Perhaps you should begin by asking what has the DLC done to offend us?

Your little list here is an example.  The DLC is just a bunch of Republicans who didn't find elbow room over there.

Take #1, Keep America safe... Hello, we are safe.. I was sitting here in New York on 9/11 so I'm not confused.  The fools in the North American Air Command contributed to our lack of safety about as much as the ones in the White House, and while I consider the conspiracy theories about 9/11 to be just another case of mass hysteria, I would not be so quick to dismiss the never developed conspiracy theories about anthrax.

So, except for safety FROM our screwy government, WE ARE SAFE.  Making this number 1 on your list is just another REPUBLICAN agenda item.

Then take #6 on your list.  Why does it sound like a REPUBLICAN talking point?  End poverty except in the case of Welfare Cadillacs!  Real Democrats are not so damn interested in the "excepts."  Until the DLC can figure this out, they aren't gonna get a damn dime from me, and I vote against them in every primary.

I'll add #3.  We've been onto this little canard about waste, fraud and abuse for 50+ years now.  If all of you Washintonian REPUBLICANS cannot fix it by now, just give it up.  The truth is, except when CONGRESS or the PRESIDENT decides to f*** with government to make it work wrong on purpose, government works about as good as the private sector, sometimes better.  This is another REPUBLICAN misdirection.

Until you DLC REPUBLICANS can figure out that your values are screwed up, its gonna be damn hard to work with real people. 

First off, thanks for adding meat to the talking points -- probably one reason some people tended to flame Ford is that he didn't offer anything to discuss in the first post.

1. Keeping America Safe. We can and probably have to obsess about exactly how to end the war in Iraq, but the bigger questions are (a) whether there remains a legitimate war with jihadist terrorism, and (b) the extent to which the United States, under better management, ought to play a preeminent role in promoting democracy and liberal institutions around the world.

I agree in a sense, with both points. (a) I agree with Howard Dean that in the short term this is essentially a law enforcement issue. Calling it a war is almost as counterproductive as calling it a crusade or a cauliflower. (b) If "democracy promotion" means a combination of trade sanctions, leading by example (Voice of America, libraries), and humanitarian aid, then this makes sense. It would be nice to have more democracies, but as we see when comparing China and Russia, democratizing the heck out of everyone isn't always in our overall best interest.

So, Mr. Ford: War or, um... "police action"? And where do you stand on democracy promotion by force?

3. Holding Government Accountable For Results... (a) Is privatization of services ever advisable? Can we make competent government popular again? (b) ...public financing of political campaigns?

(a) Given what we've seen with privatization and "accountability" in public schools -- increasing stratification from vouchers, mixed results with charters, and tests dumbed down so everyone's "good enough" -- I'm skeptical of this approach. We trust "career bureaucrats" not because we set benchmarks and test them constantly, but because we expect them to operate from a desire to serve the public. (b) Absolutely.

Mr. Ford: Does "accountable government" mean replacing more government functions by regulated private sector services? And what level of public campaign funding do you support?

4. Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy. Is this one issue we can all agree on? Are market incentives (e.g., "cap and trade" arrangements) for environmental improvements reactionary? Should this issue trump economic issues? Is there any residual role for nuclear energy?

I think this is where we have the most common ground, but we need to emphasize that environmental protection doesn't have to hurt the economy. California has recently lead the nation in both environmental regulation and economic well-being (more-or-less).

5. Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth. Do we support paid family leave as a national policy? ... highly targeted multimedia messages promoting materialism, sex and violence?

I'm almost certain that "paid family leave" isn't what Ford has in mind when he says "pro-family", but this is a version I could support. But keep your hands off my GTA3, buddy...

Mr. Ford: Are you willing to support Scandinavian levels of "pro-family", such as 200 days of parental leave for both parents, even over strong corporate objections about "competitiveness in a dynamic global marketplace?"

come back to past recriminations about who shot whom and when.

Joe whacked Ned, in the Bank, with a gold-plated Menorah. But he looked more sad than angry while doing it.

Despite your dismissive comments, Mr.Kilgore, I have found in the 250 comments generated by Mr.Ford, a number of discussion points, questions, and suggestions put forward sincerely and seriously. I know that I put forward a few as well. Are you aware that dismissing all of these letters as a (possibly healthy) cathartic exercise reeks of the contemptuous highhandedness that is so offensive when the DLC smears and brands and tries to marginalize progressives. Why not deal with the issues raised in the letters (not all obviously, but the many that were put forward to advance the discussion (supposedly) or is answering beneath you?

Let's turn the question around. How can we get DLC bucks without selling out the poor, gay people, alleged "enemy combattants," the environment and our age-old constitutional rights?

In other words, the question is, what can you guys do for us? NOT how can we compromise our values to help you stay on the Beltway cocktail party circuit.

Also, I keep asking but have yet to get an answer: If these positions are such winners, why did you lose in 2006?

Mr. Kilgore,

Thanks for your post. As I indicated in my post in Mr. Ford's thread yesterday, I think these are issues that need to be discussed and I think it's a good idea for the so-called "netroots" to have a dialogue with the DLC. That's why I found it profoundly disappointing that Mr. Ford did not respond in the comments after making his initial post.

Moreover, to toss aside the "hundred or so comments" as simply an exercise in group catharsis directed at the DLC "bogeyman," Mr. Ford's Senate campaign, or both is both condescending and wrong. While a few posts yesterday were simply attacks against Mr. Ford or the DLC, the vast majority were highly constructive and focused on the six challenges that both you and Mr. Ford highlight.

In the hope that you may be more responsive than was Mr. Ford, I will raise some of the same points I attempted to raise yesterday. Hopefully my comments won't strike you as the airing of "stored-up grievances."

As to point #5 (making America the most pro-family country on earth), when Mr. Ford delivered remarks to the DLC highlighting the same six challenges about which he posted yesterday, he phrased #5 as "promoting family and values." I doubt I need to explain that this is a huge red flag for progressives, considering that "family values" has been right-wing code for a regressive, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-single parent, etc. social agenda for quite a while. As to the points you raised, yes we should support paid leave as a national policy and yes we should embrace equal pay and equal opportunity for all Americans. That said, why couch this as being "pro-family" and thus play into right-wing framing tropes? If we're creating a progressive agenda here, let's create our own memes, too.

As for point #1, there is no bigger question now than how to end the war in Iraq. The remaining "war against jihadist terrorism," as you put it, and the American role in promoting democracy abroad, are issues we cannot even begin to grapple with until we have at least begun the process of leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. Until we leave Iraq, we have insufficient military capability with which to fight the "war on terror" elsewhere in the world and no one takes us seriously when we say we're promoting democracy. Nor should they. The Iraq war is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetrated by the U.S. on both its own citizens and the world at large. Until we end that disaster, discussing other lofty foreign policy goals is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard.

=== This stuff reads like you are so used to not having policy debates that you don't know how to. ===

This is another substantative issue that anyone who has held power in the Democratic Party since 1994 needs to address: is the Party a top-down institution? Or do those out in the grasslands have a voice in what it stands for and how it is run? This may very well be another irreconcilable issue, since IIRC the DLC was created specifically to cut the grass roots _out_ of Democratic Party decision making and put it back in the hands of self-selected insiders.

sPh

Maybe we could start with a little Truth and Reconciliation first.

Before we can find common ground, we've got to find a reason to debate.

To date, the DLC has been only too unwilling to engage in serious debate with progressives and liberals. We have been dismissed out of hand. We have been called the enemy, and a threat to the Democratic party and Democratic victories.

Now Harold Ford wants to come here and tell us to forget the past and to ask us to agree that his goals are worthy of debate.

Well, first he has to prove that he is willing to actually debate. He has to address the people before he can address the issues. His post yesterday was a blatant attempt to sidestep the people and go straight to the issues, and that's what pissed people off.

Cathartic purging of unhealthy emotions? No, that was a display of anger and disgust. Nothing was purged. The anger remains, and will remain, until we have some Truth and Reconciliation.

"5. Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth. Do we support paid family leave as a national policy? Can we finally insist on equal pay and equal employment opportunities for women, including those who take time to bear and raise children? And do we take seriously the need for corporate responsibility for the bombardment of kids with highly targeted multimedia messages promoting materialism, sex and violence?"

I am sorry, but I cannot read these words coming from the DLC without choking on my coffee. I agree with all of these things listed, but the DLC HAS NOT SUPPORTED THIS. Was there anything as anti-family as the Bankruptcy Bill, that Ford and the DLC supported? As a father, and a member of the working poor, the bankruptcy bill did nothing to help my family. The provisions made for the credit card industry in that bill has taken money from my pocket and food from my son's mouth. I'm not kidding.

So don't tell me my anger with the organization that Ford represents (or my disappointment with his hit-and-run post yesterday) is nothing more than "cathartic, and thus healthy". If someone hurt YOUR family you would tell them too. Especially when that person voted AGAIN AND AGAIN against your interests. I'm glad Harold decided to drop by and tell us what's on his mind: politicians are always good for talking and talking and talking. Unfortunately, some of us give more weight to what a politician actually DOES. This dad has seen enough of what the DLC does to know that Harold's pretty words aren't worth a bucket of pig slop.

"...tell the mob who sing your song
that they are fools and they are wrong.
They are a curse.
They should disperse."

You people who are jumping all over Harold Ford must love losing elections.

The last election was not an affirmation of progressive values. It was a repudiation of Bushie incompetence. The Democrats won because they were not Republicans, not because the electorate decided to embrace a left-wing agenda. It was the election of MODERATE Democrats and not a bunch of left-wing fire-eaters that swung the results.

Indeed, let's look at the last couple of Democrats who won the presidency. Let's see, there was Bill Clinton, a southerner from the DLC, and there was Jimmy Carter, another southern moderate.

If you want to win in '08, bite your tongue and pay attention to Mr. Ford's message. Otherwise, can you say "President Guliani"?

It's unfair, and it's insulting to the supporters of TPMC for a DLC operative like Kilgore to get front page access to shill for Ford, and insult the commenters on Ford's post.

Why is he allowed a new post for what is essentially a comment on Ford's post? If he wants to jump in the conversation, let him get down in the trenches and battle it out with everyone else in comments.

You mean, listen to the same Mr. Ford who lost his last election to the mayor of Chattanooga?

The same Ford who lost by following the advice of the DLC?

The same Ford whose DLC support crushed the emerging campaign of an actual moderate Democrat who might have been able to beat Bob Corker?

The same southern moderate Ford who got a half-million fewer Tennessee votes than did the moderate Democratic governor?

The central problem for Democrats the past 10-15 years has been to translate the broadly popular polices into electoral victories. We have been playing to the head and not to the heart.

The DLC's solution has been to cobble together a bunch of talking points - ala Ford's original post - and then try to look as much like the Republicans as possible to attract conservative voters. This didn't work. Rove et. al. simply moved the bar every time the DLC triangulation strategy was in effect and the compromising only went one way.

Progressives have tried to push the ideas and ideals of the party as the same thing. I mentioned Tester and Webb above, and the thing that struck me about both of them was that they talked about the heart first and the polices came naturally out of them. They won.

a couple of hundred or so comments full of everybody's stored-up grievances towards the DLC and/or Ford's 2006 Senate campaign. I guess that's cathartic, and thus healthy.

Sweet Jesus. More condescension from the people who have been wrong about everything for the last six years. Is blinkered self-satisfaction what creates the magnetic pull that draws you people together? I have to say, I think of myself as pretty cynical, but marble headed arrogance of Ford and Kilgore just takes my breath away.

Can you cite an example, Mr Kigore, of when opening a 'discussion' with this kind of impatient, patronizing superciiliousness has worked?

In the interest of civil discourse, I am working very hard at not calling you an asshole.

(a) whether there remains a legitimate war with jihadist terrorism

No. There isn't. There was a legitimate war with a state who was protecting bin Laden, and a legitimate use of force in apprehending him. But beyond that there is no war on terra. This is republican scare mongering. The Basques are a bigger threat in Europe and the Tamils in Sri Lanka than anything the US faces--and they don't call them "wars" there.

We're not going to be able to find common ground if you insist on using republican messaging and republican frames for your policy proposals. They're weak. Their policies don't reflect the desires of the American people. You don't need their frames.

Stop it, for goodness sake.

You people who are jumping all over Harold Ford must love losing elections.

We people are tired of losing elections because of a strategy that worked for only one person--Bill Clinton. It's clear, at this point, that he won despite rather than because of his strategy. He was simply the most charasmatic and effective president in the postwar era. That's why he won. If you were correct, Ford and Chafee would have won.

And there is no chance in Hell of a president Giuiliani.

It's funny--I was in the process of drafting a comment reply that conceded, after reading the last thirty or so comments on Ford's post, that it wasn't all (maybe just 60%) anti-DLC, anti-Ford abuse, and then checked back into this comment thread and saw that the "conversation" had gone very far south.

To begin with BLPD's comment about my privileged status at TPMCafe, you need to take this up with the managers of the site. I'm just one of a very large number of privileged bloggers here, most of whom more than adequately represent a point of view quite different from the DLC (which, BTW, I don't always represent myself, differing with the organization on lots of things, including Iraq). I don't quite know how a site like TPMCafe can function without this sort of arrangement, but if you have a different model, by all means share it with the management. And if your issue is simply the nature of my own views, please be clear about it, and don't suggest I'm somehow abusing my "privileges." Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I tend to slog into the comment threads more than most posters at TPMCafe, despite the frequently hostile nature of most comments on my posts. I actually spend a very large part of my time, here and at NewDonkey, without compensation for it, trying to engage the netroots, so I'm a little taken aback by the accusation of arrogance. But I'll take the criticism to heart and make amends where I can.

On a related issue, many of the comments on Ford's post express anger that he's not immediately responding to them. I checked with the DLC on this (I'm an offsite, part-time consultant there these days), and learned that the arrangement, typical for guest bloggers, is that he does an initial post, checks in a couple of days later to respond to posts and comments, and then signs off on Friday. His lack of immediate interactivity is part of the deal, not some reflection of DLC arrogance.

I'll address the less process-oriented comments on Ford's post and mine, a majority of which basically are about the DLC's legitimacy as a Democratic organization or faction, in my next post, and I promise I'll engage in the comment thread, okay?

Ed Kilgore

Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing. What I liked the best was this:

we believe Democratic ideals are something worth fighting for and can be winners at the ballot box. They don't.

On April 4, 2007 - 12:58am viviane said:

But I do think that establishing "common ground" does involve listening, on all sides of a question.

I posted the followiung on another thread;

I await the response from Harold Ford or any member of the DLC.

Your mission Mr Ford, if you choose to accept it, is to

1- Enumerate the DLC agenda vis a vis Corporate America

2- Enumerate the DLC agenda vis a vis those with gross family income below....oh.....say....$70,000

3- Explain the DLC plan, if any, for healthcare.

4- Bush tax cuts.

BlueinColorado:

Nobody's name in my bio has been "artfully avoided." I worked for three Governors of Georgia: George Busbee, Joe Frank Harris and Zell Miller. I'm assuming your comment has to do with Zell.

I've gone through this thing with David Sirota, who actually apologized for suggesting my work for Zell, back when he was, in fact, and by universal assent, a strong, partisan, populist Democrat, had any bearing on my views today. I've said more nasty things about Miller's apostasy than just about anybody in the blogosphere, so with all due respect, you might want to retract this particular critique.

the arrangement, typical for guest bloggers, is that he does an initial post, checks in a couple of days later to respond to posts and comments, and then signs off on Friday. His lack of immediate interactivity is part of the deal, not some reflection of DLC arrogance.

One wonders if he would have agreed to participate had he been required to, you know, engage in a conversation.

He had to know that his past positions, his votes in the House (especially his support of GWB, the Iraq War and the Bankruptcy bill), the failure of DLC stategy to win Tennessee, et al, were going to be fair targets for partisan sniping.

As I said before, he's got to come to terms with those things before he can engage in discussions about the future. Why should we trust him to lead, when he's got it so wrong so many times in the past?

These are some things I, and many others here, would like to see addressed first. But knowing Mr. Ford as we do, especially those of us who are his former constituents, we know how swift he is to dismiss those who question him about these things. He wants to move on. Until he addresses his past, he moves on alone.

"Do we accept or reject globalization?"

Personally, I reject it. As I see it, globalization is little more than an attempt to find new low-wage workers to exploit while simultaneously forcing down the wages of the rest of the workforce by increasing competition for jobs. What good has globalization done? Tourists now have a Starbuck's in the Forbidden City--I guess that's something...

I'm a little taken aback by the accusation of arrogance.

You genuinely can't see why people consider this arrogant:

comments full of everybody's stored-up grievances towards the DLC and/or Ford's 2006 Senate campaign. I guess that's cathartic, and thus healthy.

Even if that weren't dismisssive, bordeline contemptuous, I am genuinely bewildered by the underlying notion that Harold Ford's record as a congressman and a candidate is irrelevant, and that the DLC should not be considered in light of the fact that it's most prominent post-Clinton candidate is Joe Lieberman.

And perhaps you could be a little more clear about what constitutes "anti-Ford abuse"? Pointing out his votes, his rhetoric, and his actions is abusive?

The late lamented Molly Ivins used to say the the three cardinal rules for political reporters were 1) look at the record, 2) look at the record, 3) look at the record again. I've always figured it was a pretty good rule for voters too.

Mr Ford's record does not impress me.

If I could make a humble suggestion:

Further discussion of "process" or of the "legitimacy of the DLC" is very unlikely, IMO, to advance this conversation at all. Those who are reflexively anti-DLC are not going to be convinced and those who would like to discuss policy in an active attempt to find common ground (which was, unless I am mistaken, the purpose of Mr. Ford's original post) aren't going to be interested.

I, for one, would much prefer to read your thoughts on the policy issues surrounding Mr. Ford's six challenges. It is obvious that you and Mr. Ford feel as though the online progressive community has not given (and continues to refuse to give) the DLC a fair shake. Leaving the merits of that position aside, let's focus on the issues. To the extent that both this and yesterday's thread have "moved southward" I think both sides bear some blame. At the risk of alienating you, however, I do have to point out that the opening tone of both your post and Mr. Ford's is easily interpreted as condescending (specifically, referring to the netroots as "delusional" and dismissing all of the comments to Mr. Ford's post as the "cathartic" release of pent-up anger) Rather than trying to settle the dispute of who's being unfair to whom, let's work on building an agenda. I'm sure there will be plenty of disagreement to go around.

A suggestion;

People who post replies to other posters should start their comment with the name of the poster they're referring to; as in "Joe Blow said". It would make it much easier to follow the debate.

That's right.  Don't bother to deal with your values problems.  We humbly agree to sit down with you, the devil, to divide up the spoils.

Not 6 years, 20.

I don't think we can reject it.  The world economy was globalized by 1850, it is a little late now.

The problem rests entirely with local coping mechanisms.  The Republican solution, is to prevent local coping.  Instead, a la Halliburton, the rich plan to internationalize their assets so that it doesn't matter which particular country is doing well at the moment.

Isn't it time we did something about this? 

Can't say I disagree too much with you. That's part of the reason why I'd really like to hear Mr. Kilgore or Mr. Ford take a position on these issues rather than posing a laundry list of semi-rhetorical questions. The list itself is just a collection of buzzwords. I'd love to know if the DLC is actually willing to listen to and consider truly progressive ideas, or if they're just hoping to push the same tired Republican-lite agenda that they've peddled for the better part of a decade.

All I'm saying is that, since Ford and Kilgore posed this discussion, I'm willing to take them at their word that they're interested in having a conversation until they prove otherwise. Which, by the way, they appear to be working overtime to do.

you can also click on "parent", to see who/what a person is responding to.

Down at the bottom of the post pages, there is a section called "Comment Viewing Options."

You can choose flat or threaded comments, the latter makes it much easier to see who's responding to whom. You can also sort by oldest (so comments flow from the top, down, oldest to newest.

You can (and should) also set the number of comments per page higher, like 300. (You should, because once you go beyond your set limit, it "breaks" the "new" feature, where you click on new comments, and it takes you to the first new one.) 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

# 6 - Ending poverty for all who work - is an example of what I absolutely despise about the DLC. It's a deliberate frame to appeal to those who have contempt for the poor and who are too ignorant to consider the reasons why many are poor, particularly disabling illnesess, especially mental illness and associated mental conditions which make it impossible for people to hold jobs that keep them out of poverty.

If we're supposed to be this super duper Christian party -- where did we ever lose the adage my old grandmother gave to me: "there but for the grace of God go I".

Stop the pandering to the worst of us DLC and have the moral courage to stand up against poverty without phony conditions! Sure, if you are fully capable of holding a job that pays a living wage, you should indeed work but work isn't the issue here, the issue is POVERTY.

after he lost the primary

So you want partial credit? He was a war-cheerleader who specialized in undermining other Democrats, and questioning their patriotism on shows like Hannity, before anybody heard of Ned Lamont, including virtually endorsing Bush over Kerry to Jewish senior citizens group--in Palm Beach County, of all places--in October 2004

"those of us worried about the national effort to drive Joe Lieberman out of the Senate and the Democratic Party"

I will admit, I remembered you as using the word "purge", so maybe you do deserve partial credit. However, those of us doing the driving were right, and we'd like those of you who were wrong to acknowledge that fact. It hardly seems like a lot to ask.

Again, you and Harold Ford seem to believe your records and that of your organization shouldn't count in other people's evaluations of your opinions and credibility. This is not logical.

Now having said that, I will add that I think there was and is a reason that a lot of the key players in the traditional old-line Democratic Party (some but not all of whom are DLC) support Lieberman behind the scenes even while expressing "frustration" with him in public. The soft form is that he guards their right flank; the hard form is that they agree with him, particuarly on Iraq and probably on Iran.

sPh

These are excellent questions!

Have you posted these questions on the Harold Ford 'conversation' thread? I would be extremely interested in his reply.

Mr. Kilgore begins. . .

  a constructive if argumentative post from Max Sawicky, and a couple of hundred or so comments full of everybody's stored-up grievances toward the DLC and/or Ford's 2006 Senate campaign. I guess that's cathartic, and thus healthy.

and concludes

So let's have at it, and then, if you wish, come back to past recriminations about who shot whom and when.

I think I read an attitude present in the beginning which precludes what he wishes to happen in his conclusion.  No doubt there were a few over-the-top responses to Mr. Ford's opening essay.  But Mr. Kilgore has been around here long enough to know there are always a few over the comments around here.  He's received some himself (hopefully none from me). 

But to call the "professional" comment "argumentative" and to categorize and dismiss all  the amateur readers' comments as "pent-up" grievances seems to guarantee a reiteration of all those grievances.  To the extent it treats us as dense or dull it reinforces those grievances.  It would seem more profitable for Mr. Kilgore or Mr. Ford, to pick out some of the comments which, if contradictory, are at least coherent, analyze the points they make, and rebut them as well at they can. 

Come to think of it, even Mr. Sawicky is dismissed in a rather patronizing way.  I'll let him resent it for himself, if he wishes.  But I rather resent a piece which ignores what others has to say, reiterates and extends the original points.  This is absolutely certain to guarantee people talk past, rather than to, each other.

aMike

KEEPING AMERICA SAFE. With all due respect, Mr. Kilgore, I don't think these are the right questions. There has been very little discussion of the role America plays in the Post Cold War era, the role of international institutions like the UN, and how we form alliances and interact with other countries--foes or friends. Our entire foreign policy stands need to be revisited, reformulated, and presented to the American public for big picture buy-in.

In terms of promoting democracy and liberal institutions, I prefer that America promote human rights and self-determination by the native population of an area. Democracy may be OUR preferred choice of government, but that really is best left to the country and not to us. I suggest that America--along with our democratic allies--offer assistance in developing a democratic form of government when ASKED to do so.

Jihad terrorism--is that a high-level phrase for religiously sanctioned suicide bombing that targets innocents? I think this particular tactic was created after Israel's success against the Arab nations. It has now been extended (due to the decentralized nature of Islam where any "sheik" can produce fatwahs and where a "sheik's" power is provided by the number of followers he can attract) to overthrow "corrupt regimes" (Osama's point); to provoke fear among the Shiites in Iraq (Shiites have "death squads" who torture but I don't know of ANY suicide bombers), in an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, and throughout the Sunni international community where someone can make use of the tactic for political advantage.

Bottom line? There is not a military response that will solve suicide bombing. It will have to be solved within the Arab nations and within the Sunni version of Islam. It will be a long-term project and one we MAY be able to encourage (although as non-Muslim country this would be a very tricky proposition).

Peace between the Arab nations, Palestinians and Israel will remove a thorn of contention, but it will not solve the use of a tactic that has moved beyond this particular conflict. It could allow the Arabs to "assist" their religious leaders in eliminating suicide bombing from any credible Islamic "shiek".

This will be a very long process and I simply do not see how an American "war" or even use of our military will be effective in dealing with this issue. It is, simply, police action in both prevention and prosecution that will be needed as well as close international cooperation (and that means we shouldn't be swaggering through the landscape making enemies). We can also dedicate national resources to our energy/environmental crisis and take a leadership role in the development of international commitments that will reduce our dependency on such an unstable part of the world. We can also take a leadership role in the international development of polices on nuclear proliferation, nuclear inspections, use of nuclear energy, securing of nuclear materials, etc. leading to standards that apply EQUALLY in all nations--including America.

All of this requires a rethinking of our foreign policy with the world we have today and not the world we had in 1950. Our foreign policy does not require tweaking, it requires a complete overhaul.

None of this means that we have to give up a right to respond to an attack, as we did with Afghanistan where it was essential that we eliminate a dusty band of terrorists and their "religious" government supporters.

There are lots of references, just google their names. This is from last October. It's actually the military commissions act vote that puts me over the edge, but that and supporting Lieberman are just two reflections of the same overall strategy and philosophy, IMHO.

Harold Harold Ford, D-Tenn, Backs Joe Lieberman Politics – U.S. Congressman and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., formally announced that he is supporting Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election to the U.S. Senate. Lieberman was defeated by billionaire Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary this past August in Connecticut, but has continued to run as an independent candidate.

I largely agree about Kilgore, but again, this thread is to some extent (meta) about Ford and the DLC, both of which/whom have a history, and Kilgore was extremely hostile towards those of us who pointed out those histories.

Folks:

I'm going to wait and read Harold Ford's next post before doing another of my own, but do want to respond a bit more to what I'm reading in this comment thread and others. I want to sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by my remark about comments reflecting "stored-up grievances" with the DLC and Ford. I'm still not quite sure why that's deemed self-evidently contemptuous and dismissive, since it is pretty clear that for various reasons the DLC has generated "grievances" in the progressive blogosphere, but it was obviously a poor choice of words on my part.

If I had to characterize the extreme unhappiness with the DLC I'm reading here (which is not, as you can imagine, news to me) I'd have to honestly say it falls into three categories: (1) specific, ideological disagreements, most importantly on Iraq, and some disagreements that, frankly, may not exist (more about that in a moment); (2) a belief that the DLC spends more time criticizing other Democrats than in criticizing Bush or Republicans; and (3) a belief that the DLC has exercised inordinate power in the Democratic Party in the recent past, to the party's detriment, and is part of a DC Establishment that needs to be displaced.

On point one, it's a matter of opinion how many ideological differences it takes to justify characterization of the DLC like "Republican Lite" or "Bush Lite," which I'm certainly partisan enough to find offensive. Some of you may remember last year when Atrios put out a list of issue positions that he considered defining for progressives. I did a post going through his list and noting agreement or disagreement with the DLC's position, and found roughly 80% agreement.  If the DLC were a member of Congress, its "voting record" would fit comfortably into the mainstream of the Democratic Caucus, well to the "left" of the Blue Dogs.  And it's taken a lot of positions virtually no Republican would ever take, such as maintenance of the estate tax, repeal of the Bush tax cuts for all high earners, elimination of all corporate subsidies in the budget and tax code, the maximum amount of public financing of congressional campaigns that the Supreme Court will allow, strict mandatory limits on carbon emissions by industry and in automobiles, etc., etc. 

Ah, but then there's Iraq, and maybe for some folks here, being wrong about Iraq makes everything else meaningless.  If that's what you think, then there are a whole lot of Democrats beyond the DLC ranks that need to be ostracized.  It is not accurate, however, to say that DLC has just supported Bush on the war, like Lieberman largely has; it's attacked virtually everything Bush has done since the invasion ended; opposed permanent bases; called for an end to the combat mission; opposed the "surge;" supported the supplemental bill's withdrawal language.  You may not think any of this goes far enough, but it's not reflexive support of Bush by any means. 

Some folks who opposed the war from the beginning insist on an acknowledgement that they were right and war supporters were wrong.  I'm certainly willing to do so myself; to the very limited extent that I supported this disaster, I was wrong and you were right.  If that means you think I'm permanently discredited by bad judgment from any participation in Democratic politics, then again, I'm in a lot of company, but ignore me henceforth if you wish. 

It's now very late, and I don't want to strain your patience with an even longer comment, but on points (2) and (3) mentioned above, let me just say this: as someone who wrote a lot for the DLC over the years, including its New Dem Dispatch (done daily until recently) and a bunch of articles for Blueprint magazine (not to mention a blog), I've hurled just about every term of abuse imaginable at Bush and the Republican Party, and written relatively little criticizng any Democrats (beyond defending the DLC), and have never, ever challenged the patriotism of people in or out of the Democratic Party who disagreed with me or the DLC.  Yes, I am aware that there are people employed by the DLC who occasionally--very occasionally--have used overbroad generalizations of "the antiwar left" or "the left" in intraparty debates, but I see no evidence to support the broadly held belief that these includes attack on anybody's patriotism or right to speak out. 

On the idea that the DLC is to blame for the decline of the Democratic Party until 2006 (excepting those two presidential wins in the 90s), and/or is the beating heart of a Beltway Establishment that want to suppress intraparty debate, or the netroots, or the grassroots--I'm sorry, but it sure hasn't looked that way from inside the organization, which was clearly an "outsider" group before Clinton, was just one faction of the party under Clinton, and has had limited influence since Clinton.  The DLC definitely had at best limited involvement in the last two presidential campaigns, dominated as they were by a consultant, Bob Shrum, who's been largely at odds with the DLC from the very beginning. 

And BTW, I've never been to a "Washington cocktail party" in my life, and don't hang out with any pundits or power-brokers. 

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but I'm confident you'll let me know. 

Ed Kilgore  

So, no luck with my hope for 3 sentences answering my request for specific foreign policy positions. I'll just have to keep analysing the tea-leaves.

It is not accurate, however, to say that DLC has just supported Bush on the war, like Lieberman largely has; it's attacked virtually everything Bush has done since the invasion ended; opposed permanent bases; called for an end to the combat mission; opposed the "surge;" supported the supplemental bill's withdrawal language. You may not think any of this goes far enough, but it's not reflexive support of Bush by any means.

Some folks who opposed the war from the beginning insist on an acknowledgement that they were right and war supporters were wrong. I'm certainly willing to do so myself; to the very limited extent that I supported this disaster, I was wrong and you were right. If that means you think I'm permanently discredited by bad judgment from any participation in Democratic politics, then again, I'm in a lot of company, but ignore me henceforth if you wish.

...

I've hurled just about every term of abuse imaginable at Bush and the Republican Party, and written relatively little criticizng any Democrats (beyond defending the DLC),

My reading of these tea-leaves is that the author does not propose a policy on Iraq and hopes to get by with simply denouncing Bush and the Republicans instead. This is to be achieved by inserting "withdrawal language" in bills but not actually forcing withdrawal by cutting off the funds. That means you don't have to come up with a policy for solving problems in Iraq because your policy is to get out, and you don't have to worry about what would happen if you did get out, because you know that Bush isn't going to do that.

As far as I can make out the last sentence I quoted is the key to interpreting these tea leaves. The Democratic party is to achieve unity by hurling just about every term of abuse imaginable at Bush and the Republican Party and avoiding criticizing Democrats.

There seems to be a lot of agreement with that here, especially about hurling abuse at Bush and the Republicans.

Compared with how much you are all agreed about that, minor disagreements about other matters, like what to actually do about Iraq just fade into insignificance. So there is no need to actually state an explicit policy that can be accepted, rejected or modified. This results in no serious political debate, which results in both loud-mouthed ignorance and slick posturing.

It might seem odd then that there is not much agreement with the bit about not criticizing Democrats, which means there is in fact no agreement at all. But its pretty natural for people who cannot discuss policy with each other to end up just hurling insults and abuse at each other instead.

Attacking every aspect of a war while continuing to fund it does not strike me as a viable policy for any political party.

The "netroots" may or may not know that.

The DLC on the other hand must know that it isn't a viable policy, but does it anyway and does not bother to explain why. The DLC will continue to hurl insults at Bush and the Republicans and insert language in bills demanding an end to the war and continue to fund it.

This policy of pandering to the "netroots" means there can be no actual debate within the Democratic Party about what policy to put forward on Iraq.

So, you will go forward to the next election without one, getting angrier and angrier with each other about topics you won't actually discuss.

Whoever gets nominated will have to say they intend to end the war in Iraq but will not be able to say how, or what they propose to do about any consequences.

Perhaps Guliani or McCain could still manage to lose under those circumstances, but I don't see how you would hope to defeat Condi.

The reason I said that the "netroots" may or may not know that a policy of attacking every aspect of a war while continuing to fund it is not viable is that overwhelmingly they do seem to be passionately opposing the war in a way that implies they would not continue to fund it. So at least on the surface they do not have that unviable policy but a policy of opposing the war and actually stopping it by cutting off the funds.

But that is in circumstances where they know perfectly well that their representatives in Congress are going to continue to fund the war anyway, so they don't have to think through the consequences of taking responsibility for what would actually happen if US troops were withdrawn from Iraq while Iraqis are still being slaughtered by terrorists. Some may have thought it through, some may not care, but some if not most are relying on the DLC to not actually cut off funding in much the same way that the DLC relies on Bush for a veto. They know they don't have to actually think it through because they know that what they advocate isn't going to happen and doesn't matter.

They can just join the DLC blaming Bush but get more and more hostile to the DLC for not actually stopping Bush.

I'm not an American and not a Democrat and I supported and continue to support the Iraq war, so you may not be very interested in my comments.

But as far as I can see the "netroots" and the DLC rely on each other to avoid having to face the fact that neither of them has a serious policy on Iraq. The DLC can say to itself that not being able to openly support a plausible policy for the war is due to having to pander to the "netroots" while the "netroots" can say to itself that it has a serious policy for just getting out which is blocked by the DLC rather than by its consequences.

This won't fly.

Grand strategies are easier to support when one is not personally involved in the execution of that strategy, Arthur. Since you openly avow you are not an America, I respectfully suggest that you let Americans decide what their involvement in Iraq will be.

And don't give me that "terrorist" crap. What is very clear is that Sunni Iraqi Arabs are using the tactic of suicide bombing to intimidate and "to win" in Iraq. That tactic may have been originally sanctioned for the conflict with Israel--but it has certainly gone far beyond that now, as 09/11 and every suicide bombing since has clearly illustrated. And the tactic is certainly not restricted to "infidels" as the Iraqi civil war clearly reveals.

The Arab leaders are recognizing (with the port deal) that American RAGE against them is wide and deep. Another 09/11 here will simply unleash American military power against their own countries. If these leaders continue their support of suicide bombing and Sunni intimidation and arrogance in Iraq, then they also increase their own danger with regime toppling using the very tactic they originated.

There is no reason for Americans to remain in Iraq. Bush is merely buying time for the Arab leaders and the Iraqi government, and he may be able to politically do that here until his term runs out. The next President will have no real reason--other than perhaps protecting the Kurdish area or training and equipping an Iraqi military--to remain and so we simply won't.

These suicide bombers will be very busily recruited to blow things up throughout the Middle East until the Arab leaders get things under control. Best they start getting that control. Americans won't.

Undoubtedly you are trying to account for lots when you answer once for the whole page, but you seem to be missing the point, I am afraid. Over here in the progressive end, there is a lack of trust of the Banker Democrats.

We want specific commitments, not general feel good words.

It might be nice to know that you like what we like, but that doesn't mean you are going to put effort into what we want effort put effort into.

We want specific commitments, not general feel good words.