http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51711

Democrats declare war ... on themselves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



The writer is referring to Rahm Emanuel, the chief fund-raiser for Congressional Democrats. You should also know this declaration of war was warmly embraced by The Daily Kos, the blog of record for Democrats. For the record, here's what brought on the threat to shoot the Emmanuels of the world:




Of course, those of us following the end of the Democrat Party as we know it, have been aware of the Dean-Emanuel uncivil war:




So there it is. Dean vs. Rahm. The Netroots vs. The Democrat Leadership Council. A civil war is in full swing within the Democrat Party and, like all civil wars, it will be fought with great incivility.

You'd think this would dominate the news with the November elections just around the corner.

We all know Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman has been thrown under the SUV by his party. Democrats, under the leadership of Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, have decided old line, so-called ''moderate'' Democrats are no longer welcome.

The genesis of the split in the Democratic party may have occurred when Dean muscled his way into the chairmanship of the DNC when it was being vacated by Bill and Hillary's bagman, Terry McAuliffe. Hillary, in one of the worst blunders by any politician in recent memory – a truly historic blunder – failed to get her guy elected chairman of the DNC and now she, Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emanuel are being pushed out of the party. More accurately stated, they are being blindfolded and forced to walk the plank.

You all know about Joe and Hillary, but this Rahm Emanuel guy is no slouch. Not only is Emanuel is chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he also has a relative of some note. Rep. Emanuel has a big-time, slam-dunk, direct line to Hollywood. Every Democrats' dream, right? You thought Bill Clinton had friends in Hollywood? Not like Rahm. Rahm is hooked up like nobody else in politics. Rahm's brother, Ari, is a principal partner in one of the most powerful talent agencies in Hollywood. Ari is known as the ''Steven Spielberg of television.'' Rahm's brother represents Conan O'Brien, Larry David, Michael Moore, Mark Wahlberg, Paris Hilton, Michael Douglas, Martin Scorsese, Ozzy Osbourne and many others. The Emanuels have solid gold liberal credentials. I'm talking Hall of Fame Democrats, here.

Anyway, Howard Dean's taking over as chair of the DNC marked the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. The netroots wants nothing – and I mean nothing – to do with the likes of Rahm Emanuel. Howard Dean and his posse have rounded up the outlaws – you know, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel – and are out to lynch them.

Either you are a proud and loud anti-war socialist, or you are out. More from Matt Taibbi:





The surge in support for Lamont initially came from people motivated by two simple things – a desire to protest the war in Iraq, and physical revulsion before the wrinkled, vengeful persona of Joe Lieberman. But the party, in fighting back, attacked not on the issues but on the means of protest – blogs, grassroots activism, Lamont's independent wealth. In doing so it threw into relief the essential parameters of the problem, which is this; the Democratic Party has been operating for two decades without the active participation of its voters.



It would appear the Democrats have borrowed the words of that wise old philosopher Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Stay tuned.

Ha ha ha ha ha

Good distraction from the extremist purge of the Reich Wing Republicans. There are far more Republicans jumping ship and this type of article eludes to the party in trouble to watch is the Dem's?

Ha ha ha ha ha Actually, one of my house mates works for the DNC and we often converse. And surprisingly, this was one of the first things we talked about.

That while the Dem's need to be careful to not let the netRoots/GrassRoots push become radicalized, that being that the Republicans have managed to marginalize the media, print and Tee Vee, that the real central aspect to regain ground through IS through NetRoots/GrassRoots efforts.

The writer is obviously not in favor of the Democratic Party, otherwise he wouldn't have stated:

those of us following the end of the Democrat Party as we know it

I don't believe the article said the Democrats were in trouble, but that the left and right wings of the leftern party were doing battle for control, which in my mind is a good thing. The more people like Dean, and Kucinich, and Conyers and the rest of the MAIN STREAM DNC stand up and demand accountability of it's DLC brothers and sisters, the stronger the party becomes.

The Netroots are the new voting phenomanah, and the DLC is learning to ignore this reality at it's peril.

If the article didn't say the Democratic Party is in trouble, it wasted a lot of ink. Or bandwidth. And the time it took to write it.

We face a delimma in terms of the Democratic Party, as I see it:

If we change it to be the way we want it, we weaken it politically because it loses mainstream support. So we feel better about the Democrats while at the same time hurting them. And who will be there to fill in the void? None other than the only other political party on the block.

If we let the Democratic party stick to what it knows and continue to be what they are now, then they are stronger politically but we detest and abhor them because they are in no way progressive.

The real issue goes much deeper than this: Americans are, in general, a very conservative, patriotic, politically uninformed people, and there is a great gulf between us (progressives) and them. The Republicans know how to play to this population. The "DLC" Democrats also know how to do it. The "good Democrats" do not try, to their peril.

Those Democrats who put values over politics ignore the reality of how the American people really are (and I mean the majority of Americans when I say that, obviously not every single American. So lets not play word games here).

I believe of the course of the next decade that both the Republican POarty and the Democratic party will morph into something quite different than what they are right now. Even so, they will both look quite familier. There will be no political revolutions that upset the voters. Those people like myself who consider them selves liberal will most likely always be a democrat. Just as those who are conservative will remain republicans.


Those of you who expect some dramatic and suddent shift in American politics are deluded by hopefulness, something I can personally recoginse. As has been pointed out by at least one forum member, the American system was designed to operate slowly, and to resist any sudden changes.

This means that though BOTH parties will change their ideologies to better suit their real majority base, both parties will none the less remain in place. Other parties will come along to rise in promenance, but until one of them has dynamic and well known leadership, as the Greens did for a short time, they will never gather more than a few points in national elections.


Besides, democrat or Republican, it's just a name. And though the houses internally will be remodeled, externally they'll always be the same recognisable structures.

I notice no one had a comment on this. Do you think I am totally wrong in saying this or do you think there is some truth to what I say? If there is some truth to what I say, then I think it is important to recognize the ramifications of this. This goes deeper than the the surface we normally discuss here.

You see no comments?

Both parties take their marching orders from those who underwrite their campaigns. It used to be big business funding the GOP and labor unions funding the Democrats. Now that organized labor is a shell of it's former self, the Democrats have learned to march to the beat of big business too. Remember, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA & GATT, not a Republican.

Clinton was a big business conservative democrat. The problem is big business. It's steadily taking over both parties. The Republican party actively courted it through the K street project and big business politicians on both sides of the aisle have weakend organized labor to the point where they can easily fill in the void left in the Democratic party. That's why they had to squash Dean. He was a grass-roots fundraising powerhouse.

AFW:


I wildly disagree with that statement.



I wildly do agree with that statement.

That's the thing right there. People are so misinformed on the issues that many think they are conservative yet they support a terribly non-conservative administration while detesting a successfully conservative previous administration. Even though, the people, by and large, are progressive and liberal. Even the republicans know this. That's why they use Orwellian terms to dress up their disasterous legislation with liberal sounding names: Clear Skies, Healthy forest, "saving and strengthening Social Security". The majority of people support liberal issues from energy independence, socialized (or at least affordable) healthcare, all the way down to equal rights, labor unions, and public libraries.

and Sky, what are you reading that tripe for? Don't you know that Wingnut Daily rots the brain?

BOTH parties are splitting. How long before we get new, more accurate names for the groups? Paleo Cons vs. Neo Cons; Democrats vs. Progressives. Seems we could do better.

I appreciate the wisdom in what you have said here West.
But as I have had to illustrate for several others, when you say "The Democrats" you aren't talking about a singularity like you would if you say, "The Republicans". Let me demonstrate for you.


For the past 30 - 35 years the Republicans have refined and focused their message. They have enabled this reality by systematically forcing out anyone that didn't toe the party line.

[If you need the links to back this up, just ask. I'm sure their are a dozen who can quite easly provide these for you. In fact, the POAC it;s self is a wealth of information. All you have to do is want to find it.]

Non link proof would be the simple fact that the Republicans devised revised and simplified, "The Talking Points" of which I am sure you are quite aware of. This simplicity is also a large reason it's so popular among conservatives.

So when we come to todays reality, we know exactly who and what the Republicans are. They have one single message and nearly every American knows exactly what that is.



The Liberals on the other hand, which also includes the Democrats, are a rainbow collection of ideas, values, and issues. And there has been NO effort over the past decades to do anything about this fact.
However, we were talking about the Democrats. Even with in this group the party line depends on who you talk too. Case in point, one faction just gave another a smack down when they didn't elect Smokin Joe LIEberman in his primaries.

For simplicity, the Democrats consist of two main factions. The Corporate Democrats of which you mentioned when you talk about the Clintons and Leiberman and the like. These are the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council, feel free to google their website) On the other side of the Democratic fence, are the Populist Democrats. Dean, Conyers, Feingold and the like. These are the DNC. (Democratic National Committe, the direct opposite of the RNC) The DLC are sometimes refered to as the Beltway Democrats. The DC Democrats. These are Democrats who are more Neo-liberal, than populist's. They respond to the idea of the open market and letting the market regulate it's self. Which of course, you and I simply do not agree with. These members of the DLC are corporatists. Or they can be thought of as the left wing of the Republican Party.

OK, so why would anybody ever vote for a member of the DLC?
This has to do with the power and who controls it. The party with the most seats, owns that power.
So, even though I dispise hillary, I would vote for her because I want the democrats to have the power of the subpoena. Currently, with the Rethugs in power, the Democrats can't even open discussion on the floor of anything that even remotely questions Bush, his Cabinet or any of his policies.

The Primaries are where we get rid of the Corporate Democrats. If not in 2006, then in 2008 along with the remaining Repugnicans and the pResident.



OK, so lets recap....


Republicans = one voice, one message. All Bad.
Democrats = multiple messages, but basically the DLC and the DNC. Corporate vs Populist.

DLC = Left wing of the Republican party. DNC = Populists who vote with and work for those that elect them.

Now with that information one should be less confused about who is what.

If the GOP's message is so repugnant how do you explain the fact that they've won 10 of the last 14 Presidential elections?

The Democrats have only convinced a majority of the electorate to vote for them in a national election twice since 1952 (and in 76 Carter won with just 50.5% of the vote - both Clinton & Kennedy won on plurality votes)

Why did you cut out the "patriotism" part, POAC? Patriotism is very core to this discussion. The Republicans wrap themselves in the flag and portray themselves to be the party of patriotism. It is undeniable that they do that. And Democrats are so afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic" that they will not oppose the Iraq war. "Patriotism" is the fuel that keeps the Iraq war burning, and it is a central issue. You cannot ignore it or pretend it is not a factor.

What about those Democrats who have and continue to speak out against the war?
Those Democrats who know that being a part of the opposition is not only patriotic, it's their jobs!
Shall we just pretend they don't exist?


Why do people like you continue to help this cowards frame along?

Ah! So the truth comes out!


I will now leave this in the hands of those much more capable than mine.
That is, if anybody wants to actually bother!

What "truth" are you refering to ?

What percentage of Democrats actually speak out against the war, Sky? And I do not mean speaking against the conduct of the war, but against the war itself? I can tell you, not a hell of a lot.

While I do not pretend that small minority does not exist, don't you pretend that large majority does not exist either because they do, and they define the Democratic Party today. So lets cut the crap.

If there is JUST ONE, then you have a viable opposition!

However, you seem to prefer to help the Republicans Frame the Democrats as losers and war mongering corporatists.

I'm sure this will help.



Edit to add...


Instead of asking me a question you know I don't have the answer to, and thereby in your mind justify your claim, why don't you go find the answer yourself, and then come back and tell me? No guessing, you'll have to coinsider the voting and written record of every senator and congressperson. I'm sure your research will be highly informative for all of us, including yourself.

If I did go to all that trouble and found the answer I am confident I would find, would it change your thinking about the Democratic Party one iota? Didn't think so.

If changing my mind could possibly effect change for the better, then yes!
But after all this time AFW, you have yet to offer that viable alternative.

And this circle argument goes round and round.......

I wasn't ignoring or pretending anything. I was pointing out the statements that I disagreed with. Some of it I agreed with. Some of it I didn't. I picked out the parts that I didn't agree with and shared my thoughts on the issue. Then I picked out the parts that I did agree with and shared my thoughts on that issue.

It's not the message that is the problem. They have a great message. Feel-good touchy-feely sloganeering and wedge issues that have no real business being in political debate. Willie Horton. Abortion. Flag burning. "Family values". Gay marriage. Don't forget the ever-popular fear mongering. It's running the country they suck at. Republicans are great at fundraising, campaigning, and getting elected. And once they get in office, they screw the working man while keeping them dazzled by promises of family values and keeping the boogey-man du-jour out from underneath their bed.

Don't the Democrats use the same tactics though?

Didn't Mike Dukakis run for Governor of Massachusetts on a "prisoner release" (i.e Willie Horton) program.

Bill Clinton (and every recent Democrat) runs on a promise to nominate judges that are pro-life.

Hillary Clinton just supported a bill to amend the constitution to outlaw flag burning.

Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, will no doubt use his support for gay marriage when he runs for re-election.

Aren't Democrats always voicing support for "working families" ?

Don't Democrats use the boogey man of "big business" to scare people too ?


It seems both parties use "wedge issues" - the only difference is a majority of the electorate agrees with the Republicans. That's called: politics.

Not to the same extent or as effectively as the republicans. And, no Dukakis didn't run on a Willie Horton Program campaign. Willie Horton was the boogey-man that the republicans used to scare the voters away from Dukakis. But thanks for explaining to me what politics are. I had no idea, as I am totally new to this.

while I'm still at it...

two book s that do a pretty good job at explaining why republicans can win elections despite their dismal performance record:

talking right
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1586483862-1

15% solution
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/15_solution.htm



every recent Democrat? Really?

I think we have met one or two of those 15% right here.

True, the GOP did use Wilie Horton to score points. But, it was Al Gore in the 88 primary campaign that used Horton against Dukakis first. And whats wrong with pointing out what a dismal failure it is to let dangerous criminals back into the public in the first place? I think it's telling that Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the union, has had nothing but Republican governors ever since Dukakis left office in 1990 (Weld, Celluci, Swift, Romney)

Yeah, that is pretty interesting. But I think we all have to admit the most brilliant campaign slogan ever was...


"Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!" Whoever thought of that brilliance should be beaten with a stick. Of course, those were different times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton




Ingraham, Hannity revived claim that "Al Gore brought up Willie Horton"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160008

Hannity falsely claimed that "Al Gore brought Willie Horton to the American people"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100007


The above links are also a demonstration of why republicans win elections despite their dismal record. The media machine and it's ability to put false notions in people's heads. There are still people walking around that think Gore claimed to invent the internets/series of tubes.

It's worth noting that he's now the Chair of FOX"news"

It's also a key aspect of the phenomenah refered to as the 15% solution.

Bush himself refers to propelling the propaganda. One of the aspects that is quintessential Kark Rove.
In other words, Republicans count on the fact that they can fool all of the people, for a little while.

Bill Clinton nominated Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg. "Pro-life" members of Congress crafted a letter to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg asking her to recuse herself from future abortion cases because of her relationship with the National Organization of Women, calling her "pro-abortion".
http://www.lifenews.com/nat389.html

Can you show me where he ever made that promise to only appoint pro-life judges?


a ) She's a conservative.
b ) It's an issue introduced by and repeatedly drug back up, by the republicans. You have to support it or risk giving them more ammo against you.


Duh. You think he shouldn't? What would happen if he didn't? San Francisco is one of the gayest cities and most progressive. He's serving the will of the people.

The point is that republicans hold up things to run against. "Threats" to the people. Abortion, flag burning, homos, Mexicans. Terrorists. Non-threats. Yeah, dems use it to, but it's the republican specialty and most of the "threats" that progressives, liberals, and most dems bring up are real. Big business is a problem. Energy independence. Global warming. Healthcare. There are real threats to deal with and then there are wedge issues, red herrings, and strawmen. And unfortunately, if you can create the threat, you can frame the discussion to your liking, and that wins elections.

and 15% all of the time.

Those aren't wedge issues. Wedge issues seperate people. Everyone supports "working families". Everyone supports protection from "big business" except the top 2%.

Yeah, Abortion, death penalty, immigration, those are wedge issues.

school prayer

I like the made up threats. Trial lawyers! Activist Judges!! BOOGA BOOGA! There's one under your bed!

My favorite of all is trial lawyers. Why? What do they do? The represent you against big business. THOSE BASTARDS! During the 2004 campaign the right wing media machine tried to marginalize one of the greatest accomplishment of John Edwards: Winning a case against a negligent whirlpool manufacturer who's negligence resulted in a little girl having her insides sucked out her ass. The talking point went out and all the pundits dutifully echoed it. "John Edwards is just another one of those trial lawyers whose biggest accomplishment was a jaccuzzi case". We need to protect America from these trial lawyers, not put them in the white house, they said.

Dispicable.

How does "big business" threaten you ?

What exactly is a "wedge issue" anyway ?

Shouldn't the people have a right to vote on issues that concern them ?

Big business has declared war on the Middle Class and is rolling up an incredible, barely contested victory.

Have you ever stopped to consider that what you believe to be "wedge issues" "red herrings" and "strawmen" are legitimate issues to other people?

If Gavin Newsome is "serving the will of the people" in SF - then, why can't you respect the fact that conservative politicians are serving the will of their constituents when they support conservative legislation? Politics is a two way street, that's why we have elections.

Hillary Clinton...a conservative? Was that intended as a joke?

right! big business has "declared war" on the middle class!

Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey are the enemy!

The failure to renew the net neutrality laws could break the back of the POAC. The only lobbying forces pushing for the expiration of net neutrality are the those of the major teleocom corporations. That's a personal threat to me specifically and to alternative web-based media, in general.

Another could be the regional wage depression that happens when Wal~mart enters into a rural market and the stress it puts on the states to compensate for Wal~mart's healthcare practices.

Media conglomeration is another. That's one that has affected you personally. If a major media corporation owns the lion's share of outlets in a market, they control the message, and if they have an agenda or wish to win the favor of a certain ruling party, they could lobby to have the fairness doctrine repealed and begin a campaign of misinforming the public to the point that they hold false notions in their head which they think are true. Example: Thinking Al Gore introduced Willie Horton to the political discussion. Lots of people still think 9-11 and Iraq are tired together and strill believe Iraq had WMD programs.


Wedge issues serve to divide the people and have them argue amongst themselves instead of the issues that affect them, taking the focus away from the state and corporate elite.

A wedge issue is a wedge issue BECAUSE they are legitimate and they divide the country, hence the wedge name. No one said abortion or any of the others are trivial.

The thing we are concernd with is that one side of these "wedge" issue is cheating to get their side to win.

Just to let you know, we allow all kinds of people in here but there are certain things that will get you banned. Intellectual dishonesty is one. You've already made statements that were untrue. That may not be your fault, many people are misinformed. Strawman arguments and hyperbole like the comment above is another. This is a discussion forum for like minded people, not a debate forum. If you want to use weak debate tactics, you'll have to take them elsewhere. Not a threat, just a warning.

If you can temper your knee jerk reactions long enough to read an insightful article you might actually learn a thing or two.

Turn off Neil Cavuto for a minute and read this. I happen to have some first hand experience on what the author is discussing.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=11300

Political issues are supposed to divide people.

The nature of politics is to divide & then compromise.

Why is it considered a "wedge issue" if conservatives oppose, say, gay marriage - but, it's NOT a wedge issue if Democrats support gay mariage?

Flag Burning, or Pretecting the Flag is a classic, Red Herring Wedge Issue.


Did you know that before this had become an issue, (in the 60's) There had been almost (but not quite) zero cases of documented burning of the US Flag?

And did you know that once this issue was created, the documented cases of floag burning shot up to include almost all known instances of flag burning? Now, why is this? Because people who want to protest, and have that protest noticed, people from a first year college student to an Iranian student taking US hostages, realized that if they burned the flag, because now that it's such an important American issue, thanks to the wedge issue republicans, that if they burn a flag and film it, odds are it'll make the national media. When before, no one would likely have noticed or heard a word they had to say.

Conservatives CREATED an issue where once there was none.
That's brilliant, and that's a classic wedge issue.


I will stand to defend the Constitution of the United States and what it represents.
I will not vote to send anyone to jail for burning a representation of that constitution.
Because doing the second in effect, nullifies the first.

Anyone care for a nice hot slice of Wedge Issue?

Wikipedia - Flag Desecration

It's a wedge issue either way. Introducing it to the political arena is the problem. The way abortion is. The republicans control the house, the senate, the courts, yet no ground has been gained in the abortion debate? Why? So they can bring it up next time. The same way with flag burning and a host of other absurdities.