At 10:53 AM 10/25/2004, Nathan Newman wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>>What I meant to say was that your
>>-party prefers to fight over "red" states on existing anti-labor ("small
>>-government," "moderate," "not liberal") terms.
>Again, where is your evidence? This post started by pointing out that
>these Dem candidates in these "red states" have publicly embraced
pro-labor
>legislation as part of their campaign.
-since when does a politician publicly embracing something guarantee the -politician means what s/he says?
Jesus, can't people attacking the Dems even keep a consistent line of attack. First, someone says that Dems vote wrong on labor. I point out that they actually vote well on labor issues. Then, you have the comment above that, well, they might vote right but they don't campaign publicly on pro-labor agendas. So I point out that they are doing so.
So we then cycle back to whether they actually mean what they promise. So I'll just go back to point A and note the consistent pro-labor votes of recent Dems, including nearly unanimous defense of the labor rights of federal employees during the Homeland Security bill debate in 2002-- which actually cost a number of Dem Senators their seats, including Max Cleland in Georgia.
>So in red-as-hell South Carolina, the Dem candidate is running on
>supporting affirmative action, labor law reform, raising the minimum wage,
>and fighting racism in the health care system.
>
>So that's hardly fighting on "anti-labor" terms.
-let's take a good look at the rest of what Inez Tenenbaum is "running on" -so we can round out this highly distorted picture of a democrat -regarding the war in iraq etc.:
Again, changing the line of debate. If your requirement is that everyone run as Ted Kennedy in every Southern state, that's a fine argument, but that's a different issue from whether the candidates are anti-labor or anti-civil rights.
I'd never argue that every Dem is progressive on every issue, but they are far more progressive than their Republican counterparts on most issues. Again, you see the purity test. Better to elect no one that to elect someone who diverges from the party line on any issue. It's strategically suicidal, but that's the specialty of some sectors of the left today.
>But short of trading away something else in exchange for labor law reform,
>what short of 60 votes can get labor law reform?
-how about people like you stop supporting the democrat party for starters.
(pin drops as the non sequitor breezes by) Huh? The power to control Republicans lies in my hands? If Democrats withhold support from their elected politicians, this will magically make GOP politicians change their position? Huh?
>To repeat as always, I don't defend some amorphous non-existent entity
>known as the "Democratic Party" (please send me its address;
-It's address is the Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, -Washington DC 20003. Send donations. maybe you could drop bye and tell -them they're really in 50, and probably 500 different places at once; -they'll be pleased to hear it. -with 50 locations, that would average one per state. each state does have -it's own democratic party, right?
Bzzzt... thank you for playing, but this is silly. Anyone who follows politics this year who thinks Terry McAulliffe controls either most of the party money or ground operations is just ignorant. Ever heard of ACT, the Media Fund, SEIU's "Heroes Program", America Votes, Moveon.org? That's who is running the party and where most money for Democrats are going-- and the address you listed ain't theres.
My god, open your eyes. Go out to GOTV efforts this weekend. Observe. You'll see massive grassroots operations run completely independently of Terry McAuliffee mobilizing exactly the folks the "left" claim to speak for.
-- Nathan Newman