006 and nobody is raising a ruckus. Holder's group has been together for 5-6 months. I don't think they're capable of action institutionally.

I am optimistic, however, about the ability of grass roots and concerned professionals to get the issue out front. At that point, it becomes a broad based movement capable of real change and DNC and our other "leaders" who do little to lead and much to avoid following an angry and activated voter base.

[Boomer]

39. Not hopeful here either

The corporate takeover of America cuts across all party lines. Republicans are getting bigger corporate donations, but many top-rank Democrats are compromised as well, which is why they shy away from issues such as Enron and Iraq and supported the bankruptcy bill.

Old-style political process has been dismantled as the fascist version of our government takes its place. Supporting one party over another becomes increasingly meaningless when neither is willing to take a stand against the corruption that drives our national agenda.

[autorank]

70. Boomer, buddy, you made my day;)

The interesting thing is, a) you're right and b) the DEMS could have shifted to broad pulbic support (which allowed them to keep pace with Republican dollars in 2004). Of course, keeping the broad based, $50-$200 contributors producing would mean representing them; not a good idea if you want heavy duty corporate bennies for your Senate or House campaign or maybe as a calling card when you're looking for a job after you retire.

[Boomer]

75. Promoting the "small donor" is an empty gesture...

...when top Dem officials are getting lobbyist jobs for their spouses.

No amount of $20 bills, traveling through legitimate channels, is going to overbalance the back-room wink and nudge that leads to a high-salary job for a wife, brother, daughter, you name the relative. It doesn't pay for those vacation junkets, or the free golf, or expensive dinners at Washington restaurants.

Graft takes many forms, and only a few of them are the highly visible campaign donations. It's easy to replace those funds from grass-roots Dems and claim to be free of corporate control, but that's laughable for anyone who follows the money trails in and out of the pockets of the politicians themselves rather than the party.

They're going to take your $20.00 and smile broadly while some corporate lobbyist slips a hundred times that much money right into their wallet.

[madfloridian]

81. I heartily disagree....it can work.

Will it? Not if folks here have their way. But it can work, and there is always the possibility it might work. That is why we will continue to support the DNC.

[madfloridian]

71. The DNC is trying to do that with smaller donations.

Why are you not accepting of that?

[Boomer]

74. Accepting of what?

"Smaller donations" is like trying to bring down a rogue elephant with a pea shooter. There may have been a time when that would have made a difference, but we are well beyond that time now.

The fascist corporate empire is intertwined in every aspect of our society, and I don't hear many official voices speaking out clearly and directly at the breadth and depth of the corruption. The root problem is unregulated capitalism, and few politicians -- Dem or Repug -- are going to risk being called a socialist or a commie for suggesting that capitalism needs to have its teeth pulled and be tied up in titanium chains in order to function in a civilizied manner.

We are beyond "normal" politics, beyond incremental little band-aid patches that cover a few pimples so we can proclaim we have cured the rot. Our entire government is compromised, and has been headed this way for over 50 years, since the time Eisenhower warned of what would come if we were not vigilant.

This corruption walks alongside the increased frenzy of consumerism in our society, the weakening of many traditional ethics in all professions, and generations of children who have no connection to a value system that held our culture together.

We're probably a few decades too late to actually make the changes that could have created a different outcome. Over the course of the last few years I've become increasingly convinced that we will have to ride this out to the worst, like a drunk headed for bottom, before we crawl back out of the pit.

And it's going to be a rough ride.

[Armstead]

32. You have it backward

It is necessary to clean house to win.

I would agree with you that the DLC and the DNC need to be seperated.

But in part the confusion exists because the DLC has so long been the dominant tone of the Democratic Party.

regardiung the original point, we've been told election after election that we need to continure the same old corporatist non-strategy to win. Then once we regain power we can actually make positive changes.

It hasn't worked. Why keep banging ourselves in the hammer in a misguided attempt to cure a headache?

[madfloridian]

33. So you don't think we need the Democratic Party? Is that what you say?

That is your right. I gather you advocate 3rd party or withholding support from the DNC.

[Armstead]

35. Where the hell did you get that from?

We need the Demoicratic Party more than ever.

But we need them to be a Democratic Party in the ideal sense, of a broadly based party that truly represents the economic interests of grass-roots America.

That requires puilling away from the corporate trough, and getting out of bed with the elite oligarchs who have taken over both parties over the last 30 years.

[madfloridian]

40. We have someone who is trying to do that.

I misunderstood this sentence of yours, I guess.

"It hasn't worked. Why keep banging ourselves in the hammer in a misguided attempt to cure a headache?"

I gathered you meant something else.

It takes money to have a voice, but we have all these posts here advocating not giving to anyone but candidates. I can see doing that sometimes. But we have to have a central voice, and the progressive groups so-called are working very hard against the DNC.

It has surprised me. So it comes down to either supporting the present instrument for change, or not supporting it. That's all I'm saying.

[Armstead]

45. I agree with you to a point

I agree that we shouldn't starve the DNC.

But I disagree that we should continue to blindly accept the mantra that they automatically deserve the support of clear liberals and progressives "because we have no where else to go."

That's one reason the DNC has become so complacent and corporate over the years. That form of subtle blackmail has enabled them to avoid the very segments of the population they should be cultivating.

[madfloridian]

48. That is why we are not going to win next year.

Just exactly.

QUOTE:"But I disagree that we should continue to blindly accept the mantra that they automatically deserve the support of clear liberals and progressives "because we have no where else to go."

Dean does not say that as chairman, I am not saying that here. I am just saying that post after post at a Democratic forum saying I am not supporting the DNC is just getting out of line.

I think most of us know who is feeding this, and it will continue. The ones who switched to work on one campaign to go to another last year, and then back again....the ones who are after Dean and others who are trying to make some change....it is pretty clear.

That is why we won't win next year. Because of hatreds and spite from last year. So we accept it. Sometimes the far left and far right keep on going until they meet at the end of the circle.

[Armstead]

49. I'm not sure who the myseterious "they" are

I consider myself a moderate liberal, but in the current climate, my views are branded as part of the "stubborn left."

I'll make it really simple for you what I and a lot of otehrs want. A party in which clear and unambiguous liberals like Paul Wellstone are the norm, and not dismised by the insiders as as "leftist" anamolies. Wellstone was not a "radical." He stood for the very basic and time-honored principles that the Democratic Party claims to represent. And which the mainstream supports.

The ONLY reason (IMO of course) that it is not acknowedged as mainstream is that there has been nothing to counter the GOP/Corporate brainwashing nof the last 30 years. For too many years too many core issues have been swept under the carpet by BOTH parties. We can't afford to continue doing that if we want to preserve a middle class and a democracy.

We cannot as a party continue to cave in and support an economic status quo of corporate elitism and concentrated power that is wrecking our economy.

[madfloridian]

51. Again, that is what he is trying to do.

But he can't succeed because not enough care.

[Armstead]

54. People care

But they feel like they've been burned too many times.

There's a lot of energy and money out there available. Look at the success of Move On, and the proliferation of progressive organizations forming and growing.

Those resources can easily be channeled into enthusiastic support for Democrtatic Party. But the difference is that the people who support those things are sick of being taken for granted, which is why thgey areturning more and more to pressure groups instead of giving the DNC a blank check to elect more "triangulators."

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. Not that I want to contribute to division among Dems, but even

Eisenhower warned the nation against the corporatists. And he was a Republican.

If Dean downplayed or, worse, denied the election fraud, then as far as I'm concerned that takes the biscuit; but, overall, I would agree with Madfloridian, that once the Democrats are back in power, you are going to see a new integrity in the party. I'd be surprised if they can't read the signs of the times, as well as most.

Anyway, in my view Kerry is your ace of trumps, and you're a lucky people to have him. Hasn't he been a vociferous critic of the parties being funded by big business, instead of with equal funds and equal media access? Probably, a critic of much of the lobbying system, too.

[welshTerrier2]

67. Kerry?

Kerry is out of touch with the American people on the critical issue of Iraq ...

and worse, he's out of touch with what the Iraqi people want ... a recent poll showed 45% of Iraqis support attacks on the US and UK occupiers in their country ... and a staggering 82% want the US to get out of their country ...

Kerry held a lot of promise but his continued support for the occupation renders him DOA ... it's time for Democrats to look beyond the Senate for leadership ...

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. I hope I haven't got it wrong. Maybe you're right, but I hope not.

My reading of Kerry's position on Iraq, is that, as an ex soldier, he doesn't want to SAY anything that would make it harder for them to carry on, even though, in truth, for many who now know the score, it's more a question of surviving; as keen not to kill innocent Iraqis as the psychos are keen to do so.

Three factors give me encouragement to believe that I'm on the right track in this.

1) Unlike Clark, from at least as far back as the Democratic Convention, John Kerry was talking about researching alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. Not knowing about the significantly deteriorating oil situation, now exacerbated by China's rise as an "old industry" superpower, I didn't really understand what he was on about. Clark apparently doesn't have a problem with American imperialism.

2) I think it is now on two occasions that Kerry, at his own expense, has flown out to the middle-East, to speak to some of its leaders/heads of state. I think he must be enormously respected out there, as, no doubt, elsewhere.

3) If John actively and vigorously protested against the war in Vietam, after he'd returned from serving there, he'd be the last person to condone an imperial war.

The first point alone suggest to me that Kerry is by far the best bet to get the troops back asap.

[welshTerrier2]

72. a number of points ...

you stated: "Clark apparently doesn't have a problem with American imperialism."

a month or so ago, i had an opportunity to discuss American imperialism with General Clark ... his response was, how shall i put this, "not responsive" ... here's the link: http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/8/29/94325/1284/62

Kerry continues to support a "success-driven" policy in Iraq ... i won't rehash his IWR vote here ... but the bottom line is that he refuses to call for either withdrawal or an Iraqi referendum on the issue of withdrawal ... that is inexcusable ... a majority of the American people now want the US to withdraw "ASAP" ... a recent poll (August) of Iraqis showed 82% want the US to withdraw ... and a very recent poll showed that 45% of Iraqis support attacks on American troops in Iraq ...

by what sort of elitist logic does Kerry, and to be fair most other Democrats, support continued occupation ????? Kerry is out of touch with what the Iraqi people want ... he's out of touch with what most Americans want ... and he's out of touch with what most Democrats want ... that is not a good prescription for an effective campaign for any office ...

btw, since you raised the issue, i strongly support Kerry's position on the recent energy bill and i applaud his comments about imperialism in a speech he made to the Council on Foreign Relations ... unfortunately, when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Kerry's actions have not matched his rhetoric ...

[Joe Chi Minh]

73. You insist on his supporting a "success-driven"policy in Iraq.

It takes too long to argue points on here, but I'll make two points in response. When he used that phrase, I would think he had in mind leaving Iraq in some kind of state of law and order.

But he is smart enough to monitor changing situations and adapt his thinking accordingly. I suggested to you why he didn't call for withdrawal from Iraq, whatever his intentions when in office.

For the present, that term is sufficently ambiguous to serve his purposes as a committed Dove, admirably. He didn't specify what he meant by success, or how he would define it now.

You seem to make little connection between his intended drive for alternative fuel sources, and any wish to leave Iraq asap. Nor have you suggested possible reasons for his expensive and dangerous trips to the Middle East to parlay with its leaders.

[Adelante]

83. You are mistaken - Clark on alternative energy sources

Way before the Democratic Convention:

"You can't talk about family values if you're going to wreck our environment," said Clark.

The candidate cited scientific studies that support theoretical estimations that the Bush Administration's policies that disregard environmental concerns, if left unchecked, would eventually kill over 100,000 American citizens from pollution-related illnesses.

Clark said that renewable energy objectives are among his top specific goals to establish a "higher standard of leadership" that will bring the Nation together.

"We need to move towards energy independence with natural renewable fuel sources like wind and solar power," said Clark. "We've got the technology. We've got the know-how. We just don't have the political will. But when I am elected President, we will have the political will."

Clark told this SolarAccess.com reporter that he would fully support a national Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) to provide 10 percent of our country's electricity needs from renewable energy by 2013 -- and growing to 20 percent by 2020.


http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=10269

Here is his position paper from 2003:

http://www.clark04.com/issues/environment/

FYI, Clark talks with Middle Eastern political leaders all the time. He and Kerry are just not that different in the ways you cite. I doubt their views on American imperialism differ, either. I'm not sure how Clark entered the discussion in the first place, or why you think he is relevant to your points about Kerry, but I thought I could help you out with information you appear to be lacking.

[lostnfound]

65. Or could blame the centrist leadership: doesn't zero in on election fraud

Even if they are fairly sure that Bush stole the election.
Which I believe that they are (fairly sure).

I'm not talking about Dean -- he's done a fair amount to call attention to the issue.

And of course the Dems in congress are fairly powerless..but still.

[ulysses]

36. ? I don't see him saying that at all.

I tend to agree with what I do see him saying, though. We're not going to win with a divided party.

[madfloridian]

37. But who gets to pick the issues?

If we can't win with a divided party, then who gets to choose? Sorry if I misunderstood Armstead, but it did sound that way to me.

I guess I don't know how we can win if the left groups are going after the very group we need to be on board with to win.

Just a little confused here.

[ulysses]

41. hasn't that always been the question?

It's a short step from there to asking whose party it is. That one question is the crux of the entire damned thing. It needs an answer.

[Armstead]

42. Its simple

The Democratic Party has too often either been AWOL or actyively supporting the policies and mindset that has placed the poor, working and middle classes under seige for 30 years.

At some point the Democratic Party as an institution has to get off the dime and rediscover the basic principles it supposedly stands for. That requires a break from the habit of avoiding the real issues and pursuing the Clinton/Dick Morris theory of "triangulation."

The list is a long one of specifics. But start with NAFTA, Economic Consolidation and Corporate Power, Media Concentration, Minimum Wage, Unioversal Access to Healthcare, etc. etc. etc.

The only weay to win is to go beyond the self-imposed limits the Democratic Party has placed on itself for the last 30 years.

[madfloridian]

44. That is what the present chair is trying to change.

QUOTE: "The list is a long one of specifics. But start with NAFTA, Economic Consolidation and Corporate Power, Media Concentration, Minimum Wage, Unioversal Access to Healthcare, etc. etc. etc."

So tell me again why so many here are advocating not supporting them?

[Armstead]

47. He's having an uphill struggle

Howard Dean's message in the 04 primaries should be a no-brainer for anyone who calls themselves a Democrat. It was merely a re-affirmation of what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.

But instead too many Establishment Democrats branded him as "far left fringe" and out of the mainstream.

And even now, after clawing his way to DNC chair despite formidable opposition, Dean is being forced to tone down the very things we should be proclaiming from the rooftops.

[madfloridian]

50. I don't see that.

Maybe you and I see different things. I do see him not bending to either side of the spectrum. That is his job.

It is ok, though. I posted this knowing that the supporters of others from 2004 are withholding support, knowing that so-called progressive groups are withholding support, and that this is becoming a place to advocate for withholding support. I posted this knowing all this.

Just trying. I am a realist, and I know we are not in a place for a 3rd party. I know that some are going to try for it anyway, giving the power back to the GOP who most definitely do not deserve it. I hate to see a Democratic forum be used for that, but it really does not matter what I think.

[Armstead]

53. Don't be so humble about it.

If that's the way you really feel, stick to it, and convince people of your viewpoint. Tell people why the DNC is worthy of support, instead of being so fatalistic.

MY point is not in opposition to that. But after too many years of feeling marginalized by the very party that should be speaking for the views of liberalism and basic progressive principles, many people feel that it's up to the DNC to prove that they areworthy of support as something beside the "default" opposition.

Howard Dean is nudging in the right direction, but the Democrats can't once again slip into mini-issues instead of a clear agenda for real reform.

[madfloridian]

58. That is the way I feel.

Posting this has opened my eyes even more. I think this advocacy against the Democratic Party at such forums is hurting us.

That is how I feel, and posting this has made it pretty clear that most do not agree with me about the DNC. The ones who agree that it is proper vehicle for winning won't speak up, and they don't care enough. When I speak up, the responses are mostly the type who want 3rd party.

So be it.

[Armstead]

61. Whatever....But there's a different way to look at it

You seem to make the mistake that is often made here and elsewhere, that those who are critical of the Democratic Party are automatically advocating for either a third party or some kind of kamikazee run to the far left fringes.

As an alternative, I think you ought to consider that there afe a lot of people who desperatly want to support the Democratic Party, and probably will when push comes to shove. But they are also disheartened, frustrated and angry at the way the Democratic Establishment has been shutting out those who fall outside of a narrow spectrum for too many years.

The Democratic Party can open up to new ideas -- and stop looking at everything in terms of "too left" -- or it can continue with policies and strategies from the "insiders" that has both made it increasingly irrelevant as a positive force for reform and has been unsuccessful in terms of pure political pragmatism.

[madfloridian]

62. Again, that is what he is trying to change.

But, being realistic is something else. It won't be the GOP that will cause the effort to fail. It will be the lack of support from Democrats....which is exactly why there is an effort to keep posting about not supporting the party.

The lack of support from the Democrats will cause it to fail. Moderation has a rather quiet voice, really. The ones who are against him don't have to have moderation....they can pick one issue and beat him and the party to death on it.

So, it is all words signifying nothing. The groups which can yell out the loudest don't have to do anything else but come and post and say negative things. When they do that, when they see that advocating for the DNC will get attacks on the poster....then they have already won.

[welshTerrier2]

38. great post !!

we cannot just pretend there is unity in the Party ... there isn't ... this is just another call for unity instead of calling for the necessary reforms to build unity ...

once again, those invested in the Party's leadership tell us to toe the line and "we'll fix it later" ... and we lose and we lose and we lose ...

when will they learn that this approach doesn't work ???

Dean's 50 state strategy is great ... Dean's "more donations from smaller donors" is great ... but Dean is failing the Democratic Party ... he needs to call for real reform ... that's why many of us supported him for the Chair position ... but he hasn't done it ... we need to change the Party's internal processes ... Dean should call for reforms that give each and every Democrat a greater chance to be heard ...

many of us do not believe we are being heard ... we don't see our views on Iraq and on other issues reflected in our elected representatives ... telling us to shutup and go along builds more disunity, not more unity ... the "win first then we'll talk" crowd just doesn't get it ... they are the core of the problem ...

[madfloridian]

43. So you think Howard Dean is failing the party?

That is your right, but at least I know where you stand.

QUOTE: "Dean's 50 state strategy is great ... Dean's "more donations from smaller donors" is great ... but Dean is failing the Democratic Party ... he needs to call for real reform ... that's why many of us supported him for the Chair position ... but he hasn't done it ... we need to change the Party's internal processes ... Dean should call for reforms that give each and every Democrat a greater chance to be heard ..."

Describe the "internal processes" which he could have swooped in like Superman in a cape and changed already. Please be specific.

And who do you want to be in the chair's position?

[welshTerrier2]

55. yes i do !!

and you've completely distorted what i wrote ...

your phrase "swooped in like Superman in a cape and changed already" is an absurd overstatement of what i am calling for ... as is "who do you want to be in the chair's position?"

let's back up a few steps ... i'll take those two points in the reverse order ... i wanted Dean to be Chair and want him to call for certain reforms (see below) ... this does NOT MEAN i want someone else to be Chair ... criticism of Dean does not necessarily mean i'm calling for his replacement ... the truth is, i'm not ...

and on your Superman point, again you have misinterpreted what i said ...

my expectation from Dean is not that he should have "swooped like Superman" and it's not that things should have "changed already" ... my expectation is to have him start talking about the critical need for intra-Party reform ... not make the reform; not change everything overnight; not solve all the Party's internal differences by himself ... just acknowledge our differences and begin talking about the need to change our "internal processes" so that we can work through them ... the only dialog happening right now is happening online ... without a more direct dialog, hostilities will build and communication will remain stifled ...

this is not about expecting "instant results"; this is about the need to open a dialog, or at least acknowledging that we need to open a dialog, with the many Democrats who feel alienated by what the Party is, and is not, doing ...

as to your request for specific reforms, here's my best shot ... i'd be open to other ideas that address the same goals ... first, i would like to see Dean call for enhanced communication between ALL Democrats and their elected representatives ... Dean should publically state that he is calling on all elected Democrats to start holding more regular public "town halls" in their districts so that closer ties between voters and elected Democrats can be developed ... Dean can't make this happen but he sure can signal he thinks this is important ...

and i would also like to see processes developed to give the grassroots far more input to the development of the Party platform ... most Democrats have very little say on the platform and even less input on how their representatives vote on issues ... that has to change ... the DNC website should hold regular polls on the great issues of the day ... for example, we know that our elected Dems are way out of touch with a majority of Americans on Iraq ... that gap needs to be bridged ...

efforts need to be made to improve the dialog in the Party ... right now, frustration is building because many Democrats do not feel represented or even heard ... huge percentages of Americans, mostly former Democrats, don't even vote anymore ... this is clearly because they did not find the political process was responsive to them ... i don't condone their non-voting but if we want them to return, we need to change how we're doing business ... that's going to require much greater visibility and much more direct contact ...

the idea of saying we have to win before we make changes is nonsense ... it's a turn off to those of us who want our Party to hear us and let us participate ... we "just went along" in the last election hoping that would build some good will and hoping that after 2004 changes would be made ... it hasn't happened yet ... if Dean doesn't start addressing this issue very soon, next year will fall far short of what it could be ...

[xchrom]

63. must. march. in. lock step.

i donate to the dnc -- but certainly not because i believe they are very inspiring these days or even because i think they are less corporatist -- i vote and donate to democrats for one reason.

they more likely to cause less harm to gay folk than republicans -- though you couldn't tell it from ''don't ask don't tell'' and doma.
then again i didn't say they would cause no harm to gay folk -- cause they do -- just less harm.

[madfloridian]

64. I give up.

I guess my point was made by the responses.

Storm coming our way, things to do, etc.

[AuntPatsy]

68. Giving this a good kick...needs to remain on top.

[bread_and_roses]

78. Let me tell you about a 75yr old lifelong Dem who now hangs up on DNC

In 2004 she scrimped money out of her paltry SS to donate for Kerry - at real personal sacrifice. She protested against Bush when he came to her home town, standing for hours despite arthritus and hip-replacement. She has never wavered from the position that "no poor or working class person should ever vote for ANY Republican EVER."

But now she hangs up on the DNC, and sends their letter $ requests back with a written response about her disillusionment with "her" Democratic Party. The final straw for her was Kerry's failure to address the stolen election, and that was topped by Hillary's mealy-mouthed pronouncements on Choice (which she supports), the continued failure of Leadership Dems to speak out on Iraq, the Dems who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, and now the prospect of an anti-choice Dem candidate for Gov in her State (PA).

She wonders what happened to the Dems who used to speak for the Poor, act for the Working Class, and stand up for Civil Liberties.

I'm not a Democrat but I work for and donate to local Dems in every election. I, like my mother described above, will not donate to the DNC until and unless I see the Candidates representing the people - who in poll after poll support choice, support strong Environmental protections, support a decent safety net for the poor, support Universal Health Care, and have now withdrawn support from the Iraq War.

The people are ahead of the Party, the Party should catch up. And no, I do not believe that at this point in history individual $20 donations to the national Party will drive that change. I think it more than likely that such donations will be taken as a sign of support for "Politics as Usual."

[madfloridian]

79. But a Democrat who did none of those things...is trying to change things.

I don't understand how that helps us to do that.

But then there is a lot I don't understand. As I said, I give up.

Let the GOP have it next year again...don't fight don't donate.

That is punishing the one who stood for us. It is punishing the ones who are trying.

But then, as I say, there is a lot I don't understand.

[AuntPatsy]

80. It's pretty easy to understand, once again, the propaganda machine

is grinding it's wheels in an effort to silence the voice of opposition.

I can only hope that many responses that are heard these days that lean towards attacking all things democratic are nothing more than mere human tendencies to speak first before one actually takes a look at the whole issue involved...

I spent a while watching cspan two today interested in what those two authors had to say that many seemed so thrilled were being given air time.

While it was heartening that that both men seemed to want justice served out to this administration concering this illegal war as well as other illegal activities this administration has been accused of, it was clear, that the one who claims to be a lifelong Republican fell in lockstep towards once again dragging the Clintons down the road of being responsible for everything...

It was pretty obvious what the author's true intent was about when he loudly decried Bill Clinton as being as guilty as bush and company, he even smiled slightly with head turned sideways...

When are people going to realize how easily they can be manipulated by such people who claim to want the same things you yourself might wish for?

I have fallen for such time and time again myself, but not so much these days. After a while, one gets immune to such double speak being taken seriously, at least you would hope they do.

[skipos]

82. I am with you. There are always going to

be take-my-ball-and-go-home Democrats who will threaten to vote third party, electorally intelligent nominee will outweigh that (who that is exactly is up for debate).

I doubt I will ever have a candidate that is as progressive as I am. The gay marriage bans, that easily passed in very blue states, definitely lets me know that I am more progressive than most voters and most Dems. So why don't I vote for some progressive third party?

1. Because I don't want to endure decades of Republicans while this third party tries to take roots. Dems have about 45% of the senate and house and governorships. That isn't that far from a majority, and it will take decades for a third party to get that large, if it ever happends.

2. As we have seen, Republican unity and domination has resulted in a push to the right. If Dems were a majority, there would room to push the party to the left. A Dem majority, built upon the 45% we now have, is much more feasible than a third party majority.

3. I have heard the argument that a third progressive party will wake the Dems up and swing them back to the left, and I don't have any clue what that is based on. In many Dems eyes, Ralph Nader cost Gore the election of 2000, did that make the Dems swing back to the left? Hell no! All it did was help start 8 years of Bush.

In 1912 T. Roosevelt had the most succesfull third party showing ever, and all it did was split the Republican vote and let Democrat Wilson begin his 8 year run.

In 1992 Perot took 20 million votes, how did that change either of the parties? It didn't.

In 2004 Dems came very close to beating an incumbent wartime Pres. Very hard to do. The close results make me want to work that much harder to win, it was one of the reasons I came to DU. I want to learn more and I want to do more in future elections. I think it is too bad that a narrow loss makes so many Dems want to take their ball and go home, but fortunately, I don't think there are a lot of them. Millions and millions of people who have voted Clinton or Gore or Kerry aren't planning to desert the party. If we have an good and electorally intelligent Dem ticket, there will be enough of them to win.

[seabeyond]

85. yes to your post. inevitably blame the dem, letting bush off the hook

amazes me in so many ways, but most, what bushco admn is best at, shifting blame to everyone but them. and the dems on this board, willing go with bushco's strategy supporting the very admn i thought we were all against

be safe madfloridian

[welshTerrier2]

86. you got it exactly backwards

you wrote: "the dems on this board, willing go with bushco's strategy supporting the very admn i thought we were all against"

the "Dems on this board" are critical of bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq ... others the Dems on this board are criticizing are the one's "willing go with bushco's strategy supporting the very admn i thought we were all against" ... the ones Dems on this board are criticizing are the elected Democrats who keep voting for more money so bush can continue his imperialist insanity in Iraq ...

our elected Dems are out of touch with what the American people want ... they are out of touch with what the Iraq people want ... they are out of touch with what a majority of Democrats want ...

the ones "letting bush off the hook" are the very people we are criticizing ... but you probably can't hear that ... you think it's wrong to criticize Democrats even if they are supporting bush's hideous Iraq policy ... if they're Democrats, you think they automatically deserve our support ...

wake up and smell the coffee ... those days are over ... we hope to convince our elected Democrats to support our views ... we're willing to work for compromise and unity ... but the arrogance posts like your post and the OP display will do nothing but deepen the divide ... if you really want to help the Party and build unity, fight for reform ... fight to give those of us who believe we have no voice a real opportunity to shape the direction of our Party ... if you want our votes, fight to have the Party earn them ...

if all you want to do is criticize us, all i can say is good luck ... you see us as an obstacle to victory; understand that we see you just the same way ...

[madfloridian]

87. Criticize the right people, not the ones who are working for us.

Here is an example of what Dean is saying, yet you say he is failing the party. When you say things like that you are hurting all of us who are fighting to get our country out of the right wing's grasp.
Here are some of his comments on This Week, this morning. Quite good. This is from Joe Rospar's post at the Kos blog:

On President Bush's Failed Strategy in Iraq:


"We cannot have a permanent commitment to a failed strategy, and George Bush has a failed strategy for Iraq. When you don't tell the truth when you go into Iraq, it's unlikely it will be a successful program... The president has no plan. The third piece is we're clearly not going to stay there forever. The president seems to think the choices are only between cutting and running and staying forever. They're not."

On the White House Leak Case:


"This is not so much about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. This is about the fact that the President didn't tell us the truth when we went to Iraq, and all these guys involved in it, it's a huge cover-up. That's what they're in trouble for. The deed that led to it is an attack on the President's dishonesty over the Iraq question. This is all -- came to pass because of Joseph Wilson...

"...The evidence is clear. Half the stuff the president told us about Iraq--weapons of mass destruction, the trip to Niger, the purchase of uranium--we know its not true. It was in the 9/11 report. The 9/11 report--co-chaired by a Republican, Tom Kean of New Jersey--said there was no evidence of a terror connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The President has been pushing that line nonetheless ever since. We know the President wasn't truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq.

"The problem--what got Rove and Libby in trouble was because they were attacking--which the Republicans always do--attacking somebody who criticized them and disagreed with them... That is what they are investigating. A fundamental flaw in the Bush Administration is that they make personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments."

Dean has been talking more and more about getting out of Iraq. He is speaking out powerfully. Some are never satisfied. That bothers me.

[welshTerrier2]

89. you seem to hear only what you want to hear ...

let's examine the very statement you posted ...

Dean said "The third piece is we're clearly not going to stay there forever. The president seems to think the choices are only between cutting and running and staying forever. They're not."

now let's get a few facts straight before we discuss this ... first, the American people want us to leave Iraq ... a recent CBS poll said 52% want withdrawal ASAP and a recent Pew poll said the number was 48% ... the trend has been steadily and rapidly growing for withdrawal ...

and second, a poll just conducted for the British Ministry of Defense showed that 45% of Iraqis support attacks on the American occupation forces ... another poll of Iraqis taken last August showed that a staggering 82% want the US to get the hell out of their country ...

with this knowledge in hand, let's revisit Dean's statement ... it is totally out of touch with what these polls show ... Dean is trying to push for something other than the withdrawal these polls are calling for ... he's looking for a middle ground ... again, his words were: "The president seems to think the choices are only between cutting and running and staying forever. They're not." ... what other conclusion can one honestly reach about Dean's position ... he is not calling for withdrawal ... and his statement "The third piece is we're clearly not going to stay there forever." is not much comfort either ... it's nice to know Dean thinks we won't stay "FOREVER" ...

you say he is speaking out powerfully ... i think it's bullshit ... he's tap dancing ... don't hand me the "you're never satisfied" ... Dean's position, and the position of most elected Democrats, is out of touch with a majority of Americans ... i suspect a poll of just Democrats would have shown much higher numbers ... you seem to think that calling bush a liar and criticizing his Iraq policy is sufficient; it's not ... i'm glad to see him take that position and speak out but the issue goes way beyond merely criticizing bush ... the central issue is to get elected Democrats to stop voting to continue his policies ... and neither tap dancing nor mere criticism achieves that ...

and when i talk about Dean failing the Party, it's because i think he should be doing much more to call for intra-Party reforms ... but you don't want to be baited ... i gave you a list of possible reforms and you never responded to them ...

the bottom line is this ... if you continue to push your "some are never satisfied" theme, you're wasting your time and my time ... what you might want to think about is whether you care about repairing the problems with those who are "never satisfied" ... what's the point of criticizing people who will only argue with you and will never agree? ... if you do want to reach out to these alienated Democrats, perhaps criticizing them does not make for the best politics ... if that's how you view the political process, you should go around to all those who don't vote and tell them what a bunch of jerks they are for not voting ... that approach just will never work ...

you can either value the importance of the constituency you're criticizing or not value them ... chastising them for disagreeing is not the way effective politics works ... the Democratic Party is hearing a lot of noise right now because it has failed to do its job and has lost touch with alienated Democrats ... and the job to reach the constituency you're criticizing, as it does with all constituencies, requires better representation ... those not pushing for reform are the Party's biggest enemies ...

[madfloridian]

90. I did reach out. I joined the group that is so passionate against Dean.

I donated, I joined the list, I met with others locally. I could see right away he would not be given a chance. I was part of the group.

You have a right to despise the party, you have a right to tell me that everything I do is wrong....I have a right to say what I think about it.

The progressive groups who are trying to get him out as chair, though they endorsed him....will have much to answer about it in the future, I fear.

[welshTerrier2]

92. this is not about rights ...

it's absurd for you to say i despise the Party ... if i did, i'd have joined a different Party ... i'm fighting for change and a greater voice ... in fact, i'm politically active in the Party and i've started having at least a little success ...

and yes, you can say whatever the hell you want to ... i would never say otherwise ... but i will say that your approach to "healing the rift" is destructive ...

my approach is to fight for Party unity by fighting for reform ... people are not going to support a Party they believe does not represent them ... you can't change that reality no matter how much you might want to ... the only way to win these voters is to listen to them and seek common ground ... threatening that "they will have much to answer for" is meaningless rhetoric that will have no impact ... the group whose money and support the DNC wants sees elected Democrats who continue to fund bush's war as the problem ... maybe if we lose the next election or two, the DNC will "have much to answer about" ...

whine about this all you want to ... the ONLY solution is to WORK FOR UNITY ... demanding compliance from those who are alienated clearly is NOT going to succeed ... the DNC needs to decide whether it wants our votes and our money or not ... the way to get it is the old fashioned way: earn it !!

[madfloridian]

91. I think I detect a new tactic.

If one tries to defend the Democratic Party and show that it is working for change....then we are DNC lovers or Dean worshippers.

It is going on on a much larger scale now. That is a shame.

[WildEyedLiberal]

93. ...

:eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

94. what's a shame is ...

that you spend so much effort trying to figure out why "they're all against you" ... maybe if you invested the same energy trying to earn their votes, you wouldn't feel quite so frustrated ...

that's what's a shame ...

btw, your "it is going on on a much larger scale now" sounds a bit like MASH's famous Colonel Flag ... he saw vast conspiracies everywhere also ...

[obreaslan]

95. Here here!

I used to post the same thought every now and then, but got flamed wherever I went. Good to see I am not alone in my thoughts.

There once was a thread on DU that crystallized this argument perfectly. I don't remember the original person who started this thread, but I will always remember the title...

"REMEMBER WHEN FDR THREW OUT ALL OF THE RACIST DEMOCRATS BEFORE PASSING THE NEW DEAL?"

The answer was no, because he new you had to defeat the enemy first then clean your own house.