Predictions?

He'll dodge questions and not face up to the failures of the DLC to advance the progressive cause.

He won't even dodge questions. It will simply be hit-and-run posting, putting up a post each day, and never responding to any of us.

Prove us wrong, Mr. Ford.

Here's his view on Iraq, from an interview he did last week with the Washington Times:

Former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving," Mr. Ford said.

So, at the very least, he is completely out of touch with the will of the American people. What he thinks "Americans want" does not hold up in any poll. He's about as out of touch as former President Bush and the scanner at the supermarket.

Most American don't "want to win" -- most Americans have realized, we have already *lost*.

But that's the least. Because what he's really doing here is misrepresenting the Democratic position on withdrawal, doing the same kind of lying that Bush and Joe Lieberman do, saying Democrats want an immediate, "premature" withdrawal, which evokes the kind of imagery we saw in the last days of Vietnam.

Perhaps Ford could make his argument without associating the majority of the Democratic Party -- both in Congress and especially us in the rank-and-file -- with Saigon?

The bottom line is this: Ford and the DLC agree with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, that a withdrawal from Iraq is the wrong thing to do. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been wrong about EVERYTHING that has to do with Iraq, from the reasons we got in, to the manner in which it is being run.

Is there any reason to believe that Bush and Cheney -- and Ford -- are right about when we should get out of Iraq?

I'm no foreign policy expert. Just a guy with a computer. But my money's on whatever plan is the exact *opposite* of whatever Bush and Cheney tell us is the right thing to do. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I predict that no one will care what he actually says, as the letters DLC are like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here.

Noel

Gotta read Booman's DLC primer post - amazing!

Hillary and the DLC

I was reluctant to say this at first, but what the hell....I never trusted Ford, I always saw him as self serving. I did want him to win that Senate seat, but only because he's a Dem. and it would have helped grab the majority.

My prediction? Disrespect. The DLC was specifically founded to take control of the Democratic Party away from the dirty grassroots, and I see no evidence that they have changed their way of thinking.

sPh

But my money's on whatever plan is the exact *opposite* of whatever Bush and Cheney tell us is the right thing to do.

Exactly cscs! I call it the George Costanza theory.
Whatever George Bush's instincts tell him to do, we should do the opposite. Read all about it:

http://tinyurl.com/2d3lq3

Since the Washington Times article claiming that Ford has "split with Democrats" on Iraq by opposing the supplemental bill's language on withdrawal has already been mentioned in this thread, and was also the subject of fiery posts at DKos and MyDD, folks should be aware that Ford put out a statement Friday disputing the article and making it clear he would have voted for the bill had he been in the Senate.  This was just mischief-making by the WaTimes, and shouldn't be credited here. 

.> I agree that, yes, some people will
> be shrill or rude (e.g. "looney Left"),
> and I also find it distasteful. TPM's
> no Kos, but it's still the internet.

I would love to sound like Duncan Black (Atrios) here, but I am nowhere near that good a writer. Still, I will give it a shot.

There has long been an assumption among the Washington DC insiders (of all parties) that they represent a superior class that gives instruction to the lesser classes and that brooks no disagreement with their Pronouncements. Many of the guest posters here over the last 12 months have taken that attitude in their writings. When their _ideas_ have been seriously and sharply criticized, they have responded by classifying such disagreement from the peons as "abusive" or "vituperative". Whereas I would say they are simply being exposed to the light of strong analysis for the first time since they left the college dorm - and they don't like it.

Are there some obnoxious posters here (as at Kos, and MyDD, and..)? Sure. Are there some obnoxious people in life who need to be politely ignored? Yes. But ignoring the substantial thoughtful criticism that has been posted here is obnoxious as well.

sPh

Oh yeah, the looney left was correct when it came to the war. I forgot that... :-)

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I assume what he means is that, while he would not have favored the inclusion of withdrwal timetables in the bill, and would have argued against them, he would nevertheless have stuck with his party and voted for the bill in its current form with the withdrawal timetables included, if that's the bill that the entire caucus had settled on. Is this right?

Ford's "Plan B" contains some good ideas - especially the proposal to "launch a robust diplomatic push to build regional and international support for stabilizing Iraq." However, as I understand the proposal, Ford opposed withdrawal deadlines, specific benchmark dates and timetables, or a troop readiness certification process.

"premature" withdrawal, which evokes the kind of imagery we saw in the last days of Vietnam.

Perhaps Ford could make his argument without associating the majority of the Democratic Party -- both in Congress and especially us in the rank-and-file -- with Saigon?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I meant the scenes of craziness during the fall of Saigon, helicopters and all, which is the typical image we have of America "losing" in Vietnam.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

From Ford's speech:

To keeping America safe we've got to lead America -- to lead America in a dangerous world, we must be more than an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-party, anti-war-minded people. 

But isn't the party ALREADY more than that?

Basically, what Ford's saying is, the Democratic party has no ideas, and that's where I and the DLC come in.

OK, so, maybe there are people in this country that still think that (See: 30% Bush Republicans), but most polls now show even on Nat'l Security, Dems are favored by a majority. And polls show people thinks Dems are either doing enough, or should be doing even more to reign in Bush's Iraq policy. And even if you disagree with the idea of withdrawal, it's certainly an "idea," isn't it? 

So I'm not sure of the purpose of perpetuating this myth of the Dems as a weak, single-minded no-ideas anti-war party? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

" Can US trainers make a meaningful difference in Iraq? I don't know,..."

I do. No, they can't.

Tom

What makes you so sure? By Iraq, I also include a fallback position to Kurdistan.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On April 2, 2007 - 12:53pm cscs said:

Oh yeah, the looney left was correct when it came to the war. I forgot that... :-)

I'll take the looney left and pass on the "Always wrong on Iraq Gang" and the "6 more monthers."

After all that has happened there is no way American personnel can be effective with any Iraqis except, I would agree, the Kurds.

Tom

Round here he's known as Harold the Ho. His campaign slogan was "A New Generation of Liebership." We're so sick of him and his family, we could spit.

Memphis, TN

If this is the thread to suggest future invitees, here are some of my suggestions:

1. Bill McKibben (has new book out "Deep Economy")

2. James Kunstler (also has new writings out)

3. Herman Daly (started the ecological economics movement 40 years ago)

4. Bob Costanza (worked with Daly, now heads ecology institute)

5. Bob Altemeyer (psychologist who has worked on defining the right wing authoritarian personality type, his new book is online and free: The Authoritarians)

The first four all deal with the hot potato that none of our politicians will touch (including Gore), the finiteness of the planet's resources and the need to consume at a sustainable rate. Altemeyer deals with why the neo-cons have been successful in seizing power and gaining so many unquestioning followers.

What we don't need is more pols spinning variations on the current talking points - even liberal ones.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Excellent recommendations. I hope TPM will see them here. Josh said to e-mail recommendations for guests to 'talk@talkingpointsmemo.com'. Perhaps you could shoot them off an e-mail?

I'd like to see someone coax Billmon out of retirement for an occasional post.

Are there two Harold Fords? I just read that a Harold Ford, Jr. was joining Fox News as a political commentator. Roger Ailes was most welcoming in his remarks on the hire. Surely the chairman of the DLC would not take on a job with Fox; it must just be a coincidence of names. After all, they already have Mara Liasson and Juan Williams wrapped around Roger's pudgy little finger. It can't be true, can it? Can it?

Remembering the past, I'd say that anything the Bush faction favors is likely to end in disaster.

Furthermore, if one extreme has been right (aka the dirty hippies), and one extreme has been wrong (the war party), could you explain to me the implied virtue of *equal opportunity offense to both extremes*?

Former U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. is going to work for Fox News Channel as a political commentator, the network announced this morning.

Personally, I'd like the Former U.S. Senate candidate to answer this question: Does the Democratic party gain more from pandering to the right wing, or from actually standing for something?

As Hcberkowitz reminds us, George Santayana said: "Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We've had one successful Democratic politician who pandered to the right in recent decades: Bill Clinton. And this led to the near death/irrelevance of the Democratic party. And it has taken the disaster of Cheney/Bush to revive its chances.

So.

Pass on the "they're in the last throes-ers", also.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Chalmers Johnson permanently.

Tom

Wow!  There's balance for you.  On the one hand, all the Presidential Candidates withdraw from a Debate on a Fox Channel because The Fox News Organization is little more than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. On the other, the head of an organization called the "Democratic Leadership Council" is going to moonlight as a commentator for Fox. 

Isn't head of the DLC a full-time job?  I don't think they're so poor they can't pay Mr. Ford a living wage.  As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Leadership Council is Humbug--pure, unadulterated.  Rather like the faux Senior Citizens organization which hired Art Linkletter to shill for them.  The True leadership of the Democratic Party rests in the Democratic National Committee.

I think I'll do my best to greet Mr. Ford's appearance here with a respectful silence <cold shoulder></cold shoulder>.  (My best may not be good enough)

aMike

Harold Ford is mainstream poo-oh-la. Why are you bothering? I did wish, however, that he had beat that sob Corker for a Senate seat, but let's face it: the DLC did not choose this guy because he was anything other than BORE...ing; that's boring, boring, boring. THe DLC must be relagated to the bin that takes things to the landfill and that will, unfortunately perhaps, include Harold Ford, Mr. Oreo American.

LoneTreeFox,

I agreed with everything you said up to "Mr. Oreo American", which remark I could have done without.

Tom

What "chaos" there was in the early years of Vietnamese independence after the withdrawal, it was minuscule compared with chaos and death during the war which decimated Vietnamese culture and infrastructure. Soon after the withdrawl Vietnamese dependance on China was diminished and independance asserted. We never should have been in Vietnam in the first place.

The Domino Theory was incredibly nihilistic, as is the neo-con policy on the M.E. Both leading inevitably towards the glorification of aggressive militarism and coercion. We Western nations at our best have always inspired democracy, leading by example.

Vietnam has pragmatically sought to emulate the successes of developed nations like France and the USA, their former enemies. Vietnam today is a peaceful nation, modernizing and liberalizing of its own free will. They're balancing social policies with market capitalism, and a trading partner of many developed nations. Vietnam independence has generally progressed by great leaps and bounds in only a few decades. It's frankly a triumph of human spirit and rationlism; showing people ultimalty want to be left alone to evolve via self deterination, but tend to arrive at similar results in short order.

If you look at problems like Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, civil war in Iraq, or past examples like Vietnam, they are essentially nacent movements for self determination (religious, social, and economic) with all the aspirations and warts of populist movements, who become more extremist in direct proportion to foreign opposition. Even Al Qaeda is the terrorist product of a larger pan Arabic movement which basically wants foreign powers out, including the Western supported Saud regime. Take away those foreign irritants and the larger Islamic independance movement would settle its own internal disputes and quickly move towards pragamtism and moderation, ceasing to tolerate extremists like AQ in thier midst.

Take Pakistan for an Islamic example. The fundamentalists are a fringe of luddites. The main thing sustaining them is anti-Indian and anti-Western gripes. India also tended to inflame problems. But as soon as India wanted to become a tech developed nation, it stopped contributing to the conflict, became far more prosperous, and now moderate Pkistanis don't want to fight, but to emulate India, and want to put down thier own extremist movements.

There is absolutly no reason a country like Arabia wouldn't also want to emulate India or Islamic SE Asian countries to educate thier populaces and enter the global market once freed from the opressive Saud regime, and part of that would naturally entail the supression of extremists like Al Qaeda. But so long as we have foreign backed opressive regimes like the Sauds, we'll have extremist movements like Al Qaeda.

And so what did he mean by this:

"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving,"

Everything I could possibly say has already been said here. But I would like to add that when a faction of one's party advocates moving toward the other party, especially when the other party's ideals have been thoroughly rebuked by history, logic, and public opinion, then said faction is not only out of touch but also hinders progress.

I believe the DLC falls into this category and feel that they should either become Republicans or get with the program.

Sure, it's a big tent, but not when a few totally undermines the work of the many.

Democrats, like Ford, that sign on with FOX News as consultants/talking heads, are looking for a paycheck. They will, of course, deny this and offer a number of altruistic reasons for their signing on with Rupert.

I'm sure there are some ground rules for these Dems, such as 'don't embarrass Sean Hannity by making an ass of him
for his vacuousness.' 'Make sure you go along with Bill's bashing of the "looney left'.' But most importantly, as a show of good faith, (we must earn that paycheck don't ya know) bash the Dems now and then.

When I saw that Ford signed with FOX I was reminded of the following;

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

Sorry for the second comment, but I just had to say this. If Harold Ford thinks it is necessary to win this war in Iraq and not pull our troops out now, he is of enlistment age and should get his ass in there and become IED fodder. Who the hell are these people TAKE SUCH A CAVALIER ATTITUDE ABOUT PEOPLE DYING by recognizing their service and just send more in the fire? The frustration I get from just listening to these people put such importance on a war we needn't be in, shouldn't be in, didn't have to start and need to get out of gives me an excruciating headache. Where are they coming from? Fighting for our freedom? What the hell did Iraq have to do with that? How did they threaten OUR freedom? Our war was in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. There would be no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Too damn many people including the DLC listening to Cheney.

 I would be interested to know what *"win"* looks like in the eyes of Mr. Ford/DLC and the Republicans who keep touting such an event in our future, if only we don't leave Iraq prematurely.

Ditto. This is the only real substantive question to these kind of remarks. The person must be asked to define win. More over, all these folks need to be made to shift their language to whatever they say win is defined as. Typically, redeployment and aggressive diplomacy while securing peace is the major thrust of their comment. THAT is what they need to say.

If they want to mouth this 'win' platitude as a sound bite, there must be a clear understanding of what win means. Just like when I hear the GOP talking point 'voter fraud' I know they mean voter suppression/disenfranchisement and so does the GOP base.

The Dems need to establish this same type of understanding with their base when it comes to the 'winning in Iraq' meme. Establish clearly with the base what is MEANT by WINNING, If this is to be the sound bite that counters the GOP 'cut and run'.

I wonder if s/he was getting Ford confused with Michael "Oreo Incident" Steele?

Either way, you're right, it's a stupid thing to say.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

How do you define "successful" Democratic president? Clinton never helped get more Democrats elected.

Being a maverick and running against your party can work for one person. It's not a recipe for building a successful party. The DLC exists to criticise Democrats as a whole to get one or two Dems elected in marginal districts. Saying "I'm not like other Democrats" doesn't help the Democratic party. I understand why an individual politician would make a statement like that, but there's no reason to support a group that's committed to our destruction.

Since my prediction of disrespect is already being borne out in the first post, I will turn to Mr. T for the next words of wisdom: "My prediction? Pain."

sPh

I am really disappointed that Harold Ford chose to become a "FOX Democrat". I understand they pay well but it is really worth degrading oneself that way?

The deal is pretty obvious. Ford gives FOX "news" legitimate and they compensate him with cash.

Until and unless Democrats grow a spine and fight back the Right Wing Noise Machine instead of begging it "please don't hit me" they will continue to be at a media disadvantage.

Justin, while, yes, the DLC gave us Clinton, that was 1992.

Now, I would argue that times have changed. What worked in 1992 -- a message of bipartisanship and compromise -- is completely not applicable today.

Clinton did things like work with the Majority Leader when choosing nominees. Bush? Nothing like that.

When the opposition has evolved into a party that is only interested in one-party rule, what's there to compromise?

The best strategy today is to oppose the Republicans, not try and work with them. There may be a time in the future when the DLC's message will again work. But not today -- that's not what works in today's politics, and that's not what The People want to see Democrats do.

The second point is progressives, at least what I think of progressives/liberals, make up the overwhelming majority of the party. So while, yes, we need to sway others to vote Democratic, shouldn't there be some consideration to what the majority of the party thinks and believes?

For example, take pro-gay marriage or pro-choice. Those positions I would say are both majority opinions of the Democratic rank-and-file, no? So isn't it better to spend time and energy explaining to others why those positions are correct (on Constitutional grounds, appealing to the American tradition of believing in equal and fair rights for all, and the limits the government has over us), than to just cede the argument over to the other side?

Finally, when it comes to the DLC, for me, it's not the policies that are the question. It's how they get there -- by marginalizing liberals and progressives.

There's a right way and a wrong way to argue policy. It can be done while respecting those with which you disagree. You can argue why you think it was right to invade Iraq and support Bush while not calling anti-Iraq-war protesters unAmerican. But that's what they did.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

How did the DLC contribute to the wins in the mid-term elections?

Even Ford, the current Chair, lost his race.

I am convinced we need people of all stripes for Democrats to win elections. I am not convinced we need the DLC to win.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

You make good points here. The Democratic platform should be largely driven by the will of the party majority, and we should never cede to the other side major issues and try to co-opt pernicious policies merely for the sake of electoral victories. There is a great case to be made for marriage rights for gay people and for reproductive freedoms, and we should make that case as clearly and effectively as possible. But it's important to understand that there are people who cannot be persuaded about one or two issues who are otherwise sympathetic to the ideals of the Democratic party; the DLC helps garner their votes. Right now, I think we can't win nationally without them - but we should never stop trying to push things in the direction of what is right.

As to things being different under Bush than his predecessors, I couldn't agree more. The man ran as a moderate conservative, and governed as a megalomaniacal theocrat - with the Republican Congress marching in lockstep. We're now seeing the fracturing of the Bush coalition, and it is my sincere hope that we see in our country a return the more civilized norms of the past. Hopefully, the deeply toxic present state of Washington politics will become the historical aberration. But only time will tell.

In the present primary system, the platform adopted by the Party at the convention is largely irrelevant, and is not binding on the candidate. Often, that's the symbolic place where the ideals, according to the party majority, can be placed and used wherever possible. A Presidential candidate, however, has an independent platform, and, if judged necessary to get the required votes, can strengthen or weaken party planks as needed.

If I may be allowed a statute of limitations after 30-plus years, I think back to my GOP Senior Campaign Management School, and some wise lessons. Their model had two main paradigms for targeting campaigning and poll support, which are not always the same.

1. Concentration percentage: identify where the base is located, keep them involved, and get them to the polls.


2. Swing voter: identify districts where there tend to be large numbers of undecideds, and, if you can appeal to them to join your cause, do so. If you can't offer something they want, consider creating cognitive dissonance such that the voters leaning to your opposition don't vote.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Justin, others addressed most of my DLC gripes but I want to add some thoughts on the Iraq War, the DLC and your question: We took an awful situation in Iraq under Saddam, and have made it worse. What do we do now?

Here are 3 different ways of looking at the Iraq war issue:

For starters, Mr. Ford needs to define "win", as in winning the war. Now that the "greeted with flowers" wishful part is over, what are the less preferred, but at this point, still faintly achievable goals that the US wishes to attain? If we can't define then, we sure aren't going to achieve them.

Secondly, is the military the institutional response that is best suited to achieving our defined goals (whatever they are)?

Judged by standards of both timeliness and effectiveness, the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq has been unable to reconstruct infrastructure, to reform and rebuild domestic law enforcement, and to develop progressive governance. In the United States, these tasks are all allocated to nonmilitary agencies, none of which are prepared for extended operations in hostile environments . . . precisely the environment in which the need for such tasks is most likely to be found. [Emphasis mine].

Finally, judging from this position article, the DLC firmly advocates the (failed) policies of not talking to Iran and Syria. Yet, the military takes the position that diplomacy with Iran and Syria might help in Iraq and if we are willing to require the soldiers to go back to Iraq 3 or 4 times, we need to do our part on the diplomatic front, too.

I could go on...but I won't. :-)

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell