Tweet
"Washington", by Justine Smith
I wanted to follow up on something I touched on in a previous post, about the DLC advising Democrats to sell out and act like Republicans. The question I keep coming back to is why? Why does the Democratic Party leadership listen to these fools? Surely they can't still believe that Centrism = Victory? And even if they did believe that appealing to the middle was a winning strategy (despite the fact that there are hardly any voters there, and they'll never turn out like either side's base), look at where the middle is: It's far closer to the Democratic side on most issues, and has been for at least a year (and probably much longer).
My theory is simple: The Democratic establishment listens to the DLC because it wants to. They know that the Republicans' corporate-friendly policies are a big-ticket donor goldmine, and they don't want to be left out. They see us little people with our $10 and $25 donations as little more than a supplemental fundraising stream, and therefore not worth the effort to cultivate aggressively. Besides, us Crazy Leftists all hate the Republicans, so we have to vote for the Democrats and give them money no matter what they do, right?
Enter the DLC, to reassure the Democrats that pro-corporate "centrism" and hippie-bashing are not only good solid Democratic values, but guaranteed election-winners to boot. Neither argument is particularly convincing, but they don't have to be, because the Democrats want to believe. They want an excuse to feel clever and good about selling out.
This is actually something that the Republicans understand far better than the Democrats. If you give people permission to feel good about their baser impulses rather than exhorting them to rise above them, they will love you for it. With a little help from hate radio and Fox News, the GOP has mastered the alchemy of transmuting fear, hate, greed, and rage into Patriotism, Moral Values, Personal Reponsibility, and Courage, allowing the worst of their followers to cast themselves as heroes while still acting like villains. Why would they ever want to give that up?
In other words, the DLC and Republicans are each selling a version of the Ice Cream Diet, and progressives are selling the Broccoli Diet. The Ice Cream Diet doesn't actually work, but people sure do like it.
203 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
S U N L I G H T !!!!
I have a better theory.
The Democrats represent the same entities that the Republican’s do. The big money interests that get them elected and reelected, and provide the gravy train of perks that they all enjoy so much.
None of them actually represent the average American and their wishes and concerns.
That’s why we’ll not see us out of Iraq, or national health care, etc.
It’s the money, stupid!
Cufford
Fresno, CA
Hey, Ron Brownstein and David Broder suggest that the Democrats had better be DLC-cautious about investigating George W. Bush or they’ll be punished just like the Republicans were punished after the impeachment. You know, punished by 8 more years of congressional majorities and 8 years of Republican rule in the Whitehouse with the assist from Republican judges in the Supreme Court.
That was some punishment.
-GSD
P.S. Rupert Murdoch better on message. His SKY News is reporting estimates of 1 million dead in Iraq.
Cufford @ 1
And the DLC is the figleaf that allows them to claim that it’s a principled, strategic decision.
Public financing of elections is essential to taking back our democracy.
Twisted Martini @ 4
Yes. Also truly objective media that doesn’t report lies as merely one side of the story, or go hyperventilating over whatever fake scandal the Republicans feed them, or attempt to always include a Democratic counterpart to any purely Republican scandal so as to appear “balanced”.
Also keep in mind that Hillary Clinton is a heavy hitter within the DLC.
Eli,
excellent post. Now, I have some, what may appear to the “in the know” crowd, silly questions. Who exactly is the DLC? Clarification: are we talking about 12 people in a group who are the convenient bogeyman for progressives portraying them as responsible for dillution pollution of the Democratic message? Do we lend more power to them than they deserve, thereby shielding non-responsive Democratic politicians for Delay-lite positions?
Here’s the thing: all lobbyists short circuit the political process. They attempt to place themselves between the electorate and the elected. Is (are? phuk, this verb agreement thing is killing me!) the DLC more effective than the base?
are we going to get into another intellectual discussion or are we going to begin to physically respond to the effing monstors that are literally destroying this country while we blubber on?
Just take the situation as it exists today in this once great country. YA WANNA “tALK” ABOUT THIS ????
Step one- Impeach the bastard!
Sue the shit out of the “media pundits” that simply lie to us. Sit in if necessary in every single congressmans’ office. Hound the bastards and continue to point out to them that they too can be removed from office in 08!
Be prepared to commit acts of civil disobedience if needed.
We either start along these lines folks or we better think about where we are going to immigrate to when the shit really hits the fans- and it ain’t far off!
Interesting!
Another possible idea – Democrats tend to be people who look at multiple sides of every issue, like to look at every shade of grey, and sometimes overanalyze and worry too much. We have a hard time not second guessing ourselves. And, many Democrats in Washington are so insulated from reality, they are apt to trust other Washington insiders (and those who are likely to give them big $$$) instead of real people with common sense.
Now that I’ve said this, I’m starting to second guess myself. LOL.
BTW, interesting OT: MySpace launches a Politics Channel to feature 5 candidates from each party for President.
Jane, Eli & David Ehren…left you all an idea in EPUville last thread Re: Gore Vidal, FWIW. :~)
“Besides, us Crazy Leftists all hate the Republicans, so we have to vote for the Democrats and give them money no matter what they do, right?”
That’s the mistake that will pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Love the doggie – but really, shouldn’t one of the doggie’s legs be raised? Washington really is pissing on us.
Money doesn’t talk it curses! Truer words were never spoken. But today maybe we should say it seduces.
Regarding Hillary Clinton: I think she’s running the general election now, and is assuming she’ll pull off the Democratic party nomination by money default. I don’t know if her gamble will pay off, but she’s gonna follow every DLC recommendation to stay as middle-of-the-road and non-controversial as possible. (BTW, so this isn’t misconstrued: she’s very low on my list of Democratic party candidates to support. I can’t imagine voting in the primary for her, but if she gets the nomination, I’ll support her bigtime over any other party’s candidate. We can’t afford to break apart – 2008 is when the GOP fractures into 3rd party land, not the Democrats.)
Oh, and Rahm is a complete moron for suggesting Democrats should never go on Colbert Report. Um, has he watched the show much? yes, Stephen will rip on anyone who makes a total ass of themselves, but he is brilliant at showing the humor and good-natured side of many Democrats. He seems to run the DLC with the notion that “if you cover your head and hide and be as wishy-washy as possible, you can be a winner!” Ugh.
This country will not solve its political problems as long as 14th amendment protections apply to non-persons. Our root problems are due to the excessive rights given to corporations in this country.
The DLC is an original supporter of the Iraq war. They are pro NAFTA, CAFTA and anti-labor. Talk about blue dogs! I detest the DLC for these and other reasons.
Senator Clinton should be held accountable.
What if any is the relationship between the DLC, AEI, and A*PAC?
I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton for prez in 2008.
Oilfieldguy @ 7
I view the DLC as something like a thinktank or advocacy organization for “centrist” political positions that are barely recognizable as Democratic, if at all (pro-corporate, pro-war, go-slow on choice and gay marriage, and every bit as virulently anti-liberal as the Republicans).
They have been whispering in the Democrats’ willing ears ever since Clinton won in ‘92, and yes, I do believe that the Democrats are listening to them a lot more than they’re listening to us. Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean (and maybe Chris Van Hollen) are the only party leaders who do not have a strong DLC taint about them. Hillary, Schumer, Reid, Emanuel, Hoyer, all have a very strong DLC taint to them.
more redmeat for Oklahoma Kiddo -
from their site -
The View from the Vital Center
(my emphasis)
that there’s your goldplated A*P*C dogwhistle
Oklahoma kiddo @ 20
Nor will I. And I will vote for a republican if AR Dems deliver nothing but Pryor. I also own a triangle.
ding
LandOfTheFree @ 15
Rahm Emanuel is an arrogant little fellow who fancies himself the king strategist in the DLC and with the exception of Hillary worship my misogynist radar goes nuclear at the sight and/or sound of the rascal.
The thing is, when there is more than one issue, most people aren’t always on either the posited “Democratic” side or the posited “Republican” side of the various issues. For example, I am in favor of 2nd Amendment rights, and I’m against abortions in most instances. Yet I am in favor of a single payer health care plan, and I might even nationalize the energy industry. Where do I fit in these nice little boxes? Am I a liberal, a conservative or a moderate – in the middle? I’d say I’m fairly normal. I’m not on either extreme. If you average me out, I am moderate, like a vast majority of Americans.
Damn the DLC.
start_beating_around_the_bush @ 11
No argument here. The Republicans understand the significance of turnout much, much better than the Democrats do. They don’t alienate their base by trying to appeal to people who mostly won’t vote anyway; the Democrats do.
It’s a difference in perspectives.
For Republicans, 51% is a mandate to do anything.
For Democrats, 70% is a fringe and so caution is required.
Cufford @
2
On Air America yesterday there was a gentleman from the Brennan Center with some good suggestions on Campaign Finance Reform. For instance, matching small donations 4 to 1. Your $50 donations is matched by the government to make a total donation of $250.
Far, far cheaper than bridges to nowhere.
http://brennancenter.org/subpa…..roj_key=72
Morris and Eli: I just toured your sites and am inspired by your creations. Husband & I just retired and built a small woodworking shop. We are reading and learning by small steps. We love working cherry. Eli: Thanks for your answer yesterday – I was left behind in EPU-land twice. Also Alison – thanks for your thoughts on Valerie as primary target.
Karen
Patriotism! Moral Values! Personal Responsibility! Courage!
Why can’t these be OUR winning slogans?
And throw in taking care of those who serve their country, be it wounded vets at Walter Reed or Valerie Plame Wilson. I’m so proud of her and the whole Waxman team I could just bust my buttons.
Eli @ 21
Sounds like AEI-lite to me.
Sounds like apeact.
WOW Eli……that sounds like the subtitle of a book.
Chas56 @ 24
This is true, but the thing that makes the DLC the most suspect to me is their valuation of money over voters. They want the Democrats to favor corporations and rich people to get more campaign money, rather than favor their constituents who actually vote.
Presumably they figure that the money and the moderates they pick up will be enough to offset pissed-off liberals who don’t vote, or don’t contribute or volunteer as much as they would have for progressive candidates, but it hasn’t really worked out that way. At least not until last year, when the Republican fuckups reached critical mass.
I realize I didn’t exactly answer your question, but let me ask you this: Given a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat, which one would you vote for?
From the DLC:
Oklahoma kiddo @ 20
I just don’t think our country can handle a President McCain. I don’t like the idea of President Hillary Clinton, and my gut instinct is that the nomination may not land in her lap as she expects. But, if she gets the nod, I will never vote 3rd party while watching the Republicans walk away with the Presidency again.
I think the GOP is ripe for a break along ideological lines for 2008. “Traditional Reagan small-government Conservatives” versus “Fundamentalist Christians” who want to fund an endless religious crusade.
Unless Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic party nomination, I don’t see a strong liberal 3rd party movement happening. I don’t see Nader or other people getting a lot of support, because too many of us are frightened about letting the Republicans run the country into the ground for four more years. If we have to hold our noses and support the DLC candidate, many of us will.
egregious @ 30
Well, the problem is that *actual* patriotism, moral values, personal responsibility, and courage tend to be hard work. Much better to just do what you want and *pretend* to be virtuous.
Thank you Eli. A Corporate buffer installed as an “accepted” buffer from the DFH,(that’s Dirty Phukkin Hippies to sloehaids like me) in which the actual causation is moving the center upon Limpbaugh’s and deflated codpieces lap for an indoctrination as corporate analists.
Wups, I did it again.
Great post! Someone else here, JH perhaps, referred to Arianna Huffington in glowing terms as a major progressive voice.
On the contrary, Huffington is a crypto-DLC type who should never be confused with progressivism, ever.
I know that the USA are technically a republic (electoral college etc.), but let’s not split hairs here. I only wonder how many other democracies in the world have a two party system …
LandOfTheFree @ 35
I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, even if I have to hold my nose. The worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican. (Okay, I might pick Chafee over Lieberman, but that’s about it)
TeddySanFran @ 35
Hmmmmm. I’ve not seen Vilsack and Bayh as all that far to the right. But then I’ve not been paying much attention to them, either.
I will not hold my nose and vote. If our presence (U.S. military) is to continue in Iraq after 2008, I’d sooner have the Republicans suffer the consequences than my party. I am adamant.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 41
How old is Justice Stevens now?
ReElect President Al Gore! Accept no substitute.
Is there some biblical or otherwise written law that says I have to vote either Republican or Democrat in 2008?
Marky @
16
Well said, Marky!
I’d love to see the simple amendement:
Only biologically living persons enjoy the rights and protections assigned to persons in this Conssitution. Corporations do not enjoy the rights of persons.
_____________________________________________
And Eli -
Strong work. Thanks for calling out the DLC – the Money Party’s wing of the Democratic Party.
Damn, mention of moderate Republicans reminds me of a point I had meant to make in my post:
The DLC could actually serve a slightly positive function, in the sense of providing a safe haven for Republicans who want to separate themselves from the sinking Republican brand, without actually giving up too many of their Republican policies.
Of course, this is only theoretical at this point, but I think it’s at least possible. Of course, if they continue to vote like Republicans, it doesn’t really help all that much, except maybe in terms of committee membership.
I will not vote for any candidate in 2008 who advocates a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.
The Democratic establishment will listen to anyone these days. They’re very weak.
Eli, I wish you were wrong.
Eli @ 43
Principle v. pragmatism.
newspaperbrat @ 43
Someone recently asked me, if I could choose *anyone*, alive or dead, to be president right now, who would it be?
And much as I would like a president like FDR or Truman or maybe JFK, President Gore would be the only one who would offer any chance of getting us out of the environmental mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.
How can you be argiung such silly matters when there are reports of Al Qaeda Operatives disguised as clowns planting bombs in puppies and kittens.
-GSD
egregious @ 31
Egregious, Did you follow Frank Rich’s link this morning to the March 17th, 2003 letter from Waxman to Bush? I can look it up if you like. It was a doozie. Waxman is one of my heros.
I will not vote for any candidate for president in 2008 who does not propone a fair settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Alison @ 49
You and me both.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 50
Five right-wing lunatics on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years is not acceptable to me. And I don’t trust even a more substantial Democratic majority not to adhere to the destructive principle that the President should have all kinds of latitude in who they can appoint to the courts.
I do not think it’s proper for this blog to cover this topic.
GSD @ 53
Has anyone ever seen Bill Frist and Al Qaeda in the same room at the same time?
I thought not…
TeddySanFran @ 56
Hey, it’s not like I asked everyone about their DLCdar.
I’ll go with Gore. Gore/Kucinich?
Eli @ 56
Perhaps we shall just have to disagree.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 59
It would be a scream if Kucinich ended up as powerful as Cheney.
Dennis Kucinich lost me when played into FOX’s hands and said he thought it was wrong to cancel the Nevada debate. That’s not supporting your party, dude.
As things stand now, I will not vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.
I don’t expect we’ll ever see a Veep as powerful as this one. There’ll be an effort to rein in this “fourth branch” shit as soon as Darth’s out. Maybe sooner.
We all pretty much lined up behind Lamont. Has anyone given a lot of thought to doing the same for the 2008 business?
TeddySanFran @ 64
I hope not. Excessive presidential and vice-presidential power is bad when those officials are virtuous and competent; it’s *catastrophic* when they’re not.
Speaking of Frist. His political career is as dead as stray cat in his neighborhood.
Notice we have no Frists or Santorums to kick around anymore.
Did anyone notice there was a poll about “who would you NEVER vote for”?
The media made a big deal about Hillary being at 46%…..what they didn’t draw attention to was Newton Leroy Gingrich at 53%.
People can’t stand him and he’s running around saying that he’ll be thrust into the presidency after his Lincolnesque speeches cause a popular tidal wave of support for him.
Newt I would rather vote for Ted Bundy.
-GSD
I despise the DLC.
One rather important question here:
Who is the “Democratic Establishment”?
Really…? Who is it?
We here in the grassroots made an unprecedented effort to replace the status quo and centrist types with Howard Dean as DNC Chair — which pissed off the DLC and their entrenched cronies to no end. Dean proceeded to bring in his own people and implement a thorough revamping of the DNC’s IT system and roll out the 50-State Strategy.
So I ask again: Who is the “Democratic Establishment”?
Former Deaniacs across the country regrouped an proceeded to integrate themselves into the Democratic Party at its lowest levels; I’m a testament to that, now a party official and a precinct delegate as well as an officer of several Democratic organizations. What’s left of the old Party machine in my area now comes to us.
What’s left of the “Democratic Establishment”, I have to ask? What’s the hold up, the bottleneck?
Is the real problem here that the DLC still buys the media that its Republican kin use? Are they drowning out the real Democratic Party? Or is the “Democratic Establishment” something that no longer exists and we really haven’t yet come to terms with its passage, haven’t fully grasped that WE are the “Democratic Establishment”? Or is the “Democratic Establishment” a boogey man that the right-wing and the DLC has constructed and that we’ve naively bought into because, well, because as long as there’s a boogey man we don’t have to accept the blame for the failures that are the Democratic Party?
Marcy, you out there? What’s your take on this since you’re in this up to your ears as much as I am. Who is the “Democratic Establishment”?
GSD @ 67
You just reminded me of this Tom Tomorrow toon someone linked to recently…
This hits the nail on the head. Bravo and well stated.
They want to play where the big money is and that is essentially in the center where the corporations can feel safely protected from “regulation”.
TeddySanFran @ 64
Kucincih strikes me as not that bright. Well meaning and good on several issues, but not able to reson things through to their logical conclusion. The Fox imbroglio says to me either, he is naive–or he was willing to sell out in order to be on the satge with the big boys.
I want a SMART president
Clinton doesnt want our votes. She said so herself.
Rayne, I consider the “Democratic Establishment” to be the congressional leaders, and the people who orchestrate campaign strategies and recommend consultants.
Pelosi (and I think Van Hollen) are okay, but Reid, Schumer, Hoyer, and Emanuel are all just godawful.
Rayne @ 71
What are ‘mainstream’ Dems. From what I can gather, I am not one.
(I think Mark Pryor is, or was, DSCC vice-chair as well. Feh.)
Is Kucinich a lawyer?
People talk a lot about all the money it takes to get elected, but nobody talks about the machine that money feeds. Politics isn’t politics anymore. Politics is the message, what politicians pretend they are doing while they are doing something else.
And what they are doing is running for office. It has become its own industry — I wonder what percentage of the GNP derives from elections? How much money do the networks make? And the “media consultants” and the directors and actors and writers and set designers and . . . event planners and hotels and . . .
I am not even saying all that stuff is bad. People need work, and good-paying jobs are a GOOD THING.
But elections have become the Great Beast where the money circulates like beastie blood, and politics — that thing where all the people decide what society’s rules are and how to allocate the public wealth — that’s comatose. Politics and governance are being done outside the bright light of day, and We The People are treated to what the money buys: Election Coverage, delivered in all its SportsNight glory.
The DLC is the way it is because it’s a leech on the beast. The DLC isn’t interested in politics; it’s interested in elections. It wants to keep politics comatose so it can go on feeding on the Elections Beastie.
It’s like that voice coming out of Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters telling us, “There is no Dana, there is only Zul.”
Way back when, one of my journalism professors said that the country was moving to the right. Turns out he was correct: Reagan got elected a few years thereafter. Which is my way of saying that by now even the Dems are much farther to the right than we might wish. Their idea of the “center” is still right-wing, albeit moderate right-wing.
What they don’t seem to get is that the rest of the country appears to be moving to the left. Leaving out the screwballs, on most social issues the polls seem to indicate a much more liberal attitude on such bellwether topics as gay rights, the right to choose an abortion, Social Security — you name it, the country is with us.
What I’m trying to say is, the Dems still seem to be trying to out-Reagan Reagan while the rest of the country, disgusted by this administration, is ready for a liberal in the mold, perhaps, of FDR.
Based on straight-up and cloture votes on the AUMF, bankuptcy bill, Military Commissions Act, and the Roberts and Alito confirmations, it looks to me like there are roughly 20-25 Senate Democrats at any given time who are perfectly willing to go along with the Republicans on Really Bad Ideas.
I have no idea what the House numbers are, though.
Twisted Martini @ 5
Yup. That’s why Howard Dean backs it, and so does his brother Jim over at DFA.
Go to http://www.publicampaign.org to find out more. It’s moving through the states like a prairie fire; the key is to get it adopted at the national level.
So Hillary has called on Gonzales to step down. Well… that’s fine Senator. Now I call on you to pull out.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 46
Of course not, but 2000 taught us a lot.
It taught us that the Greens (I’m an ex-Green), as good as their platforms have been, fuck things up on the national level. It taught us that the DLC and the Gore campaign and the Democratic national apparatus in general refuse to directly address large-scale suppression of the Black vote in the South and urban areas. It taught us to re-organize on a grassroots level and to experiment with web-based funding of our candidates.
2002 warned us of the dangers in ballotless voting, controlled by corporate entities owned by people openly hostile to democracy.
2004 showed even more clearly than 2000 that the Dem leadership continues to be unwilling to openly confront the suppression of black votes, or back the Black Caucus and Conyers in investigating how widespread this is. It also gave more inspiration to fundraising efforts on behalf of progressive dems who were considering 2006 US House primary races.
2006 showed that in spite of the DLC’s continuing stranglehold on big pots of money and their further enabling of bluedog candidates, progressive candidates, funded by all sorts of old school and new school fundraising, resonated with enough voters to overcome the GOP voter fraud efforts.
The corporate enabling DLC and “centrist” part of Dem leadership have done nothing since 2006 to get to the bottom of the continuing suppression of the African-American and Latino vote nationwide. They never will. The DLC is the part of the Democratic Party which ties it most directly to the pre-1960s southern wing of the party. It is no surprise so many DLC types are white and have come up in the offices of Dems from the old south.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
I look forward to this site being a place to come to discuss the appearances of candidates in our local areas and the positions of candidates. I would welcome proponents and opponents of all candidates to make a case here. I do not think FDL’s mission will be well-served by becoming an adjunct to any campaign, or endorsing any candidate. The presidential campaign seems very unlike Connecticut in 2006.
I speak for myself though, and have no insight into the intentions of the publishers.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 56
Then you’ll probably have to sit out the election…
LindaR @ 80
But George Will tells us that the 2008 presidential campaign, in its bloated entirety, will cost only half of what Americans spend on Easter candy annually!!
Eli @ 76
How did they get where they are, Eli?
We’ve already seen at close range a big portion of the cycle right here at FDL, both watching and participating in the Lamont campaign. We have a pretty good idea how Liebermunch ended up where he is…but is that the same dynamic that gives us Reid, Schumer, Hoyer, Emmanuel, or is it something else?
Ed*ard Teller @ 82
What ET said.
Ed*ard Teller @ 87
Could be. ;0)
thanks, Eli…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 64
But you would vote for Gore? The guy who picked Lieberman for his running mate? The guy who was incapable of beating the crap out of the most manifestly unqualified major party candidate in a hundred years?
I respect Gore for what he’s doing now, but let’s not forget that he’s the guy who gave Lieberman the clout to be the odious nuisance that he has become. Gore is also the guy who got outfoxed by America’s dumbest governor.
Rayne @ 71
Dean has a lot of trouble within the DNC. The Emanuels and Schumers etc of theis world treeat him like he is some kind of lose cannon.
He has the same problem Clinton had, despite incredible popular support, he does not flex his muscles.
Bush in the same position would ride roughshod over any opposition.
Dean is the captian of this ship and if rahm or give’em heck harry or anybody else doesn’t like that, he should not care.
I love me them Dean boys, but they have all the support in the world and somehow that’s still not enough for them to grab bull by the horns.
Rayne @ 85
I think it’s the same dynamic. You can appeal to corporate money and basically brute-force your way into office, or you can appeal to grassroots money, and impress people into voting for you.
I’m sure some candidates have managed to do both, or have had to tack right to get elected in red states or districts (Reid, Pryor), but I believe most of the leadership got there primarily by appealing to corporate money. And if they didn’t get there that way, they’re certainly making up for lost time now.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 46
The artist works with the materials available to even the most mundane and creates works of wonder. The magician works with materials unavailable to the common person to create works of wonder.
I don’t think I will be a magician in November 2008, but I will try to be an artist.
Kos, you know our fearless leader and Pope King, wrote this diary about Kucinich recently. I found point #2 to be interesting.
Why Why I say “ugh” on Kucinich
We need a 4 or 5 party system…this winner takes all scam doesn’t work. They divvy up the prize in Europe and we should do it too if we really, truly want to be represented.
Obama in Oakland yesterday — amazing photos.
Eli @ 76
Can I just say that I think Rahm is almost as reprehesible as almost any republican political operative you can name.
Dems cannot do the “holier than thou” thing while we still have him
DefJef @73: Back in the mid-90s, I had a client involved in the utilities industry. They couldn’t have been happier with the Clinton-era deregulation of their industry.
They painted a glowing picture of how the consumer would be the ultimate winner…increased competition, lower rates, you know the drill. Oh, and innovative companies like Enron would make it all come true.
That worked out well.
looseheadprop @ 90
One of my biggest disappointments about Dean was that he didn’t become more of a spokesman for the Democratic Party after he became DNC chair. He’s one of the best the Democrats have at recognizing and countering Republican spin and frames, and he’s *also* one of the few Democrats who can get media coverage and (I think) seats on the talking head shows (He’s craaaazy! You never know what he might say next!).
I know the post is traditionally more about fundraising and organizing, but I think Dean could be very valuable as a “promoter” of Democratic ideas and policies.
bottom line is that progressives ARE centrists, we aren’t “centrists” compated to the two respective parties but we ARE centrists compared to the values of common America
LandOfTheFree @
15
I had a friend who attended a meeting with Hilary and some high level NH state level politico types 6 weeks ago. He said that Hilary said that 40% of the country would never in a million years vote for her, 40% will, no matter what, vote for her in the general election (presumably she is talking about us – the base), therefore, her fight was to convince 20% of the independents to vote for her. Yes, you are right, she is already running a general election campaign and she is assuming that we will step up to the plate and vote for her. God I hope someone else gets the Dem nomination.
looseheadprop @ 96
He *did* advocate stronger ethics reforms shortly after the Democrats took the House, but that’s pretty much the only thing I’ve agreed with him on.
looseheadprop @ 100
Isn’t there some wierd Illinois law about not needing to live in the CD that would allow Christine Cegelis to primary Rahm without relocating?
Eli @ 40
If we’re going to do alternative future history, making it as realistic as possible may add to the fun.
Generic “third party in national election”
foodfightsdon’t really make much sense to me.They all seem to leave out the electoral college.
In states with overwhelming electoral majorities for (or against) the Democratic side, third party votes for – gasp – Nader don’t make a hill of beans.
When the Democrat will still win (or lose) even if all the Nader voters vote Dem, the third party votes are irrelevant.
I don’t really see nuanced looks at the Nader/3rd party question very often.
The result is that progressives may fail to perceive – and hence fail to use – our voting choices in ways that hurt the DLC, but still don’t elect Republicans.
So long as the DLC Dems push the Money Party candidate(s), we progressives owe the DLC Dems only our contempt.
[And - where it keeps the Repubs out of office - perhaps our votes.]
Should the national party Dems again collude with the Money Party against Dem voters’ health and wallets through handing the nomination to a DLC dem, why expect progressives in non-competitive states to support the DLC’s latest corporate fellater or (should Hillary get the
swallownod) fellatrix?If Hillary – or another DLC’er – is the Dem ‘08 candidate, let’s start the NoMoJoHo party.
The NoMoJoHo party can register in all the non-competitive states.
Party motto: When our vote doesn’t count, we don’t vote for whores.
OK – maybe the slogan needs work.
(Or – frighteningly enough – maybe not).
But what a fun meta-campaign.
I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who does not recognize the need to pull out of Iraq. Or who does not visualize the crucial concept to not instigate unprovoked wars. Or does not seek a fair settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the desire to protect Mother Earth is an attribute critical for my candidate for president in 2008. There is no wiggle room.
perris @ 99
Fair enough. Consider me to be referring to “Centrism, The Brand”, as opposed to “Centrism, The Reality”.
cleter @ 92
Some of us make mistakes. Some of us do not. I am not inclusive of tha latter. ;0)
In other words, the DLC and Republicans are each selling a version of the Ice Cream Diet, and progressives are selling the Broccoli Diet.
I don’t think that’s quite right. Only about a third of the country still likes what the Republicans are selling, while much of what could be considered a progressive agenda seems to have pretty widespread support.
The problem is that corporations like what the Republicans and DLC are selling, and they’re the ones with the money to pay for it.
Rayne @ 70
They are now the Money Party’s second horse in American electoral races.
(not presuming to speak for Marcy, of course)
This thread is much more productive than last time Eli brought this up. He came on right when Reid announced cancellation of the Navada Fox Dem debate.
One important thing is this – the left’s fundraising apparatus is probably progressives’ biggest tool for 2008. We can make by far the most difference in US House elections, just like in 2006.
Every 22 months comuters double their ability to process and integrate information, in spite of all that Microsoft does to attenuate this in their own behalf. So we will be at least 2x as good at projects like Blue America, not counting what WE do.
The progressive parts of the Democratic Party need to make sure these fundraising tools aren’t taken away from us by a combination of DLC types and their Republican allies, in the name of some sort of net reform.
I’m voting for whoever the Democrat that’s running in 2008. I’m not risking the Supreme Court, or any more federal judges to be chosen by a Republican.
I’ll do what I can to work against the candidates I don’t like in the primaries, so I can feel elated about turning the White House blue again.
kirk murphy @ 103
I believe there actually was some vote-swapping arrangement going on with 2000 Nader campaign, where Nader supporters in swing states would somehow “trade” their votes with people in firmly red or blue states, so that Nader would get more votes without influencing the election.
Obviously, they could have swapped a little more in Florida…
Rayne @ 89
I gotta stick up for Schumer. If it was not for Chuck, the federal judicaiary, the US Attoerneys and the SUpreme court would be far far more corrupted than they have been.
He has waged a herios often solitary battle to try to keep decent people in power and the worst of the worst out of power.
Sadly, (and I think a great source of consternation for him, htat may caus e him to suffer from insufficient self confidence when the time comes for him to kick some fanny) he lost as many battles as he won. But he kept on fighting
Phillyboy @ 107
Well, the DLC is actually selling the Ice Cream Diet to the Democratic Party, and *they* love it. You’re mostly right about the Republican agenda, but it was already losing popularity in 2004 and they *still* got 51% to vote for them, primarily on the basis of terror and gay marriage.
OT I first saw mention of this via Richard Gizbert at the HuffPo but the Washington Post has an editorial on the Iraq War as it enters its 5th year. It is about as stupid, mealymouthed, and generally boneheaded as we have all come to expect. My favorite lines delivered without comment are:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00950.html
Hey, I hear what you’re saying about Dean…but how much of the perception that Dean is not a spokesman for the party that we wanted is because of the the right-wing owned and DLC co-opted media? Really, why have I seen more of that dork Lieberman than I have of Dean?
Because Liebermunch supports the corporate media’s owners’ agenda?
Dean did the right thing to go to the roots and work on building the party from the bottom up — because it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at consultants or advertising, it still comes down to votes and voters. That is the REAL Democratic Party, the ones who have to pull the lever.
We also need to be having a little chat with ourselves about how we change the dynamic with the bought-and-paid-for Dems who now hold office; how do we do a better job of holding them accountable, holding them to OUR party line? It’s time we looked in the mirror and realized that a big part of the problem is US and that we haven’t shaken the hands of some of these problem children, looked them square in the eye and told them, Hey, you work for ME, and I’m not happy with your work. You can be replaced.
Purity v. getting something done:
I used to visit our retired pastor, 93 years old and in the nursing home, and ask for his advice on spiritual matters. In particular I wanted to know if I should spend more time trying to become spiritually pure [my friends are laughing] or get out there and do something, however imperfect.
His surprising advice was, DO SOMETHING. You will never be pure, and time’s a wastin’.
[Luke in heaven: smooches]
I’ve been willing to consider Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman. I admit it. When Nancy Pelosi took possession of the gavel, I cried. It was such a great feeling!
But Hillary Clinton isn’t just a woman. She’s also a person with values. I don’t loathe all her values. But I loathe whatever it is in her that let her sponsor that anti-flag-burning amendment. There are other things about her I can’t stand. Not denouncing Peter Pace’s comments immediately is another disqualifier.
And still, if it comes down to a choice between Hillary and any of the Republicans now running, I will vote for Hillary Clinton.
Rayne @
71
Rayne:
I have always said that we are the party. If it’s a piece of crap, it’s because people are too apathetic to make it better. If you want it to change, you start from the ground up. It takes a while, it’s not easy, but it happens, if enough people get in there and work at it.
I just can’t believe we finally have a DNC Chair who understands that very basic idea. Like I sad after the 06 elections, this is Politics 101. These DLC morons have high-school Civics knowledge, but trying to practice PhD PoliSci principles. You know…QUACKS.
Ed*ard Teller @ 109
Nothing will get progressives a seat at the policy table like proven electoral success. We had a measure of it last year, but the Rahm Emanuels were able to spin it away from us, as well as attributing it to overall voter outrage (which is a not unreasonable attribution).
But the more the Blue America candidates win, the harder it becomes for the Democrats to sustain the DLC narrative that pro-corporate centrism is the only key to electoral success. If we can break through the party’s willful blindness and force them to start acting progressive out of simple *self-preservation*, then we will truly be on our way to taking the country back.
Look, whether anyone wants to remember it or not, this is a class-dominated country by some extremely rich people. (And no, your garden variety millionaires and insta-mansion inhabitants don’t count, not by a long shot.)
When you’re trying to represent billionaires, do you want them monopolized by only your opposing political party?
The DLC is aimed at one thing: positioning itself as the slightly more moderate servant of the billionaires.
That’s pretty much it. That’s why they hate liberalism and labor and the grassroots with the passion they do.
Any of our real grassroots beliefs and movements gets in their way of attracting the support of the billionaires. They want it. They think they deserve it. The way they see the country is like a big corporation and they want to sit in the CEO’s chair. What the workers want hardly enters into their minds until it’s absolutely necessary.
Senator Clinton said two things recently that impressed me. First, ‘if you don’t agree with my view on Iraq, then vote for someone else’. And… ‘if I’m elected president I will maintain a military presence in Iraq’. Defining moments for this Democrat.
Eli @ 102
When a party is out of power and before it has a presifdential nominee the Chairman IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SPOKESMODEL FOR THE PARTY
Howard, we need you
El Cid @ 123
Well put, El Cid!
Rayne @ 115
I really like Dean as DLC chair, but I find it hard to believe that he’s trying to get himself on TV and just can’t. If Cliff Schecter can get on TV, Dean can certainly get on TV.
What El Cid said.
I’m ‘principle’ kind of a guy. My people have taught me this. Perhaps the bible addresses this issue.
LindaR @ 125
Ditto. It was a lot like my post, only better.
LJ/Aquaria @ 121
Yes, exactly.
I blame myself a LOT; for some stupidly naive reason I believed there were adults in charge and all I had to do was show up to vote.
Oh. My. F*cking. God. Was. I. Wrong.
YOU. ME. WE are the adults that are supposed to be in charge, and if you’re not there, there isn’t anybody doing it for you.
Discovering that truth in December 2004, after feeling liked I’d already had my teeth knocked in, was ghastly and horrifying. And yet somehow liberating at the same time, because I realized why we lost.
Sure, there was rampant bullsh*t at the polls and the current regime bears the brunt of the blame. But if I and many more peeps like me had been more active all along, been less passive, more demanding, neither the fascists in power now nor Republican-Lite would have had a chance to insinuate themselves into the system. And we should have been there at school board meetings, county commission meetings, city council meetings, asking stupid questions until we got the answers we wanted.
WE are the Democratic Establishment, and it’s time WE did our damned jobs and kicked some ass and took some names.
Will someone please answer a question. What is a “moderate” or “centrist?”
I had a case of raging insomnia today and for the first time in my life watched all the Sun. morning shows. That, of course, didn’t help me fall asleep. Anyway, Sam Waterston was on one of the shows pimping for Unity ‘08, and he gave a gruff warning that the country wouldn’t stand for the far left and far right, that the country wanted centrists. And I don’t have the slightest idea what that entails.
Pro-war? Anti-war? Healthcare? I really don’t have a clue and I’m beginning to feel very dumb.
LindaR @ 79
Recently a friend offered the theory that some members of the “democratic leadership” were supporting in the primaries candidates who would hire their friends as “campaign consultants.” We’ve seen how effective some fo these consultants are, i.e., they’ve gotten lots of practice writing concession speeches.
We all have choices to make. We do what we have to do. And I respect that.
Millineryman @ 95
Ok that was just weird. It would be interesting to hear his response to that post.
If the election were held tomorrow, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. And if things remain the same in the days preceeding the election of 2008, the same will hold true.
Kewalo @ 129
In practice, it appears to be someone who votes with Republicans but won’t admit to being one…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 128
OkKiddo, not using the King
JamesGeorge version are you?Just to make sure there is no confusion, Dean is the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. The triangulators are the DLC–Democratic Leadership Council.
I am one of those who believes that we have to take back our party. If you hold a democratic meeting and ask people to go around the room and talk about “Why I am a Democrat” you will find out what the party means to the people in it. Which is not at all an exercise of the DLC.
BTW, Richardson has called for a “special session” of the NM Legislature, which adjourned yesterday after a 60-day session. According to those in the know, he is calling for the pols to address 4 items including domestic partnership and ethics.
I guess his radar is telling him the American public is ready for some more civil rights.
Millineryman @ 96
Thanks. I had been wondering how I should feel about him. ;-
smapdi @ 139
Nope. ;0)
kirk murphy @ 127
Well put, El Cid!
LindaR @ 129
Thanks. I guess I’ve just seen it as obvious for two decades now.
It’s a shame that intellectuals and liberals have mostly rejected looking at Democratic Party politics itself as partially dictated by class-based power analysis, because you can guarantee that the right wing and the super-rich never fail to look at politics in that fashion.
That’s why no number of electoral failures deters people from a “DLC” type approach, because no matter how much you lose, your zeal in attempting to serve the interests of the super-rich will help you get any range of benefits, be they influential party positions, consultancy relationships, foundation directorships, etc.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect the most powerful part of a political party — which is in itself a collection of organizations only some of which have any democratic rules of operation — to fight for the common man and win when it’s so, so, tempting to fight for the super-rich and lose, and yet manage to reap loads of benefits.
Off Topic…but just who is this so-called AP reporter who is doing her best impression of Judy Miller??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..HrsEc8KbIF
Ed*ard Teller @
87
Plant an H-Bomb in Jerusalem, give both the Israelis and the Palestinians a trigger. Worked
with the US and the Sowjets. (and hey, this solution will get full support from the Rapture loons.)
El Cid @ 138
I don’t mind if they lose and still reap benefits – I just want them to, ah, frontload their losing to the primary cycle.
Eli @ 127
Dean has been on television; I just think that he doesn’t get the placement he wants because he doesn’t kiss DLC ass. Schecter gets on, but he’s not the party, he’s not a party official but a talking head in the eyes of the DLC and he serves their interests if he’s not attacking them. There’s a big difference there, really can’t be compared.
So if you’re Dean and you can’t get placement that makes a difference, what do you do? You go to the roots and you work the roots.
Kewalo @ 132
The majority of Americans support:
health care for all
clean food, water, air.
affordable housing.
living wages.
comfort and dignity for our elders.
education and safety for our children.
swift end to the Iraq war.
These majority values, deeply rooted in our families and communities, are so alien to corporate needs as to force the corporate sector to spend tens of billions every year (advertising
mass deception, “lobbying”bribery, camaign contributionsmore bribery).And with all their spending, our values endure.
That’s the centrist majority – our centrist majority – as I see it
God bless Joe. He’s old and deserves a rest. I’m thinking again, damnit.
(Group of dogs)
The DLC is a rot on the Democratic Party. My party. And I’m sick of it.
It’s really not that difficult to imagine a “blackout” of Dean from some of these shows. Look at who’s hosting/producing them. But I don’t think that’s the case
Truth be known, Dean actually gets a bit more media face time than most Dem party chairs. How many times was Terry McAuliffe on TV to promote the party? I didn’t even know what the guy looks like. Party chairs don’t usually do the media thing, or not much of it, except during election seasons. They’re supposed to be spending their time organizing the party. I mean, how many party chairs in the past got a lot of face time? Quick–name who was the DNC Chair under Carter?
I’m amazed Dean gets as much press as he does, given our media climate.
And I think he’s the best thing that’s happened to the party in years.
Rayne @ 142
Obviously, without talking to Dean, I can’t know for sure which it is. But my gut feeling has been that he would rather roll up his sleeves and work on apparatus-building than spend a lot of time on TV. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that he rather *dislikes* being on TV, and I really can’t blame him for that.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 134
i thought point #2 was fair – and was, for awhile, a real concern for me. but, i do know a few people i’d call genuine “pro-life” who haven’t yet addressed the issues of women’s moral agency vs a history of repression in our culture. i’m glad he got past that. if this is still a problem for others – i perfectly understand.
otho, points #3, #4 & #5 were just bullshit. and #6 was stupid. that was one of kos’ worse posts…. (but hey, everyone makes mistakes – just like gore choosing lieberman *g*)
Eli @ 137
Well, this is what I think too. It infuriates me to be called “far” left when all I do is support the Democratic party platform.
And one other thing. Hillary’s voice is like nails on a blackboard. The thought of listening to her for 4-8 years makes me shudder. I know that this isn’t PC, but I haven’t had any sleep yet. OK, one other thing, she is the most inauthentic candidate running.
LJ/Aquaria @ 146
I think all of that is correct, and furthermore that it is probably a blessing that McAuliffe was not on TV.
“Similarly, 30 percent of those polled this month said they were proud of the war, as opposed to 65 percent who expressed that sentiment in 2003.”
The Bush Cultist Base 30%.
-GSD
The same people who support Bush’s political cleansing of the US attorney’s offices.
This is not a difficult concept. I will not vote for any candidate in 2008 who I think does not repudiate occupation of a foreign country.
Rayne @ 132
Amen, Rayne. I was so shocked after Nov 04 that it rearranged a lot of my thinking. I had always assumed that the usual suspects – the ‘activists’ – were supposed to do all that stuff. I wasn’t a ‘political person’. But after the Debacle of 04, I realized I’d better get off my ass and do something – anything. I started blogging and becoming informed, and then I joined my local chapter of Progressive Dems of America, which works on finding and supporting progressive candidates, and putting pressure on the less-progressive Dems in office to move away from the right.
I can at least live with myself now that I’m taking some kind of action.
LJ/Aquaria @ 149
You think? God, I don’t know how many times I threw sh*t at the television when I saw TerryMac, it’s a wonder I didn’t have to buy a new television every month while he was chair. The man still annoys the p*ss out of me, such a useless corporate suck-up.
It’s the fact that most of us can’t name party chairs that describes the problem with the Democratic Party. It stopped making any real effort to invest in and build the party; they operated by default. In other words, the powers that were simply offered a non-Republican position. You went to the polls and you voted either Republican or Not Republican.
And that is no way to run a successful, thriving, vibrant political party, let alone one that actually encourages real democracy while working toward the greater good.
cinnamonape @ 144
AP also had a story out today shopping Stephen Hadley’s talking points. All media have to be taken skeptically these days because they are so shot through with lazy, uncritical stenographers.
Alicia @ 153
2006 was the first election where I really got involved. Unfortunately, voter contact makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I did a lot of behind-the-scenes volunteer work (primarily data entry and some pamphleting) every chance I could. Hopefully that freed more extroverts up for voter contact.
Oh, and I gave a whole bunch of money (at least for me), pretty much all to specific candidates rather than DSCC or DCCC. Mostly via Blue America.
Hugh @ 160
The Clone Whores.
-GSD
POWER TO THE PEEPS
egregious @ 158
Wait, was Will making a case for publicly financed elections?
Publicly financed something. War profiteering maybe. Avian flu scam, Katrina Blackwater reconstruction diversion of money/bodies/attention, random other FEMA scare tactic boondoggles. Investigations of Democratic office holders paid by the taxpayers, run by the All-Good Department of Leftover Justice. I would go on but it would be a copyright violation of the book 1984.
egregious @ 160
But we already *have* that.
Rayne @ 132
I was lucky enough to receive my political tutelage from my uncle, who came of political age in the run-up to WWII, which meant he learned politics while the democratic process in Germany was swirling down the drain. One of his favorite sayings about political participation was, “If everybody always expects somebody else to do something, nothing will get done because nobody will do anything, except the people willing to take advantage of that.”
And that pretty much summed it up. It used to just drive him crazy that he was always left holding so many bags with his local party, because other people just couldn’t be bothered to stay active enough.
Eli:
Think Matrix.
kirk murphy @ 147
This is exactly what I think, thanks. Somehow we need to find a way to shut people up that call us “far” left for embracing the common good.
selise @153
I just found point #2 to be interesting because I didn’t know that about him. I’m all for people changing their mind. I’m just cynical about intent with politicians when they do it a week after the declare their presidential bid.
Eli @ 161
No need to sound apologetic for working for change! That’s exactly what everyone should do, and not enough people do. You put your money and your abilities where your mouth is, so props to you!
If every progressive stepped up and did a little something, we’d be a lot farther along than we are now – maybe in the second term of President Gore, enjoying some of that yucky old ‘peace and prosperity’ that the Kowboy Koward of Krawford was so dismissive of when he was running for office.
Millineryman @ 164
Yeah, if he was smart, he would have done it a week *before*.
Rayne @ 159
McAuliffe took the chair after I had stopped watching TV, so maybe that’s what colored my perceptions. Otherwise, I can’t remember too many DNC Chairs being media personalities.
Now for the wonks out there who might want to know who the chairs have been…
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194038.html
Just FYI.
What’s bad is that I could remember a lot of these, off the top of my head.
Eli @ 152
No we can’t. In some ways, though, he’s learned a lot. A few days before the Iowa primary, Dean stated that we should be even-handed in our approach toward Israel and toward the Palestinians. Within 72 hours, his portrayal in the media took a turn against him, culminating in the heavily edited “scream” being played over and over and over on several networks. Just like the betrayal of Plame sent a message to more government employees than Plame herself, the sudden change in Dean coverage after being so foolish as to say such a simple and heartfelt thing was a message to other candidates as well as to Dean.
Since then, Dean has never suggested even-handed treatment of Palestinians.
Eli @ 159
And that is an excellent start, Eli. We need people doing all kinds of things in order to win; we will win more seats when we can convince people to take one more baby step, do just one more thing than they’ve done before.
We have a lovely person on our team who suffers from OCD and Panic Disorder. There is NO way this person can make phone calls or canvass door to door. But they are a whiz with computers and setting up VoIP so that we can phonebank, managed to make thousands of calls over one DSL line and 6 hand-me-down computers because of their work.
We have a team member who suffers from early Alzheimer’s. She so very much wants to be part of something, is so very pleasant with people. She is fabulous on the phones, can make call after call while reading from a script and taking responses, will go door-to-door all day if she’s accompanied.
We have a team member who has difficulty walking and climbing stairs — but he has the best contacts within the African-American community, makes a lot of phonecalls to get us resources and contacts on short notice.
And it all works. We are a big, close-knit family that didn’t exist a mere 26 months ago. We are finally becoming a party.
OT..This may have been posted but Holy Sh*t!
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashi…..ton_nation
The very short version is Lam notified Justice that she was going to do a search on Foggo; Sampson sent an e-mail that she needed to be fired. Jeebus.
U.S. attorney’s firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
Sorry this is off topic, but loosedrophead did a post entitled Insta-De-Classification and Other Bedtime Stories. In that post he mentioned Title 18 and the Section 793 and 794. I believe these sections fall under Treason if I recall correcttly.
Back in December 2005 I left the following comment below.
“Jane,
Could you please explain why Fitz didn’t incict Libby for Espionage? It seems that under the Espionage Stature that Libby passed classified information to persons not authorised to receive such information.
Also that the informatipn passed did indeed harm National Security once it was made public. It destroyed a CIA front company Brester Jennings where agents gatherd inteligence on WMD’s and Nuclear Proliferation. It endangered Plame’s life and the lives of all the foriegn assets helping us, their families and anyone else who worked out of Brewster Jennings.
Is it possible that he is holding this over the head of Libby along with Conspiracy charges to get him to roll over. Could he offer a plea deal to not indict on those charges and possible drop the obstruction charge and only prosecute for perjury and giving false statements?
If so then I could see indicting on only 5 charges. What do you think about this?
Anyway I’m still happy that a traitor got burned. I hope he fries.”
No one ever answered or responded with a reply to the questions. In fact Title 18 has never been a subject here at all {once again IIRC} so what is the answer to my question?
Everything that happened in the leak of Valerie Plame falls under this Title 18 Section 793 and 794 so why no posts on this subject with concern on the Libby leak and trial?
The question begs an answer and has since day one of the leak. So why not post on this subject?
Thank you,
Kewalo @ 131
There is no center. The idea that the electorate is some kind of bell curve, with us at one end and them at the other end, and the biggest slice being the center, is wrong, wrong, wrong. What was centrist in 1932, when lefty FDR beat the crap out of Hoover?
The central mistake of the DLC is the belief that the center is some sort of a priori bloc that you have to capture. The center isn’t something you catch. It’s something you MAKE. FDR understood that. So did Reagan. Reagan didn’t win by moving to some mushy middle. Neither did FDR. Nobody has. Landslides are not won by centrists.
Steve @
176
I’m guessing that was Porter Goss.
George A—
Libby couldn’t be indicted for espionage because the investigation was obstructed BY LIBBY. Hence the catchy court case about OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
It all goes back to San Diego.
Chicago rules.
Thought folks might like to know that Siun has a new thread upstairs.
cinnamonape @ 144
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 17, 8:11 AM ET
“Plame, the operative at the center of the leak scandal that resulted in last week’s criminal conviction of a former top White House official, created more of a stir by her presence on Capitol Hill than by her testimony. She revealed little new information about the case…”
Huh? Except for systematically destroying the Wingbat “Talking Points” that she WASN’T COVERT and that she SENT or RECOMMENDED Wilson on the trip!
MS. Hirschfeld Davis…the LEGAL definition of COVERT is stated clearly in the Intelligence Agent’s Identity Protection Act. There ARE NO MULTIPLE MEANINGS. And Plame qualified under that law as COVERT. The only issue was whether the leakers were prosecutable…whether THEIR knowledge and intent could be established.
Because of the perjury and obstruction of Fitzgerald’s investigation determining THOSE ISSUES…which are seperable from Plame’s COVERT status…were hindered.
Egad! The documents that referred to Plame’s CIA employment HAD “TOP SECRET” written all over them! Many also carried the specific code word that indicated that they referred to COVERT OPERATIONS! So what precisely does Representative Davis WANT?
All these WH officials took training in handling Classified materials and knew that if they released any portion of them they could have their Security Clearances pulled and be subject to prosecution under National Security laws. There are several of these leakers who mishandled this information still working in the inner confines of the WH….still handling classified information! Some were given even higher ranking positions DESPITE violating their oaths not to mishandle National Security secrets.
egregious @ 179
For those investigating the Bush syndicate,
Le Carre’s Moscow Rules also apply.
I (a Connecticut resident) voted for Nader twice because he hit the nail on the head. We’re dealing with a two-headed monster.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 108
Back to Nader Again?
egregious….
Yes, that’s true, but it stills begs the question why no posts have ever been done on Title 18?
There was still proof at the trial that Libby passed classified information to those not entitled to receive it. At worst it was a deliberate act of Treason, at best is was willful negligence.
You’ve hit it right on the nail. Both points – the slavering after the big donor slushfund and the thoughts about appealing to people’s base nature. Although the dems haven’t perfected the latter as yet. But still, I am so disappointed in Rahm and Hill and a large number of other dems who seem to want to bask in the glory of their elevated status.
George, perhaps you can ask that question when looseheadprop or Christy post again on the topic of the Plame outing? I think part of the problem you’re having is timing, if you’re looking for a direct answer.
The other answer is two-fold, and in one of the threads earlier today we discussed this.
1) Greymail and State Secrets
2) Obstruction of Justice
Libby obstructed the investigation; a sufficiency of evidence to make an air-tight, solid case was not possible because of the obstruction.
Trying to introduce any other evidence besides that which Libby obstructed could have caused the investigation to be inundated by greymail and then shut down by State Secrets.
Further, as looseheadprop pointed out in the same thread earlier today, we only get ONE chance once the charges are filed. No fishing expedition is possible; the case has to be absolutely locked tight or it’s for naught.
That’s why we can’t get to Title 18, 793 or 794.
You really should buy Marcy’s book, Anatomy of Deceit, because the entire situation will become crystal clear (see link at upper left).
TeddySanFran @ 63
Gee whiz Teddy – how did I miss that Kucinich faux pas? What the hell was he thinkin?
hmmmmmm – Gore’s VP – what about Nancy Pelosi – that ought to give ole Steney & Joe Liarman quite a headache and heartburn and pain in the arse.
Eli @ 115
Actually that was in 2004…after it was pointed out that such inflexibility on the part of the Green party likely lost Florida and perhaps one or two other States to Bush vs. Gore.
So this vote-swapping arrangement was raised as a “remedy” in 2004. There was some discussion of its legality though. And I think that it was an initiative by an individual rather than the parties…who actually discouraged it.
I would prefer a much more up-front process, where local and state branches of the Parties would work together to run local slates and to support both Green and Democratic candidates. Since parties are supposed to be fictive entities Constitutionally there is no reason that joint party candidates can’t run (as with the Conservative/Republican Party in NY State) or have a Green caucus as a Democrat.
I think that some Democratic candidates in some districts (Austin, Berkeley, Napa, Humboldt, etc.) might welcome the opportunity to run as a Green and would pass muster as such. This would give the Greens tremendous prestige if their candidate then won.
If we want to elect progressives, we have to put real money behind them, and hold their feet to the fire when they don’t perform.
In the last election, we raised a paltry sum, compared with what the DLC raised. If we really want to win, we have to put up a whole lot more money, and we have to start raising it now. If we put all of what we raised last time on our Act Blue page, we are talking about 6,144 donations totaling $545,131.57. That might make a difference in several of the smaller races, but I don’t think it’s enough to make a difference in bigger races unless we really focus it. We need a whole lot more.
As to holding people’s feet to the fire, we did not give enough to be able to do that and the proof is the number of Blue America candidates who joined the more conservative Democratic groups. If we were the swing money, they would not have done that. And Rahm Emmanuel has the freshmen dialing for dollars: who do you think they are calling? Have any of you ever been called? I haven’t, and I gave a whole lot of money through the page, enough money that Victoria Wulsin called me during the campaign.
Until we get serious about the money, we are not going to succeed.
Was it ‘moderate’ for Clinton/Gore/Albright to enfore U.N. sanctions (dictated by the U.S.A.) on Iraq that killed 350,000 Iraqui children UNICEF estimates – some say 500,000) by denying them basic medical services, infrastructure supplies needed for basic social services such as hygiene, and food?
Is it ‘immoderate’ for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Rice to unleash a savage war killing 650,000 Iraqui citizens and destroying the Iraqui infrastructure?
I’m just wondering about the ‘moderate Democrat’ vs. ‘immoderate Republican’ difference.
Eli @ 164
George Will is in a “War Against Easter”????
cinnamonape @ 184
Ah, my mistake. 2004 makes more sense.
I think local elections are a much better fit for the Greens, as they can focus on the most progressive districts and have their best chance for electoral success and legitimacy.
It’s just when they knowingly serve as spoilers for Democrats that I have a problem with them.
cleter @ 178
I also think that we live in a world that isn’t distributed in a linear fashion where issues simply line up “leftright”. The world is a polydimensional political and identity space and individuals may fall into clumps and clusters but it isn’t simply one that’s easily defined by the terms in use today. In fact some of those polities are so far out there that they are almost on a Mobius strip.
It’s why people who were once viewed as liberals or leftist radicals (e.g. some Trotskyites) are now the core of the Neo-Conservative movement. I’m reminded of this Tom Tomorrow cartoon with Cheney, Bush, and Gonzo as 60’s Weather Underground Types.
The surest way to assure a Republican victory in 2008 is for the Democrats to act like Republicans. Reforming Mr. Bush’s excesses, standing for something besides personal ambition, making government work – instead of turning it into a cookie jar for lobbyists and their corporations – will get them elected.
Democrats have an FDR moment they may not see again for decades. Do a credible job of it, and the Republicans will be back in the bottle. Pass it by, and all the prayer breakfasts in the world will not bring it back.
I was at a party last night and responded to a question by saying that the person who came closest to representing my views has absolutely no chance of being nominated. Dennis, of course. I then said that I would vote for whatever fundraiser gets the Democratic nomination. After reading Eli’s excellent post, I’m thinking maybe I’ll just sit the GD thing out this time. Oh, I know I’m talking through my hat. I’ll end up throwing the switch for our guy or gal, even if it turns out to be a candidate who says she’ll let someone else decide whether gay people are immoral. I disgust myself sometimes. But they will have a hell of a hard time getting any of my limited money supply this time, of that I assure you. I would go to the streets, though, but only (I must tell the truth here) if very large numbers of my compatriots were there too. The belief I hold most strongly is that we are doomed to a slow and very painful decline.
Which is why I will never vote for Hillary. The poster child of the DLC. No way.
I feel our better path lays with our chairman, Dean. If only our leadership would understand this. Our id is democrats not republicans. If we wanted to follow the DLC then we’d just skip the lite version and be the real thing, republicans.
Since we chose to be democrats we feel we should be real ones.
The DLC just doesn’t not see that.
I feel the DLC has lost power since Dr. Dean became the chairman of the DNC.
Of course money is needed but, we do have our donors and winning is where alot of the money will flow from. Everyone loves a winner and even the corp. money will come to us if we win.
Not sell our values and become repuke lites.
I need to say I agree with mbbsdphil. I have often thought recently that we are at a FDR moment. Both parties are at that 1932 crossroads where the gop screwed it up so bad they stayed in the minority for years. And we brought in our FDR and he made this party what is was until 1970s.
But, FDR was a heart and not a head choice. If we go with hold our nose candidate this time we blow it. Why would swing voters and indies go with us if we are not crazy about our choice.
Marky @
16
I think you put the hammer on that particular nail there brother. Of course there’s a few other nails needing hammers, but that there’s a darn good start.
Here’s what the DLC gets you.
At the time of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, just a couple of weeks before the mid-term election, there were 50 Democratic Senators. The vote among the Democrats broke down to 29 yeas and 21 nays. The majority of votes from Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services committee was against the resolution. The majority of votes from Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence committee was against the resolution.
For Democratic Senators who weren’t members of the DLC, the vote was 12 yeas and 18 nays; roughly 60% against the resolution, which was the breakdown for all Democrats in both houses of Congress.
Among the DLC members of the Senate, the vote was 17-3. That’s being generous, and counting Jean Carnahan’s yea as a non-DLC vote; her late husband was a DLC member.
Sixty percent of Congressional Democrats voted against the resolution. Sixty percent of non-DLC Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. About 15% of DLC Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Admittedly, that’s a far better record than the two percent of senatorial Republicans (only Lincoln Chaffee voted against it in the Senate), but it was a hell of a misjudgment for people who claim to have a better understanding of foreign policy and national security than the great unwashed Democratic masses.
This is the same tactic used by the Nazi’s in their quest for dictitorial power.