what you mean by "consistent line of attack" (1) isn't an attack, (2) is your effort to try to move the discussion to your playing field rather than letting in a little light. you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
and who are these "people attacking the dems"? do you ever pay attention to whom you're writing, or to real, actual people? or are they some kind of collective untermenschen to you?
>>First, someone says that Dems vote wrong on labor.
who is this "someone"? another one of the amorphous mass of people on this list you don't like because they disagree with you.
>> I point out
>>that they actually vote well on labor issues.
no you didn't. you point out that *some of them, once and awhile* vote well on labor issues. naturally, you didn't put it this way; you're too used to practicing political rhetoric. but if anyone with any sense reads your argument, that's the reality between the lines. you write your apologias and don't look back. get your facts straight.
>>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.
i, R, didn't say that. i assume michael dawson did? you're going to have to identify people as individuals, nathan newman, rather than firing in 360 degrees and hoping you hit something.
>>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.
that one issue cost max cleland his seat? are you joking? dirty tricks cost max cleland his seat. it was a karl rove special. please get your facts straight.
interesting isn't it that the dems appear to be willing to sacrifice for "labor rights" but failed to make the same sacrifice to get gore into office in 2000. i wonder why that is? explain it to me, please.
>> >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.
wrong. expanding the playing field. expanding what you term a "debate," and i would term your harangue. taking a look at inez in three dimensions rather than one. when the "line" is myopic, it cries out to be filled in with facts. you're the one calling for people to support democrats, not me. let's take an honest look at what people get when they support democrats, where these dems stand on all the issues affecting people, not just one; and not keep arguing, as you do, that the lesser of two evils is the only way to go rather than any other possibility.
>>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.
nathan newman, please do the best you can to refrain from putting words in my mouth, from setting up phoney "argument" as if it was mine, then showing off how well you can strike down something i did not say. it's a cheap, transparent trick.
>>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.
not going out on a limb on that one are you. as usual, you've boxed yourself into -- and are trying to box in everyone else -- a forced choice between only two alternatives. i wonder what you'd do if you were given the choice between measles and chicken pox. what would your argument be ....
>>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.
thank you for so cleverly reading my mind. as usual, you can't resist labeling people, dealing in generalities, arguing in terms of cliches like "purity test" which go much better with propaganda and right wing manipulation than with reasoned discussion.
let's say, just for fun, rather than a purity test, it might be a good idea to give the democratic party a high colonic. how's that? on second thought, far too messy; the nation would be inundated.
>> >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)
trying to get on my good side, right?
>>Huh? The power to control
>>Republicans lies in my hands?
are you faster than a speeding bullet; can you leap tall buildings in a single bound; are you more powerful than a locomotive? should i doff my cap and touch my forelock before nathan newman rove?
>>If Democrats withhold support from their
>>elected politicians, this will magically make GOP politicians change their
>>position? Huh?
can you do better than a vapid rhetorical question?
>> >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.
it was your idea.
>>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.
i've already posted comments about ACT on this message board, which i'm sure you either didn't read and/or didn't retain. there's no point in debunking organizations with strong ties to the democratic party over and over again simply for your benefit. groups like ACT and moveon.org are doing the grassroots work the democratic party abandoned years ago. the fact they don't have formal connections to the democratic party, but substantive informal connections, is obvious. ACT, for example, claims to have as one of its goals working to get progressives elected. can *you* tell me how much effort ACT is putting into getting third party progressives elected, and where? let's read your evidence!
it's not necessary for john kerry to be leading ACT and moveon.org, or terry mcauliffee raising money for ACT and moveon.org, for there to be a substantial bond between them and the democratic party. you consistently, willfully misrepresent the relationship.
>>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
i don't know what you've got against the "left." how about "ultra liberals"? don't they deserve a little of your misrepresentation, too?
you need to take the quote posted at the GOTV site seriously: The ends do not justify the means, the means determine the ends. - John Andrew Rice 1888-1968. all your postings are means to the end of getting people to buy into your fantasy about voting democrat rather than developing any alternative but what you loosely term grass roots organizing, which will somehow, mystically remake the democratic party. good luck
R
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk