I'm tired of the hypocriacy where it concerns campaigns

[FreedomAngel82]

I'm mostly speaking now with the whole Duckworth campaign and how people for her opponent are whining and kicking and screaming because other people are endorsing her and she's getting more money. Guess what. People are allowed to support who they want and you're still getting your votes. Nobody is backing down and I admire her opponent for staying in and giving the people a choice unlike Hackett who backed out. Nobody is saying you have to like Duckworth or any other canidate but who you want to support but please stop with the hypocriacy. When Hackett was getting all the national attention and money nobody here was bitching about it where as Brown has built his connections and the money he has over the years and now Brown is getting support from other "belt way" democrats and people start bitching. It's the same thing with John Kerry vs Dean for example. Dean was DLC too but yet only Kerry is the DLC butt boy when he isn't even invited to anything anymore they do and hasn't assoicated with them since 2003 but don't let that get in the way. Kerry worked hard just like Dean and both are still fighting with how they can in their respective ways. So thanks for letting me rant and I hope you see where I come from.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. Yeah, it's frustrating as hell.

[benddem]

2. the thing is

1) Brown told Hackett he wasn't going to run. Hackett most likely would not have declared if Brown hadn't said that. Then after Hackett declared Brown reversed himself. Now I think Brown is a great candidate...but that was definitely beneath the belt.
2) Tammy Duckworth has NEVER lived in that district. The district has some real problems that need a person with knowledge of the area...I grew up there. Cegelis took on Henry Hyde last election was outspent 4-1 and got 40 % of the vote. I wish the Democratic party would support people who have done well in the past and encourage them. I'm proud of Christine for running and keeping up the campaign. I'm a vet and believe we can only get things turned around in congress when we have military vets who will speak out against this rotten administration. Duckworth is for the war...which in itself is insane...she's probably been too busy being rehabilitated to think about what she has been saying.

[dogman]

4. Duckworth is not for the war.

Duckworth has a knowledge of the area, she lives only 3 miles out and the town she lives in is also in the 6th CD.

[benddem]

59. She just moved to the area

she grew up in Hawaii, went to School at Northern IL and lived in Waukegan. None of those are in the 6th CD. She lives there now...cause they wanted her to run.

[dogman]

63. Another false staement.

She did not move there now... cause they wanted her to run. If that were the case she would have moved into the 6th CD, not 3 miles out.

[FreedomAngel82]

74. Where's your citations for your claims?

[The Straight Story]

109. If Hillary can move to NY and get eleceted

Why can't Duckworth?

[The Magistrate]

5. The 'She Supports The War' Refrain, Ma'am, Grows Curious

Maj. Duckworth has said that she would not have voted to go to war in Iraq, had she been in office then. It seems that she does not think pulling out of the place within a pre-set time limit is a good idea; that is a debateable point, but holding that view is a far cry from "supporting the war." A number of people feel the harm and danger of a speedy departure would be worse than that of remaining longer, and it is a position good points can be made in support of. It is very different from thinking the invasion and occupation good things that should have been done, and that should be persevered in, but more a once you get you on a tiger's back, how do you ever manage to dismount point of view....

"LET'S GO GET THISE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sandnsea]

22. Another refrain I saw

Was that she doesn't think abortion is a federal issue, and therefore is a states' rights person on abortion. The truth is that she said abortion is a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor, the federal government has no business getting involved in personal privacy issues. That's the pro-choice view. People have to be pretty desperate to distort her views in so many ways. That's getting to be the annoying thing about this whole "take back the party" campaign. They're taking it away from people with liberal views and quite often supporting people who have more centrist views, just weird.

[madfloridian]

25. Sandnsea and Magistrate. I have a question or two.

You both seem to honestly believe that the way things have been done in the party is just fine. That the party committee leaders choose the candidates, the big guys go along with it.

Does it matter to you that they doing this to a liberal in a race she got 44% vote before? That they installed a anti-choice candidate in PA, knowing he was and not caring. Saying they did not care, being open that women's rights did not matter.

And two races in Florida with good Democrats running, one who beat the party's choice last time. Yet they are taking away her support. Boxer, Kerry sent money, others are having fundraisers just as they are for Duckworth. And Rahm and our state chair went to South Florida and talked a millionaire business owner into running, a Republican, though two democrats were in the race.

Does it matter? Does it matter that are Demcrats now so fall in line that only 10 voted against the Patriot Act renewal? Does it matter they can not even agree with an exit plan for Iraq if only to present it? They have been offered one. Does it matter, any of it?

The party made the decision last year that Dean could not win. He was out of the race soon. Would he? I don't know. They messed around in congressional campaigns, and we lost even more seats than before.

Does any of this matter to you guys? Or is it just that the leaders are smarter and more clever and more experienced, even though we lost it all in 04?

And may I edit to add....does anything matter anymore now that our good Democrats have helped Bush give our country away to the highest bidder?

[sandnsea]

33. Sorry

I tried. Back on ignore.

[madfloridian]

35. You are not supposed to tell me you are putting me on ignore.

If you are putting me on ignore for asking a sensible question, then please do so. I just thought you were not supposed to tell me.

[The Magistrate]

39. In These Matters, Ma'am

My own views seem to align with those of the Party leadership, and so their actions do not bother me.

The most important calculation is the likelihood the candidate fielded by the Party will win the general election. Primaries are not a particularly good means of securing this, and the judgement applies to both paeries. The Party electorate is very different from the general population, and what appeals to it often affronts the general populace. Here in Illinois, the Republicans have saddled themselves with a number of losing candidates over the years because the extremity of their views appealed to the Republican primary electorate, and repelled the voting populace of the state.

In the Pennsylvania matter, Mr. Casey seems to me a candidate with a pretty good chance to win statewide, therefore favoring him does not bother me, though some of his views are far from mine. Bad as he is, he will be an improvment on Santorum, and will provide one more seat towards depriving the Republicans of majority control in the Senate. Success in that goal is imperative, and worth some sacrifice, in my view, if by that means it may be rendered more likely of achievement.

Rep. Rahm, the man in charge of the Congressional campaign on the national level, has always struck me as an excellent political operative, and my inclination is to trust his judgement where my own knowledge of the particulars falls short. It is, of course, possible he is in error, but that is something only future events will reveal.

[madfloridian]

47. So you are actually saying that they don't need the people..

of the party until the general election, and then only to vote for the candidate the party chose for them.

I think perhaps that it might not be wise to say they have been right very much. We are totally out of power right now.

The Democrats are killing their enthusiasts off one candidate at a time, while the Republicans are capitalizing on their enthusiasts.

[dogman]

51. What is the Party?

Do you think the Party leaders appointed themselves. Most were elected to represnt there constituency and then elected to leadership of their group, by their group. Did Dean just fall from the sky to head the DNC?

[madfloridian]

52. The party leaders chose people like Rahm and Schumer...misleading

question. Very misleading.

[dogman]

53. How is it misleading?

Rahm and Schumer were elected in Primaries and then General Elections. They were then elected by the members of the groups they represent. How else would you have it done? Would you have every self appointed interest group have veto power over their election?

[madfloridian]

54. And Schumer now gets to decide who runs.

And so does Rahm. They were elected to "represent" people, and now they are picking who gets to represent people. They are doing it very openly and blatantly now.

I am glad many of you are fine with it, but in my mind it got us a bankrupt country, a war with no end, loss of rights for women and gays, and other good stuff.

So where is our choice in that? Tell me again.

[dogman]

55. No, they are deciding who they support.

You are right about how it sucks to have no real say and that is why many are turned off by the system. All we can do as individuals is to work for the goals we wish to achieve with the realization they may never come to pass. Another option is to take a pass and let others make the decisions unchallenged, many choose this way unfortunately. It's truly not a lot of fun, unless you can influence enough people to support your view and see your dreams acted on. A lot of peple do not have the stomach for it and others relish in it. Most of us find a spokesperson who best represents our view and give them what support we can. Politics is a rough game emotioanally and requires the ability to deal with lossses as well as wins.

[madfloridian]

57. No, they are deciding who the candidate is.

And then they email those signed up with them in congress, which is just about everyone...and tell them to back them.

They do. They do it without quesion, in many cases not realize there is a competitive primary going on.

It is how it has been done always.

We thought we might get change, but now that they are systematically taking candidates for dubious reasons, which are not often spoken of here...we won't get change for a long long time.

I think it is too late now. I don't think there is an America anymore, and I blame the ones who voted with Bush's agenda without questioning. I blame the ones who are fixing the races so those who want change can not win.

I think it is too late.

[FreedomAngel82]

76. IT'S DAMN FUCKING ENDORSEMENT!

So were you fucking screaming when Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean for the 2004 primaries?

[CTLawGuy]

106. Al Gore was not a party official at the time

would you have been ok with Terry McAuliffe endorsing someone?

[FreedomAngel82]

75. This isn't about Schumer so please stay on topic

[madfloridian]

84. Schumer chair of DSCC. Kerry a senator.

IL 06 is a House race. So why is mentioning Schumer a bad thing?

How many threads here get to tell people to stay on topic? I never have that luxury. Never.

[The Magistrate]

61. That Is Not Quite My View, Ma'am

But it does not seem to me there is any particular reason to believe the judgement of amatuer enthusiasts is certain to produce a better result than the judgement of practiced professionals. Nor does it seem obvious to me that the current situation is purely the result of mistakes by the professionals in leadership roles.

[CTLawGuy]

105. yes mad

don't you remember this is a government of the party leaders, for the party leaders, and by the party leaders?

:eyes:

[bvar22]

66. Excellent post!

Worthy of its own thread.
I would Recommend it, but the OP only contributes to the excessive whining on DU.
Please consider starting a thread with this as the topic.

:patriot:

[Aaaargh]

62. We elect members of Congress to take action through legislation,

not to interpret the past.

Therefore, when literate persons discuss what measures a candidate "supports," it's understood among them that the topic has to do with that candidate's positions on actions to take in the present and near future -- NOT on actions that should or should not have been taken in the past.

Thus, when literate persons use the phrase "supporting the war" in the context of discussing a candidate's position, they are speaking in the present tense -- NOT the past tense. That is, the question under discussion is whether a candidate "IS supporting the war" -- NOT whether that candidate "WAS supporting the war."

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Here are some facts for you

1) Hackett BACKED DOWN. He did not stay in the race. So if you're mad at anybody be mad at him.

2) Uh yeah. If you know anything about Duckworth you'd know from the threads on her that she GREW UP in the district. She lives a few miles away because some friends/family built her a house that helps her with her condition and they didn't want to move. And if you've seen/read interviews with Duckworth you'd know she is against the war and if she was in Congress when that vote came up she would not have voted for it.

So please get your facts straight before you go around slandering people, okay?

[madfloridian]

27. When did she live in the district.

Just curious.

[benddem]

58. Tammy Duckworth

grew up in Hawaii. She has never lived in the district. Get your facts straight
Hackworth was pressured to quit.

[FreedomAngel82]

78. Wrong again

She has lived in the district and according to Illinois rules that doesn't matter anyways. Funny that is huh? Grasping at straws. Funny how you're wanting her to quit the race but you kick and scream when it's someone you like. LOL. And Hackett needs to go back to high school and learn about peer pressure. Sorry but he's a pussy.

[benddem]

60. By the way

I'd look up the definition of slander before you accuse someone of slander.

[madfloridian]

3. You need NOT to turn this Duckworth thing into a Dean/Kerry thing.

Wrong! Not a good idea.

You should not do that.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Well tough shit this is about hypocrites

This isn't about Dean vs Kerry. This is about hypocrites. Please read the whole damn post, okay?

[madfloridian]

28. This is about shifting responsibility from the ones who must take it.

That is just wrong.

[FreedomAngel82]

79. Aww whine some more okay?

It's a damn endorsement. Don't like it? Deal with it.

[radio4progressives]

6. Really? Howard Dean was DLC?

that's very curious, when was Dean tied to the DLC?

[The Magistrate]

7. He Was A Member From His Days As Governor Of Vermont, Ma'am

A very great proportion of Dem,ocratic office-holders sign up; the way it is viewed by some here is very different from the general perception of the organization.

[radio4progressives]

9. Interesting..

Clearly, based on observation of events .. at some point after signing on - he walked away from the inner sanctim, or they disassociated with him before he started campaigning for president... ?

just guessing.. doesn't seem like DLC material, maybe he didn't make the grade, eh? ;)

i'd be interested in knowing more about how it all came down.. it would be an interesting story.. i think. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

10. Not Really, Ma'am

Gov. Dean was and remains in many ways a centerist. People used to enjoy pointing it out during the primary wars here early in '04. This is simply another illustration, to my view, of the knee-jek nature of much commentary some engage in on the subject of that organization: in many instances it seems people are commenting on a construct of their own minds rather than a fact of the world around us.

[radio4progressives]

29. Yes, Dean was certainly always a "True Centrist " and still is...

But, I have always considered him as an "outsider".

On the other hand, i have never considered the DLC as "True Centrists", but Right of Center. Dean is no Imperialist, at least I've never ever seen anything he's written or stated (as presidential Candidate) that would have ever made me feel that he had an imperialist proclivities, unless I missed something in my general reading of his positions and background.

Although many of my progressive friends would disagree with me, i would argue, that is a distinction of certain significance.

[madfloridian]

30. He has no ideology. He takes stands on what makes sense.

He is still very moderate in fiscal matters, but socially liberal.

He does not fit categories. Neither do I. Neither does my husband, and neither do our DFA members here locally. We are an eclectic mix of Republicans, Greens, and Independents, though mostly Democrat.

[FreedomAngel82]

80. Wrong

Dean is a centrist just like Hillary and Bill Clinton are. He wanted the party to go more center when he was running for president. Of course now his job is totally different and he has no say in policy since he's the chairman and he has to stay neutral.

[The Magistrate]

40. The Cult Of 'The Outsider', Ma'am, Makes Little Appeal To Me

Governance is a trade, like any other. If you wished to contract for having a house built, how much attention would you pay to a bid from someone who announced with pride "I've never sized timber or pounded a nail like these Union carpenters you always get building houses here!" Anyone who is genuinely an "outsider" will need to spend years learning how to actually move the organs of government before being able to do anything at all, and is liable to be led by the nose by people who do know how things are done. There is a good deal of practical craft knowledge involved in governing, and people who have not done their apprentice work and served as journeymen are unlikely to prove themselves masters of it stepping in at the top for starters.

What constitutes a "true centerist" or even "right of center" are matters that could be endlessly, and fruitlessly, debated, certainly. The D.L.C. was formed, anyway, as an attempt to come to grips with several salient facts of the political landscape in our country over the last several decades. The largest of these can be most simply put as the fact that large numbers of people who used to vote reliably Democratic no longer do, but instead cast their votes for Republicans. That is certainly a problem that we need to solve, because if we cannot, the enemy will remain in national power a good while longer. Whatever the solution is, it obviously must involve getting people who are at least easy in their minds with some rightist foigures or views to reject the extreme elements of modern Republicanism, and clearly, bombarding them with increased doses of the sort of rhetoric the left has employed for the last several decades is not going to do that, for if it could, the thing would have been achieved alreeady. At minimum, we can surely agree that some new approach must be found.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I think the DLC is further putting the nail in the coffin for us, though

Of course, you will respectfully disagree with me but disagreement in certain areas is always good.

Here is how I look at the situation....

Ronald Reagan was an exceptionally charismatic politician who was able to win over a lot of democratic votes due to good circumstances (hostage crisis), re-alignment of the south, and personal ability. What the DLC seems to contend is that Reagan's popularity re-aligned the views of the country completely against traditional democratic beliefs. I will agree that Reagan had some lasting effect on the American electorate but not as much as the DLC seems to think.

Take a look at the election of 1988. Michael Dukakis, not a DLC member, walked out of the Democratic Convention with a 17 point lead. I can't remember the last time that anybody has a 17 point lead in a presidential race. The fact that Dukakis didn't win in '88 had absolutely nothing to do with Americans not accepting traditional liberal democratic beliefs. It had everything to do with the fact that Lee Atwater convinced America that Dukakis was going to let scary black men out of prison to rape and murder their wives and daughters.

After 1988 this mindset seems to take effect that the democrats have only won one presidential election in 20 years because the candidates are too liberal. Forget the fact that our best and brightest hope in '68 was assassinated. Forget the fact that George McGovern was a complete political amateur. Forget the fact that Jimmy Carter was faced with probably the worst possible set of circumstances that an incumbent president could have. Forget the fact that anybody going up against Reagan would have lost because he had so much personal appeal.

Come 1992, the democratic party is ripe for new ideas on how to win a presidential race and thus the DLC rises to power. Of course it certainly helps when your leader could sell a boat to a guy stranded in the middle of the dessert. Bill Clinton is still the most talented politician in the democratic party. He had the absolutely perfect combination of southern charm to appeal to the folks back at home and the intelligence to kick everybody's ass in the debates. Also, James Carville is still, in my opinion, the best campaign manager that we have (too bad that his wife has pretty much disabled him from helping us anymore). My point is that while some will claim that the election of 1992 was a result of Americans resonating with the DLC rhetoric, I think that the election of 1992 was a result of Americans resonating with Bill clinton.

Once the DLC came to power they time and again sold out labor for business. We can argue to what the extent in which they did this, but the fact is that labor has been the heart and soul of the democratic party since 1932. Labor votes democratic, period. Once the democratic party started selling out labor unions, workers were left out in the dust. In comes the christian right who tells those workers that they can solve all of their problems by voting their values and fighting the evil liberal elites. In comes Rove who tells them that they should vote Republican because the Democrats are weak on national security. West Virginia is a great example of this. West Virginia used to go solidly democratic, it even was one of the few states to go for Dukakis in '88. West Virginia went solidly for Bush last election and chances are that it will go solidly for for the GOP candidate in '08. It doesn't matter that the GOP is for more decreased safety standards that contributes to more people dieing in coal mines. The DLC already gave up on the labor unions in the 90's that fought for those safety standards. The new generation of coal miners doesn't know what a powerful labor union is or how that powerful union can protect their safety. They don't know because the DLC decided somewhere along the way that appealing to these workers would not win us elections but that appealing to business would.

I agree with you that a new approach needs to be found but in my opinion that new approach is that democrats need to go back to their solid populist stance on economic issues. Social issues are always going to be touchy, especially in different parts of the country. I understand a Democrat in Massachusetts being for gay marriage and a woman's right to choose while a Democrat in Mississippi is against gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. But there's absolutely no reason that both democrats should not have similar if not identical stances on economic issues because being pro working class benefits your constituents in Mississippi just as much as it does in Massachusetts, if not more so considering that economic conditions are worse in Mississippi than they are in Massachusetts. It may take a little bit of adjusting in our political structure, but remember that grassroots contributions raised a lot more money for Howard Dean than PAC money raised for the other primary candidates. And there will always be a few rich guys like Soros who will contribute millions with no strings attached just because they support our cause.

[The Magistrate]

68. That Is A Good Analysis, Sir

Though as you anticipated, there are some points in it that it seems to me worth taking exception to.

Reagan seems to me the capstone of a shift in political alignments that began around the time of Nixon's first victory, not the initiator of the shift, and certainly not some abberation from a norm that can be expected to reassert itself without him. This shift comprises several distinct elements, none of which are particularly comfortable to confront head on. The first of these is a back-lash on the part of many whites, particularly working class whites, against civil rights legislation and the Party's identification with same: you recognize the re-alignment of the South, which is largely owing to this, but it extends much further, not only into the west, but even into many areas of the northern cities, and into the suburbs everywhere. The second is a great estrangement of working class whites from the left and the Democratic Party over questions of love of country and patriotism, that commenced in the Viet Nam era, and clearly continues into the present day: standard leftist analysis badly misses the attachment of this bloc to their native country, and the fervor of it. The third is what is conventionally denominated the "culture wars", and while it overlaps to some degree with both the above, it is a seperate item in its own right: a lot of working class people take the view that liberals and the left are interested in just about anything but ordinary working people and their aspirations and circumstances, and consider a great many things they consider trivialities far more important and worth far more effort.

Thus it seems to me that to speak of the Democratic Party "selling out" labor, and doing so recently, misses the point of the real estrangement of labor from the Party and the left. This commenced back in the sixties and early seventies, and owes its origin to a rejection by a great many working people of what they saw of left agitation and Democratic Party lines in that period. The working class vote, and particularly the working class white vote, has not been reliably Democratic ever since that period, whatever it was in the period between President Roosevelt and President Kennedy. This fact has very little to do with labor policies of the Party in the recent past and present day; these may well not help the situation, but they certainly are not its cause, and therefore it seems to me that changing them will not rectify the situation.

The D.L.C. approach to these facts of political life is two-fold, and worth considering seriously without reference to excesses of propagandist demonization. Its first element is that economic concerns will eventually trump all these other items, and that therefore the Party should dedicate itself to increasing prosperity, in the hope that, being perceived as the agent of better times, it will win the allegiance of those who benefit by them. Its second item is that elements of agitiation that are received with hostility by the estranged bloc once an essential element of the Party's voting strength should be muted, in the hope of at least providing less fresh friction, and allowing the irritation to heal over. Both these items strike me as sensible and useful approaches to a very real problem.

The difficulty seems to me to be that the D.L.C. does not press either of these items very well. Their failing in the first element is much the worst. The thinkers of the D.L.C. buy whole hog into the prevailing orthodoxy of the "free-marketeers", and view the policies these prescribe as the policies that will create the good times they hope the Party will come to benefit from. This is a profound error, because those policies will do no such thing, but rather will do the opposite, and work to increase the straitened circumstances of working people, and the desperation they feel. Thus by working towards these policies, they achieve precisely the opposite effect to that which they hope to contrive. Their failing in the second element is apparently not recognizing two important factors. The first is that there is a solid "American" tradition of expanding the liberties and rights of all citizens, that runs through our whole history as a nation, and so accordingly, it should be possible, with certain shifts of rhetoric and emphasis, to make such matters an issue of "Americanism," and even of patriotism. The second is that it is not good enough to simply run some people off the reservation, so to speak, and just fall silent on certain topics, for the identification of the Party with some of these elements runs very deep in the popular mind, and will persist despite such half-measures. Perhaps even more important, many of these are things that should in no case be abandoned. The championing of increased liberties and rights for all citizens is a positive and good thing, that not only should not be abandoned but must be pressed and pressed hard. In the final analysis, if it is ever decisively rejected by the citizenry at large, the blood of that must be on their heads, and not on ours. They will not enjoy the larger consequences of the doing....

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Actually I agree with a lot of what you are saying

I think that you overplay the significance of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, though. While that certainly started the idea that Democrats hate their country and perpetuated the stereotype of the un-American liberal elite (Jane Fonda), I don't think that it did it by itself. I think that really this was just another part of the culture wars. I think that people like Rush Limbaugh repeting this meme over and over again to millions of listeners is largely what does it. Also, I can't say that I have ever encountered a voter who said that they vote Republican just because the Democrats "Hate America", although I have heard people say that many times. Generally they also say that they hate christianity, or that they kill babies, or that they don't want the pledge of allegience in schools or something like that.

The thing about the DLC is, though, that they don't seem to really be doing much to address the culture war. All they do is suggest that democrats moderate our stance on economic issues under the premise that, that is what working class voters want.

[The Magistrate]

99. It Is A Pleasure To Be In Substantial Agreement With You, Sir

The one point worth engaging that remains is that it seems to me you over-rate the powers of propaganda somewhat. That vigorous mouth-pieces are driving home a line certainly does have some effect, but at bottom, propaganda can only succeed by activating and reinforcing a predisposition that is already present in the audience recieving it. If the ground is not fertile, the seed will perish, no matter how often it is broadcast upon it.

[radio4progressives]

77. Excellent Post.. Excellent Summary Analysis..

And I fully concur with the general theme of new approach democrats need to go back to their solid populist stance on economic issues.

which i infer to mean directly appealing to the abandoned and disaffected working class.

[radio4progressives]

72. Yes.. This Message Is Being Transmitted to the Left Loud and Clear..

"Will you all please just go away"..

gotcha... Loud and Clear..

[Hippo_Tron]

41. But here's the thing, nobody was calling the DLC imperialist until Iraq

Those who have said that Howard Dean was a member of the DLC during his days as Governor of Vermont are correct. Those who are saying that for the most part, he isn't really more liberal than Kerry are also also correct.

There's really only one thing that seperated Dean from Kerry and all of the other candidates in the early primaries. Dean came flat out against the war and Kerry was for it in the beginning. This immediately put him at odds with the DLC, who are now being called imperialist because for the most part they played cheerleader to Bush leading up to the war (although to be fair, it should be noted that three of its senate members: Kent Conrad, Debbie Stabbenow, and Bob Graham voted against the Iraq War Resolution). Also to be fair to Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt, Dean didn't have to vote AYE or NAY on the resolution, they did.

The initial decision about going into Iraq was the one major issue that seperated Dean and Kerry and the rest of it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Liberals absolutely loved Howard Dean, not because he was far left wing on the issues it was because he told them what they wanted to hear. He told them that he was going to be the first democrat to stand up to Bush and his tyranny. He told them that he was from the democratic wing of the democratic party, which played especially well with liberals because it was first said by their recently fallen hero Paul Wellstone. He told them that Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman and the rest of the DLC were Bush-lite.

Once all of the smoke and mirrors are gone, though, the difference between Kerry and Dean becomes almost nonexistant. Neither President Kerry nor President Dean would have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 (now President Lieberman I wouldn't be too sure about). Dean just said it before Kerry said it. Also, neither of them have really taken a solid stance on setting a timetable for withdrawing our troops (at least that I know of) so they are basically the same in this regard also.

I'm not saying this to knock Howard Dean in any way because I think that he is a good man. Howard Dean is a politician who wanted to be president. He wanted to run his own campaign and didn't want to be a DLC stooge, so he found a constituency that would listen and told them what they wanted to hear. That's politics for ya.

[karynnj]

48. I agree with 90% of what you say,

But I totally disagree with the statement that Kerry was intially for the war. He wasn't and said so before the invasion. His vote was as he stated at the time a vote to give the President leverage at the UN. Dean himself said he was for Biden/Lugar, which Kerry also thought was a better bill. It was not the one they had to vote on. If you compare comments in the last half of 2002 (before and after the vote) Kerry and Dean were very much in agreement. Kerry's early September NYT op-ed is very much against going to war.

The media in early 2003, referred to Kerry as anti-war. He took a lot of heat for urging Bush not to invade and for calling for regime change here. These were strong statements that actually pre-date Dean's. As you said, Dean didn't have to vote on the IWR. He and Trippi starting in mid 2003, used that to position Dean as the anti-war candidate and as Kerry was the other person who could claim this space constantly equated the IWR vote as a vote for war. This was politics.

[madfloridian]

49. How do you do that with a straight face?

Turning Dean into the war candidate and Kerry into the anti-war candidate. I have all the info on Biden Lugar, and you guys have used that to excuse Kerry's vote for the war, his words that he would do it all over again, and probably his vote for the Patriot Act reenewal.

You know what? I am going to gather together my stuff on Dean's hypothetical (that means "what if") statements. This is getting tiresome.

[karynnj]

69. I did NOT turn Dean into the war candidate

I re-read my post and there is noway what I wrote could be interrepted that way.

My point was that Dean said he would have voted for Biden Lugar and he was never asked how he would have voted on IWR. There are very few comments at the time, but he spoke of holding Saddam accountable. I would completely agree that neither Dean or Kerry would have gone to war as Bush did - and would call neither of them pro-war. I also didn't say Dean did anything wrong - just that he correctly identified that being the anti-war candidate was a good position and that the biggest threat to him getting the majority of those votes was Kerry. Dean used a completely true fact Kerry's vote and claimed he voted for the war. This is politics - and it was well within reason. It was Kerry's job to convince people otherwise.

I would think that a President Kerry would do what President Bush should have done - aa the inspectors were finding nothing and as Saddam destroyed missles, he would have declared success in getting the needed "clean bill" for Saddam, avoided war,and ended sanctions. I would assume that a President Kerry would then work to bring Iraq back into the circle of nations. I then think he would monitor Iraq, as he would any potently dangerous state.

My point is that there was at no time a huge difference in Kerry's and Dean's positions. If you look at press accounts in the first half of 2003 both Kerry and Dean are quoted as being against the war.

Your comment on the Patriot Act is pure snark - and I don't know what Dean's position on the Patriot act renewal is - I never saw a quote.

[madfloridian]

70. This whole thread is trying to deflect attention.

From the way the party has handled this. The OP refers to the primaries and Kerry and Dean. The posts here turn Dean into something he never was and excuse every vote Kerry has taken.

Actually as I said in several posts in this thread, this might really truly turn out to be a Kerry/Dean/Party thingy.

So maybe it is best to get it out in the open. Better here than snide remarks in private forums.

[karynnj]

100. MadFloridian, look back over this sequence

I responsed to a post - referencing points made in that post. I did not question the integrity of that poster. I challanged a commonly made comment that is (in my opinion) provably untrue by publicly available information.

You responded with a post accusing me of saying something that anyone reading my post can see I did not say. You insulted me - directly - implying I was lying - you can challange my arguments but was "How can you say that with a straight face" necessary. (The problem you have is that you can't dispute that Kerry spoke out before the war started and after Bush invaded. Kerry wrote op-eds and Senate speeches explaining his motivation for his vote, if you want to cast him as what he was not, it would seem the burden of proof is on you.)

I responded to your post with a post designed to make it clearer that I was not saying what you thought I was. Now, I have, not one, but two posts from you that are essentially unrelated to either of the previous posts. That they contain a snarky threat is lamentable.

You have on many threads whined that you are treated badly by Kerry supporters - I think you need to look over this whole exchange and consider who did the attacking. You are right that the boards should descend to name calling.

[madfloridian]

71. And why are the two being compared in a post about IL 06.

The OP brought it up, I am just elaborating.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. This is not a post about IL O6 if you learn to read

This is about how people on this board are hypocrites about where it concerns issues like endorsements.

[madfloridian]

90. You mentioned Duckworth in the first sentence.

Then you proceeded to bring in the primaries by mentioning Dean and Kerry.

And then someone else steps in to show Dean as a war candidate and Kerry as anti-war.

I never cease to be amazed here.

[karynnj]

103. Only to people with absolutely no reading comprehension ,

As the key point was that their pestions were SIMILAR - that could not be true. Also, my post came in response to an otherwise excellent speech that ignored Kerry's comments against war before it started.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. My early 2003 memory is a bit fuzzy in this area

But I seem to remember Kerry saying in early 2003 that while he would have waited more to get the allies on board, he supported the president's decision to go to war.

Dean, who did support Biden/Lugar, made no such statement in 2003 as I recall.

The truth about the IWR is that as far as the text of the resolution goes, it was not an absolute mandate from congress to go to war. The other truth about it, though, is that anybody who didn't think that the administration would interpret it as an absolute mandate from congress to go to war is incredibly naive. As far as Kerry's vote was concerned, you are correct, he did not vote FOR WAR by voting AYE on the resolution as far as the text was concerned. However, it was pretty fucking obvious that Bush was going to go to war no matter what once the resolution was passed and that is why many people equate an AYE vote with the resolution as an AYE vote on the war.

[radio4progressives]

95. Exactly...

wonder why people are still in denial about this?

[karynnj]

101. Kerry gave a speech at Georgetown University in the days leading up to

war where he said that Bush needed to give the inspectors more time. He was widely quoted (and criticised) for calling for Regime change here when Bush invaded. I really don't remember ANY comment where he said that he approved of the decision to go to war. There are many quotes where he said he wouldn't have gone to war.

In the early primaries, Edwards did actively support the war - which might be the confusion. Also, I rally think that Kerry would have been better off not to answer the question asked - but the real issue. He was asked a million times about the March 2002 vote. In retrospect, it might have been better to answer by saying that "After that vote, the inspectors were in, they found there were likely no WMD and it was already known there was no 911 connection. It was at this point that he said not to go to war and Bush chose to go to war".

This would have clarified Kerry's position - but it could have cost him the election (which was close). I think in a time of fear, saying that if warranted he would have approved the President going to war was needed for people who might have (incorrectly) written him off as a pacifist. The problem with the "authority" wordage is that it became convoluted and abstract.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. I will take your word for it

[FreedomAngel82]

83. And of course

Dean has the advantage of being a governor with no record of his stance on the issue. So he could say whatever he wanted. Right and Kerry isn't from the democratic party right? :eyes: His record speaks for himself. He has always been a true liberal and progressive fighting for progressive causes whether with teens and education and helping to keep them off the streets in gangs to being a friend of the small business. Kerry Bush-lite? LOL! Oh how wrong you are and how wrong Howard Dean was. Obviously he knew NOTHING about John Kerry but yet continued his bashing on Kerry's very liberal record. In 2005 in the polling of the Senate from liberal to conservative Kerry was number five or six. He was right after Ted Kennedy. And how do you know Dean wouldn't have gone to Iraq? He doesn't have any type of showing of that except his words. Kerry has shown us that it was a wrong mistake and if he was president and did go in he would've pulled out like Kennedy with Vietnam. And Dean was a DLC stooge since he was a member who only became a non-member when he was no longer in public office where as Kerry has walked away from them.

[Hippo_Tron]

98. I know, because the Iraq War was a neocon ploy

Iraq was a manufactured neocon threat that the administration needed because they needed the United States to be in a constant state of war. I respect John Kerry and I respect Howard Dean and I know that neither of them are neocons and that neither of them would ever manufacture a false threat to die over that false threat.

If you would read my post a bit more carefully you would find that I pointed out that Kerry did have to vote on the resolution, Dean never did. You would also find that I never called Kerry bush-lite, I only said that Howard Dean said that (which he did). Also, remember that once the primaries were over Dean dropped that rhetoric and worked tirelessly to help Kerry win the election. When asked about calling Kerry Bush-lite when he was helping Kerry in the GE he basically said "Look, I was running against the guy, it's politics."

You don't have to defend Kerry's liberal credentials with me, I'm well aware of them. I'm just trying to provide an analysis of what happened during the early primaries in 2003.

[radio4progressives]

86. This an interesting way of putting it...

in all fairness and in hindsight, no doubt this is likely to be accurate for the most part.

I think you're quite correct to suggest that Dean's positioning himself currently doesn't seem to be very different from Kerry's position.

But please let's not revise history so soon. Kerry's position on the Iraq War during the campaign was as muddy as quick sand. Anyone who doesn't accept that, should at least accept the fact that is how it was perceived by every single person who had taken a deeply personal stand in opposition - and I happen to know personally a number of conservatives and Libertarians who were just as opposed to that war as any on the Left, and for the same reasons.

[FreedomAngel82]

81. Riiight

and John Kerry is the DLC butt boy right? :eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

14. He never told them goodbye

He only became a non-member when he was no longer governor just like with Warner and Edwards. Kerry on the other hand did walk away from them. He no longer is invited to anything they do and hasn't associated with them since 2003.

[madfloridian]

17. You are NOT telling the true story.

That is beneath you.

[karynnj]

50. What is the true story?

I personally think this is much ado about nothing.

The DLC was an organization that came to being to set an agenda for the Democratic party. It was started by mainly centrist Democrats.

-Dean was polically well within their spectrum and it made absolute sense for him to join it. He also at one point headed the Democratic Governors Association. Both good reasonable things for him to do.

-Kerry was politically to the left of all (or almost all) members. Someone had to be the leftmost member and if you are to the left having someone pulling the organization to that side is good. Kerry's history shows he is not easily moved by peer pressure - otherwise he wouldn't have chosen to make himself an outcast by continuing on BCCI.

_ I doubt either Dean, who stayed in the DLC until he left office, or Kerry, ever allowed their membership in the DLC to influence how they voted or what they did.

As to others,
- Warner and Edwards were very good fits for the DLC and were far better considered by its leadership.

[FreedomAngel82]

87. Riiight so you are right?

So show me proof that Dean told them goodbye himself. The only reason why Dean is no longer associated with the DLC is because he no longer holds public office. Just like with Warner and Edwards. Kerry isn't invited to anything anymore with the DLC and hasn't been associated with them since 2003. So yes I am telling the truth. Sorry you don't like it but that's what it is.

[madfloridian]

94. He gave a speech in Feb. 03.

We call it the I want to know speech.

Dean proudly posted the good things the DLC posted about him, right on the campaign website. And Steve posted on the website why are you guys keeping on after him....he was one of you?

But Dean went after the DLC, and the rest is history.

You really need to let some of this go.

[karynnj]

104. You also need to let it go

You are on as many of these threads as anyone. There is no sense to bringing up all the flack of the 2004 primaries - which historically, were less nasty than many other years. Unfortunately, I think the internet plays a role in keeping the fight alive.

In my opinion, the best comment on this was from post 98 by Hippo-Thon:

"If you would read my post a bit more carefully you would find that I pointed out that Kerry did have to vote on the resolution, Dean never did. You would also find that I never called Kerry bush-lite, I only said that Howard Dean said that (which he did). Also, remember that once the primaries were over Dean dropped that rhetoric and worked tirelessly to help Kerry win the election. When asked about calling Kerry Bush-lite when he was helping Kerry in the GE he basically said "Look, I was running against the guy, it's politics." "


Additionally, you need to realize that in the primaries, each candidate needs to make themselves appear to be the best candidate. They will use any thing they have to do that. Small differences are magnified to make one candidate acceptable to an audience and the other not. Neither Dean nor Kerry did anything even close to outside the acceptable norm in primary politics.

[Radical Activist]

107. True. Dean suddenly became anti-DLC when he ran for President.

That's the old game of moving left for the primary. You might call that fakery. And its also true that the DLC helped Dean a great deal with liberal primary voters with their criticisms.

[madfloridian]

18. He criticized them during the campaign. He stood against the war.

Then the DLC sent out memos in May of 03 calling him too liberal (which they knew was a lie), and calling those of us who supported him "fringe activists."

Then the Dean campaign, honest about it, posted on the website all the good commendations he got from them through the years as governor. He asked them to reconsider their attacks. They did not. He did not. He called them out.

The rest is history. If you cross them you go. The former president named Clinton made calls against him before Iowa, saying he was unelectable because he signed the civil union bill in Vermont.

Then came Iowa, and the rest is history. But he is still determined to change the party from bottom up while they are fighting him from the top down.

And a whole of us are still on board.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. You are pretty much spot on

As I said above, Dean was not really more liberal than Kerry or Edwards. Unlike Kerry or Edwards, though, he dis-associated himself with the DLC and they tried to destroy him because of it.

[FreedomAngel82]

91. Riiight

And that means what to me? Dean could say anything he wanted, including bashing an organization he was a member of while he was governor, because he had no type of record of anything with him unlike with Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh etc. Kerry won Iowa so tough shit. He actually went to the little towns where as other people forgot them and he did the work a campaign takes. He's been doing campaigns for years. Dean is just as much the DLC butt boy as Kerry. So if you're going to critize Kerry and say he's the DLC butt boy so is Howard Dean. But again this is not about Kerry and Dean. This is about the hyporiacy on DU where it concerns people's campaigns. Where were all you people freaking out when Max Cleland and Wesley Clark campaigned for Paul Hackett? Oh that's right! You were praising him!! Hypocrites.

[CTLawGuy]

108. Dean was part of the DLC

before 2001, when it wasn't so bad. After 9-11 they careened way far to the right.

Dean may have been strained before 2003, but when the DLC started openly attacking him and insulting the party's activist base, it became clear the two were no longer tied together.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. When he was a governor up until 2003 he was a member

Funny that is no?

[madfloridian]

20. He was proud of it. Why are you doing this?

Why are you acting like it was a secret? He once posted on the blog his letters of commendation from them. He was proud of being a centrist.

He criticized them, and you don't do that and survive to run for president...well,not then anyway.

[karynnj]

46. The 12 years he was Governor

Only elected officials are DLC, so he was dropped when he left office. He was a very moderate Governor. (If there were a survey of policly aware people in early 2003 in the NE - on who was more liberal Kerry or Dean - it would have been a landslide - and not for Dean.)

[madfloridian]

64. Again, how did you guys turn the Duckworth thing into Kerry/Dean?

Ah, maybe that is what it really is? You think? Could that explain the oddness of the party leaders trying to get Hackett, the more moderate one, out of the race...because he was a DFA List last time around?

And Jan Schneider in Florida, and Richard Morrison in TX....both out?

There are others..

[FreedomAngel82]

93. Once again please learn how to read

This is about hypocrites. Where were people freaking out when Clark and Cleland campaigned for Paul Hackett? Oh that's right! You weren't! Hypocrites.

[PassingFair]

8. "I hope you see where I come from."

We see, we see.

Now PLEASE GO BACK!

Stop posting the same post again and again and again and expecting us to agree with you.
It's not going to happen, and you will burst a blood vessel.

Cease!

[FreedomAngel82]

15. This is a message board and I CAN post all I want

If you don't like it tough shit. I'm tired of the hypocriacy here. Dean and Clark can have all the support in the world from "belt way" democrats but nobody else is allowed to.

[PassingFair]

56. And I'm tired of the "hypocriacy" of your posting THE SAME

OP time after time after time.

The national party is cooking their own goose.
Democrats who watch the machinations, and independents
who watch the issues will turn away from us, away
from the hard work and time consuming actions of
campaigning when they're needed.

Good Work!

[FreedomAngel82]

97. If you don't like it stay away

Where you crying and screaming when Hackett got endorsements from Clark and Cleland? Or Dean got with Al Gore?

[madfloridian]

16. Turning the party's overwhelming piling on of support for Duckworth...

is truly an amazing feat. How did you do that? It is just as well though. It shows how any excuse is a good one when guilty consciences abound.

Someone at Kos today was honest enough to say that Cegelis had to go because of her connection to Dean. We know of another here in Florida that is happening to as well. And we suspect a third, but not proven.
There is one in another state we know of as well.

It is ok. He was just someone who saw that our Democrats were voting with the Republicans, like on the war, trade policies, and now the Patriot Act renewal.

The change will come in spite of it all. It will take a long time.

You should be proud of the way you did this connection. It was an amazing thing to read. Take the onus off Kerry for apparently not realizing that like in the Florida race he donated to, that there is a contested primary going on.

This is all so sad. And this post does not help.

[FreedomAngel82]

88. IT'S JUST A FUCKING ENDORSEMENT!

CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ?! HE DID NOT TAKE AWAY ANYBODY'S VOTES! THERE IS STILL A PRIMARY AND YOU CAN SUPPORT HER OPPONENT ALL YOU DAMN WELL WANT! GET OVER IT! GEEZ! STOP BEING A DAMN HYPOCRITE!

[blue cat]

19. It's politics

Anyone can run. The more the merrier. I don't think anyone should be stopped from running. But no matter who wins, we are still on the same side.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Some people vote twice for the Patriot Act

and some don't.

:rant:

[sandnsea]

23. Like Barbara Boxer

Another tired meme.

But really, it's mostly too bad some people pretended to be against the Patriot Act when all they really wanted to do was tweak a couple of things, which caused their message to be completely muddled and confused.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Talk about a tired meme.

"We just want to tweak it. But in the meantime, we'll let it have the full force of law."

Bullshit.

Boxer fucked up, too. You think her inbox is full of pro Patriot Act e-mail? Give me a break. This was a Party level decision. Obviously. And a poor one.

[sandnsea]

31. Feingold just wanted to tweak it

It was going to be law, no matter what. If you want to throw them all out of the Senate, that's one thing. But whether any Senator voted yes or no on the Patriot Act is nothing to base support or opposition on. Feingold has always supported the Patriot Act, except for a few tweaks, some of which got through, and some of which didn't.

[madfloridian]

36. Which is correct. It needed to be fixed but kept in place.

.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Apparently he wanted to tweak it from a clean slate.

Not enacted law.

Two paths:

I'll vote against it. I'll "tweak" it. I'll vote for it.

I'll vote for it. I won't be able to "tweak" it. I'll live under it's codification.

It was going to be law, no matter what.
So what the hell! Kindergarten reasoning.

If you want to throw them all out of the Senate, that's one thing.
And disrupt the millionaire's dinner? Not me!

But whether any Senator voted yes or no on the Patriot Act is nothing to base support or opposition on.
It's a start.

Feingold has always supported the Patriot Act, except for a few tweaks, some of which got through, and some of which didn't.
As made clear by his two "Nay" votes. He's clearly one of its biggest supporters.

[sandnsea]

38. Uh no. He wanted amendments

That's what those couple of cloture votes were about, Feingold not being able to introduce 2 or 3 amendments. Feingold supports the bulk of the Patriot Act, he has said so. He's never called for its permanent repeal. It's just a complete distortion. You want to talk about being sick of partisan politics and lies??? I am sick of people trashing one group based on phony positions of another group. Feingold isn't for repeal so he isn't any more pure on the Patriot Act than anybody else.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Nobody is saying that the entire Act is worthless.

Certainly the first version.
And still this version.


He's never called for its permanent repeal. It's just a complete distortion.

Crikey! Please point to where "repeal" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps this fight you're having with a strawman could be viewed as a distortion itself.


Feingold isn't for repeal so he isn't any more pure on the Patriot Act than anybody else.

How you can derive that the only person to vote against this monstrosity twice is equivalent to those who have supported it twice, is one of the most daring leaps in logic I have ever seen. Pat yourself on the back!

[sandnsea]

67. Well then there you go

Most of it is needed and supported by Feingold and many other people. It is bizarre to me that you can say that and call it a monstrosity at the same time. Are you saying Feingold supports something, for the most part, that is a monstrosity?? If people sat down with Republicans and negotiated in good faith on this bill, and this was the absolute best they could get, then don't you expect them to keep their word and vote for it?? Especially considering every senator actually supports the majority of the bill, even Russ Feingold.

There are alot of people at DU who think the fight was to have the whole thing repealed, I'm sure some are sincere in wanting it repealed. I suspect others just jump on whatever bandwagon they think they're supposed to be on. And Russ is their hero, even though he supports the bill. It just seems incredibly hypocritical to me to play on the emotions of people with anti-Patriot Act rhetoric, when the reality is that you support most of the bill.

Yes, where people stand on issues is more important than particular votes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Be gone strawman!

I'm finished here.

[sandnsea]

92. Be gone facts!!

Let's make up our own reality!

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Please stay on topic

This thread is about hypocrites where it concerns campaign endorsements.

[madfloridian]

26. They voted yes, though the tweaks were not done.

Some people really were for the war, they really are for the patriot act.

[sandnsea]

32. Including Russ Feingold n/t

[madfloridian]

34. This post says Feingold voted no.

NAYs ---10

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2489433&mesg_id=2491093

Is it wrong?

[fujiyama]

44. I'm not very familiar

with who Duckworth is. Is this person running for the disctict Hackett ran in last year against Mean Jean? I've been kind of out of the loop on this since Hackett left the race. There were so many threads on that whole issue, I just got tired of it (I liked Hackett but wasn't quite in love with him like some people seem to be and didn't participate much in those threads). I also thought Brown should have been more straightforward with his intentions in the first place. It may have helped avoid the messy fallout.

But from everything I've read, Brown has a good record on most issues. The ultimate goal should be unseating DeSwine. I hope people aren't petty enough not to vote for him because of this mess. If Dems want to take back the senate, this seat is a must win.

[acmejack]

65. fwiw

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0303-20.htm