if I lived in RI, I would come out to vote against Chafee. I am not sure that he wouldn't screw us if the split is 50/50 by flipping to the Dems. His Osama comments are beyond obscene.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
in your post, re Lincoln Chaffee and his lack of support for the Republican caucus, and taking the position that you would vote against him....., is EXACTLY the reason that dems don't like Lieberman. He undermines democratic unity consistantly and sneakily.
Voting against Lincoln Chaffee is consistant with your position on the war. Chaffe does not support the war and did not vote for George Bush in the last election. A Republican vote for Chaffee is like a Democratic vote for Lieberman.
That the RNC is coming out in full force to back Chaffee is inconsistant on the position statement, but not inconsistant with maintaining Republican power. Frankly I don't get it.
If you understand the corporate sponsorship of candidates, then you understand that many in the DLC are not interested in democratic representation, they are only interested in keeping their employers (the corporate sponsors) happy. It is baffling to me that the DLC undercuts good democrats and encourages them to make milktoast losing policiy statements....... like we see Joe Lieberman make. Lieberman is a perfect candidate for the DLC.
That is why Ned Lamonts win in CT is not only threatening to Republicans, but also threatening to the Democratic Establishment, that to many of us seems to lean toward not rocking the status quo, and keeping staid stale policies that undercut the interests of the American people.
Interesting to me, is that if you are a Republican and you are going to vote for Joe Lieberman, I don't see how you could possibly throw your support behind Lincoln Chaffee, yet that is the position the RNC is asking Republicans to take. This suggests to me that there is much more discord in the Republican party than the power brokers that run the RNC are letting on.
Ender you are not a partisan Republican, you are a partisan conservative who has chosen the Republican party as the one which (you hope) will best support your aims.
As many within the party are finding out this is not currently true. Whether the GOP will be further controlled by the hard right faction or will shift back to a more Main St. Republicanism is what the upcoming battle is about.
On the Democratic side the division between liberals and the mainline Democrats is not as sharp. There are basic policies (the war aside) that all agree on. These are improved social services, a decrease in the power of big business and a more equitable tax system, among others.
Where the big disagreement arises is on the tactical side. Do Democrats cozy up to business interests because that is where the campaign money comes from or do they try to raise the money from individuals and "special interest" groups?
Until recently the GOP raised twice as much each cycle as the Dems. This was the influence of their ties to business. The pragmatic (some would say turncoats) of the Dem party decided to try to play the same game. The rise of the internet may allow smaller players back into the game. Time will tell.
The problem with the GOP is that it has been lying to its "base". It has promised to focus on smaller government, reduced social programs, improved "security" and changes to the decadent "values" that have permeated the US. Once in office it delivered larger government, expansion of some social programs (like Medicare) while modestly reducing others (like Pell grants), no meaningful changes to values issues (gay marriage is now legal in at least one place, abortion is still legal although someone hampered, the morning after pill is now OTC, etc.) and an explosion in militarism without having actually achieved the useful aims of making the US and the world "safer".
What has also happened is a rise in corruption both legal (as in earmarks) and illegal (as in bribes) as well as the monetization of the legislative process. Whether this was by design, as some radical leftwingers feel, or just an example of power corrupting is in the eye of the beholder.
Principled conservatives and libertarians have two choices. They can stay within the party and try to reform it or they can leave and try to reform it from without. Many old line Republicans have chosen the second option. This includes people like John Dean and Kevin Phillips who now call themselves "independents". If the opportunity arises you will see them organizing themselves into a new coalition with some high sounding name, possibly after the upcoming election. They will use the poor results for the Republicans as their springboard for a new direction.
Lieberman would not be in trouble. But Iraq transcends that -- as Vietnam did so many years ago. Sometimes the times are defined and controlled by a single burning issue. These are such times.
By most other standards Lieberman is a liberal. His stance on Iraq has blurred all that, however. And it's not just because he supports the war. It's because of how enthusiastically he supports the war and how much he praises Bush. If Lieberman had said, "I support removing Saddam and trying to establish a democracy in Iraq but I am very concerned about how the war is being handled and how there doesn't seem to be a strategy to win, etc.," I doubt he would have lost the primary.
Just imagine if a Republican senator from a conservative state had kissed Bill Clinton and declared it to be dangerous to criticize him.
And if Joe Lieberman were a senator from a more conservative state, he would get more slack. Would Chafee be getting tons of money and volunteers from the RNC if he was from Idaho?
Hell, I wrote a diary on DKos a while back declaring that I wished Lieberman were my senator. He'd be a hell of an improvement over Jeff Sessions. It's all relative, you see.
of someone else, especially from a distance, telling them what to do or think. It's a holdover from the pioneer times when if a town or village became too "civilized" or institued too many rules and laws, you packed up and moved farther away from that civilization.
We can't really do that any more, but we still have a very strong stubborn streak. It's currently best called libertarianism. It holds camp in almost all organized political parties and groups.
Face it, if you are in a group and someone who is higher up the ladder than you comes up with a boneheaded plan, idea, or change, you yourself have not much recourse to change that plan or idea. Sure, you can object, but being farther down the ladder impacts the willingness of those above to listen.
Tolerance. It's a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems the higher one travels up one of lifes ladders, the less it becomes practiced. At some point, those above lose touch with the idea that those below have their own ideas. Sometimes, one having, and speaking, their own ideas gets you called a traitor (see any number of referances reguarding our current Iraq debacle), or Chafee a RINO (see any post in LGF, Redstate or like site that's commenting on him). By the same token, many of us who frequently vote Democrat no longer feel Joe L is a democrat. He may support many democratic ideals, but when he uses his position to torpedo fellow democrats for his own gain, he's outta here. It has nothing to do with tolerance. it has to do with success or a legislative slate and agenda and it's survival.
I hate to say it, but the Democratic party is more like the Republican party than I feel comforatable with.
Just call me a stubborn cuss out looking for my wilderness.
It is Liebermans unending desire to have access to power that is such a turnoff.
He would have sucked up to a democratic President just as much as he did with Bush for the sole purpose of serving himself, and not the public. The times have changed, the power balance has changed and Liebermans positions changed.
It is more his undercutting of the Democratic caucus that I found nauseating, and his statement that we MUST support Bush or else...... Joe serves himself and not his constituents, which is not the mark of a good public servant.
That he is willing to run as an independent after he LOST the democratic primary is all we need to know about his integrity and moral character. Joe serves Joe.
... and I'm sure someone will point them out, but your interpretation of how the DLC operates is completely erroneous:
DLC is perfectly willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party and boasting a very impressive cast of Democratic politicians, some of them Presidential hopefuls.
Not true at all. In fact, Al From, the head of the DLC, has said that he is supporting Lieberman over Lamont, this despite the fact that Democrats in Connecticut picked Lamont. How is that "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
And you may not be aware of the vicious name-calling the DLC did against Democrtas who supported Howard Dean in the preisdential primaries.
The DLC is not about the Democratic Party. It is about the DLC and its own (mostly big-ticket corporate) interests. In that regard, it's just like trade unions or any other interest group within the Party.
But "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
Not anymore than any other group.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
... and, as usual, didn't bother with Preview. Should read:
There are a few errors in your post, Ender and I'm sure someone will point them out, but your interpretation of how the DLC operates is completely erroneous:
DLC is perfectly willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party and boasting a very impressive cast of Democratic politicians, some of them Presidential hopefuls.
Not true at all. In fact, Al From, the head of the DLC, has said that he is supporting Lieberman over Lamont, this despite the fact that Democrats in Connecticut picked Lamont. How is that "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
And you may not be aware of the vicious name-calling the DLC did against Democrats who supported Howard Dean in the preisdential primaries.
The DLC is not about the Democratic Party. It is about the DLC and its own (mostly big-ticket corporate) interests. In that regard, it's just like trade unions or any other interest group within the Party.
But "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
Not anymore than any other group.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
but trade unions and other interest groups don't actually have sitting Senators and Congressmen as part of those groups while DLC certainly does?
Sure, they are not synonymous with the Democratic Party but they are definitely a part of it. You don't like them because of their potentially disloyal (from your point of view) actions but other democrats who support them (not on Dkos) would very strongly disagree.
The DLC's current chairman is Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware.
As much as you would like to distance it from the Democratic Party some of the most popular and well known democrats have been chairmen of DLC:
* President Bill Clinton * Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana * Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut * Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma * Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana * Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia * Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia * Former House Democratic Leader Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
And here is the current (rather long) list of Federally Elected Democrats both in the Senate and the House currently belonging to DLC: at this link
They have about 60 members total - 40 in the House and 20 in the Senate. So it's nice of you to try to demote such a huge percentage (almost half in the Senate) of Democrats to some interest group, but I don't buy it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think the DLC did have more effect during the 90's. But now it's kind of hollow. I don't think that it's for fiscal frugalness, but more for giving corporations more tax breaks. I'd support fiscal sanity, but throwing money at companies isn't paying down our debt.
plus, them advocating Lieberman is somewhat dumb of them. He isn't a fiscal conservative. He isn't even a democrat, to speak of, anymore. DINO & not even a D in the 06 election.
First of all, the DLC lists people as members who are often unafilliated with the organization. For example, they had Obama listed as a member and he didn't even know it. (He made them take his name off his list, and, shortly afterward, they removed the entire roster from their website.) That's why they don't actually include a list of members at the link you cite.
In addition, the link you cite is old. Note that it lists Congressman Tim Roemer as one of their leaders in the House. He hasn't been in the House since 2003. McCurdy isn't a House member anymore. Breaux is out of the Senate (since `05). Charles Robb has been out of the Senate since 2001. And Bill Clinton is no longer president (I know you're grateful for that).
They don't list their membership anywhere for good reason. It is not as large as they claim. And many Dems have distanced themselves from the organization, including Gephardt.
Not only that, but you don't refute the fact that your statement that the organization plays within the strictures of the Party is proven patently false by the DLC leader and several of its members backing Lieberman over the Democratic primary winner.
The DLC is simply the anti-union, pro-multi-national corporation interest group in the Dem Party.
There are plenty of Dem congressmen and senators who do more for unions (much to your dismay, I'm sure) than the few DLC senators and house members do for the DLC's big corporate donors, particularly the pharmaceuticals and communications giants.
You don't know enough about inside Democratic Party politics to comment intelligently on the subject, Ender. My post makes that much clear.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
As many within the party are finding out this is not currently true. Whether the GOP will be further controlled by the hard right faction or will shift back to a more Main St. Republicanism is what the upcoming battle is about.
For many of us fiscal and cultural conservatives, the Republican party is moving further and further to the left and is only paying lip service to the actual conservative principles. So pardon me if I am not exactly impressed with your allegations of a move to the Right. We are much more worried about the shift in the other direction and want our party to get back to the principles of Fiscal conservatism.
If you only speak about the social issues (which are only a part of the conservative agenda) then even there the Republican Party has not done anything to actually deserve this characterization, unless rhetoric without substance is all you need to portray GOP as a far right monolith.
Where the big disagreement arises is on the tactical side. Do Democrats cozy up to business interests because that is where the campaign money comes from or do they try to raise the money from individuals and "special interest" groups?
The Democrats had being going to corporate sponsors and "special interest" groups from time immemorial. Lately they've been bragging that they've caught up with GOP on that angle, especially the corporate side. I don't know if that is necessarily true, but on the "special interest" side they've probably surpassed the Republicans.
The problem with the GOP is that it has been lying to its "base". It has promised to focus on smaller government, reduced social programs, improved "security" and changes to the decadent "values" that have permeated the US. Once in office it delivered larger government, expansion of some social programs (like Medicare) while modestly reducing others (like Pell grants), no meaningful changes to values issues (gay marriage is now legal in at least one place, abortion is still legal although someone hampered, the morning after pill is now OTC, etc.) and an explosion in militarism without having actually achieved the useful aims of making the US and the world "safer".
This only proves how far to the "Right" our party has gone. And if this "explosion in militarism", which is in my view a rather sane and warranted reaction to the new threats we are facing, is all you have to go on with your charge of GOP moving to hard right, then you do not have much.
Principled conservatives and libertarians have two choices. They can stay within the party and try to reform it or they can leave and try to reform it from without. Many old line Republicans have chosen the second option. This includes people like John Dean and Kevin Phillips who now call themselves "independents". If the opportunity arises you will see them organizing themselves into a new coalition with some high sounding name, possibly after the upcoming election. They will use the poor results for the Republicans as their springboard for a new direction.
I wouldn't bet on it. A few years of somewhat relative wilderness is not enough for any decent conservatives to ditch the only real vehicle for advancing our agenda. As I recall there were plenty of Democrats who've switched to GOP after the Gingrich revolution, and there have never been any serious talk of creating an alternative. There will always be self-important aggrandizing people trying to make waves and talking of high-minded new way, but our Republican/conservative base is not interested.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Are free to back whomever they want, even non-democrats or democratic primary losers. When David Duke won the GOP primary in Louisiana, the GOP fully renounced him and certainly did not support him in the general. I would hope that the Democrats would do the same if some racist loser won their primary and that allegiance to supporting the primary results does not become the litmus test for belonging to your party.
I certainly was aware of a White Supremacist running for the Alabama Attourney General just this year in the Democratic primary and just barely losing by less than 10 points. Would you have supported that primary winner in that case too?
You seem to have some serious blinders on due to constantly revolving in the dkos atmosphere of the non-stop anti-Lieberman campaign. Unless you are ready to run every single DLC democrat out of the party (which would put a mild wrinkle into the whole taking Congress over plan) don't tell me that they are some insignificant little group that is far outside of the Democratic mainstream. They are not. They are ideologically different but they are within your Democratic tent.
Supporting a primary loser is not enough to make someone automatically not fit to be a Democrat.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How do you square your remarks with the criticisms of many long time Republicans? I mentioned Dean and Phillips, but there have been others. Their complaint has to do with the party moving too far to the right.
Others like Chalmers Johnson have complained about the over expansion of the military and its inability to carry out its primary mission because of it.
You are free to interpret the coincidence of your goals and the present party anyway you see fit, but most libertarians and fiscal conservatives are not happy with present trends.
Are you saying that Lieberman is as outside the maintsream as David Duke is? David Duke is an outlier. That's not a relevant example, Ender, so I'm having trouble following your logic.
By the way, have Republicans primaried moderates?
And then there's this:
Unless you are ready to run every single DLC democrat out of the party (which would put a mild wrinkle into the whole taking Congress over plan) don't tell me that they are some insignificant little group that is far outside of the Democratic mainstream. They are not. T
Did I ever say that they were outside of the "Democratic mainstream?" I said they did not always play within Party strictures and that they were simply another interest group. Just like unions, only on the corporate side. Of course, they are in the Dmeocratic tent. I never said they weren't. But they are no diffferent than any other interest group.
As you know, Ender, in politics, the influence of various interest groups ebbs and flows within political parties. For instance, right now the religious right is at a high point of influence within the Republican Party, though that may be at an ebb. The DLC had their day and their influence is on the wane, just as the influence of unions waned, post-Reagan.
The DLC is no different than any other interst group and your argument that they only operate within the boundaries of the Party (as opposed to what other groups that operate outside the Party, by the way?) is bunk. You don't know what you're talking about.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I think the militarism hints at how "far right" the GOP has come, but mostly it is the fact that the GOP largely feels our civil rights are less important than our survival (i.e., that they are too cowardly to die for their values), which is so far right to make unmentionable characters from WWII spring to mind.
The far left sees civil rights as absolute, of course, and that survival of the nation is less important than the survival of these values.
Thus, if you lay out a spectrum from the cowardly, self-preservatinist end to the brave, die-for-your-freedom types, you can clearly trace a path from the bold era of fearless Regeanism to the sniviling bullies of today. Surely there have always been those in the GOP who've felt that survival trumps our American way of life, but their number has greatly increased under the fear-mongering of GW Bush.
Both parties are for big spending and big government, they just have vastly different roles in mind for the government. Thus, saying the big-spending GOP Congress is simply "too liberal" is a self-serving delusion; they would be "too liberal" only if they were spending all that dough on public health, environmental protection, etc., rather than subsidies for large corporations (a la Medicare Part D) and whatever else they are spending all that money on. It is not "too liberal" to spend like a drunken sailor on anti-liberal policy items.
Comments :
oh and
if I lived in RI, I would come out to vote against Chafee. I am not sure that he wouldn't screw us if the split is 50/50 by flipping to the Dems. His Osama comments are beyond obscene.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Everything you have outlined
in your post, re Lincoln Chaffee and his lack of support for the Republican caucus, and taking the position that you would vote against him....., is EXACTLY the reason that dems don't like Lieberman. He undermines democratic unity consistantly and sneakily.
Voting against Lincoln Chaffee is consistant with your position on the war. Chaffe does not support the war and did not vote for George Bush in the last election. A Republican vote for Chaffee is like a Democratic vote for Lieberman.
That the RNC is coming out in full force to back Chaffee is inconsistant on the position statement, but not inconsistant with maintaining Republican power. Frankly I don't get it.
If you understand the corporate sponsorship of candidates, then you understand that many in the DLC are not interested in democratic representation, they are only interested in keeping their employers (the corporate sponsors) happy. It is baffling to me that the DLC undercuts good democrats and encourages them to make milktoast losing policiy statements....... like we see Joe Lieberman make. Lieberman is a perfect candidate for the DLC.
That is why Ned Lamonts win in CT is not only threatening to Republicans, but also threatening to the Democratic Establishment, that to many of us seems to lean toward not rocking the status quo, and keeping staid stale policies that undercut the interests of the American people.
Interesting to me, is that if you are a Republican and you are going to vote for Joe Lieberman, I don't see how you could possibly throw your support behind Lincoln Chaffee, yet that is the position the RNC is asking Republicans to take. This suggests to me that there is much more discord in the Republican party than the power brokers that run the RNC are letting on.
I'm only half stupid
but
Ender you are not a partisan Republican, you are a partisan conservative who has chosen the Republican party as the one which (you hope) will best support your aims.
As many within the party are finding out this is not currently true. Whether the GOP will be further controlled by the hard right faction or will shift back to a more Main St. Republicanism is what the upcoming battle is about.
On the Democratic side the division between liberals and the mainline Democrats is not as sharp. There are basic policies (the war aside) that all agree on. These are improved social services, a decrease in the power of big business and a more equitable tax system, among others.
Where the big disagreement arises is on the tactical side. Do Democrats cozy up to business interests because that is where the campaign money comes from or do they try to raise the money from individuals and "special interest" groups?
Until recently the GOP raised twice as much each cycle as the Dems. This was the influence of their ties to business. The pragmatic (some would say turncoats) of the Dem party decided to try to play the same game. The rise of the internet may allow smaller players back into the game. Time will tell.
The problem with the GOP is that it has been lying to its "base". It has promised to focus on smaller government, reduced social programs, improved "security" and changes to the decadent "values" that have permeated the US. Once in office it delivered larger government, expansion of some social programs (like Medicare) while modestly reducing others (like Pell grants), no meaningful changes to values issues (gay marriage is now legal in at least one place, abortion is still legal although someone hampered, the morning after pill is now OTC, etc.) and an explosion in militarism without having actually achieved the useful aims of making the US and the world "safer".
What has also happened is a rise in corruption both legal (as in earmarks) and illegal (as in bribes) as well as the monetization of the legislative process. Whether this was by design, as some radical leftwingers feel, or just an example of power corrupting is in the eye of the beholder.
Principled conservatives and libertarians have two choices. They can stay within the party and try to reform it or they can leave and try to reform it from without. Many old line Republicans have chosen the second option. This includes people like John Dean and Kevin Phillips who now call themselves "independents". If the opportunity arises you will see them organizing themselves into a new coalition with some high sounding name, possibly after the upcoming election. They will use the poor results for the Republicans as their springboard for a new direction.
--- Policies not Politics
In any other time
Lieberman would not be in trouble. But Iraq transcends that -- as Vietnam did so many years ago. Sometimes the times are defined and controlled by a single burning issue. These are such times.
By most other standards Lieberman is a liberal. His stance on Iraq has blurred all that, however. And it's not just because he supports the war. It's because of how enthusiastically he supports the war and how much he praises Bush. If Lieberman had said, "I support removing Saddam and trying to establish a democracy in Iraq but I am very concerned about how the war is being handled and how there doesn't seem to be a strategy to win, etc.," I doubt he would have lost the primary.
Just imagine if a Republican senator from a conservative state had kissed Bill Clinton and declared it to be dangerous to criticize him.
And if Joe Lieberman were a senator from a more conservative state, he would get more slack. Would Chafee be getting tons of money and volunteers from the RNC if he was from Idaho?
Hell, I wrote a diary on DKos a while back declaring that I wished Lieberman were my senator. He'd be a hell of an improvement over Jeff Sessions. It's all relative, you see.
qui tacet consentire
American's as a people share thier distaste
of someone else, especially from a distance, telling them what to do or think. It's a holdover from the pioneer times when if a town or village became too "civilized" or institued too many rules and laws, you packed up and moved farther away from that civilization.
We can't really do that any more, but we still have a very strong stubborn streak. It's currently best called libertarianism. It holds camp in almost all organized political parties and groups.
Face it, if you are in a group and someone who is higher up the ladder than you comes up with a boneheaded plan, idea, or change, you yourself have not much recourse to change that plan or idea. Sure, you can object, but being farther down the ladder impacts the willingness of those above to listen.
Tolerance. It's a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems the higher one travels up one of lifes ladders, the less it becomes practiced. At some point, those above lose touch with the idea that those below have their own ideas. Sometimes, one having, and speaking, their own ideas gets you called a traitor (see any number of referances reguarding our current Iraq debacle), or Chafee a RINO (see any post in LGF, Redstate or like site that's commenting on him). By the same token, many of us who frequently vote Democrat no longer feel Joe L is a democrat. He may support many democratic ideals, but when he uses his position to torpedo fellow democrats for his own gain, he's outta here. It has nothing to do with tolerance. it has to do with success or a legislative slate and agenda and it's survival.
I hate to say it, but the Democratic party is more like the Republican party than I feel comforatable with.
Just call me a stubborn cuss out looking for my wilderness.
for me at least
It is Liebermans unending desire to have access to power that is such a turnoff.
He would have sucked up to a democratic President just as much as he did with Bush for the sole purpose of serving himself, and not the public. The times have changed, the power balance has changed and Liebermans positions changed.
It is more his undercutting of the Democratic caucus that I found nauseating, and his statement that we MUST support Bush or else...... Joe serves himself and not his constituents, which is not the mark of a good public servant.
That he is willing to run as an independent after he LOST the democratic primary is all we need to know about his integrity and moral character. Joe serves Joe.
I'm only half stupid
There are a few errors in your post, Ender...
... and I'm sure someone will point them out, but your interpretation of how the DLC operates is completely erroneous:
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oops, forgot to close the blockquote
... and, as usual, didn't bother with Preview. Should read:
There are a few errors in your post, Ender and I'm sure someone will point them out, but your interpretation of how the DLC operates is completely erroneous:
Not true at all. In fact, Al From, the head of the DLC, has said that he is supporting Lieberman over Lamont, this despite the fact that Democrats in Connecticut picked Lamont. How is that "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
And you may not be aware of the vicious name-calling the DLC did against Democrats who supported Howard Dean in the preisdential primaries.
The DLC is not about the Democratic Party. It is about the DLC and its own (mostly big-ticket corporate) interests. In that regard, it's just like trade unions or any other interest group within the Party.
But "willing to work within the confines of the Democratic Party?"
Not anymore than any other group.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
wait a second
but trade unions and other interest groups don't actually have sitting Senators and Congressmen as part of those groups while DLC certainly does?
Sure, they are not synonymous with the Democratic Party but they are definitely a part of it. You don't like them because of their potentially disloyal (from your point of view) actions but other democrats who support them (not on Dkos) would very strongly disagree.
As much as you would like to distance it from the Democratic Party some of the most popular and well known democrats have been chairmen of DLC:
And here is the current (rather long) list of Federally Elected Democrats both in the Senate and the House currently belonging to DLC: at this link
They have about 60 members total - 40 in the House and 20 in the Senate. So it's nice of you to try to demote such a huge percentage (almost half in the Senate) of Democrats to some interest group, but I don't buy it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You forgot to add Senator Hillary Clinton
to that DLC list.
I think the DLC did have more effect during the 90's. But now it's kind of hollow. I don't think that it's for fiscal frugalness, but more for giving corporations more tax breaks. I'd support fiscal sanity, but throwing money at companies isn't paying down our debt.
plus, them advocating Lieberman is somewhat dumb of them. He isn't a fiscal conservative. He isn't even a democrat, to speak of, anymore. DINO & not even a D in the 06 election.
Oh come on, Ender. get your facts straight.
First of all, the DLC lists people as members who are often unafilliated with the organization. For example, they had Obama listed as a member and he didn't even know it. (He made them take his name off his list, and, shortly afterward, they removed the entire roster from their website.) That's why they don't actually include a list of members at the link you cite.
In addition, the link you cite is old. Note that it lists Congressman Tim Roemer as one of their leaders in the House. He hasn't been in the House since 2003. McCurdy isn't a House member anymore. Breaux is out of the Senate (since `05). Charles Robb has been out of the Senate since 2001. And Bill Clinton is no longer president (I know you're grateful for that).
They don't list their membership anywhere for good reason. It is not as large as they claim. And many Dems have distanced themselves from the organization, including Gephardt.
Not only that, but you don't refute the fact that your statement that the organization plays within the strictures of the Party is proven patently false by the DLC leader and several of its members backing Lieberman over the Democratic primary winner.
The DLC is simply the anti-union, pro-multi-national corporation interest group in the Dem Party.
There are plenty of Dem congressmen and senators who do more for unions (much to your dismay, I'm sure) than the few DLC senators and house members do for the DLC's big corporate donors, particularly the pharmaceuticals and communications giants.
You don't know enough about inside Democratic Party politics to comment intelligently on the subject, Ender. My post makes that much clear.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
this is just your perception
For many of us fiscal and cultural conservatives, the Republican party is moving further and further to the left and is only paying lip service to the actual conservative principles. So pardon me if I am not exactly impressed with your allegations of a move to the Right. We are much more worried about the shift in the other direction and want our party to get back to the principles of Fiscal conservatism.
If you only speak about the social issues (which are only a part of the conservative agenda) then even there the Republican Party has not done anything to actually deserve this characterization, unless rhetoric without substance is all you need to portray GOP as a far right monolith.
The Democrats had being going to corporate sponsors and "special interest" groups from time immemorial. Lately they've been bragging that they've caught up with GOP on that angle, especially the corporate side. I don't know if that is necessarily true, but on the "special interest" side they've probably surpassed the Republicans.
This only proves how far to the "Right" our party has gone. And if this "explosion in militarism", which is in my view a rather sane and warranted reaction to the new threats we are facing, is all you have to go on with your charge of GOP moving to hard right, then you do not have much.
I wouldn't bet on it. A few years of somewhat relative wilderness is not enough for any decent conservatives to ditch the only real vehicle for advancing our agenda. As I recall there were plenty of Democrats who've switched to GOP after the Gingrich revolution, and there have never been any serious talk of creating an alternative. There will always be self-important aggrandizing people trying to make waves and talking of high-minded new way, but our Republican/conservative base is not interested.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Democrats
Are free to back whomever they want, even non-democrats or democratic primary losers. When David Duke won the GOP primary in Louisiana, the GOP fully renounced him and certainly did not support him in the general. I would hope that the Democrats would do the same if some racist loser won their primary and that allegiance to supporting the primary results does not become the litmus test for belonging to your party.
I certainly was aware of a White Supremacist running for the Alabama Attourney General just this year in the Democratic primary and just barely losing by less than 10 points. Would you have supported that primary winner in that case too?
You seem to have some serious blinders on due to constantly revolving in the dkos atmosphere of the non-stop anti-Lieberman campaign. Unless you are ready to run every single DLC democrat out of the party (which would put a mild wrinkle into the whole taking Congress over plan) don't tell me that they are some insignificant little group that is far outside of the Democratic mainstream. They are not. They are ideologically different but they are within your Democratic tent.
Supporting a primary loser is not enough to make someone automatically not fit to be a Democrat.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
critics
How do you square your remarks with the criticisms of many long time Republicans? I mentioned Dean and Phillips, but there have been others. Their complaint has to do with the party moving too far to the right.
Others like Chalmers Johnson have complained about the over expansion of the military and its inability to carry out its primary mission because of it.
You are free to interpret the coincidence of your goals and the present party anyway you see fit, but most libertarians and fiscal conservatives are not happy with present trends.
--- Policies not Politics
How does David Duke relate to Joe Lieberman?
Are you saying that Lieberman is as outside the maintsream as David Duke is? David Duke is an outlier. That's not a relevant example, Ender, so I'm having trouble following your logic.
By the way, have Republicans primaried moderates?
And then there's this:
Did I ever say that they were outside of the "Democratic mainstream?" I said they did not always play within Party strictures and that they were simply another interest group. Just like unions, only on the corporate side. Of course, they are in the Dmeocratic tent. I never said they weren't. But they are no diffferent than any other interest group.
As you know, Ender, in politics, the influence of various interest groups ebbs and flows within political parties. For instance, right now the religious right is at a high point of influence within the Republican Party, though that may be at an ebb. The DLC had their day and their influence is on the wane, just as the influence of unions waned, post-Reagan.
The DLC is no different than any other interst group and your argument that they only operate within the boundaries of the Party (as opposed to what other groups that operate outside the Party, by the way?) is bunk. You don't know what you're talking about.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
party's are corruption
and they ought to be happy to have more than a few ombudsmen to keep them honest.
oddly enough, parties are rarely very concerned about being kept honest for some reason.
I wonder why.
Far Right
I think the militarism hints at how "far right" the GOP has come, but mostly it is the fact that the GOP largely feels our civil rights are less important than our survival (i.e., that they are too cowardly to die for their values), which is so far right to make unmentionable characters from WWII spring to mind.
The far left sees civil rights as absolute, of course, and that survival of the nation is less important than the survival of these values.
Thus, if you lay out a spectrum from the cowardly, self-preservatinist end to the brave, die-for-your-freedom types, you can clearly trace a path from the bold era of fearless Regeanism to the sniviling bullies of today. Surely there have always been those in the GOP who've felt that survival trumps our American way of life, but their number has greatly increased under the fear-mongering of GW Bush.
Both parties are for big spending and big government, they just have vastly different roles in mind for the government. Thus, saying the big-spending GOP Congress is simply "too liberal" is a self-serving delusion; they would be "too liberal" only if they were spending all that dough on public health, environmental protection, etc., rather than subsidies for large corporations (a la Medicare Part D) and whatever else they are spending all that money on. It is not "too liberal" to spend like a drunken sailor on anti-liberal policy items.