=== It's no secret that in some parts of the progressive blogosphere, the DLC has attained bogey-man status based on what I can only describe as a distorted view of the organization's history, and its alleged present status as a pillar of the Washington political establishment. ===

It is not usually a good idea to start out by (1) mischaracterizing and thereby (2) insulting your audience. Your job here is to sell the DLC and its positions, not deliver a top-down lecture. There is no question it is going to be a hard sell, but you have started out in the worst manner imaginable.

As to your list of 1-6, I note the absence of "restoring Constituational government". This leads me to think that the DLC might actually be in favor of the "unitary executive" concept and the expansion of executive power. Please discuss.

sPh

Can we all please try and keep this conversation civil?

There's obviously a lot of contention between us and the DLC. But comments like this are going to just serve us no purpose.

While in many ways I agree with your sentiment, it's just going to get us nowhere.

Let's try and stick to something that resembles a debate here.

Please? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I am with you cscs, but after that 2nd paragraph it is going to be a bit tough to remain civil...

sPh

I addressed it, hopefully with some civility, in my comment below.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Mr. Ford, I have some very deep seated and long term grievances with the DLC and some of its members like Lieberman and Zell Miller. But we need each other so let's have a serious conversation. Could you please let us know what your opinion (or the DLC's) is concerning permanent bases in Iraq; secondly Bush has repeatedly stated that our troops would leave Iraq if the people of Iraq did not want them. Overwhelmingly, the people of Iraq have expressed their desire for the Americans forthwith. Shouldn't a free nation like ours respect the wishes of the people in the nation we are occupying? You talk of bipartisanship. Bush does as well. Many progressives here understand this talk to signify a la Lieberman a Democratic surrender of principles to Bush. If Bush says he will accept only funding on his terms |(for the Iraq occupation) what is your strategy in the face of such partisan intransigence? Lastly, you apparently do not think the invasion of Iraq was wrong (morally) or if you do I missed it. Can you clarify the moral basis for this policy in your view.

The skepticism and frustration that many on the left feel about the DLC is akin to how "normal" righties feel about the Neoconservative movement.

That each party has a questionable sub-division within it is a pretty good starting point for a conversation.

Ford is correct that weeding out the politics from the ideas is necessary. A major problem is that too many don't want to do this because it's more enjoyable to play politics.

I read the whole speech very carefully and I think this paragraph expresses the gist of it:

Today, I think our country needs, and I think we would all agree needs a healthy, honest conversation and debate about what we stand for, about the direction we're headed, and what a better president can do. This should be a proud and, frankly, awesome time for a debate.

I did not give up. I went back and read again paragraphs I had read earlier whenever my eyes glazed over or I caught myself drifting off thinking about something else.

I did not just skim it. I honestly really, really tried to get the gist of it and that, as far as I can make out, is all he had to say.

My speech last week identified six specific challenges we need to solve as Democrats, as progressives, and as Americans: (1) Keeping America Safe; (2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete; (3) Holding Government Accountable for Results; (3) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy; (5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth; and (6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work.

Others have pointed out a few key lacunae in these goals, including that pasky torture/constitutionality thing. Maybe I'm wandering too much into framing, but a couple additional items struck me about this list of goals.

First, they're all written in a gerund form! Which is a weak construction , with all appropriate respect to the speechwriters. As gerunds -- "keeping" or "creating" -- they do not allow any endpoint. Which, in turn, suggests that there is no accountability. I realize that some of these tasks are perpetual challenges, but even so, I don't like them on both stylistic and sensible grounds.

Perhaps related to that, these goals have a fair number of ambiguities built in. For example, note that the safety of U.S. citizens and of the United States itself is not at issue. Instead, it's all about "keeping America safe." Well, what is "America"? Does that refer to the two American continents? Probably not. How about the idea of "America"? That seems more likely to me, and it's a much more amorphous set up. Similarly, "giving Americans the tools to compete" suggests that all we Americans lack is the proper tools, rather than a desire for a particular standard of living. Government will only be accountable "for results." What about conduct? A "hybrid energy economy" does not give us a timeframe or explain the balance between the various elements. What does "pro-family" mean? And why aren't we trying to end poverty, not just "poverty for all who work"?  Where does that leave children?

This agenda does not inspire much confidence in me. (And that's before I noticed the misnumbering!) The goals are incredibly general and open to interpretation. They therefore only create the illusion of common ground, rather than identifying shared priorities.

Hi Rep. Ford, and welcome to TPM Cafe.

You may have noticed that the DLC is not terribly popular among the liberal blogosphere.

I don't want to get into a long, detailed discussion of exactly what the problems with the DLC are. I'm sure others will take care of that. I will tell you what my core issues are, and I hope that you can see the wisdom of working with progressives on these issues.

1) Abuse of power by the Executive Branch. President Bush's administration has been in a state of violating the FISA law for probably about five years now. Do you support the idea that the President must be constrained by the law as it is written, or do Presidents have the latitude to ignore the law when they feel like it? I fear that this problem will not go away in 2008, especially if Mayor Giuliani's campaign is successful.

2) Equal rights for all Americans. In particular I have a gay colleague who is raising two children with his partner, and I am sick and tired of seeing his family villified by the religious right for choices they make that do not hurt anybody.

3) The moral leadership of America in the 21st century. You may have noticed this - the United States is widely villified these days on the world stage. I don't think morals are a matter of convenience for states as they interact with each other any more than they are a matter of convenience for people as they interact with each other. In particular, I would like to see the US end its policies of kidnapping suspected terrorists on foreign soil and detaining them indefinitely without legal review. And the policy of torture has to stop.

To the last point: it is really quite sad to listen to so many pundits decry the actions of the Iranians when they seized the 15 British marines and sailors. I say this not because I think the Iranians are in the right (indeed, I live in the UK these days and would hope that the British government can resolve this situation peacefully, and the 15 people could be returned safety to the UK). My problem is that the US has lost the moral high ground. It is impossible to argue that we know that the British ship was not in Iranian waters, given the actions of recent years, and it is hard to dismiss the stories claiming that the seizure was simply a retalitation for recent actions by US troops who seized several Iranians who were in Iraq.

The United States had a lot of good fortune in the 20th century. While it's true that the structure and ideals of the United States let us take the lead in making the world a better place, the fact that, among major industrial nations, the US was unique in not having a major war on its soil was certainly a factor in achieving a position of economic dominance. I fear that the US is frittering away the position of strength because (a) it is taken for granted, and (b0 because self-interest has become such a controlling philosophy at the highest levels of power that our leaders are actively working against the interests of the common people.

Hmm - I was intending to be brief, but I hope you think about all of what I've said.

How did supporting the bankruptcy bill, with all of its onerous provisions that made it a crushing blow to so many of the working poor who are a paycheck or a dental bill away from ruin, make this country more "pro-family"?

How does rubber-stamping George W Bush's war agenda and talking points hold government accountable?

You somewhat self-servingly ask us to set aside "old divisions"--ie to ignore what you and the DLC have done to promote GW Bush and his agenda--while at the same time speaking condescendingly of "boogeymen" and "stereotypes". You don't appear to have learned that, Beltway conventions notwithstanding, we in the 'netroots' deal in facts, we look at the record, our views and goals for this country are not some horowitzian fantasy about a newborn SDS or Marxist utopianism. And we do not like being talked down to by someone whose record in office, and whose organization's post-Clinton history, would recommend humility rather than superciliousness.

"It is not usually a good idea to start out by (1) mischaracterizing and thereby (2) insulting your audience."

It's not a mischaracterization, the progressive blogosphere has consistently misrepresented the DLC's positions as being farther to the right than they really are and, related to this, has egregiously demonized them. It's comprehensible because it's so human—people attack others within their own ranks more viciously than they attack the enemy because there's a sense of betrayal. And it can be appropriate if there really is betrayal. But it is inappropriate when it's just earnest and well-intentioned dissent. Frankly, I think that both are true of the DLC. It's an organization made up of many people, each of whom have different reasons for affiliating themselves with a dissenting Democratic organization. Some of those people, some of whom are very powerful, really are undermining core Democratic values.

In my opinion, the biggest divide between the left-of-center in the US is between those who see leftism as being primarily cultural and those who see leftism as being primarily economic. That's the long-term dynamic—we also now have a return of the Vietnam-era view that associates an anti-war stance as fundamental and primary. In all three cases, then, there are grounds for someone to accuse others of apostasy.

To be fair, reasoned, and generously-minded, it seems to me that it's best to attempt to analyze a dissenting case using all three of these dominant factors. Thus, someone who is progressive culturally and economically, and is anti-war, is someone the furthest leftward within the party. Someone who is conservative culturally and economically, and is pro-war, is so far to the right that their beliefs can't be reconciled with anything left-of-center, which surely is a requirement for ideological membership in the Democratic Party.

I think that the DLC, when it has formally announced its principles and goals, has always satisfied enough of the above criteria to remain part of the left. I also think that numerous individuals within the DLC have taken positions that disqualify them.

Mr. Ford, I have three questions for you:

1. Is universal health care for all on your agenda, so that the US can join other industrialized countries in the 21st Century?

2. Are you willing to repudiate your vote on Iraq and denounce the entire "war on terror" vocabulary as inadequate to describe our present situation?

3. Would you agree that the military-industrial-petroleum complex is calling the shots in the Bush administration?

I look forward to you replying precisely the way Chalmers Johnson did.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

Mr Ford

Do us all a favor, and resign. Ho9w the hell did you get a leadership position in the party?

.> Ho9w the hell did you get a leadership
> position in the party?

The DLC is self-appointed and ad hoc. That isn't to say it is without influence, but it is not part of the DNC, the state parties, or even the DSCC/DCCC.

sPh

I'm not as hostile to the DLC as some here, but I think there are two questions you need to answer:

(1) How is the DLC not simply Republican lite?
(2) Why have so many DLCers been so shy about revisiting their support the war? It's clear that the war was a terrible idea -- don't you owe us an explanation?

"“I love Jesus, I love girls and I absolutely love football.”

I have to say that was about one of the most sickening statements any candidate made last year. What was it like to sell your soul and then discover that the voters wouldn't buy it.
Please, do not run for office again.
Also, who do you love more, girls or Jesus.
Jeeeeeeeezus!

In fairness, those who are part of the traditional Democratic Party do not understand blogs or blogging. The expectation that a controversial essay will be criticized, and that the critics will expect a response, is just not understood. In previous "how to upgrade the Cafe" threads we discussed this and asked that the expectation be made clear to "name" posters, but even if that has been done I doubt they would accept it; it just isn't part of that generation's DNA (note that I am about the same age as Ford).

sPh

Dear Mr. Ford,

As a former constituent, and as someone who supported your Senate run in the face of near universal opposition from my progressive brothers and sisters at The Flypaper Theory, let me first say how disappointed I was to learn that you had taken this position at the DLC.

Honestly, I thought that somewhere deep down in your heart you really cared about Tennessee and especially Memphis, and that your loss in the Senate race would give you the opportunity to reflect and return to your roots.

Memphis is dying for real Democratic leadership. Our city government is corrupt to its hollow bones and the city is rotting from within. You could have come here and used your influence and connections to set up community foundations to help real people, the people who supported you with their votes for 10 years, to better their lives in appreciable ways. You could have come home and vowed to clean up this city. Don't you realize that the mayor's office was yours for the asking?

As mayor of Memphis, you could have opened the way to a future run as governor, and beyond that, who knows? President?

But it all started in Memphis. And you have abandoned Memphis. When you took the job with the DLC, I knew then that you no longer cared about Memphis, that you had decided to glom on to the festering hind tit of the Democratic party to suck from it whatever power and money you could get before it dies and falls off.

I am glad to see that the DLC has finally come to terms with the fact that the progressive netroots represents the American majority, but please don't blame us for attacking the DLC, because for the last 7+ years the DLC has treated us like a bunch of dirty hippies. If anyone has a need to apologize, it is the DLC. I hope that conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats can work together to find common ground.

We can start, perhaps, with you and the DLC admitting your past errors of judgment and political support. Leiberman is a fine starting point, I think. Had the DLC supported the Democratic candidate for Connecticut, we'd have a solid majority in the Senate today, not one teetering Joe's whims and personal payback agendas.

I find it so interesting that many "progressive" Democrats would rather settle old scores and maintain division than be magnanimous in victory and build coalitions to ensure success in the future.

Why do I say "victory?" Because on most of the big issues that were points of contention between the DLC centrists and the progressive left over the last few years, the progressives have won:

• No one outside of a few dead-enders like Joe Lieberman continues to defend the Iraq War. The actual differences between the DLC and the position of most leftwingers isn't that large.
• Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats.
• Climate change is also a top priority.

Are there still differences? Sure. In particular the relative levels of friendliness to business are still different. But even there the differences are narrowing. The DLC, unlike a lot of centrists, is institutionally friendly to unions for example.

Why can't progressives declare victory and move on to figuring out how to get as many people inside the big progressive tent rather than slaying the big bad DLC, whose power and influence is waning as people figure out that they've been wrong too often over the last few years?

Most people agree that the country is farther to the right today than it was 30 years ago. Would you say that the GOP became more powerful by catering to the "vital center" of this shift, or that the shift was caused by the GOP persistently pulling the electorate to the right while obeying its most conservative factions? In other words, to what extent should the electorate pull the party, versus the party pulling the electorate?

a distorted view of the organization's history, and its alleged present status as a pillar of the Washington political establishment.

Many voters agree with so-called "lefty" positions: that Iraq is hopeless and we should cut our losses; that federally-owned wilderness should be protected and preserved; that we should have some form of universal health care. But you have to actually give voters a choice on these issues, and the DLC persistently avoids them in favor of compromises on GOP-chosen issues.

I'd love to know Mr. Ford's response to just about any of the thoughts raised so far.

mr. ford,

i find it disingenuous for you to ask us to put aside old divisions, when those divisions are at the heart of what alienates the DLC from the grassroots of what the late Senator Wellstone said was the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. These divisions - labor vs. capital, human rights vs. pseudo-religious moralism, and peace vs. war to name the most prominent - are fundamental to the worldviews many of us hold and the expectations that we have of our political representatives.

so before you ask us to put aside those divisions, please forthrightly address how the you expect your organization to address them and bridge the fundamental gulf that separates us.

without this necessary first step on your part all we can expect from this blog thread are platitudes from you and emnity from us.

aml

The DLC's Real Political Base

"In fact, the DLC's real political base is among state and local elected officials from around the country"

Actually, Harold, the DLC has no base in local government. Al From swings through a city like Houston looking for ambitious, young, preferably minority, office-seekers and starts handing out patronage in exchange for their support of the DLC's policy-peddling. That would be Wall Street, K-Street, the Army of Northern Virginia, & other bond-lawyer and paper-hanger trade goods.

Those were originally mirrors and beads, of course, but today they are mostly public-works offsets -- stadiums, convention hotels, cranes -- whatever DoD has agreed to buy in exchange for some foreign arms sale. Also, now, obsolete, coal-fired boilers and all manner of fancy schemes to raid middle-class pensions and savings in order to indemnify improvident or larcenous fee-men with connections in both corrupt parties.

Ah, bi-partisanship, ain't it sweet!

So, where in this "common ground" you speak of, Harold, is some concession-racket, offset, set-aside, or agro-military pork, "public/private partnership", GOCO plantation, predatory financial institution, or nationally recognized firm of bond counsel, tax counsel, tax farm, or whatever that the DLC will not "Hold Harmless".

Name one Harold.

We know the number of combat boots that are now emptied, day by day, thanks, in part, to Hillary, Joe, and the Vichy Democrats.

Show me one single pair of tassled white bucks emptied by the DLC or exchanged for those booties they wear at Club Fed thanks to the DLC and its network of collaborators, informers, and fund-raisers or ... pimps.

::JRBehrman

I'm all in favor of a Democratic party that doesn't define large portions of its potential membership as beyond the pale. I'm against demonizing the DLC; I'm also against the DLC demonizing (e.g.) MoveOn, Howard Dean, those of us who have always opposed the Iraq war, and so on. So while it may not be productive to say 'let's all be friends...you first', I do think any genuine effort towards reconciliation has to come with an acknowledgment of what the DLC has done wrong.

Or, to put it another way: you don't get to complain about unfair characterizations of the DLC without admitting the DLC's unfair characterizations of others.

To the commenters: better to have a conversation than huddle in separate camps and snipe from a distance.

To Mr Ford: your mission is to redefine the term 'Fox News Democrat' so that it's not a pejorative, or a synonym for enabling GOP propaganda. And I'll judge you on your actions.

But I do have one question: can the DLC be trusted to back Democratic policies with which it may take issue, rather than provide the GOP with ammunition? That is, can it accept being a minority voice contributing on the inside, or will it take its ball and run to Fox News, seeking the power that organisation offers to Democrats who spend all their time criticising other Democrats?

"(1) Keeping America Safe; (2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete; (3) Holding Government Accountable for Results; (3) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy; (5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth; and (6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work."

As a sometimes-dissenting Democrat myself, and someone who, in the past, found myself in agreement with the DLC on a number of issues, I'll try to engage you in each of these points.

"(1) Keeping America Safe"

That is a talking point and not a policy prescription. But I'll assume its implications are anti-terrorism and pro-military.

On the anti-terrorism front, I think the leftist complaint is that the creation of a police-state as a response to fear is inherently rightist. At the very least, a centrist position requires a continued respect for the rule of law and the disdain for the star chamber, torture, and the like. Anything left of center emphasizes these things strongly. It's clearly possible to be reasonably effective in preventing terrorism while avoiding the creation of a police-state. If, for political purposes, the DLC wants to take seriously the possibly histrionic American fears of terrorism, then it ought to concentrate on doing so with effective policy proposals that strongly contrast to the GOP's facile security measures that do little except increase the government's powers and lay the groundwork for a police state.

With regard to being "pro-military" which, again, is a position popular with most Americans, including the center, and which presumably the DLC wants to reach...well, it seems pretty clear to me that neither the current foreign policy of the Bush administration nor the Iraq war are pro-military and truly strengthening American power worldwide. Rather, they are undermining both. The DLC could appeal to the center—which not incidentally also now opposes this war—by emphasizing how the Bush administration's policies and the war in Iraq are weakening America and breaking the back of the military. You can still assert interventionism without endorsing this ill-advised and botched war.

"(2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete"

This is obviously a roundabout way of defending free trade by emphasizing various policy prescriptions to answer displacements and other short-term ills associated with trade.

First off, start talking honestly about this. As someone who agrees very strongly with the DLC on trade, I think being mealy-mouthed about this is insulting and too reminiscent of the GOP. Trade creates long-term benefits but short-term ills. Admit that, be honest about it. Always discuss both together. A centrist and leftist set of policies that include free trade must include a number of specific responses to the short-term ills associated with trade. Not merely a vague commitment to "competitiveness", real liberalism requires governmental programs in unemployment insurance, retraining, health care, antipoverty, and also foreign policy strategies to address exploitative labor and environmental damage problems in our trading partners.

"(3) Holding Government Accountable for Results"

This just seems like empty rhetoric to me. Please translate this into something more meaningful.

"4) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy"

We need higher taxation on gasoline and major subsidies for good, practical alternative energy. Alternative energy will never be viable unless there's an economic disincentive for hydrocarbon use.

"(5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth"

Why? Here we see your culturally conservative bias. By itself, this is right-of-center. It's also empty rhetoric. Most Americans will probably identify themselves as "pro-family". But on the details, they will disagree. It is no longer centrist to be oppose gay rights. Aside from being anti-gay, I can't figure out what specific policies are implied in this statement. Making divorce more difficult? That's very much right-of-center and opposed to the sentiment of most Americans, center included.

"(6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work"

Why the qualification? It is not liberal to ignore the unemployed poor. This is an example of rhetoric about policy that has gone through stages of distortion to the point at which the statement itself is corrosive. The DLC's centrist embrace of welfare reform in the late 80s and later under the Clinton administration was not a conservative and punitive "we'll only help those who work" initiative. Rather, it was a response to the critique that the welfare status quo encouraged a permanent poverty by not helping the underclass find ways to enter the workforce. Whether this was a valid critique or not is beside the point—it was still motivated by a truly liberal impulse. But the same policy initiative embraced from the right saw things in terms of those who "deserve" help and those who do not. This is not liberal. To frame an antipoverty initiative wholly in terms of "those who work" is to embrace this moralistic right-wing viewpoint. That wasn't Clinton's view on the matter. Is it yours?

Most of the impressions (really criticisms) I have of the DLC have been expressed very well from various points of view.

I do not know the inside history of the DLC, but I don't think my time is best spent on protecting or enhancing the DLC's image when it seems the ship of renewed populism has sailed way past the DLC and the "Beltway insiders". In other words, while I appreciate your efforts to reach out to the "netroots", I agree with the perception that it feels as though you (and by extension the DLC) STILL look down at the netroots and want to lecture/talk down to us and show us the way to succeed. I think the opposite is true, and if the DLC wants to succeed into the future it is going to take more than vague platitudes with no specifics, and no follow-up from you, Mr. Ford, in a forum that you chose to engage TPM Cafe readers in (at least so far).

If I had to provide a short summary of the DLC to someone who was not politically engaged, I would describe the organization as very business friendly and inside-Washington, and has one claim to success of Bill Clinton's eight successful years as President which more likely occurred despite of not because of the DLC. When personalities were elevated above policy, the unsustainable Democratic majorities became evident. The DLC should have been communicating basic (and specific) items that all Democrats can be proud of and that the US voters can understand and know what we stand for. We are still playing catch-up.

I write respectfully and rarely use name-calling or insults. I feel your reaching out is important to whatever extent the DLC is important -- however, your initial statement is lacking in specifics and still using code words like "pro-family". Those are definitely signs of Beltway-insider thinking.

Welcome Mr. Ford. I see from your introductory comment that you have noticed that this pot on the stove is full of boiling water. I’m glad you didn’t just walk up and try to grab it bare handed. So let’s both put our oven mitts on and shake hands. I guarantee I will be civil. I will leave it to your judgment whether or not I am coherent.

I take your lead and offer a question that precedes specific policy topics. “In search of Common Ground” is an interesting title for a discussion among members of the same political party. One might think that joining a party infers some common ground. Is there a principle that the DLC (or if you wish a “New Democrat”) athinks would be universally acknowledged by any group gathered under the banner “Democrat?” What, in the view of the DLC, is the ground we all stand on?

Here's an example of the kinds of things you should be saying:

The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure. i>The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.

--Harry Reid

IN SEARCH OF A DISCUSSION

Hey, I thought this was going to be a two way "chat" with DLC head Harold Ford. Instead it looks like Mr. Ford stopped by to tell us that we're wrong to think of the DLC as a bogeyman, and the DLC is really down to earth, and look at all the fabulous things the DLC supports! and blah blah blah. Two hours have gone by, and no feedback from Mr. Ford about the issues raised in comments. (sigh) Tell me again why I should love the DLC?

And to BradtheDad, who expresses "concern" that the Netroots aren't declaring victory and looking to work together with the DLC, I say this: the DLC has no interest in working with the Netroots, and the DLC hasn't admitted error, and thus hasn't "surrendered" to the Netroots. Specifically, you said:

1. No one outside of a few dead-enders like Joe Lieberman continues to defend the Iraq War. The actual differences between the DLC and the position of most leftwingers isn't that large. 2. Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats. 3. Climate change is also a top priority.

On the first point, you're dead wrong. Many longstanding members of the DLC (Wittman?) continue to undercut Democratic efforts to end the Iraq War. I could be wrong, but I think "dead-ender" Lieberman is still a member of the DLC. You should also note that in his opening note today, Mr. Ford made no mention of the Iraq War. Get this into your head: the DLC has not taken an unequivocal stand for a withdrawal timeline, and many DLCers continue to advocate against such a thing. There is no "victory" to declare here for Netroots, because the DLC has not joined us on this extremely important issue.

I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first. Until it does, I will continue to view the DLC with suspicion and hostility.

I'm all for welcoming in apostate Dems. However, the DLC as an organization will never renounce its ongoing attempts to destroy the Democratic party. The best way for an apostate to demonstrate that he's really a Democrat is to resign from the DLC. When one does, I'll kill a fatted calf for him.

You know this feels just like having a Conversation with Hillary Clinton......

No kidding re: Tennessee Dems... back in 2004 when I walked over to HQ in search of Kerry/Edwards signs, not only did almost no one even stop to acknowledge me, but the one fellow who did also treated me to a nearly ten-minute diatribe on immigrants having access to healthcare (he was against it). I certainly understood his frustration with citizens' access, but I didn't really expect that kind of scapegoating among Dems. Even in the south, and especially not in a capital city.

Of course, that's why I'm much more interested in national politics-- in this part of the country state & local politics are pretty depressing.

Dude, you have no sense of humor.

Yes. Very few "big name" posters here descend to our level in the comments.

"I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first."

Why? While I agree with you about this war, I can't understand this view of it as an ideological test for membership in the Left or in the Democratic Party.

I'm hard-pressed to find a way in which an antiwar stance or isolationism is historically more strongly associated with the left than the right other than the left's greater enthusiasm for diplomacy and international law. That alone is perhaps a reasonable basis to assert a vague antiwar position as inherently ideologically leftist. But leftism has often been willing to fight wars. To vote someone off the island on an ideological basis for failing to conform to a temporary political alignment on a war is ahistorical and narrow-minded.

It seems far, far more reasonable to me to argue that someone isn't progressive if they oppose gay rights or universal health care than it is if they support the Iraq war. It may be foolish, or ignorant, or stubborn to support this war, but it's not inherently an ideological betrayal and it shouldn't be seen as such.

Heh. After reading the preceding comments, I thought I was being nice! I think it is good that he is here.

(Go Rutgers!)

"If one is able, isn't it morally superior to work than not?"

Arguably. But my sense is that value is much more strongly related to cultural conservatism in the US than it is to progressivism. Furthermore, I think the liberal and progressive view is that almost all people prefer to work in some capacity and that there's no need to be moralistic about it. The tiny minority that are able but will not work are outliers that, in a pluralistic society, we have to accommodate, especially with regard to fundamental progressive values like access to health care, housing, and sustenance. Even if we, as progressives, were to agree that there's something "wrong" with refusing to work, that would not allow us to ignore, as progressives, the right those folks have to certain essentials. Therefore any social welfare program must include those who won't work, otherwise it's punitive. And if it's punitive, it's not progressive.

Your agenda looks like it was copied from a campaign pamphlet. Why don't we just discuss what concerns most Americans? The topics would be Iraq, health care, and jobs. Global warming is actually becoming an important topic too.

Al From on the 2006 election results:

The big political test will come almost immediately, in the ability of Democrats to offer a compelling progressive agenda for the country, and in a 2008 presidential contest that will be about the future more than the past. If Democrats act as problem solvers, not polarizers, that future will be very bright.

That last point was underscored by Joe Lieberman's re-election victory in Connecticut, which helps solidify the Democratic Party's credentials as a broad, inclusive coalition able to compete for the vital center of American politics.

(my emphasis)

There can be no common ground with people who see Lieberman part of a broad inclusive coalition of Democrats, who does not even respect the results of a Democratic primary and deprived us of a strong anti-occupation voice.

What's more, he left out honoring Mom and promoting apple pie.

Polls do show that the public hates this war, but I don't think polls show that the public "hates" this president.

Regardless of political party, it's too bad that the political whores in Washington don't read some of these comments. Not that I have any hopes that it would make a difference enough to them to let them know/understand that every one of them are out of touch with average American citizens.

Including Mr. Harold Ford.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

They don't offer solutions, and people like Lieberman are quick to label those who disagree with them as harming the country in some way. "Those who disagree do so at our country's peril", remember that?

Leon Panetta, Mark ("top-secret withdrawal deadlines!")Pryor, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman aren't doing much for the country, but they are great ennablers to this Administration. I want more from the Democratic party than that.

Well, Ford is pro-war, pro-NAFTA and anti-gay. Sounds like a Publican to me. And he's leading the DLC. Sooooooo.....

With the possible exception of HRC (and perhaps by extension the DLC), I can't imagine any of the current Democratic Presidential candidates would ever go along with, yet alone promote the concept of "preemptive war". What a disaster that will affect us for decades if not in perpetuity. Why wouldn't Iran use it as justification to strike at US forces because we have 2 carrier groups definitely providing an imminent threat -- far more conclusively than cartoon drawings and forged documents?

I still cannot wrap my mind around how so many in the US think they have this "right" to install democracy from the barrel of a gun whenever and wherever they see fit, and if the rest of the world had not yet realized the hypocrisy and resultant deaths of 100,000's of innocent civilians by the bully USA, they certainly do now and will be taught so well into the future. Osama bin Laden could not have dreamed up a better result. For another example, the Presidents of Iran and the USA use threats and taunts, using war games and the media to drum up their local support because by nature most people will defend their family and country from outside threats.

So, Mr. Ford -- as you came here representing the DLC ... would you emphatically state that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake, requiring the USA to now take decisive action removing the military and military contractors and instead providing LARGE sums of money to Iraqi's for reconstruction (and not overseen by the USA)? What specifically will the DLC do to repair the damage to the USA's reputation and work to repair the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent such actions by a unitary Executive?

Not literally, and that's why I "stole the line" from Atrios. It's shorthand for Bush's unpopularity.

Bush has 30-40% approval ratings -- he's an incredibly unpopular and disliked President. But you'd hardly know that from the news coverage of the last few years. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I have a question for Harold Ford:

Since you had to retract the recent Washington Times article on you, as you claim they misrepresented your positions, will you continue to grant them interviews?

And a statement for Harold Ford:

You do realize, I hope, that what you experienced with the Washington Times is *exactly* the reason rank-and-file Democrats don't want to see Dem debates hosted by Fox News, and don't want to see Democrats like you as paid commentators on Fox?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Hope, were you sleeping in class when they covered the incarceration of Japanese nationals and the McCarthy hearings. We've been through a lot worse than Bush, believe it or not.

Who is John?

What JRBerman said.

may i suggest the Green Party for you, mj?

Why?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"Reading Ford, I now know that I was right to hope he'd lose last November. I'd rather have a rightwing Bible thumper caucusing with the GOP than the Dems."

Now, thats a winning strategy, I'm sure such attitudes please the Republicans to no end.

{insert chuckle}

These are the debates that make me wonder if the Democrats even understand national leadership.

Jack

Therefore any social welfare program must include those who won't work, otherwise it's punitive. And if it's punitive, it's not progressive.

I'm not sure I agree with your points (please correct me if I misinterpreted what you're saying). I figure that progressive policies are those that are designed to encourage improvements in the quality of life for everybody, and that recognize we aren't little independent "islands." (contrasted with, say libertarianism, which assumes just that). But good things in society don't come free - people need to pull their own weight or things break down; as such, there need to be incentives to everyone to do so. There's a place for both the carrot and the stick in progressive policy making. While I'm not in favor of letting people starve, or die from lack of medical care, or anything like that, I don't think there's anything wrong with people who contribute to society in meaningful ways being treated better than those who can, but choose not to. I do think it's a moral issue, not just arguably, but actually - if you can work, you need to work - because the whole system runs on it.

I said:
"I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first."

kmellis said:
Why? While I agree with you about this war, I can't understand this view of it as an ideological test for membership in the Left or in the Democratic Party.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying I'm open to finding compromise with DLCers on health care or clean energy, I'm saying I'm only willing to talk to DLCers about those things after they atone for the Iraq War catastrophe.

For me, the DLC changing its stance on the Iraq War is less a litmus test for progressive values, and more of a litmus test for behavioral change at the DLC. Those guys were selling the Iraq War as far back as 2002, and they've been nonstop criticizing the antiwar crowd as "extreme left" ever since. When the DLC shows that they're willing to admit error and apologize for their past behavior, they'll have shown at least a willingness to work for the Netroots, not against them.

But until I see some tangible action from the DLC that indicates a change in philosophy, I see no need to engage them. Why should I? They don't stand for anything, and their candidates don't win. So what would a progressive like me get out of supporting the DLC?

shame on you. let me ask you a question: have you defended Bill Clinton's administration? If so, are you not implicitly recognizing the contribution of the dlc.

There is hatred on this thread and it is wrong.

1) To generate hits and advertising revene for TPMMedia.

I'm sure Josh sees that benefit. I'm also sure it wasn't part of his motivation to invite Mr. Ford to participate here. That would be gratuitous, I don't think that chimes with Josh's history running this operation.

2) To help establish TPMMedia as the "serious" alternative media source.

I think TPMM is already there, via the work they've done on the Cunningham and USA Purge stories. But does this build upon that? Absolutely and three cheers for it.

3) Based on outside observation alone, I have a suspicion that despite his acknowledgement of the Iraq failure, Mr. Marshall has some personal sympathy for the DLC viewpoint.

Only Josh can speak to his sympathies, but I don't buy it. The DLC's position, leadership, and candidates take a beating here. (IMO, deservedly so.) If you're running an honest-to-God news operation, you present both sides and have a fair discussion about it. At the end of the day, our opinions are more informed, and both TPMM as a news agency and we as J. Random Concerned Citizens gain peer credibility.

As someone who's unhappy with the DLC, I'll feel a lot better knowing I dislike them for the right reasons--or disliking them less if some of my concerns prove misplaced. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bend the ear of the political leadership. That's where this event can take us. The mainstream media is univerally unwilling or unable to facilitate this.

Mr. Ford, you have a opportunity here, and I hope that you appreciate just how serious it is. There are some very good concerns already raised. Please speak to them directly and honestly, and you may gain people willing to work with and support your candidates. Evasive non-answers will only breed mistrust. You say that the progressive blogosphere holds a distorted view of the DLC's history and place in politics. I hope you'll be explain that in specifics, particularly in light of your organization's past actions and your own votes and statements.

To my recollection Josh Marshall DID belong or at least agree to the DLC at some point in the late 90s, and his viewpoint IS sympathetic to their ideas and positions. But he also sees that whatever they are selling it's not what 1) this country needs right now 2) works to win elections.

So I really have no problem with Mr. Ford here, back in the day I supported his candidacy against Pelosi for minority leader though of course both of us were proven wrong. But if Mr. Ford has read more than a handful of these comments I will be surprised. We are talking to ourselves.

I, for one, have long considered Bill Clinton's administration to be the best Republican administration of the late 20th century. But I was never foolish enough to consider Clinton's corporatism to have anything to do with Democratic values.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

before you all rate this one just think about it for a second. Dems criticize Bush all the time for being closed minded and rightly so. Ford comes here to engage in a conversation and the response admonishes TPM for inviting him in the first place, questions whether he is even a democrat, and basically says that his views are illegitimate for someone in this party. How is this not hypocritical? How is this not wrong? Why are those who say these sort of things not just the left wing version of Bush/ Cheney.

Molly Ivins had it right:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton....

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

=== Ford comes here to engage in a conversation ===

The fear was that Ford came here to deliver another top-down lecture. The 2nd paragraph of his post, combined with the content thereof, tended to confirm that fear. Ford could have handled that by participating in the blog comments, or even posting summary responses at a reasonable interval, but he did neither.

Additionally, the DLC (which is accountable to no one) has NEVER taken responsibility for either its stance on the Iraq war or its attitude toward any Democrat it classifies as "lefty" (which is generally not very far "left" by any objective standard).

So respectfully I must disagree with your response.

sPh

By golly, Brad, YOU'VE changed your tune. When did Joe Lieberman, for you, start being a "dead-ender" and stop being the Last Voice Of Sanity In The Dhimmicratic Party??

> > Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats

Yes. BECAUSE THE DLC LOST THE INTRA-DEMOCRATIC DEBATE. Progressivism wins when the DLC is down. And they're down now because the Iraq War, which Mr Ford, H. Clinton and all their other Golden Kids backed, has become one of the bigger Clusterfucks of all time.

.> you mean to the unthinking hatred

I have seen a fair amount of strong disagreement and even dislike on display, but I would be curious to see links to the comments you classify as "unthinking"; I have not seen more than 2 or 3 such (which is a very low percentage for a forum of this nature).

sPh

Agreed--I find that the problem with the DLC is not that it wants to keep America safe, but that it tries using tactically counterproductive rhetoric in an attempt to make Democrats look tough without providing any corresponding substance. Every one of those points that you cited about Ford's record could be interpreted as a foolish attempt to look strong while actually weakening our national security.

So the DLC and Ford have a big problem: either they're completely inept on foreign policy (as the last four years of their errors have led us to believe), or they know what they're doing and are willing to undermine long-term national security for short-term political framing (a framing that only works, incidentally, when used alongside attempts to defame or discredit those who have again and again been proven right on the war).

So either the DLC is promoting bad ideas for purposes of political framing, or it's full of gullible, irrational and illogical war enablers. I don't see a third option.

Sorry, Chairman Ford, but for all intents and purposes it looks like you've taken control of a ship of fools. There is simply no evidence that DLC has any relevance or, frankly, anything useful to contribute to the party except infighting and capitulation.

Could you please elaborate on the idea of being the most "pro-family nation on earth"?

By golly, Brad, YOU'VE changed your tune. When did Joe Lieberman, for you, start being a "dead-ender" and stop being the Last Voice Of Sanity In The Dhimmicratic Party??

I never said anything like that, although I have defended Joe Lieberman in the past.  I think it was Keynes who said, "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?" 

Joe Lieberman has gone from rightfully conscious of the threat posed by radical Islam to unthinking defender of the greatest strategic blunder in modern times.  I still think the movement to drum him out of the party was profoundly misguided, but I can't defend his unwillingness to see the reality of what's happened in Iraq.

Progressivism wins when the DLC is down.

The point is that this is no longer the case.  The need for centrist Democrats to differentiate themselves from progressives is much reduced. 

All winning coalitions in American history have contained ideological opponents.  There is no other way to win.  On key issues of importance to progressives, such as Iraq withdrawal and universal healthcare, the DLC and like-minded centrists are an ally, not the enemy.  The enemy is the GOP.  

I guess I'm by nature a pragmatist, not an ideologue.  I'm focused on winning, not ideological purity.

All winning coalitions in American history have contained ideological opponents.  There is no other way to win.

Why?

Because people are dying. As long as we agree to disagree on this catastrophic failure, American soldiers will die.

Tell me something more important than stopping the carnage.

I am simply trying to point out that actual *hate* or *dislike* of the president *is* a fringe position. I dislike him, but I can't pretend to be in the majority. I think a majority of people in this country hate Osama Bin Laden, and hated Saddam Hussein, but far fewer actually hate Bush. I'm not sure they even hated Nixon.

They disapprove of his performance. I think by and large if Bush changed his stance on vetoing Congress' war funding legislation, for example, his performance ratings would go up -- that wouldn't happen if he was actually disliked by a majority of people. Ask your postal delivery person, your kid's teacher, your clergy, the waiter or waitress at your favorite restaurant, if they hate Bush. Americans are very uncomfortable with saying that they hate authority figures. They hate criminals and deviants. If Bush were indicted for something, they'd start to hate him, but they don't right now.

I think more to the point about this discussion of the DLC, is that there are both policy and stylistic differences between the outlook of the DLC and the posters on this thread who are challenging Ford. On policy, we are in the mainstream. There is a solid foundation for saying that positions:

• for balance of powers between the executive and the legislative branch


• against the Iraq war,


• against torture and for defense of civil liberties,


• for action to reduce greenhouse gases,


• for universal healthcare

why are we even listening to this bible-thumping conservative who dresses up like a liberal whenever it suits him? his views run almost word-for-word with the republican party line. it's no surprise that he got a job with the dlc, given their history of stripping the democratic party of any meaning it once had. clinton and the rest of his conservative ilk have no place among the liberals of this country. they have looted the left of this country with brazen disregard for ideology, rationale and the american people. save your shit for fox news - we don't need any here.

.> I think we would do well to emulate
> the DLCs mild manner of talking,

I was reaching for the 5 right up to that point ;-(

Historically the DLC has only been "mild-mannered" when speaking to Republicans or in Republican frames. When speaking to Democratic Democrats, not to mention liberals, not so much.

sPh

Yes, the level of these comments are not conducive to holding a discussion or exploring ideas. This is truly sad. Even though I understand the anger and it serves no purpose on this thread. Either we plan to engage in civil  discourse or folks can just rant, rave and spew their indignation in comment after comment.

Roll back provisions of the "Patriot" Act that give Bush the power to declare martial law.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

how is anything he said in that paragraph a 'mischaracterization'???

1 - the DLC does indeed have 'bogey-man status' in the progressive blogosphere: the DLC is viewed as the enemy (as evidenced by your own defensive knee-jerk response).

2 - Ford believes that the view of the DLC among many in the progressive blogosphere is inaccurate

i see no evidence of 'mischaracterization' there. if you want to argue that your disagreements with the DLC are sober, reasoned, and civil, it is you who has 'started out in the worst manner imaginable'.

He himself holds no appeal for anyone in the progressive blogosphere.

Is this how TPMcafe characterizes itself nowadays? Just what does the connotation 'progressive blogosphere' mean?  What is wrong with the label of Democrat. That is how I see the site.

> >I think it was Keynes who said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Cute. See, here's the thing, Brad. The facts haven't changed since you were defending Lieberman, i.e. his re-election on 2004. Iraq is a shambles. It was a shambles then, too. But sadly the last fig-leaf has been torn away. I can just imagine guys like you in 2008, saying "if only we'd done what McCain and Lieberman wanted and put more troops in!!". Unfortunately, G. Bush has done the only productive act of his career and screwed that pooch definitively.

"The point is that this is no longer the case. The need for centrist Democrats to differentiate themselves from progressives is much reduced"

So in other words, the American public is now overwhelmingly in favour of getting out of Iraq. Guess what, the DLC's on board! The American public is universallt in favour of universal healthcare (SO different from socialised healthcare!) - guess what, the DLC's on board!

"All winning coalitions in American history have contained ideological opponents. There is no other way to win"

Is the new orthodoxy, Brad? Beacuse the Old Orthodoxy used to be that that winning coalitions had to demonize a third of their coalition via some "Sister Souljah" moment.

Incidentally, I notice that the DLC website features a picture of one of the current Democratic candidates for President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  On the website, Mr. Ford states:

Ford Announces "Ideas Primary" In his first address as chairman of the DLC, former Congressman Harold Ford challenged Democrats to renew their commitment to innovation and problem-solving, and announced that the DLC would promote an "Ideas Primary" through public forums and a new website.

It would seem that if he wants an "ideas" primary it would be appropriate to either place the pictures of all the announced Democratic contestats (and links to their websites) or none of them. 

aMike

exactly. and i'm not sure why so many people expect the guest bloggers to respond to their posts when those posts essentially ignore the bloggers posts.

ford asks to start out by establishing common ground. if we choose to ignore this and instead sound of on the issues that divide us, i'm not sure we have much grounds for grousing.

Of the 186 comments in this thread at least 100 contain solid, substantial criticism of DLC positions. Some are expressed softly, some strongly, but all are good.

Solid, substantial criticism is not conducive to civil discourse. To engage discussion comments need to be probing and thoughtful while expressed with considerable analysis.  There needs to be give and take, assertions and rebuttals not this furious onslaught. Substance is not the issue here, it is the overall hostility and even personal attacks. . I do not even disagree with the substance but I can understand how anyone would not choose to engage the enmity being expressed in over 100 posts.

No one attempts to speak to an angry mob. They might speak to someone who represents their views, but the anger of the mob does not generate discussion or even an exchange of ideas.

I am disappointed because I know how thoughtful, incisive and well informed people are that frequent this site. I am as upset and angry with the politicians in Washington DC and DLC as the next poster. I was just hoping to hear the DLC perspective and I was willing to listen to Ford.  I probably might not agree but at least it is worth hearing to gain a understanding and clarify what may be ill-informed views on my part. The way this is going right now I doubt that will occur.

The reason these discussions eventually become uncivil is due to the disrespect shown the participants by the names - which is also a primary complaint those of us outside the beltway have with the DC Democratic insider organizations.

I understand those feelings and views, but we can't be tied to past slights if we want to make progress. That is what has the Middle East in a 3K year war, the inability to let go of stuff that happened centuries ago. Surely, we don't have to engage prior transgressions in perpetuity. Somehow we have to move forward and start anew.. We need to address the issues that face us now and that have been proposed as a springboard for discussion as a way forward, otherwise we stay mired in the past..

Let's deal with what we have on the table even if it affirms our cynicism and criticisms. At least give it a try.  Nothing beats a failure but a try.

=== Solid, substantial criticism is not conducive to civil discourse. To engage discussion comments need to be probing and thoughtful while expressed with considerable analysis. ===

I confess I don't follow your argument here at all.

=== I understand those feelings and views, but we can't be tied to past slights if we want to make progress. ===

Sure, but the members of a bloc within a larger organization that have been seriously and substantially /wrong/ on unbelievably serious issues for a period of at least 5 years need to sit down and participate quietly for a number of years before they start offering advice to the other members of the coalition again. What I hear from the DLC is "yeah, we were wrong about Iraq and the Bush/Cheney Administration in general, and maybe a teeny bit wrong in demonizing 'liberals' - now we are going to tell you what you are going to do next". That isn't how the coalition game is played - once you lose your credibility you have to earn it back, not assume it.

sPh

good point. let us all not fall into the trap of projecting our own agendas on to others or on to TPM in general.

i find it a bit off-putting all the people here who want to speak for the TPM sites and/or speak for me as someone who participates here. the very idea that there is a 'we' that has come to the conclusion that the DLC is 'bad' or that the DLC is an entity that 'we' can't work with (or even have a prodcutive conversation with) seems to me to fly in the face of everything i thought the TPM sites stood for.

i come here and participate because there is debate (and not just piling-on). and because that debate is mostly civil and thoughtful. and because the TPM sites aren't explicitly factional (or even blindly partisan inasmuch as tpm muckraker isn't dedicated to only uncovering the dirt on republicans). and because TPM isn't about assumptions and forgone conclusions.

Mr. Ford,

Thanks for posting here, though I do hope that you find the time to engage the commenters who have posted here instead of leaving us with only your initial post.

Much commentary regarding the DLC (with which I agree) has already been stated above, so rather than rehashing the "netroots'" problems with the DLC I will focus on the substance of your post, and in particular the six challenges you claim we ought to focus on as progressives, Democrats, and Americans.

One such challenge you phrase as "making America the most pro-family country on Earth." When you initially delivered similar remarks to the DLC, you phrased that point as "promoting family and values." That turn of phrase carries with it some rather negative connotations for most, if not all, progressives and is largely a Republican-crafted meme that serves as a code for being anti-choice, anti-gay, and frankly rather regressive on a host of social issues. My question for you is what exactly do you intend to connote by the "pro-family" challenge and what specific programs (either governmental or through charities or interested private groups) you feel we ought to pursue to meet this challenge.

Another challenge you highlight is "giving Americans the tools to compete." In the same remarks to the DLC I reference above, you suggest that one such tool is to eliminate or scale back federal subsidies for student loans in order to redirect the money to make college free for any student "willing to work or serve." What specific plan do you have in mind here, and what level of "work or serv[ice]" do you anticipate requiring in exchange for a free education? Have you analyzed the impact your proposal will have on state colleges and universities and/or students who cannot attend private universities without the aid of federally-subsidized loans?

Finally, and somewhat ironically given the yeoman's work performed by this website in the battle against the Bush Administration's Social Security bamboozlement campaign, you suggest in your remarks to the DLC that "we owe it to ourselves to be honest about [the Social Security] debate" even if doing so makes "some in our own party uncomfortable." What exactly do you mean by this and how would you go about strengthening Social Security? Is it your view that the Social Security Trust Fund will be bankrupt in 20 years? 40? If so, what is the basis for your opinion? Does your proposed fix for SS include private accounts? If so, why? Which do you think is a more pressing problem: Medicare/Medicaid or SS funding? Why?

Thanks for posting and I look forward to your responses.

"Iraq war...I can't understand this view of it as an ideological test for membership in the Left or in the Democratic Party...

Because it tells us where they stand on foreign policy issues, how they would work with our allies, strategies dealing with rogue states (neo-con lite maybe?), and COST. We're spending billions on this war, if the DLC commitment is unlimited, with a possible invasion into Iran to keep other allies in the area SAFE, then we need to know that. Because, taxpayers money going into the military industrial complex corporate projects over there takes significant chucks of money away from social programs over here.

the one was b/c you said that you can't really be a democrat and be in the dlc, which is very different than saying that you just disagree with Ford and the dlc.

I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first.

how is this sort of thinking any different from bush's failed policy on negotiations with iran?

unproductive. to say the least.

I also think that the Iraq War/Occupation is the top issue. Why the DLC wants to take a very unpopular stand, and continue to support a war of aggression, that will cost the Democratic much support (why do you think the majority of Americans don't even bother to vote on election day? Might it have something to do with the fact that neither Party has much to say??)

My thinking is that most of the issues the DLC promotes are really half-hearted, i do think it also considers the occupation a top priority... and will continue to do all it can to make sure it continues, as well as the rest of the militarist policies of Bush and his Democratic handmaidens.

user "Statement of Purpose" has rated this post as "trollish".

He's just paying you back for rating him a "troll" on February 27th.

The real question is how it can be that a member who's posted just three comments in 1 year and 43 weeks -- and those not highly rated -- has access to a "troll" button, at all.

I don't fault them for being 'more regressive than progressive' (I disagree with those positions, but I don't fault them for holding them); I do fault them for attacking progressives, which, as you say, is more harmful than helpful to the Democrats. I think a 'truce' would be a great thing, if the DLC would simply stick to advocating their policies (whether I agree with them or not) instead of attacking Democrats who disagree with them.

The facts haven't changed since you were defending Lieberman, i.e. his re-election on 2004. Iraq is a shambles. It was a shambles then, too. But sadly the last fig-leaf has been torn away. I can just imagine guys like you in 2008, saying "if only we'd done what McCain and Lieberman wanted and put more troops in!!".

Well, the question of whether a better-planned and better-executed Iraq War would have yielded a different result is unknowable and will likely provide fodder for heated debate for a long time.  But it's true that no one can pretend anymore that Americans can salvage the situation.

Is the new orthodoxy, Brad? Beacuse the Old Orthodoxy used to be that that winning coalitions had to demonize a third of their coalition via some "Sister Souljah" moment.

YES!!  That is the new orthodoxy.  Times change and political strategies change with it.  In the 1990's the DLC-oriented business-friendly Third Way was necessary to win.  The public was on board with much of the conservative orthodoxy of low taxes, strong defense and moral values.  Left wing candidates were destined to lose and a winning candidate needed to ostentatiously distance himself from the fringe left.  But after eight years of Bush, the implosion of conservatism as a politically viable ideology and all the excesses we've seen, the calculation is different.  Now, the imperative is to sustain a broad coalition of interests who want to repair the damage done by the Republicans. 

Why is this so hard to accept?  What's the issue?  Are centrist Democrats not contrite enought for you?  Not ideologically pure enough?  Grow up already.

the burden's on the DLC to change their ways, not on me. After all, it was the DLC that was wrong on so many things, and it's the DLC that shouldn't be trusted. So, before we get started, I need to see a signal that things really are different.

And we're not talking about disarming a potential nuclear power or negotiating to end terrorist sponsorship- we're talking about finding common ground with the DLC. The analogy doesn't hold because there's no need for the Netroots to work with the DLC (while there is very much a need for the US to keep the # nuclear powers and terrorist sponsors to a minimum). The Netroots are doing just fine without the help (and despite a lot of opposition) from the DLC.

So, unless the DLC shows a tangible way in which they've changed, there's no need for the Netroots to work with them. The DLC is dying anyway, so why should the Netroots throw them a life preserver? The burden's on them to be polite and civil and productive and yada yada yada, not on us.

=== the suggestion that the view of the dlc among the so-called progressive blogosphere is somewhat out of proportion seems to me to be amply evidenced by the responses here. ===

Given the DLC's record over the last 6 years, it is more suggestive that the perception of the DLC among progressives is /correct/. You have not produced any substantial argument showing otherwise - just your personal assertion.

sPh

Thanks Arthur Dent. You write: "I'm guessing that this intended to say:" Yes. sorry for the unintentional ommission.

Here is a poll reported on by Washington Post entitled "Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show" (September 27, 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

It begins: "BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post."

In addition there have been a number of distinct polls which also confirm that a majority of Iraqis believe it is proper, right, and justifiable to kill American and coalition occupiers. The Ministry of Defense poll taken October 22,2005 and reported in the UK Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

reported close to 2/3 of the respondents supporting attacks on the British in the relatively peaceful southern Iraq district. Here isthe second paragraph of the newspaper account:

"Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country."

Here is the summary of the findings of the first poll mentionned above:

"– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little)."

This one was by the Program on international Policy Attitudes.

You're right, centrist Democrats aren't contrite enough. How could anyone be expected to demand contrition from Republicans over the mess they've made if they don't hold nominal Dems to the same standard?

This isn't factionalism or blind partisanship, this is policy. People who support bad policy shouldn't be taken seriously in future policy decisions until they acknowledge that they were wrong before.

Well this has been a fun thread. 189 comments as of 6:00pm EDT and Mr. Ford really hasn't even said anything yet. I feel like I'm at the starting gate at the chariot race in Ben-Hur, with a bunch of impatient, snorting horses rearing up and ready to fly out of the gate to trample everything in site, on the way to whipping those evil DLC Romans. I can't wait to see the bloodbath that ensues after Ford posts his first substantive piece.

I gather Ford's plaintive "can't we all just get along" opening gambit has not entirely succeeded in producing the intended effect.

Thank you. I found some articles (not dated) that I think are position papers. And then, after reading, I wished I hadn't found them, after all.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

nobody is suggesting you set aside your distrust. go ahead and hold on to that distrust, it's been well-earned. and while the basis for that distrust might ultimately prove why you and the dlc will never find common ground or be able to work together, there is no reason why you can't have a conversation about what common ground you might have or how you might be able to work together.

yet it seems the majority of the people here don't want to have that conversation. the majority of the people posting here it would seem would rather reject the very premise of having the discussion in the first place.

Ah, the old "enabled" meme.  Centrists "enabled" Bush to piss away the achievements of the Clinton Administration. 

A bigger crock of shit would be hard to find.

First of all, my friend, the idea that centrists agreed with Bush on virtually ANYTHING after about mid-2004 is just ridiculous.  Even before 2004, at best you can argue that more Democrats should have been more prescient about how THIS president would be as a wartime leader.  More of us should have seen that corruption, abuse of power and cronyism were essential to the Bush project and that they would play a key role in undermining the war effort.  As such, we shouldn't have supported it.  We didn't see it coming when we should have.  Points for you for being a better clairvoyant. 

But what are these other issues that were "enabled" by centrist Democrats?  Tax cuts for the rich?  The Supreme Court?  Government bible-thumping?  The war on science?  Policy written by lobbyists? What?  Centrists fought all of these just as hard as the left did.  And that's the point.  The debate about the Iraq War is over and the left won.  We concede.  But there are few if any other issues where the divide between centrists and leftists was even that large.  And as GOP perfidy piles up, the differences shrink by the day. 

Even if you don't want centrists to have a say in policy, what's the point of alienating them in the war against Republicans?  Haven't you ever heard of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Please explain how this "undermines" Democrats.  It's a disagreement over strategy, not a criticism of who Democrats are or what they believe in.  Are you saying that ANY disagreement with a Democratic decision should be off limits?  That sounds rather Bushian, if you ask me.

Hopeful how do you feel about his proposal last week to provide free college education to those willing to commit to service afterwards?

As I said in a previous post, all that "pro-family" said to me was, "Get back in the kitchen, woman, and start popping those babies!" That's the image the phrase now has for me. Maybe I'm weird to think that way, but, unfortunately, that's what the argument seems to be from the people screaming that term the loudest.

"There is simply no evidence that DLC has any relevance or, frankly, anything useful to contribute to the party except infighting and capitulation."

Let's agree to politely disagree. The problem I have with all the screaming at the DLC is this idea they have no right to exist. If they represent a perspective, though different from others, then so be it.

As far as DLC or Ford's position on Iraq earlier how many people - not me - bought the BS that the white house was pushing and felt they were doing their duty in supporting him. Look at the Dixie Chick disaster, we have developed into a country that believes you must be red or blue on every issue with no middle ground. And if you do not then you are a traitor, idiot or fool

Mr. Ford,

Could you address this issue as well?

It seems to me that the DLC plays right into Republican hands with its call to seek "common ground" or "compromise" within the current political dynamic . . . in many more ways than one, as mentioned throughout this thread. But, perhaps in this way above all others:

If we boil everything down, it flat out makes Dems look weak to "meet in the middle" at this point in time. After all of the attacks, the swiftboating, the lies, the spin. Too many Americans, and much of the Media, have accepted the perception that Republicans are strong and that their incessantly offensive offense is a sign of that strength. They don't try to meet the Dems in the middle. They are partisan, proud of it, and aggressively so. They don't seek compromise and they don't take prisoners.

Why should the Dems ever bother to "reach out" to the other side when that other side will swiftboat them regardless? Why should they bother reaching out when so many Americans see compromise as a sign of weakness?

There are far too many examples to cite, but one quickly comes to mind. On a recent Sunday Talk Show regarding Iraq, I watched Richard Perle and DeLay attack those against the war on the panel. One Dem, admiral Sestak, tried to keep to the high road, even though DeLay and Perle mocked them and all but called them traitors for their opposition to the Iraq War. I was yelling at the set and wondering why Sestak didn't do the obvious:

Ask them, "Are you calling me a traitor?" Demand that the two chickenhawks specify whom they were accusing, and then blast them with the fact that Sestak actually put on a uniform and fought in real battles, whereas DeLay was tough on roaches and the Constitution, and Perle was one of the wackos behind the disaster in Iraq. Neither man ever donned a uniform, but both have the gall to call others traitor for opposing an illegal, immoral, and catastrophically costly war.

In short, Dems need to go on the attack and stay on the attack. Unlike the Republicans, they actually are right on the issues. Unlike the Republicans, they don't have to lie in order to win elections. Unlike Republicans, they don't have to cheat in order to win elections. If they just stick to the truth, are forceful, strong, confident, assured, they can't lose.

Trying to "meet in the middle" just weakens them and takes away their chance to be strong in front of the American people.

Can the DLC end the perception that Dems are weak, as it seeks that "sensible center"?

In the current political atmosphere, I more than doubt it.

I'd advise reading this analysis to understand why Panetta's remarks raises hackles. It says it all, without having to go into a huge discussion here.

Nevermind I found my answer in the thread below.

LOL...

I'd welcome you to TPMCafe Mr. Ford.  But it seems the welcoming committee has beat me to it.

Mr. Ford, every time I see a democratic politico start ranting about "family values" it makes me recoil.  All the left's foray into trying to wrest "christian" votes from the right does is emboldens hate mongers like Rev. Dobson.  I support democratic politicians because of my revulsion towards the religious right and the damage they are doing to the country.  Enough with the Elmer Gantryism.  And if certain D's pander to the hateful hucksters and help them to attain more power I will oppose those D's just like they were R's.

And as far as your support of Bush's illegitimate war of aggression in Iraq...it's unfortunate.  Because if you do support it then the blood of all the innocent Iraqis who have been killed in our president's criminal act is on your hands just as much as Bush's.  Why are so many people who identify themselves as "Christians" so enamored with war and it's corresponding wanton death and destruction?

Enjoy your stay and hopefully you will not pull a "Schumer" on us.  Actually the Senator did more replies than you have so far.  But we'll see what happens this time.

you are demanding the other side agree to your demands before you will even agree to enter into negotiations.

And this is diffferent from what Ford has done...how?

The problem is that the DLC's past behavior does not inspire trust in their future actions.

First, this organization has a history of braying progressive lines then turning around and voting for things that are anything but progressive, like that bankruptcy bill, or hm, the Military Commssions Act.

Second, when you basically call people purportedly on your own side traitors and anti-American, do you think those accused won't demand reconciliation on that issue before working with you on future issues?

Finally, do you think a side that was unequivocally right in all it assertions about, say, a war, (assertions another side derided--loudly, publicly, and repeatedly) is the one that has to get on bended knee before the other that was colossally, insanely wrong? Do you think the former can trust the judgment of the latter without hesitation? Sorry, but if I get bad information/advice from someone, if, worse, that side tries to lead me off a cliff alongside them, I don't say a few years later, "oh, all's forgiven, let's work together!" without seeing some demonstrable proof that the other person has achieved a bit more knowledge/wisdom and perhaps a bit of contrition for their old folly. It's flat-out stupid to do otherwise.

Ultimately, what I am seeing with this "conciliatory gesture" is someone who has some clue that we're a lot more powerful than originally realized, and that maybe they can find a use for us. Using the left for their own gain is consistent with the history of Mr. Ford's organization. And another reason to be wary of them.

As I've said elsewhere today, I don't mind centrists. I've worked to get quite a few of them elected, including in this past cycle. I don't mind the New Democratic Coalition all that much (hell, deep down I kind of like Tauscher). And they are all entitled to their opinions and positions. But when expressing those opinions mostly takes the form of openly attacking other Democrats for having their own opinions and positions, there's a problem. Enter the DLC.

The DLC's leadership, with the most prominent example being Al From, scores points not by proposing rational policy or by winning great political victories--they attack Democrats publically, and relentlessly, and repeatedly. Go read some of Al From's columns on the DLC website and you'll see what I mean. He attacked Carter, Connecticut Democratic voters, and the anti-war Democrats who've been right all along. All these attacks have come since October. With the exception of a very nice endorsement of Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader (I like Steny, too--he did some fundraisers for my most recent candidate), all his columns from the last six months have been attacks against members of his own party.

I repeat: there is simply no evidence that the DLC has any relevance or, frankly, anything useful to contribute to the party.

Quite a can of whup-ass being opened here. I predict that by the time Harold finishes his TPM Cafe stint, he'll be wishing he *had* called that bimbo from the Republican TV spot...

But what are these other issues that were "enabled" by centrist Democrats? Tax cuts for the rich? The Supreme Court? Government bible-thumping? The war on science? Policy written by lobbyists? What? Centrists fought all of these just as hard as the left did.

I just about fell off my chair laughing at that one.

When did "the center" fight as hard as the left did? Maybe one or two here and there, but rarely, if that.

How much of a fight did Alito get from "the center?" Not very damned much. Remember that cloture vote? Yeah, a lot of DLC types were on the progressive side of that one.

How about that bankruptcy reform bill (which "the center" helped enact)? Social Security privatization (where "the center" barely held enough to defeat it)?

Those are some pretty big divisions if you ask me.

VLaszlo: Your first URL does not work, but I found the wapo article here.

The Seprember 2006 PIPA poll details summarized in the wapo article can be downloaded from two .pdf files linked from here

This September poll was conducted by the same organization (D3 systems) that conducted the more recent March poll I gave the link to BBC for (above).

The wapo lead paragraph claiming that last September a strong majority of Iraqis wanted the US to immediately withdraw is simply false. If you download the September 2006 PIPA questionaire results you will find only 37% wanted the Iraqi government to ask the US to withdraw within 6 months (Q11).

cscs: Most Iraqis believe the US (and British) forces would try to stay even if the Iraqi Government asked them to leave and they know that although the US did overthrow Sadaam it has not been much use at helping suppress terrorism or reconstructing Iraq since.

Of course they would support attacks on US (and British) troops if, as well as not having helped anywhere near as much as they expect and apparantly doing more harm than good recently, the US did actually refuse to leave when the Iraqis do actually ask you to.

Its hardly surprising that Iraqis don't have much confidence in Bush or Blair's promises. Neither do Americans or Brits.

It is a bit surprising they imagine the US has the capacity to attempt to stay once the Iraqis ask it to leave. But that's precisely what people posting here claim, and persuade each other, is already happening and even cite polls that say the exact opposite. So why shouldn't Iraqis be equally confused!!!

If it was actually true, as you imagine it to be, then there would be more than half Iraqis supporting attacks on US troops instead of a rather low rate of attacks from terrorists who are too busy fighting Iraqis. In that case US casualties would be running at 10 to 100 times their current rate. There would be no 1000 trucks per day of US logistics getting through the long lines of communication from Kuwait through Shia areas that haven't been particularly hostile and the US troops would be fighting their way out through Jordan or Turkey.

The focus on US casualties here is understandable. But the lack of empathy for Iraqis is not. The Iraqi army and police are suffering much larger casualties from the insurgents than Americans are while civilians have been getting murdered by them at a rate of more than 100 per day because Iraqi civilians, not US troops are who the terrorists are mainly at war with.

Yet a lot of what Iraqis hear from Americans is that its their fault they haven't been able to deal with it themselves yet.

There's been a certain amount of undirected and misdirected anger and frustration among Americans during the last few years in which Americans lost about 3000 or so civilians in one day of terrorist attacks and another 3000 or so soldiers in several years of fighting. A lot of that anger and frustration is directed by Americans at Americans.

Iraqis have lost more than 20 times as many in a population less than one tenth of America's. Expect a rather larger amount of undirected and misdirected anger. Most of it is likewise directed at other Iraqis, but there is plenty to spare for some being directed at Americans too.

PS And no, this isn't a post in support of either the DLC or Bush. I happen to be seriously interested in what's happening in Iraq whereas most people here seem to treat the Iraqi war as though its something happening in or to America.

Congressman Ford   .   .   .    puts petty politics aside and addresses big issues with real solutions.

Congressman Ford was a Blue Dog Democrat.  And which part of the "progressive agenda" are you saying he supported?

pew research center (3/15/06):

the single word most frequently associated with george w. bush today is "incompetent," and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar."

cbs/ny times (8/17-21/06):

what is most striking, however, is that more than half the country is unable to volunteer something they like best about the president or say they like nothing.

q: "what do you like best about the bush presidency?"

don't know 34%
nothing 19%

TX,

I demanded nothing so your point is mute. I only made a request for information. Mr. Ford has been an elected representative and intends to run again for political office. As an elected official he was required to disclose conflicts of interest or even those things which might just appear to be conflicts. In his current capacity he is not required to do so but might be expected to do so in order to enhance his credibility.

Mr. Ford obviously has that right as a private citizen, but since he is a public figure who is trying to influence the positions of the Democratic Party, and the way people vote, I maintain my right to ask the questions I posed above. I would use his answers to help in my personal evaluation of the credibility of his stands on issues. If he chooses not to answer I will be aware of that when I hear what he has to say. He is completely free to exercise his right to not answer my questions and I would bet heavily that that is the course he chooses. You can rest easy.

So where is Mr. Ford? Here is a perfect chance to take on the critics of the DLC, but after his first sally into the frey he seems to have retreated to a board room somewhere.

Priorities:

1. Trim the military industrial complex and get rid of fearmongers.

2. Start requiring that wars get declared by Congress.

3. Repeal the PATRIOT act and the Military Commissions Act.

4. Stop shoving free-trade-uber-alles down our throats.

5. Deliver universal health insurance like every other industrial nation.

Hmmm. Looks like I have nothing in common with a DINO like Ford.

"When given the choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time."
-- Harry S Truman

TX View, there is nothing wrong with what I quoted. Our disagreement is about whether that is all he had to say.

If you thought the speech actually put forward a position intended to be debated, please read it again and try to write a brief summary of what that position is, what key arguments in support of it were expressed and what key arguments against it were rebutted.

If he had attempted healthy, honest conversation and debate he might well have got the same near psychotic ranting response from many of the posters in this thread that he did get. I do not see much inclination towards healthy, honest conversation and debate among opponents of the DLC posting here (though there is some).

But my point was that he didn't attempt it. The speech he linked to advocated healthy, honest conversation and debate at length, but took no identifiable position about anything in particular. That is characteristic.

I believe that sort of mindless pap contributes to the incoherent rage here in the same way that a different kind of mindless pap from Bush does.

That does not excuse the mindlessness here any more than the mindlessness here excuses Bush and the DLC.

If you check through my comments history, you will find that I supported and still support the invasion of Iraq and oppose withdrawing US troops until the Iraqis ask the US to leave. That means I disagree strongly with most people posting here about the concrete issue people here are most angry with the DLC and Bush about.

My experience in attempting to discuss the issues here is that quite wild fantasies are advocated as explanations for what is going on. In some cases its clear that people ranting would be incapable of participating in serious policy debate if there was one. But in many cases the irrationality appears to arise from cognitive dissonance induced by trying to relate the stuff about Iraq coming from both Bush and the DLC to reality. The weirdness experienced when attempting to do that has encouraged people to simply give up on seriously trying to analyse reality and just gibber at each other about how evil their opponents are.

The way that both the DLC and Bush have handled the Iraq issue was intended to, and has succeeded in preventing healthy, honest conversation and debate.

Mindless pap induces mindless rage.

I am less familiar with domestic American issues but I see nothing in the speech that indicates an intention that there should be substantive debate on any other concrete issue.

rather than berate you for past stands this way or that, I just urge you to rethink your positions on gay rights, and foreign policy. i think you would find groundswells of support for the DLC if they would stop using republican framing to tar fellow democrats by reinforcing such inane concepts as "pulling out of the war would hurt the troops" and that democrats who are 90-something percent self-identified as Christian need to do more to court religious fanatics, or that supporting gay marriage and similar issues is a loser which will offend 'the heartland' and drive away votes. if the DLC would stand up firmly for the side of right rather than trying to cynically parse what they believe will be a winning frame (usually tarring the far left) they would have no shortage of support. if the DLC were out proudly trumpeting the dems' various ethically and politically effective stands on this or that issue, they would be beloved

that doesn't mean everyone is going to agree all the time, but we have to have some defining party beliefs across the board. they need to be more clear than they are now. right now, this funding bill that Bush is about to veto - the dems did well to pass something yes, but these ridiculous concessions that had to be made in terms of added spending which is totally unrelated, makes a beyond-easy target for everyone and their mother to make fun of the dems for politics as usual, even as they've scored a major coup. could the members of congress demanding this crap in return for their vote have just done the right thing instead, looked beyond themselves and voted 'yes' without all this "me me me me me"?

trying to start from a point of "setting aside past differences" is not realistic, or true to life. you have to start from a point of addressing the real disagreements that exist between the ends of the dem spectrum.

but, that handful was alllll DLC dems...

That makes sense to me, TX View, at least as a generous interpretation.  At some level, though, all of those goals are unrealistic -- so why should that one get a pass?  Besides, in an attempt to find common ground, couldn't we start with "end poverty" as the goal, and then discuss which segment of the population we should start with? 

The goal, as written, precludes that discussion.  There's a value judgment implied in "for all who work."  That makes the statement very different from a simple definition of a realistic first step.  As I mentioned in my original post, that priority on people who work seems odd to me.  I don't know about the trickle-down effect that you've described for kids.  Why are only the children of people who work eligible for our sympathy or help?  It's not like the children have any choice in the matter.  And what about people who are ill or elderly?

The contrast with the U.K.'s approach is striking.  There, the government has made the elimination of childhood poverty a goal -- and the number of children in poverty has decreased by 50% in the last several years.  To me, that's a much more reasonable starting place.

Even if we're striving to make realistic goals, which is a reasonable thing to do, I don't understand the choice of limit on this one.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  And I don't understand why that limit should be assumed, rather than discussed.  

itsbenj,
Thanks. Atleast I got the number of letters right, but then every word that came to mind had four.

I am from Ford's Congressional District, and I might agree that he served his district well -- up until two years ago when he tilted to the right in preparation for the statewide Senate race. For those two years he served only his own interests (and presumably those of his father, a lobbyist, who bragged about how much influence the Fords would have (if Junior and Jake had been successful).

What's more, he interfered in the election of of Steve Cohen to take his old House seat -- by tacitly supporting the campaign of his ignorant, hot-headed, racist brother Jake, running as an independent against Cohen (D).

Had Ford stayed in the House I have no doubt that he would be a Member of Congress today and probably serving his constituents reasonably well. His right-leaning positions the last two years were clearly intended to make himself more palatable to the Tennessee cracker vote.

I very, very seldom rate comments. I take Josh’s suggestion that a “5” should be more than just an indication of agreement but should reward “posters who make clear and cogent arguments, highlighting succinct, insightful, and useful content.” By that criteria this is the quintessential “5.” Some home runs win games and some just add to a winning or loosing score. But a home run is a home run and amike just hit one into the monument in center field.

I confess I don't follow your argument here at all.

Typically people do not engage in discussion when they hear criticism. They simply become defensive. That is not productive to civil discourse. What ensues is a fight. When you want people to engage in a discussion there has to be a real consideration of each other's views and a receptive atmospbere, not attacking, critical, hostility.

Sure, but the members of a bloc within a larger organization that have been seriously and substantially /wrong/ on unbelievably serious issues for a period of at least 5 years need to sit down and participate quietly for a number of years before they start offering advice to the other members of the coalition again

At what point do you let this transgression of being wrong for 5 years go? Isn't being right sufficient enough to at least condescend to listen? After all, if everyone else is so right it should be easy to counter any opposing view and provide a rationale to support it.  Is it productive to hold on to them being wrong and just hammer the other side?

What is this participate quietly? This is a thread where Ford asked to discuss certain views. He was invited here and  the thread is nothing but an angry mob with lots of pent up frustration and that is not achieving anything. I did not read any advice being offered, I read a statement that said, let's discuss what we have in common. In fact, the title of the thread is In Search of Common Ground.

It just seems you and many others have an ax to grind even if you are right. No one is accomplishing anything on this thread. Posters are simply spewing hate about the DLC. Even if it is valid and substantial it is also Totally non-productive. Certainly, there can be no hope of input nor bringing about change of the DLC when folks can't engage in a civil discussion. What's the point of the thread...to see who can spew their anger and hostility the loudest and longest? To beat the DLC down? Then what happens? You think they will go away? NUh-uhn..just underground.

If there was any hope of engaging Ford that's not happening here. So, the DLC simply continues with its agenda...nothing changes ?  Only now the blogosphere is a place identified as non-receptive and impossible to engage? What ever the objections, rationale and critiques are simply will not be heard.

But I suppose when folks have an ax to grind all that matters is being able to grind that ax.

Distorted view???? You may be distorted, but the rest of us arent'. The DLC is corporate owned and yearns for early Reagan. You may be early Reagan, I'm FDR. Reagan was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country. Bill Clinton's DLC gave us NAFTA/WTO/fast track, media consolidation (Rupert & Hillary), and welfare reform for babies but not corporations. I will never support a DLC candidate - ever!

He walks into a realm that is progressive and proceeds to tell us we don't get it. Gee, I wonder why the left doesn't support the DLC. Could it be because they only hear what they want to hear? I don't need them to tell me anything. They have been the power broker for the Democratic Party for the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but NAFTA and other corporate programs. Instead of telling we are wrong, they need to try shutting up and listening to the people they are suppose to be representing. Telling us is what the DLC and George Bush do. "You are either with us or agin, us". First the DLC gives us Reagan and now we get W.

Let's see. Washington doesn't care about what Americans want (out of Iraq, health care, etc.) but they care about what Iraqis want. It is logic like this that makes Blue Dogs, DLC, and Republicans ignorant and obstructive to the best interest of this country.

Thanks for your comments. i agree and hadn't caught that reference to the DLC base. I would hope you would join the discussion more often.

When you have a second or two, perhaps you can tell us what you and the DLC have done for us the past couple of decades. And while you're at it, please explain how homophobia, support of torture and blind love of war have become winning positions for 2008 when they did you so little good in 2006?

Mr. Ford was an elected Congressman. Are there a lot of other elected officials on this thread? The DLC has elected a President. Have you? It is not liberals who have a problem with the DLC it is the far Left.

The society of increasing dependency that Reagan used to bash is way into office is what the DLC opposes. Like Clinton the DLC provides a policy forum to support government programs that do not solve lifes great problems but are a catalyst to make people's lives better.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has been mind boggling inept and been accompanied by unconscionable lying and lack of demand of shared sacrifice.

However, the DLC recognized that radical Islam both Shiite and Sunni are dangerous, that the U.S. is not to blame for the world's ills, that trade makes poor people better off.

The DLC is the Democratic Party as created by Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy but recognized that we are not in a depression. That most of our people have jobs, houses, even college and health insurance.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

=== At what point do you let this transgression of being wrong for 5 years go? ===

Unfortunately, this isn't a friendly dispute over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 23.7% or 26.9% - it is over failing to understand, and in many cases actually supporting, the Bush/Cheney anti-Constitutional agenda (e.g. Lieberman). So in my personal opinion the timeout should last at least two Presidential cycles, or 8-10 years.

You may very well disagree. But the clock doesn't even _start_ until the core DLC movers-and-shakers acknowledge that they made a series of unbelievably serious mistakes in misunderestimating (and in many cases actually supporting) the Radical Right. I have seen zero sign of any such acknowledgement and in fact just the opposite: "Time to move on. Here's your next lecture from your superiors".

It must be fun to be the teenager of a DLC member: "Well yeah Dad, there was the whole thing with the car and the alcohol and the police action. But that was last week and the important thing is to focus on how we can work together to move forward as a family; that sort of backward-looking vituperation and talk of 'responsibility for one's actions' is divisive to the family.".

sPh

That is a fine, fine display of pearl-clutching there, whiterosebuddy.

There is more content in this thread than one could reasonably digest. But you want to talk about the tone of the comments.

With all due respect, and as much propriety as I can muster: Get over yourself.

I must admit I supported Bush because he promised he would (1) cut taxes and (2) kill terrorists.

Well, he has cut taxes and is killing terrorists so I can't complain...