Some of the invective hurled at Mr. Ford was embarrassing. I hope the haters take his latest message to heart. The Democratic Party is a big tent. We need to get past labeling others according to a narrow ideological interpretation. Mr. Ford has been a strong and articulate advocate for his beliefs, and he is very impressive in person. The party could use a lot more inciteful leaders like him.

"But we should all remember that the DLC played an instrumental role in giving Bill Clinton - then an Arkansas governor - a policy platform to campaign on and from in 1991."

I wouldn't brag too much about that one if I were you. Not everyone is impressed with our former Republicratic president's triangular policies.

But we should all remember that the DLC played an instrumental role in giving Bill Clinton ...

Yes. Let's also remember that today's Republican party gave us Abraham Lincoln. Hence, we should forgive and forget all its current transgressions. You are making a fool of yourself!

Sure. But many are. Clinton took a party that had lost focus and forced it rightward. Many on the left hated him for that (and still do), but the effect was making the party relevant.

It would help me if I understood the general meaning of "progressive", which I perceive as different from both "liberal" and "centrist".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

He didn't say military fight. Maybe the reason you are having such trouble here is that you insist up taking his words the wrong way.

We have an ideological fight for sure.

Where does the DLC stand on Senator Chris Dodd's Restore the Constitution Act of 2007?

The other key point being that Bill Clinton ran for President fifteen years ago. The electorate has changed, the issues have changed, perceptions of right, left and center have changed. And the Republican party has gone right off the rails.

The effect was to make the party irrelevant for its core. The effect was to kill the very thing the party stands for. The effect was to affirm the conservative notion that liberalism is a dirty word. And, as we've seen in recent days, as the party pushes back to the left, the party regains its power. We already have Republicans. We need less of them--not more with a different name.

Nice that you now oppose the escalation. After the Republicans got their asses handed to them in the election it suddenly got a lot easier to support Democratic policy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that you're on the right side of this issue. It would be more believable if you acknowledged your previous mistakes, and gave us some reason to believe that you've actually learned something. As it is, it looks like you're simply trying to switch to the winning team.

And speaking of switching teams, DLC poster boy Holy Joe doesn't really help your credibility.

i 2nd hc's post -- if we get into these hair-splitting arguments over what a "true progressive" is, it helps no one.

I'm sure you realize sp, that if you were to boot all the "non-progressive Democrats" out of Congress, you would have a tiny minority party that represents about 1/4 of the country. How much of your policy agenda would you get passed with that?

The party could use a lot more inciteful leaders like him.

Your typo is a lot more insightful than it was meant to be, I think.

The real issue here is the disdain with which much of the netroots feels it's being treated, as if we're the rich, crazy relatives the DLC has to visit every once in a while to hit up for money. They nod, smile, and stick that hand out for the check. As other commenters have noted, this recent engagment comes on the heels of Obama's fund-raising numbers; 100,000 donors, most of whom donated in small amounts and consequently will be able to donate again and again instead of hitting the cap on the first donation. This is, potentially, a source of political funds that dwarfs anything that's ever come before.

The fundamental question here is one of good or bad faith and I've seen little in Ed Kilgore's or Harold Ford's posts to indicate the approach is in good faith, given the back-handed comments that inevitably creep into what should have been simple, inoffensive comments like

And I appreciate the passionate - even if off-based - criticism of the DLC.
He appreciates the passion of the comments but, well, they're just wrong? And consequently, beneath either notice or consideration.

This is the attitude that chafes. If Mr. Ford wants to engage us, he needs to engage in the debate and respond to comments directly, something even Ed Kilgore has been doing in bits and pieces here and there. But even apart from acknowledging a difference in opinions, they need to acknowledge that these differing opinions actually have merit and may be worth listening to. Not that they're "passionate" but misguided. If you want a big, fat check from the crazy cousins in the netroots, you need to consider the fact that they're not all that crazy after all.

Stop using the word "hate."

Save that for real hatred. What you saw here is harsh criticism at best. Maybe not your style, but it wasn't hate speech.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

And maybe, just maybe, Kurita didn't like having her chances to prove herself via the primary process torpedoed by the DLC, who prefers to pick candidates.

After all, if the DLC had been able to pick candidates in Virginia, we wouldn't have a Senate majority today.

The thing is, Ford didn't want a primary battle with Kurita because he knew he stood a good chance of losing it. Having Harold Ford run against a Republican was more important to Harold and the DLC than letting the best candidate, the proven candidate whose message has been tested in the primaries, run for the seat.

(edited for clarity)

You second hc's post, and then engage in exactly the sort of definitionless labeling (to use your term) that he's arguing against.

Could you name an issue or two and some polling that backs up your "1/4 of the country" statistic? Concern trolling doesn't really advance the debate.

None of those words have or can have real definitions I think. Generally speaking I think of progressive as meaning the same thing liberal did in the post-1950 era (with the exception of 1965-1975 which was an anomaly) before the Radical Right's spin machine (very cleverly) took it and transformed it into a dirty word. Plus perhaps some additional empahsis on network-centric grassroots awareness and participation and other modern methods of communication and awareness of propaganda/spin.

sPh

There must be good definitions out there, but the gist of it I take to be:

- "centrist" means just about nothing, since the center is a relative space defined by the extremes, and the Neocons and Bible Thumpers are so extreme that the middle ground between their position and just about anywhere is half way to hell

- "liberal" is a good term, but has been compromised not just by pejorative use but by economic "neo-liberalism" (i.e. unlimited globalism), and by the failure of liberals, even in control, to allow gays in the military, or to legalize soft drugs, or maintain the legal grounding of unions, or keep higher education fully available, &c. A liberal as such doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with the current corporate order, or the current prison industry, or the massive overspending on our military.

- "progressive" goes back through the two Roosevelts, and specifically connotes a strong commitment to keep the monied sector in check while aggressively moving forward towards a well-visualized and better future. Progressives still buy into the notion that social progress is possible, rather than just maintaining a status quo matching the conservative, centrist, or liberal models. A progressive is a pragmatic, well-informed populist (as compared to the many other kinds). Edwards is a progressive; the Clintons are centrists; Obama is a liberal - afaik.

Wrong analysis.  Clinton was the pretty boy with deep pocket connections.  The real candidate (although also a liar since he claimed to have kicked the health condition that soon killed him) that year was Paul Tsongas.   He, however, didn't have the deep pockets.

I am tired of the Banker Democrats pretending that their access to money makes them the voice of the party. 

I would suggest you throw this up in a Reader Blog - perhaps we can Rec it to the front page.

sPh

Conspicuously absent from his post was a statement of agreement with even one or two of the points made in response to his first post. A skilled politician will let you know that he's heard you and agrees on at least a few of your points, and then give a principled example of why he disagrees on a point or two. Otherwise we have to assume that he just disagrees with every constructive idea put forward. For all we know he does. He could have avoided this result so easily, by saying for instance, "Yes we should restore the Constitution as an urgent priority," or "Yes we should get children out of poverty even if their parents don't work." Since he didn't, we must presume he neither fears the loss of the Constitution, nor the results of children raised in poverty - at least not enough to commit political capital.

please explain/support your accusation of concern trolling. minor self-contradiction does not in my mind amount to concern trolling.

There was no primary in Tennessee. Kurita's campaign was undermined by the DLC. She withdrew before she really got off the ground because she saw the writing on the wall.

no, it isn't. that is merely an inference on your part and an inference that i believe is inaccurate.

Unfortuneately Mr. Ford, you missed the crux of the criticism, which basically was that the DLC strategy no longer works. Once Democrats realized this and stopped trying to adhere to the DLCs principles, they crushed the Republicans last November.

What really grates me about the DLC is the elitist attitude and feeling that you are doing us a favor simply by talking to us progressive Democrats. What you need to realize, and your two posts here have yet to demostrate, is that you need to use some contrition and admit the DLCs past serious blunders. Just read the info on Wikipedia about the DLC: The DLC was for partial privatization of social security, the DLC opposes single payer universal health care, the DLC badmouthed Howard Dean when he suggested pursuing Osama Bin Laden, instead of invading Iraq.

After reading that we are supposed to listen to your suggestions and ideas for the party? With a batting average like that, one would think you and your group would keep quiet and allow the netroots, progressives and liberals to continue to pursue the current strategy WHICH IS WORKING!!!

My .02.

That usually happens when you mix the use of the mouse, scroll bars, scroll wheel, down arrow, and pageup/pagedown keys. At some point you get the focus into the rating window without meaning to do so, hit the down arrow, and accidently give a 5 (or 1!).

sPh

Mr. Ford, you're on the wrong website. You should visit the DLC's website, www.ndol.org, and read some of the columns that your mentor Al From has posted over the past year or so. Read what he says about those of us who were smarter than you guys about invading Iraq and about the course of the occupation (there is no sense in pretending about Iraq--we on the Left were correct, and you and the DLC was flat-out wrong).

Go read what Al From, the man you spent the first paragraph of your "common ground" speech effusively praising, has said about our movement. See how many times he's been wrong. See how many times he sided with Joe Lieberman over Democratic primary voters, veterans like Jack Murtha, and sensible leaders on national security. See how many times he has been wrong, and how angry he has been at those of us who have been right.

Then come back here and apologize for all the mistakes the DLC has made, and for every time you have promoted the words of a man like From who seemingly has no greater joy in life than attacking Democrats. Then we can talk unity.

As long as the DLC sees fit to impugn the majority of my party, attack my candidates, and dismiss my position on the war as "unserious," I have absolutely no interest in finding "common ground" with you or your organization. It's simply not worth my time to work with those that have consistently and frequently shown no respect for me or others like me, and Al From fits that description to a T.

I pledge my good-faith efforts to show respect for the views of those who sincerely disagree with the DLC's approach

As others have pointed out, one can not so easily live down the past. While I appreciate the policy objectives you have delineated here, they seem somewhat dissonant with positions that the DLC has held as recently as, say, October. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was not the DLC on record as favoring free trade, voting for the AUMF, unopposed to the Bankruptcy bill or the Patriot Act, etc. etc.? This, along with denegrating Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy and being dismissive of, if not hostile towards, the netroots and genuine, non-corporate political participation and fundraising.

One thing that you, and the DLC must come to understand is that criticizing fellow Democrats because they offer solutions that you may consider, (often wrongly) as too liberal or progressive for the country as a whole is really counter-productive. Really.

I hope your post signals a major course correction for the DLC. It is sorely needed.

While it's great that four years after the Iraq war started the DLC has decided not to support the "surge", as I pointed out in a comment on Ed Kilgore's post, only 40% of Congressional Democrats supported giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq in the first place. In the Senate, that number was 60%. For the DLC members of the Senate, it was 85%. The Republican support level was 98%. In essence, the Democrats in the Senate who were members of the DLC voted closer to the Republican senators on the Iraq war resolution than they did to the Democrats in Congress as a whole or even just the Democratic senators.

I can understand why the Republicans got it wrong: they tend to be uninformed about the world, to prefer the use of military power over diplomacy, and love to make threats. Plus, the president was from their party. But how did the members of the DLC -- whp positions themselves knowledgable voices on national defense -- get it soooo wrong? That's a major credibility problem, in my mind.

"Unfortuneately Mr. Ford, you missed the crux of the criticism, which basically was that the DLC strategy no longer works. Once Democrats realized this and stopped trying to adhere to the DLCs principles, they crushed the Republicans last November."

Yes, yes and more yes, and you get a recommendation of a million. The DLC approach is old and dusty and it needs to die. We're Democrats, dammit, and liberals too. And we're damn proud of it. And we're going to save this country from the Republicans AND from the Moderates. Remember Joe Scarborough's pre-election email to Daily Kos? Well, Joe was right. Ford and the DLC are wrong.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/19145/77283

I think the reason the netroots is so hostile to the DLC can be summed up by 3 men: Marshall Wittman, Al From and Joe Lieberman.

While many in the DLC have had moderate positions, these three have been active and out of touch critics of the netroots movement, the Iraq war and every other policy. Keeping them away from blogs and podiums would go a long way towards healing any rift the DLC has with lefty bloggers, et all. Until they are gone from power, the DLC will continue to be mistrusted in the community.

Hi there,

I have a huge problem with these DLC/Clinton era laws/policies:

1) Free trade agreements that make it impossible for local communities to affect the whole. For instance, some company wanted to buy water from canada to ship it to santa barbara. The local community in Canada wanted to say no. The company, under the free trade agreement, the company is able to sue the local community for the potential lost profits of the sale of the water, even though they never made a dime. And once the company wins, it sets precedent, so no other local community is able to self-govern. People 225 years ago had a problem with "taxation without representation." I have a similar problem with this today, if true. If the above claim is not true, the DLC should educate the far left about the reality of the situation, as this is one talking point that fuels WTO/G8 protests.

2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated most media ownership regulations. I think we can see the effect of that today, and while the internets has taken up some of the slack, it's astonishing at how well large, monied interests are able to repeat the talking points of one party, without balance, or critique. I thought there used to be a law....

3) The two above are examples of the commodification of US society, one that sees us as consumers, not citizens. And the focus of DLC types on "It's the economy, stupid" helps promote this, as does most of the republican policies. I would think that it's this association that bothers many people - while there are clear differences between democrats and republicans, the effects of monetary policies are not as differentiated. Many DLC and/or established, incumbent democrats seem beholden to corporations against the little guy. Please refute.

And explain why copyright law keeps getting expanded to protect Disney's Mickey Mouse franchise at the expense of the public domain, while you're at it :-)

4) You're not Hillary, but seem to be in the same camp. Why does she repeat the Bush administration's warmongering rhetoric against Venezuela and Iran? Chavez tried to be our friend after 9/11, and help out with the whole oil thing.

5) Why did the DLC establishment not respect the will of the democratic primaries in Connecticut? We can see how well that is working out.

I would really love to see a discussion of these points, and if they are misguided, a debate on why you see it as such, not merely an assertion that they are.

Thanks for being here and engaging in dialog.

Hey, folks, we are wasting our breath on Ford.  Kilgore actually visits his site. Ford has some flack, probably an intern, summarizing this site and writing the first draft of the post.  Ford isn't paying any attention to us at all.

This comment is so bizarre to me. Kurita voted for Republican leadership rather than the Democratic alternative. This is much more than a legislative vote.

You don't have to like Ford or the DLC, but it's absurd to equate voting for a bill supported by the GOP with voting for GOP leadership.

Point of personal privilege: I'd throw in Ken Salazar, who has a post on their website (eight months old) about how his "authenticity" helped him win a red state. He doesn't mention that he lied through his damn teeth to get my money and my vote, promising to hold the Bush administion accountable on Iraq, and as soon as he got in morphing into a rubber-stamp Liebercrat. Of special pride and joy to me at the moment is his role in supporting Alberto Gonzalez (post-torture memo, post-"quaint", post-Abu Grahib) for Attorney General. He still refuses to right that wrong by calling for Gonazales to resign.
Other members of the Lieberman Torture Caucus prominently featured on their website: Carper, the Nelson twins and Landrieu. And, of course, our Special Guest today.

One way for you people to prove your "leadership" would be to start working to undo the damage you helped Bush do, starting with supporting Dodd's efforts to overturn the odious Military Commissions Act, and publicly--and loudly--calling out your boy Lieberman for his refusal to use the position the Democrats gave him to hold the administration accountable for the lack of response to Katrina, both short and long-term.

Mr Ford, since you bear some of the blame for both Lieberman and the MCA, this would be a smart thing for you to take the lead on. To say nothing of it being the right thing to do.

Catalyst,

Excellent points, along with the summary in point 3. If I may, I'd like to extend you point 1 to consider the broader aspects of internationalization, and point 2 to other aspects of telecommunications policy.

With respect to internationalization, we cannot be isolationist, but we also need to avoid the commodification. Some of the issues here include the conditions that make employers, sometimes questionably, seek H1B workers. What is the DLC policy on rebuilding the science and technology worker base with US citizens, who have reasonable job security producing a true national asset? What is the DLC policy on offshoring operations that include protected health and financial information into countries where US privacy laws cannot be enforced? What is the DLC policy on corporate moves of headquarters operations that, in part, remove tax liability (e.g., Halliburton HQ moving to Dubai)? Is there a policy of trusting critical infrastructure developed outside the US?

As to telecommunications policy, there is a legitimate capital requirement for buildout of broadband networks. The Communications Workers of America have suggested that cable television content sales might be the appropriate incentive for investment in broadband plant, although supporting network neutrality also allows for the competitive delivery of television over Internet. What is the DLC overall telecommunications policy, including the source of capital for buildout, broadband availability, and the balances among capitalization, network neutrality, and monopoly ownership?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

or, what sPh said. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

It's not the DLC's "perspectives and ideas" that I have a problem with--I've worked for more centrist Democratic candidates than liberal ones over the years, including one of the charter Congressional "New Democrats." It's the DLC's, and particularly Al From's, consistent and virulent attacks against the Progressive movement, not to mention their support of Joe Lieberman over the Democratic nominee.

They shat in the water and want us to drink. They've been the problem, and we're solving that problem--until it realizes what it's done is wrong, the DLC can sit in time-out.

Well yeah, I didn't really expect them to. I doubt most politicians who post to Dkos write those either. That's what you pay ghost writers for.

Pointing out the Nader connection is pretty ballsy. Written another way "we worked closely with the guy who soon after left the party in complete disgust over its lack of true progressive credentials."

So whatever you contributed to Ralph bolting the roost and giving Bush the presidency, thanks for that.

Perhaps an unfair statement, but jesus you literally put it on a tee and handed me a big burtha.

For the rest of your response, the majority of the policy positions of the DLC are not the problem. No serious writer can accuse the DLC of being actual Republicans, the charge is more that you're quislings. For the last 13 years the GOP has been charging at windmills and failing, but in the process they've moved the debate so far to the right that I barely know this country at times.

Time and time again we saw the DLC plead for reason and comity in the face of a voracious Hobbesian conservative horde. Time and time again we got our asses kicked. Bill Clinton served as a firewall for as long as he could, but once the ringer was gone what the hell did the DLC give us? Rearguard action, retreat, and endless "compromise" that steadily eroded the modern welfare state and, worse yet, our freedoms.

I think the DLC is too enamored with the clearly flawed prospect of post Doha unfettered free trade. But that's not its real problem. It was the last significant power bloc in charge before Bush, it got steam rolled, and alot of people hate it and will distrust it as long as they live because of that. The DLC has become to much of the left what "Liberals" have become to the right.

You brand is broken, honestly you'd do better disbanding and re establishing some fresh new organization in a couple years under a new banner.

You're right one exchange isn't going fix the problem, I don't think any amount will. The DLC is simply associated with cowardice, failure, and timidity.

Not to mention the whole silliness trying to kneecap dean after he was party chair. I'm not a Deaniac by far, but jesus talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Thanks for the measured response though, it takes alot of courage to keep writing, or perhaps ghost writing (heh) in the face of so much rage.

Oh, come on--Lieberman's not a Democrat. Why do foul our day by mentioning his name unnecessarily?

The DLC did a lot to move the conversation to the right.  The more they chased the middle, the more easily the Republicans moved further and further to the right, signaling a completely changed landscape.  Don't let the DLC off the hook.

These triangulaters might have some mild policy preferences for what real Democrats passionately desire, but what they most want is to play footsie with Bankers to get more money for their campaigns.

It is also absurd to equate voting for the GOP leadership with "changing parties."

Harold Ford is either an idiot, or a liar, or both.

If he's a liar, he's not a very good one. Didn't he think anyone would check his BS?

Give it up, Congressman Ford. 

The netroots think they're going to conquer the world and have no interest in finding common ground and building coalitions across ideological and institutional lines. They hate you and the DLC because they think they don't need moderates to win.  They take the results of one election and extrapolate in a straight line the idea that they represent a majority of Americans.  An election, by the way, that was won just as much by moderate and conservative Democrats as it was by netroots-supported ones.

They have no interest in conciliatory gestures from you and you should expect none in return.  They want the DLC dead.  Period.

Your best move is to forget about outreach for the time building and keep doing what you are doing: build support for an approach to politics that combines a realistic view of economics, eschews populist quick fixes and is fundamentally optimistic about America and its place in the world and is in touch with core American values.  For the considerable future, the fact that the DLC and moderate Democrats in general got the Iraq War wrong will obscure everything else you try to talk about.  Only time can heal that wound.  But the Iraq War won't be as salient as it is now forever.  And once the American people move on from that issue, we will still need fiscal discipline, free trade, a smart solution to health care and much else that the DLC stands for.  That's where you should continue to focus.

I removed my negative rating so I could respond to you Brad (I do not both rate negatively and comment).

Your remark (which will never get to the former Congressman) is offensive because you have failed to consider the nature of the comments here.

The DLC is faulted for roughly 4 things:

1. Supporting rightwingers (not moderates) some of whom had lost primaries to actual Democrats.

2. Supporting the illegitmate war in Iraq and its use as an attack on civil liberties.

3. Moving the overall political conversation far to the right of where it was in the 70s, essentially erasing many of the gains of the Great Society, the in between years, and the New Deal, largely at the bidding of their banker backers.

and

4. Triangulating for votes.

So far, nobody in the DLC has so much as acknowledged these complaints.

An olive branch is an offer to sit down and discuss, it isn't a disguised camel nose under the tent to force your opponents to convert to your side.

So far, the DLC says, "let's be friends" so when the hell are they gonna actually address why we have trouble with that idea?

And as an aside, your remark is about as arrogant as Ford's.

You left a HUGE item off your list: losing. I can forgive a lot of the triangulating if it actually helps get Democrats elected. With the exception of '92, it doesn't.

If the DLC were consistently wrong on policy but won seats away from Republicans, there might be a reason to listen to them. What did the DLC win in the last election? Lieberman beat Lamont, a loss for the Democratic Party.

Thank you for appearing, Mr. Ford. I respect that.

I still won't vote for you. :-)

Best, Terry

Excellent point. While the DLC types work to subvert the liberal Democrats and push OUR party to the right, they simultaneously embolden the Republicans and empower them to push their party even FARTHER in that direction. Neat! The center just keeps moving farther and farther to the right, and nobody gets wise until the damage is done. In theory, anyway. Gee, at some point, you'd hardly need a Democratic party at all, would you? We could shift to a one-party system and just force all the liberals to move to France or grind them up and make them into dog food or something...

"Do you consider "progressive" and "liberal" as synonyms, or do you see them as different?"

I see "progressive" as the term liberals settled on after they passively allowed the Republicans to turn the word "liberal" into a pejorative.

They hate you and the DLC because they think they don't need moderates to win.

Again, the "Hate."

Why are the so-called moderates always the ones using the word Hate?

And no one thinks Democrats don't need moderates.

The question is, do Democrats need the DLC?

"Moderate" positions today seem to me to be: timetable out of Iraq, stopping corporate welfare, energy independence, universal healthcare, even keeping some form of abortion legal, and even civil unions are now "moderate" positions.

So what's the DLC for?

I'm not so sure. Times have changed, and what was maybe needed 15 years ago is now something different.

Blogs have given people a voice, bad journalism has been cut down by sites like TPM Muckraker, and hundreds of thousands of people are contributing to Barack Obama's campaign.

Seems to me the trend is moving out to us little people, not centralizing within organizations like the DLC.

To me, that's good for a democracy.  

the fact that the DLC and moderate Democrats in general got the Iraq War wrong will obscure everything else you try to talk about.  Only time can heal that wound.

Actually, that's not true. John Edwards voted for the war, and he's admitted he made a mistake. He still has a considerable following.

What can heal the wound is an acknowledgment of the error. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

=== Instead, he is simply trying to debunk some of the myths about the DLC ===

If you start from the premise that all criticisms of your position amount to "myth", it is fairly easy to "debunk" them. Actually providing thoughtful replies is much more difficult, as is admitting error.

sPh

What scares me about this kind of thing is that I fear it is a preview of what a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be like: George W. Bush's arrogance combined with competent policy advisors. In other words, W without the natural brake that his poor choice of staff created.

sPh

How many leaders do you know that would do this?

Um, let's see. We've had John Edwards, Paul Hackett, Jane Harman, Anthony Romero, Bernie Sanders, Tom Vilsack, Wesley Clark, Sherrod Brown, and Russ Feingold, to name a few.

Over at Daily Kos, the list tops over 50 people, including President Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, but Ford is, like, really, really late to this blogging game.

While I do appreciate his spending time here, let's not pretend he's breaking new ground.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

That's what happens when you have some intern write your copy...

There are"important former government officials" not very junior to Ford who take this place a lot more seriously....

"supports a woman's right to choose"

That's not true of you personally Mr. Ford.

"non-discrimination laws to protect gays and lesbians, among other things"
Also not true of you Mr. ford (Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004))

"a basically pro-trade strategy with a "new social contract" to deal with globalization's downside."
Would that be the bankruptcy bill you supported? How does that bill dead with globalization's downside? It makes it harder for working people to save money and pay their bills.

"But we should all remember that the DLC played an instrumental role in giving Bill Clinton - then an Arkansas governor - a policy platform to campaign on and from in 1991. The fact is, the DLC's support for fiscally responsible and inclusive public policy to protect families, educate kids and strengthen our nation's security is long-standing."
HAHAHA. You have to be kidding me. "Fiscally responsible and inclusive public policy"? Explain to me how NAFTA "protected families".

"And I appreciate the passionate - even if off-based - criticism of the DLC."
In YOUR opinion. And YOUR opinion isn't the only one that matters.

"I would remind the DLC critics who believe that we never criticize the Bush administration and support its major domestic and foreign policies that the DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, has published millions of words admonishing the administration on just about every issue."

Yes, millions of words, and one crucial vote: that would be the vote to go to war in Iraq, and ALL "NEW DEMOCRATS" except for Stabenow and Conrad: which matters more, mr. ford, words or action?

Everyone should be reading booman tribune's post, linked above, on the DLC and just who is backing the DLC:
"For $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right..."

No one is fooled sir.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me.... fool me.... can't get fooled again.

Damn, I thought it was unitarianism...

Apparently, you didn't read my entire post.  The REASON, as I said, we are wasting our breath is HE ISN'T LISTENING.  Until we get his attention, we are just talking to ourselves.

How do we get his attention, then, without trying to talk with him?

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

It's germane to the discussion, because for six years before the 2000 presidential campaign Joe Lieberman was the guy who held the same job at the DLC that Harold Ford holds right now.

"WE are the new underground, and WE are here to stay."

I think you're underestimating a bit. I think the DLC is as well. Sites like TPM are the New Fourth Estate. The MSM is quickly making itself irrelevant through cowardice, corruption and sloth. On this board and others like it, Mr. Ford and his friends face a powerful new force in world politics. It's called the truth. And it's called "we get to decide what's newsworthy". Good luck, Mr. Ford. You're gonna need it.

If that's the case, then the DLC is definitely funded by the RNC.

whit said:
He could have avoided this result so easily, by saying for instance, "Yes we should restore the Constitution as an urgent priority," or "Yes we should get children out of poverty even if their parents don't work."

Or "no, we shouldn't have DLC members publicly smearing anti-war Dems as extreme or fringe." Or "no, we shouldn't have DLC members running to the press to undercut Dem politicians' efforts to implement a withdrawal timetable." You'll notice that Mr. Ford only commented on opposing the surge- he made no mention about support for getting out.

We could go on and on, but I would like to see some evidence of behavioral change from the DLC before I start thinking about working with them. As I've said before, the Netroots do not need the DLC's help, and so the burden is on the DLC to demonstrate value to the Netroots.

Underestimate? How so? Last November was nothing less than a revolution. And by "we" I mean the royal "we" I guess. So I'm not clear what you mean.

"Sites like TPM are the New Fourth Estate." I agree, but the movement includes US who participate as commmenters (even the trolls). But most of all now we are INFORMED VOTERS. It does not occur in a vacuum. THAT is the beauty of it that makes it unique.

I've been reading TPM for years, but up and until people from the 60's civil rights movement started waving and their hands saying "lookiee this shit" I really didn't think we were seeing anything special. Now, and excuse me for my exhuberance, I'm going a hundred miles an hour trying to catch up reading case law. And I'm not even a lawyer!

"Underestimate? How so?"

You referred to it as the new "underground". I believe it's gone way past that. We're funding political candidates. We're driving the public discourse. Sites like TPM are influencing national politics (see Attorneygate). It's hardly underground anymore.

You are correct, I couldn't think of a better term off the top of my head.

But I think it goes to the point that even the largest of movements started out as an "underground". Also keep in mind that PC's are not yet ubiquitous, not all households have them. I'm not sure what the percentage is but it's far from the saturation the PC industry was hoping for 10 years ago.

How can he not be talking about our military forces being used in the fight against jihadists? He's mourning the "botching" of the fight against jihadists because our military is tied down in Iraq, for crying out loud! If he doesn't think the military is part of fighting jihadists, then why would he mention the limitations of our military as part of the "botching" of the fight?

For the love of God. Stop nitpicking. Stop the word games. I know that's hard for many DLC apologists, but please. We don't get anywhere by endlessly pontificating on whether Mr. Ford believes the military is part of the fight against terrorism. According to his own statement, he clearly does.

So let's go back to the original and more important question upthread: is fighting terrorism a military solution, as Mr. Ford (and presumably the DLC) believes?

Ford said some of the criticisms were off-base -- then he proceeded to mention one, which was that he was in lock step with Bush. He pointed out that the DLC has opposed Bush publicly and loudly for 6 years now, so that accusation was -- off base. Ford did get specific, but he wasn't going to post a rebuttal to all the attacks.

Over on one of the milblogs[1], JD Henderson made this reply to a similar point which I thought neatly encapsulated the difference in worldview between "defeating terrorism" and "fighting a War on Terrorism":

===
It is not a "war" because [Commenter X] says it is, any more than we are at "war" with drugs or with poverty. [...]
.
A war is what takes place between sovereign states, or internally when different groups fight for who is the rightful sovereign of a nation, or when a group of people want independence and their own sovereignty. Thus a war is between two nations, or inside a nation during a civil war. War is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The IRA in Northern Ireland during the "Troubles?" Not a war. The Red Brigades or the Baider-Meinhof Gang? Not a war. Charles Manson and the Manson family? Not a war. Puerto Rican Independence Movement terrorist bombings in the 1970s? Not a war. The invasion of Iraq? War.
.
Al Queda fits none of the examples of a war because Al Queda is a terrorist group using terrorist methods to make political statements. It is not in open armed conflict, it is a terrorist group hiding out and attacking with bombs and with sabotage. It is just like the anarchists of the 19th century, or the marxist terrorists of the late 20th century. We can and should use military assets where appropriate, including bombs, infantry, and every other military weapon or asset that can contribute to capturing or killing the terrorists and ending their ability to conduct terrorist attacks, but fighting terrorism should not be limited to the military like wars are, instead the focus should be on intelligence and law enforcement and politics, with military assets used only for direct action. Calling our fight with terrorism a "war" helps the terrorists and hurts our fight against them by limiting our thinking as well as giving the terrorist recognition that they do not deserve. Calling it a war implies that a bunch of evil men like Al Queda can wage war on the US. They can not, all they can do is conduct terrorist attacks, and there is a huge difference there. Calling it a "war" gave Osama and his cronies legitimacy and recognition beyond their wildest dreams. It helped them, it didn't hurt them.
.
And note that because I don't wish to call the effort to eliminate Al Queda as a threat a "war" leads [Commenter X] to say that I want to "wish" "Al Queda away, or that "we don't need to use military force to fight terrorist networks." I said nothing of the sort, of course, nor do the Democrats in Congress who wisely are ending this foolish "Global War on Terror" nonsense.
.
[Commenter X] wants a war. I want to eliminate the terrorist threat by using all of our assets, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, economic, intelligence, and every other asset we can bring to bear on the terrorists who wish to harm us. But it isn't a war. Fighting the Empire of Japan was a war. 19 guys with boxcutters? There is a huge difference, and if we have leaders who can't see the best way to defeat and destroy the terrorist threat, we need new leaders - even if they talk tough, swagger about, and order the military to do things better done by other methods.
.
I say again, Commenter [X] wants a war. I want to eliminate Al Queda. There is a huge difference there, and they are mutually exclusive. You either want a war with the terrorists, or you want to defeat the terrorists. You can't have both.

[...]
===

[1] Sorry no link; links from here to milblogs tend to produce an unfortunate effect.

"So let's go back to the original and more important question upthread: is fighting terrorism a military solution, as Mr. Ford (and presumably the DLC) believes?"

If the solution to terrorism IS military as many believe, then all I can say is that it's too bad we didn't invade Iraq sooner. Perhaps the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City would still be standing today.

As far as taking even partial credit for Clinton's win - let's get something straight here: If the 2000 John McCain had run against WJC, WJC would have won. He didn't need the DLC. He didn't need Carville or Begala or even HRC. That's how talented a pol WJC is. And you, Mr.Ford don't have the charisma and smarts in your whole body that WJC has in his little finger. And,oh, BTW this is coming from a decidedly anti-Clinton person. I may not particularly like some of WJC's policies and I definitely didn't like Ronald Reagan's policies but I can spot extraordinary political talent when I see it.

On April 5, 2007 - 4:38pm Eric Stepp said: How do we get his attention, then, without trying to talk with him?

Don’t talk to him, don’t buy his product , he has to convince you to vote for his selection, withdraw support for DLC Candidate. Support Obama or Edwards?

On April 5, 2007 - 3:46pm hrebendorf said: In theory, anyway. Gee, at some point, you'd hardly need a Democratic party at all, would you? We could shift to a one-party system and just force all the liberals to move to France or grind them up and make them into dog food or something...

The something is called Cannon Fodder. Slaves?

I've always liked this movie because of it's moxie. This is what I'd like to see from the Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_President_%28film%29

 Sydney Ellen Wade (Bening), who has just moved to Washington, D.C. to work for an environmental lobby in the attempt to persuade the President to pass legislation committing his Administration to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions President Andrew Shepherd (Douglas) Democrat Shepherd strikes a deal with Wade: if she can secure a certain number of votes for the environmental bill, he will deliver the rest.  He believes Wade will not be able to get enough votes to meet her obligation, thus releasing Shepherd who will be seen to have tried, without being blamed for failing. Eventually Wade does manage to get enough votes to meet her part of the deal. Before she can tell Shepherd, he discovers that three Congressman from Michigan are willing to deliver their votes if he shelves the environmental bill. As he is exactly three votes short, with no other apparent options to acquire them, he agrees, betraying Wade, who breaks up with him.

The famous Quote  I particularly think applies to the DLC  "

Mr. President, you've got bigger problems than losing me. You just lost my vote."

TO THE DLC , You may think you can ignore us, but you just lost my vote. My one vote just trumped your pocket book.

The movie ends with Shepherd entering the House to rapturous applause, heavy with the implication that his new, ideologically motivated firm stance will lift him to new heights of popularity.

To the DLC, were tired of the rhetoric, the betrayals,  you no longer fire up the base, and you've lost our confidence

You seem to be missing the point that Bill Clinton was the DLC. He was a founding member as well as chairman.

The "extraordinary political talent" you profess to admire helped build the DLC. Of course he needed the DLC, it was the political machine he created for people like himself and Al Gore.

It's hard to move on from Iraq on a day when they're calling up more National Guard units for year long deployments. This leftie populist has one heck of a problem with Midwest guard units being sent away for years on end for optional wars and it's not just this war that's at issue, it's whether the neo-con foreign policy will prevail and begin even more wars. The DLC is far, far too hawkish for me to find any common ground with it at all.

War is a huge issue and war is a huge expense. War will make other initiatives impossible. Why do you think the DLC always downplays health care while it plays up war?

These are core priority differences.

You are describing the Republican Party.

Give us a break Brook. The "haters" pointed out the truth about Ford. Obviously you have a problem with that yourself or you wouldn't be so defensive.

party could use a lot more inciteful leaders like him.

Inciteful?? Oh yes, I'd call Ford inciteful, as in inciting scorn. Insightful? Not so much.

Thank you for posting here, you need to hear how people feel about the DLC. You probably only hear what people in your circle tell you. This is about winning in my mind. Your organization doesn't have the ability to bring us victories. If we lose, everything else is academic.

Dems had a long period of 1992-2002 when things got worse and worse when your people ran the show. Rather than adjusting strategy, your people hoarded power and crushed anyone with alternative strategies. Your organization was indifferent and unresponsive to Party needs and many local parties whithered and died as a result. Since you refused to listen, the only alternative was to go to war with the DLC. That war has been very successful and is still an ongoing project. You have been purged from much of the Party aparatus.

The DLC acts negatively towards progressives, which I don't like, since I am a progressive. Your people have cooperated with Republican messaging to hurt progressives, I am specifically thinking of the rhetoric Joe Lieberman uses. You are not our friend. Your organization has made it clear that we are the enemy, some such as Lieberman even going so far as to label us traitors to the USA. I can overlook that if you provide a winning strategy. I can overlook that if you were effective at addressing national issues from our point of view, but you have never even tried to deliver for us and to this point have seemed uninterested in cooperation.

Needless to say there is a lot of bad blood at this point. I hope you are interested in changing that. I am not against Blue Dogs or conservatives, I have given several conservatives money and support. To me, this isn't about political alignment, it is about methods. I don't like your methods. I don't like how you roll. I don't think you bring anything to the table. I think you hurt our electoral prospects with your strategies.

I would add 5) Demonizing the base of the party you seemingly belong to (I say they're Republican moles) in an attempt to score political points. But not scoring, after all, and only making the party look weaker.

I resent the hell out of being called Anti-American for not supporting the Iraq war, for questioning it, from the get go. I resent it a whole hell of a lot because I did something most of these DLC flacks did not: I served my damned country, and I'm damned proudto have done so. To paraphrase another beleaguered veteran, I don't need the likes of Al From or Joe Lieberliar giving me lessons in patriotism. I won't start accepting them from Harold Ford, Jr., either.

I'd love a link to a citation on this one, if someone has one.

Confiscate... Oh, you mean like shift the taxes back to the base we had before 1980, rather than so much on the middle class like today?

Regulate... Oh, you mean not put a questionable academic who has no congressional support in charge of regulations through recess appointment...

Pacifism... Oh, you mean not starting one adventurous war after another in the hopes of .... we still don't really know what it is in the hopes of... 

On April 5, 2007 - 6:50pm BradtheDad said: The confiscatory impulse The regulatory impulse

Hey! Rip Van Winkle, remember the

The Resolution Trust Corporation, it was a US government-owned asset management company mandated to liquidate assets (primarily real estate-related assets, including mortgage loans) that had been assets of savings and loan associations ("S&Ls") declared insolvent by the Office of Thrift Supervision. It also took over the insurance functions of the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board. It was created by the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), adopted in 1989. In 1995, its duties were transferred to the Savings Association Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

According to Joseph E. Stiglitz in his book, Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics, page 243, the real reason behind the need of this company was to allow the United States government to subsidize the banking sector in a way that wasn't very transparent and therefore avoid the possible resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation

To much regulation? To much confiscation?

It's just at Jesse Jackson basically said, the rich had a party, and the poor paid the bill." A perfect example of wealth distribution.

The DLC got the WH and never got it back after Clinton.

What happened to that Democratic Congress he had going into office? Poof! Gone! Until Democrats started acting like...DEMOCRATS again, rather than the focus-group testing, poll-obsessed, triangulating DLC.

Add Rahm Emmanuel to the list, at least as far as treating us like we're little soldiers to follow his commands.

Which, come to think of it, is what we're seeing from Mr. Ford, too. It must be in the water over at the DLC.

It's still not changing parties. Is or is not Kurita a Democrat? Has Kurita officially changed parties, a la Phil Gramm or Ben Campbell?

If it were about crossing an aisle to vote, Joe Lieberman stopped being a Democrat, before he became a party of one.

Apologies to anyone who actually tried to make a substantive point anywhere in this discussion, but to most of you: it's a f---ing blog! RELAX!

A neutral observer reading the above would probably assume that Harold Ford was more evil than Dick Cheney, Hitler, Mephistopheles, and the aliens from "Independence Day" put together. This is beyond ridiculous. Like it or not, the DLC, Mr. Ford, and Dem politicians with more conservative values than yours are here to stay. If your notion of "being the party of ideas" is dismissing or attacking anyone who disagrees with you, you'll probably find your discussions of politics limited to you and 3 friends, in a bar in Ann Arbor while you watch Republicans win elections on the TV.

Mephistopheles -- Depends on which movie does the best job portraying him..

Hitler -- Probably not.

Dick Cheney -- Maybe.

The center of the party is an important issue.  The blogs are the locus of the voice of the progressives at the moment.  They are relocating the center of the party.  When people like Ford come around to fight that, they must be stopped. 

It seems to me that any group that includes elected Democrats and a substantial number of party activists and that represents itself as a Democratic group is one, whether we like it or not.

I don't mind talking with 'em.  But on leadership, we are weak.  None of the front page posters of the Cafe are people I would necessarily select as the leading voices of this site, although there are some who I visit much more than others.

I don't go to the Daily Kos or MYDD because I found those sites less compatible with my interests than this one.  If Kos thinks he is the leader of the progressive blogosphere, he is herding cats...

So when it comes time to sit down face-to-face to negotiate a power sharing arrangement with these quasi-republicans, who is to sit on our side of the table?  Until we have a better answer than any I know, I would prefer to keep the discussion alive but not necessarily too friendly. 

I was looking forward to this discussion for a number of reasons but I’m having a real problem getting a handle on the whole exchange, kind of like trying to catch the proverbial “greased pig.” So much so in fact that I took a moment to look up “greased pig” on Google and came across a site offering advice on how to successfully catch one.

(http://www.wikihow.com/Catch-a-Greased-Pig).

The first rule they offered was:

“Chase the pig as if you were chasing something just to its right (left if you're left footed). This causes it to turn left (right) instinctively, but more importantly, slows it down a little.”

Hmm. Food for thought. But even better was their thoughtful warning about the whole idea of playing with greased pigs:

• Chasing a greased pig is a cruel sport for the animal. Make sure you're aware of the ethics of such an event before participating. However, also bear in mind the event probably has a significant cultural or traditional origin, so be careful about admonishing people about it.

So all due respect to the art of political debate. However I think that the purpose of this exchange, whatever that might be, was probably damaged without good effect. We ought to consider how we might better address that purpose. Mr. Ford made himself available to a discussion for which I was very grateful. But before he could even begin, that “greased pig” flew through the room and everybody started chasing it. All I can say is thank you to Mr. Ford. I’m not sure what this was all about but it wasn’t what I was hoping for.

I'm confused by your comment. Mr. Ford writes to us about finding common ground, and to sell this thing to us, you bring the grease?

But seriously, I look forward to Mr. Fords promise "I pledge my good-faith efforts to show respect for the views of those who sincerely disagree with the DLC's approach, and ask the same in return." Good faith effort? Does that mean...what does that mean?

To return, and mend or repair the mistrust of people, who want to win. People who want candidates that aren't wimps. Those who'll fight back early against Swift boaters, Find someone with charisma. One who appeals.

I'm not proposing a hierarchy, either.  I'm just saying that negotiating is a carefully honed skill.  The proffer from these guys is the sticker price on a well manicured used car.

Well I did say that I myself found it an unsatisfactory explanation but I couldn't think of a better way of expressing it at the time.

But that aside, I think that you can look at where the energy of the netroots are and you can see a lot of evidence that what I'm saying is correct.  Of course it's a strawman and there are lots of exceptions and complexities abound etc.  I know that.  But nonetheless, I get worried when I hear people like Nathan Newman diss corporate America in the most retrograde capitalists-are-all-evil way.  I get worried when I hear people like M.J. Rosenberg spout utter nonsense day after day on the Middle East.  I get worried when people dismiss the threats that Islamic radicalism still poses to Western values.  I get worried when people talk as if our whole fiscal imbalance can be solved by jacking up taxes for the rich.  And so on.

It isn't that these positions are always wrong.  It's that the style of someone who rants about corporate America is, I believe, going to turn off more people than it turns on.  The style of someone who places most of their hopes for world peace in the UN is likely to be well out of the mainstream of American thought.  Thus as a matter of politics, I'm attracted to those who want to advance progressive goals but maintain a mainstream style.

"Progressive" denotes a very specific ideological orientation & world-view. It assumes that human civilization is evolving, that we can shape our own destiny, and that our best days lie ahead of us.

Progressivism relies primarily upon empiricism, inquiry, and reason to determine the most effective and just governance.

Progressives cite human developments like democratic self-rule, religious pluralism, medical cures for diseases, the abolition of slavery, child labor laws, and civil & human rights as examples of progress humankind has sought, achieved and should continue to pursue.

Orthodox Conservatism, by contrast, assumes that human civilization has regressed since a previous idealized era (e.g the 1950's, Garden of Eden, pre-New Deal capitalism, etc.), that our best days are behind us, and that we must loyally follow "God's" instructions on how to conduct human affairs.

Conservatism relies primarily upon cultural & religious tradition and revealed truth to determine the most effective and just governance --even when there is no basis in logic or facts to do so (e.g. -- women must be subservient to men, races shouldn't inter-marry, attending church makes a person behave more ethically, the death penalty deters crime, etc.).

Conservatives seek to return or "restore" human society to a previous idealized social order, and
conservatives tend to distrust human developments like medical cures, religious pluralism, civil rights, and social equality as a threat to their traditional world-view.

Where is the difference between dissing corporations in general, and speaking in terms of specific policies toward corporations? Some of my concerns about corporations are based on the assumption that while there is a legal model of their being "artificial people", they have the responsibilities, as well as the rights, of at least a real person.

For example, there can be felony penalties for disclosing personal health information (HIPAA) or a wide range of protections of personal financial data. If a corporation offshores its handling of these data, the data are now in a country where US privacy laws are unenforceable. This strikes me as negligence.

I believe that a core of scientific and engineering professionals is a true national security asset for the United States. H1B visa programs cut into that core. I see that cutting not simply because there are no people of the required skill in the desired area, but sometimes because a corporation moves to an area of shortage, and finds importing guest workers is cheaper than relocating US citizens with that skill, who, perhaps, have also established a higher pay level.

All offshoring of R&D is not necessarily bad. I've worked in multinational companies' research labs, and valued the somewhat different insights we would get from people in other continents and cultures. Nevertheless, I find it a problem, for national security, when most or all R&D is offshored.

There is a major problem in tax policy and financial accounting and the stock markets, as long as corporations are valued principally by short-term stock price, and executive compensation is often tied to short-term stock price. This discourages reinvestments, and encourages cost-cutting rather than value-building. I would note that several of the larger and wiser pension funds, such as CALPERS, expect long-term value building. When they buy a substantial amount of stock in a firm, and get board seat(s), they often bring in advisers on how to strengthen the company, not sell off its assets.

Are items like this dissing corporations or legitimate points of discussion? I admit to a more emotional response to Halliburton proposing to move its headquarters to Dubai.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"If you would be a Prince, you cannot be moral. If you would be moral, you cannot be a Prince." [Niccolo Machiavelli]

We haven't seen any evidence of a sincere desire to make peace yet. Remember, the DLC called for purging the anti-war left from the party. Don't ever forget that when you carry water for the DLC.

They have consistently striven to rid the Democratic party of its progressive elements - those who want national health insurance, who don't support voluntary wars and imperialism, who aren't supportive of most-favored-nation status for slave labor manufacturing countries. We are too radical for the DLC. Their agenda is small in spirit and scope and is more sloganeering than a belief system.

Now that the shallowness of their support has been exposed and all they have left is their media connections and money -- they sue for peace with the people they have been trying to drive out of the party for years. But do they apologize even once? No. Instead, they say, you're misguided, off-base and so on, but we wanna hold your hand.

Without any acknowledgement of their error in calling for the purge of the anti-war left what I think of the DLC cannot be printed here.

And here come the troll ratings.

you still won't get your acknowledgements.

"steevie" wrote (twice) and failed to complete the thought, such as it is:

Tell the netroots what. The second they acknowledge any of the complaints about them,...

Finish the sentence.

Otherwise, admit that you are being deliberately dishonest.

--

"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

It's not foolish at all to expect someone who has erred to start by admitting error before reconciliation can begin. That's why 12-step programs all start with admitting error as step one.

You can't solve a problem before you admit that you have one.

--

"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

I would say this is half right.  There is no doubt that politics and opinions about issues can be significantly influenced by activists that advocate for things that at the time seem unpopular.  However, it is also true that correlation does not imply causality.

Here's what I mean: Do you think the Iraq War is unpopular in this country today because antiwar activists have won the battle of ideas and people have come around to seeing the war as an illegal occupation of a foreign country driven by imperialist ambition and the desires of Big Oil?  Or is it unpopular because it isn't going well?  Put it another way.  Do you think if the Iraq War had gone well, the left would be feeling quite so politically optimistic?

Similarly, do you think that universal healthcare is getting more acceptable among a greater proportion of the people (although it's still a minority position) because people are coming around to the argument that it is a moral blight on this country that so many are uninsured and that we all have a collective responsibilty for our fellow citizens?  Or are people taking a second look because costs have skyrocketed and more and more people are coming face to face with the limitations of the current system?

My point is that it is events that usually drive shifts in opinion.  And in the two examples I described, it has been primarily events, not activism, that has shifted opinion.  Sure activists matter.  Communications and education are essential to moving people.  But in those particular cases, the left's position has evolved into one that is more popular.  In other words, it got lucky.

I would argue the same issues were at work in the conservative ascendancy in the late 1970's.  Ronald Reagan was a very effective spokesman for conservatism, but conservatism would never have got anywhere were it not for factors beyond his control, like the Iran hostage crisis and double-digit inflation. 

So while staking out unpopular positions looks great if events conspire to move people in your direction, it isn't a reasonable basis for your whole strategy. If events don't conspire to move opinion in your direction, then you're just tilting at windmills.

What's needed is a way of expressing ambitious progressive goals but doing it in a way that doesn't scare people off.  Americans aren't radical by nature.  They won't accept radicalism in politicians.  So in the short term, Democrats need to be BOTH pragmatic and grounded AND ambitious.  That's what I see in the DLC's approach, unlike the left's.  It isn't that moderates lack courage.  It's that courage by itself isn't enough to win.

this isn't the point, but since you asked.

lamont.

the end result of the lamont movement was to empower lieberman.

chances are, though, that's not the fault of the netroots making any miscalculations or anything.

but really. this isn't the point.

if ford came here said "boy you guys really blew it on lamont, didn't you?" i'd say he's being just as big of a dick and just stupid as the person i responded to above.

you're only proving my main point anyway. Look at the metaphor you just used above. the substance abuser has no credibility until he admits he has a disease. isn't that right?

ok. fine. ford's wasting his time until he can admit he has a problem.

those aren't my words, man. that's how YOU described the situation.

if you think i'm mischaracterizing your words, please tell me how.

ford is wasting his time here, isn't he?

I don't think anyone's looking for a mea culpa here, and the reasons for netroots hostility towards the DLC have been listed enough times that I don't need to recap it. Speaking only for myself, here's the biggest issue I have with the two posts by Ford.

Mr. Ford fails to acknowledge that opposing viewpoints may be valid. I think this is what you're mistaking for a desire for self-flagellation. People want their own views to be addressed substantively and not as if the disagreement comes from a lack of understanding. I fully understand the DLC's proposals for healthcare, I just fundamentally disagree with them. They want to model it on auto insurance, but how many poor people can afford low-deductible collision insurance for their cars? Those are the people that are going to have catastrophic-only health insurance, or exactly the state-mandated minimum insurance. They'll still lack regular check-ups and preventive care, and many of the current problems will remain.

If Ford or someone representing the DLC could step in here and explain how the invisible hand is going to keep low-income people from buying the cheapest health insurance they can possibly afford while maintaining adequate coverage and keeping it at an affordable price, I'd love to hear it.

This leads me to the other problem I have with the posts: he says he wants conversation, but he's unwilling to sick around and engage in it. Does it get ugly sometimes? Sure, but this is probably one of the most tame places around for political discourse and it's certainly a lot more tame than anything he had to put up with in his Senate run.

I've been responding to two people here who, they can correct me if I'm wrong, one asked for acknowledgement, the other said you have to admit you have a problem and referred to a 12 step program.

those sound like people asking for mea culpas to me.

You're overestimating the sway of the Republican party in Connecticut, and the proclivity of Independents to follow them.

In a world where the DLC backs it's party, rather than its Bush-leaning long term member, the Dems pick up the seat because Schlesinger couldn't get out of the box and Lieberman's colleagues convince him to not run as an independent.

Furthermore, had the DLC stood up and actually backed Lamont, even if Lieberman had run, I'm sure a lot of independents would have thought twice about their vote for Lieberman.

The fact that they turned their back on their party's members is the issue, not the Republicans, who got handed a gift and didn't need to worry about splitting their vote between Schlesinger and Lieberman, because the DLC lent Lieberman credibility.

I hardly chalk that up as a win for the DLC as your original post indicated.

Unless you are a Catholic or a psychopath like George Bush, there is a huge difference between admitting that you have erred and a "mea culpa".

The former is a recognition of the human condition, the latter is an admission of guilt.

--

"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

Howard where have you been? Good to have you comments.

It's been a long time since I've read "The Peter Principle" a very good book, 

I'd recommend everyone should read his quips, very insightful. many apply to this post about the DLC

 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/laurence_j_peter.html

Nobody can be perfect unless he admits his faults, but if he has faults how can he be perfect? Laurence J. Peter

The man who says he is willing to meet you halfway is usually a poor judge of distance. Laurence J. Peter

There are two kinds of egotists: Those who admit it, and the rest of us. Laurence J. Peter

Thanks again Howard.

There were many criticisms of the war before it began, but you could boil most of them down to the fact that the war was a boondoggle from the start.

Brad,

You are deceiving yourself when you say you are a moderate.

As to the reason many people, myself included, opposed the war from the start...

We absolutely did not believe the "evidence" produced by the Bush administration.  Also, it seemed pretty ridiculous that the Bush administration announced two months in advance that it would start the war on a designated day in March, while it was supposedly still trying to negotiate over the issues that supposedly led to the war.  The Bush rejection of Hans Blix, who history has proved to be RIGHT, seemed to be a calculated provocation on the BUSH administration's part.  In other words, from the start, it was OBVIOUS that the BUSH administration WANTED this war and there was no explanation for it.

I cannot imagine how it was not obvious to EVERYONE, but bloodlust is a strong motive.  Rove manipulated it well.  I wish I believed in Hell, 'cause I would expect the Devil to be building a new lower hotter place for Rove. 

It does seem so, doesn't it, but wouldn't it be:

Repulsive Odious Vulgar Egotist?

So talk to me about the DLC's position on Social Security.

sPh

Last I looked, the netroots weren't in charge of anything, nor were they looking for votes from the DLC. The netroots isn't even a single cohesive movement, unlike the DLC, which has an official policy arm.

The DLC is an organization of politicians. The netroots is a term used to refer to a very loose assemblage of voters. What do voters have to apologize for? They're the ones who make decisions about which politicians to vote for, not the other way around.

No wonder your reasoning is so confused; you've lost track of who needs who.

Responding to terry hallinano's comment at April 7, 2007 - 12:43am

I cannot help but remember Joseph Welch, speaking in 1954 but relevant today:

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Was one of Powell's goals to mislead the country into an unnecessary war which violated what he had learned in Vietnam? If it was, he succeeded. I think his 2/2003 UN speech is one of the worst things a trusted American has ever done.

Tom

...and the Devil even does a dance to a rap for the Washington Press audience. Does anyone have a barf bag?

Tom

To be charitable, I'll say you must just not have been paying attention, you and the MSM for that matter. Many voices did speak out against the war before it started for strategic reasons. Buchanan, Hagel, Feingold, Wellstone - there's a nice range of right to left for you. Some of us read the foreign press which was not lost in jingoistic fear mongering. Some of us even paid attention to the French, Russians, Germans, the UN inspectors ....

I would agree that the average American does not share my obsession with foreign affairs but that is an even stronger reason for a political party to lead on these issues and not follow a public opinion which is always going to lag the information to make informed opinions.

- "liberal" is a good term, but has been compromised not just by pejorative use but by economic "neo-liberalism" (i.e. unlimited globalism), and by the failure of liberals, even in control, to allow gays in the military, or to legalize soft drugs, or maintain the legal grounding of unions [etc., etc.]

If a liberal votes and governs like a conservative, is he not a conservative?

If a Democrat acts like a Republican, is he really a Democrat or a Republican Lite?

If Representative Obey thinks those who are willing to put themselves on the line whatever the cost to end the Iraq War are idiot liberals, what is Rep. Obey?

Best, Terry (Idiot Liberal)

Curious about Terry Hallinano's post of April 7, 2007 - 2:48pm, I must ask,

And what do you call Jeremy Bentham? For that matter, what about European Social Democrats?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." [Winston Churchill]

Rep. Ford,

Is it not an outrage that the White house violated in deed and spirit the Presidential Records Act at nearly every appointed position it could muster in the last election cycle?

Appointed White House aides, in direct violation of the Hatch Act, used their positions to politically influence a race on taxpayer money. To avoid oversight they used inter-department communication via email on an RNC base whose servers were headquartered in Corker Country of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

*Call Me!*

Removing comments.

Worthy of being named CCCP chair.

You pretty much missed my point, which is surprising considering I said it multiple times in my post. I'll say it again: people who look to the crowd to help decide a position on an issue cannot and should not be allowed to lead on that issue. That seems like common sense to me, because followers should never be leaders, but it seems lost on you.

BradtheDad said:

My point is that it is events that usually drive shifts in opinion. And in the two examples I described, it has been primarily events, not activism, that has shifted opinion. Sure activists matter. Communications and education are essential to moving people. But in those particular cases, the left's position has evolved into one that is more popular. In other words, it got lucky.

You're being too simplistic here, and a little insulting. Events and time shift opinions to the more correct and sensible position on an issue, period. As time goes by, the crowd sees what is going right or wrong with a certain government action, and they adjust accordingly. Can it be any other way?

That doesn't mean, however, that the more correct/sensible position couldn't have been discerned years before the crowd eventually discerned it, and more credit, respect, deference, and votes will (and should) be given to the people who were able to do that. That's because being able to see the flaws or strengths in a position before anything good/bad happens is perceived as a characteristic of leadership. But that is something that you and the DLC lack, because before you even consider a position, you consult the crowd.

In that sense, the anti-war crowd didn't get "lucky," and that's really insulting. The anti-war crowd was right. Imagining an alternate political climate where the anti-war crowd was wrong would have made them, well, wrong. And respect, credibility, deference, and (as we saw in the midterms) votes were given to those who were right. Events and time have shifted opinion on the Iraq War to the more correct and sensible position, not to the "luckier" crowd's position. How absurd.

Bradthedad said:

So while staking out unpopular positions looks great if events conspire to move people in your direction, it isn't a reasonable basis for your whole strategy. If events don't conspire to move opinion in your direction, then you're just tilting at windmills.

I'm not saying we should embrace contrarian positions for the sake of looking "principled," I'm saying we should state how we want the world to look tomorrow, and advocate today for the necessary changes to get us there. But by doing that, we must ignore the polling and the crowd for today, in the belief that the crowd will eventually see what we see, and come to us (because we're the ones who saw it long before they did).

But again we see how little conviction you and other moderates have in your own beliefs. If you think it's just a matter of "luck" that you might end up being "right" about an issue, then that obviously means you haven't put any rational analysis into the issue to begin with- you probably just went with the crowd. That might explain why you have such little faith in your own beliefs, because the crowd has a spotty record on being right on an issue before events and time prove it out.

No wonder the Democratic Party has been lost for so many years- with the tail-chasing moderates and the DLC in charge, they can't explicitly state core values and have no idea how they want to change the world (both of which obviously transcend moment-in-time polling).

Essentially, we're talking about the difference between strategy, tactics, and principles. The crowd's attitude and position will dictate the tactics for today, but it does not and should not dictate the strategy for implementing principled change tomorrow. Developing a longterm strategy for the Progressive movement and Progressive change requires leadership and core principles, and the DLC, moderates like Brad, and all the rest of followers out there have none to give.

In response to Brad the Dad at
You make some points with which I agree, not necessarily with respect to warfare but to the overall problem of contempt for the Constitution by certain officials.

What's needed is a way of expressing ambitious progressive goals but doing it in a way that doesn't scare people off. Americans aren't radical by nature. They won't accept radicalism in politicians. So in the short term, Democrats need to be BOTH pragmatic and grounded AND ambitious. That's what I see in the DLC's approach, unlike the left's. It isn't that moderates lack courage. It's that courage by itself isn't enough to win.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

It depends, I suppose, if you define the desirable role of political movements as leading the unenlightened moderates in directions they would not go. This comes back to some recent threads on organizing: do the organizers provide the ideas, or the techniques.

A role of moderation, usurped by the radicals of either wing, is to know when to say No. It took a centrist coalition to convince Richard Nixon that the end was nigh.

Go ahead. Corner me. Sometimes, the cornered ones get, as Elmer Fudd might observe, vewwwy vewwy quiet before they strike. It was a moderate, I think, who mused

Ah ah, I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"With reasonable men I shall reason, with humane men I shall plead, but to tyrants I shall give no quarter" [William Lloyd Garrison]

"Unenlightened moderates" seems like such an arrogant term.

I'd rather describe them as visually-oriented moderates- those who need to see the effects of a given policy before they embrace or reject it.

For better or worse, I want the strategic vision of the future society to be imagined, pursued, and changed by people who are passionate about that change, and reject the status quo.

Moderates, almost by definition, are not passionate about change, and can only provide a, well, moderating influence on that change.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Goldwater. In your heart, you know it's ginger ale" [A 1964 vanity beverage, superior in all respects to Billy Beer].

For that matter, Billy Carter's Secret Service call sign, or so he believed, was Linc, as in Lincoln. My Secret Service friends say it was Link, as in "missing". Other than Milton Eisenhower, is there a basic problem with Presidential siblings? :-)

I don't remember chanting having a great deal to do with opposition to the invasion of Iraq, which, I must note, is not a "war". In any rational strategic definition, it is a campaign, within a theater, under the National Security Policy of the United States. Clausewitz indeed defined "war" as the extension of national politics by military means, but no serious analyst considers military means the only way to implement a national grand strategy. Grand strategy includes military means, but also diplomacy, law enforcement, economic measures, multinational coalitions, covert action, and information operations -- as a start.

What's that, someone in the Vast Listening Audience may ask? These are definitions only among professional strategists? I say, sir, that if the Administration paid no attention to the dire warning of recognized strategists, and of professional military such as the Army Chief of Staff, something is very wrong with its decisionmaking. If the decisionmakers ignored the history of colonialism and democratization in Arab societies, the organization of the successful WWII occupations (against much less fractious conquered nations), the capabilities and especially the delivery systems of WMD, the political motivations of Saddam and his likely relationship to religious fundamentalists, and the findings of the UN inspectors, those decisionmakers are incompetent and dangerous.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. [Winston Churchill]