February 22, 2008 10:01 PM
Please <i>can it</i> with the Harold Ford for DNC chairman talk
By this statement alone Ford should be booted out of the DLC. This man is an embarrassment:
"There is not a better Congressman in Washington than Chris Shays," said Ford, to a crowd of about 600 Fairfield University students and community members.
Hamsher: Really? Crazy Shaysie? The guy who thinks Blackwater is doing a "perfect" -- not "good," but "perfect" -- job? He's your model for Congressional excellence?
Someone should let Ford know that the "D" in DLC is a passing reference to "Democrat."
If only we'd listened to James Carville we could have a DNC chair who campaigned for Republicans.
Donate to Blue America's Jim Himes here.
DNC chairman?
Isn't that Howard Deans Job?
has harold lost his mind?
shoot, i know hes no lib, but that is rediculous
He's an idiot.
Ford is probably still pissed that Dean's 50 state strategy helped get some pickups that nobody really expected. I remember seeing a lot of small (and a few big) victories in the last election. That was always one of Ford's pet peeves about Dean.
Frankly I think the DNC needs a little more distance from the DLC.
If ANY member of the DLC to become chair of the DNC it will spell the end of the Democratic party and a guarantee of total and complete Republican rule for decades to come.
The DLC should be put out of existence.
yes, we can it!
I've been VERY disappointed in Harold Ford. I remember around five years ago they were writing stories that he could be the first Black President. But ever since he got swiftboated and lost Tennessee, he has been going out of his mind trying to find unity with Conservatives.
Wow. At first I figured that must be an old quote, with some context for explaining why Ford would be so complimentary toward a Repub member of Congress.
But no, that's a RECENT quote. In an election year, with the Dems in a position to win the presidency and a clear majority in both houses, that asshole speaks up for a Republican?
Again, wow.
DLC: DINOs who Love Cons
Why do you think we have been losing until Dean started the 50 state project?
DLC should be eliminated. It serves no purpose that I know. Wasn't it started for right wing Dixicrats? As for James Carville, no one listens to him anymore anyway. Who could listen to someone that is married to Lady McCheney?
More evidence that the DLC is a corporate and right wing foundation funded fifth column inside the Democratic party whose sole purpose is to act as a foil against the interests of the working/middle and impoverished classes. One only needs to look at who funds it and it's associated organization, the misleadingly named Progressive Policy Institute. Is it just a coincidence that the same people who put up the money are the same that fund the Heritage Foundation, AEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other hard right think tanks? I doubt it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
The Bradley Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation
Harold Ford has been mind altered by working at Faux Noise Channel. Did no one warn him NOT to drink the water? He should never have accepted that drink from Rick Santorum!
Harold Ford knows full well what he is doing, lacking the ability to completely usurp the Democratic party and implant right wing coporatists, it's his job to insure that the Democrats lose their majority in the House and Senate. What the DLC fears most is a resurgent Progressive movement should the Democrats win the Presidency and retain control of both houses.
Ron @ 10:
Wasn't that ralph emanuel's idea?
The DLC is why the Repubs are able to project that they have a permanent majority in government. It is a stealth DINO operation operating as a mole in the Dem party. The DNC should marginalize it, and then publicly oppose it.
And we should start a mole group in the Repub party.
CD @ 15:
my bad Rahm Emanuel.
CD @ 17:
No, it was Dean, but Emanuel tried to claim credit for it after Democrats retook the House and Senate. That in spite of the fact that the right wing DLC candidates Emanuel supported, such as Harold Ford, largely lost their races.
Let's not forget that the DLC also has been a huge supporter of the Iraq war and claimed Howard Dean was out of touch because of his antiwar stance. They have close ties to Will Marshall, who made the fun statement of "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe" even as the Iraq war was becoming an incredibly unpopular topic back in 2005.
They've had an eclectic list of chairs too - R.Gephardt, C.Robb, S.Nunn, B.Clinton, J.Breaux, D.McCurdy, J.Lieberman, E.Bayh, T.Vilsack, and of course Ford. Their current list of leaders are Ford, Sen. Tom Carper, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jennifer Mann, and Mayor Michael Coleman (plus Bruce Reed and Al From).
Please someone explain to me how Harold Ford's love of Shays is any worse than Barack's love of Lieberman, which seems to be conveniently forgotten by the supposed "progressives". I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, I'm truly very curious why this disgusting part of Barack's recent past is just left out of all the hoopla, along with his refusal to support a Roberts' filibuster.
CD @ 15:
Don't know, but the 50 state strategy is a better description.
I received an e-mail from the DNCC recently, "signed" by James Carville (as I am sure many here did.) The message announced a new Democratic initiative to make the facts about Republican duplicity readily available to the rank and file.
The message said all the right things - aptly harnessing the outrage of engaged citizens. I found little to disagree with, but rather than a "yeah!" response, my feeling was "ugh!"
Why? Because after all these years, it has become clear what James Carville is all about - and it isn't "us". The letter represented a naked attempt at cynical manipulation of the democratic base to get behind "the party" for purposes of personal power for him and his clique. If his cadre are the ones to benefit, we will all be only marginally better off.
I have a friend who says the Democratic leadership is worse than the Republicans. I disagree, but I understand why he says it - because the Democratic leadership makes us believe they are different. The Republicans are greedy thugs, and don't really try to hide it.
(Incidentally, after years of receiving fundraising messages from first Republicans, then both major parties, it seems only Democrats find me worth contacting. Funny thing, I've not been in either party for 15 years.)
Saloum @ 20:
Lieberman was still a Democrat when Obama supported him in the primaries. It seems that large parts of the Democratic party wanted to avoid alienating him and keep him from flipping parties. For the record, Bill Clinton also actively campaigned for Lieberman.
Saloum @ 20:
Link please?
This is one thread that's hard to follow.
Deighved H Stern MD @ 22:
Don't confuse the Democratic Leadership Council with the Democratic leadership. The group was only named that to confuse the public. It does not control the Democratic party, the DNC or Howard Dean.
Saloum @ 20:
Which part of Obama's love of Lieberman are you talking about? The part where Lieberman was his Senate mentor and where Obama supported Lieberman for Senate in the early part of 2006? Or the part where Obama supported Lamont after he won the primary and was the Democratic candidate in the election?
What does a Roberts filibuster have to do with Harold Ford, the DLC, or the DNC? Let's be fair and ask questions about both candidates. Since you didn't do it I'll help you out. If we're going to randomly throw out questions about the candidates in the presidential election then let's ask why did HRC refuse to vote for the Levin amendment on the Iraq war? If we want to be more on topic but still offtopic then we could ask her to explain how her ties (she's a major chair) to the DLC shouldn't be a point of concern for the voters in November since the DLC has been very pro-Bush administration at nearly every turn.
I'm amazed that it took 20 posts before someone tried to turn a thread that wasn't about Clinton or Obama into a thread about Clinton or Obama.
In fact, the DLC and its supporters despise Howard Dean and his success in electing Democrats. That's why they want to replace him with Harold Ford.
True campaign slogans:
"Ford Has a Badder Ideology!"
"Built Ford Toughshit Poor Fuckers!"
"Everything We Do is Driven By Money From Rich Pricks Like Us."
"Have you driven a Ford belatedly?"
"Quality is Jobbing the poor."
"There's a Ford in your Future Demise."
Just another Uncle Zell motherfucker...
Roark77@26
Nice one, thanks!
Snowball @ 12:
Proud2bHumble@30
Thanks Snowball. Good link. :)
Snowball @ 23:
Obama may have endorsed Lieberman and perhaps even done some campaigning for him, but it was probably minimal. I don't remember him being involved at all. I DO remember getting constant and endless robo-calls from Bill Clinton ranting about how swell Lieberman is. Several a day. And if we didn't answer the phone (and nobody in their right mind would) he rambled on and on over the answering machine. I also remember Barbara Boxer making appearances and speeches for Lieberman.
Gotta go... will check back later.
No thanks.
-AF
Snowball @ 29:
It always bugs me when people act like Lieberman was always some kind of right wing troll. After all he was the VP candidate for Al Gore in 2000 and I think the majority of us wish we would have had him as our VP over the VP that we got. Both Obama and Bill Clinton campaigned for him in 06 and both were aware of the flak he was taking over Iraq but both went to Lamont when the time came. I believe that Lieberman was Obama's Senate mentor early on because the DLC was checking him out. They even included him in their member rolls but he publically had them remove him since they apparently never asked him to join and their views didn't match his (particularly on Iraq and free trade).
Another interesting point of the DLC is that two of their key issues have been NAFTA and Iraq. They've been constant in their support for NAFTA and have been aggressive in supporting Iraq. Their articles on NAFTA are especially interesting if you go back and look at their early views of the project
Snowball @ 27:
That is the absolute truth! The 50-state initiative has been blowing away DLC shills since 2006 and they hate Howard Dean for it.
DLC = Douchebag Lieberman/Clintonites
Roark77@35
Sorry Roark, I can't go along with you there. There's plenty of evidence that the DLC does not have the interests of the Democratic party at heart. Check my post:
Snowball@12
Snowball @ 23:
Sorry, but that's rewriting history. Barack didn't simply support Joe to go along with some larger Dem plan to keep Joe from flipping, he flew into Hartford, appeared on stage, announced that Lieberman was his mentor, and went on and on. I WAS THERE! This was a love fest.
ford went on fux to disparage the Dems. The same people allow Lieberdouche to be a committee chair. 2008 will be a great election to blow away some more DLC, DSCC and DCCC.
And Gore only selected Lieberman as running mate to appease the DLC who most certainly have worked to undermine his candidacy had he not. The sad fact is they did anyway.
Ron @ 21:
the 50-state initiative was Dean's Idea. Period.
marie @ 32:
Simply because you "don't remember" doesn't mean it didn't happen. What an incredible double standard we are seeing. If B.O. supports a war-lover like Lieberman, it's forgotten or just part of a larger Dem plan. He was young, he was still being checked out. WTF?! but if a Clinton did so, well then, that confirms how sleazy the Clintons are. Please check your blind rationalizations at the door.
Snowball @ 40:
way too true. it shows the kind of democrats hill and bill are. I guess that is pretty much the same kind as harold ford.
Saloum@38
As I said, Lieberman was still a Democrat (even if a nominal one) at the time. Comity among elected party representatives is the norm, not the exception. As someone else pointed out, after Lieberman lost the primary, he supported Lamont. Regardless, that is not the topic of this thread.
Forget Harold Ford, let's make this guy DNC Chairman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/...
Saloum @ 42:
as was mentioned before, could we not do the C/O warfare in this thread. Can we stick to the topic for once?
Harold should go hook up with that blonde from the commercial and not come back!
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 24:
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_ralli...
Snowball, he most assuredly DID NOT support Lamont, he RAN against him, [Deleted. No need to be abusive to someone with whom you disagree. That's immature-Sitemonitor]
To those that want to point out the "Obama campaigned for Lieberman" connection, don't forget that Bill Clinton did as well (and defended Lieberman's war stance). And the important part of both of those points is that both Clinton and Obama did not support Lieberman for Senate after Ned Lamont beat him in the Democratic primary. I always found it ironic that Clinton supported Lieberman in that race after Lieberman had been one of his biggest critics in the Lewinsky business.
Snowball @ 37:
I didn't realize that anything I said was complementary to the DLC. I'm always critical of them and their agenda. I love that link you posted. The DLC is one major concern I have about Clinton that never seems to get addressed by any of her supporters. And before anyone jumps on me for making the connection, she's one of their leaders and chairs, not simply a member.
jeff @ 48:
Aside from the fact you're wrong and off topic, your flamebaiting will soon be deleted by the site monitor.
Thanks for trolling!
CoIntelPro @ 41:
additionally, dickhead carville, the eternal betrayer of the democratic party attacked howard dean after the incredibly successful 2006 election claiming that Howard Dean should have spent more money. What really happened was that 8 0f 9 DLC congressional candidates were defeated in the primaries by progressives of the 50-state initiative. meamwhile, the DLC did nothing about the race-baiting in tennessee as Ford lost his election bid. it seemed the DLC had a 'southern' strategy' of its own.
Thanks GonzoD, I almost forgot about that goofy commerical. "Harold, call me" still makes me laugh.
jeff @ 48:
Before you start namecalling you ought to try reading closer. Snowball was talking about Obama supporting Lieberman and then turning his support to Lamont.
I've never thought much of Harold Ford. He has no core principles other than getting power, but I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Before Barack Obama, the only Black political figures with appeal to Whites were considered sellouts in the hood (Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, etc.) I think in the future, you'll see a lot of young Black politicians try and follow in Obama's footsteps by moving to the right. But Obama's ease with Whites is natural, not forced, probably due to the fact that he was raised by the White side of his family. However, his voting record indicates that he hasn't comprised his principles for the sake of broadening his appeal. Let's not forget that Ford voted for the Iraq war.
CD @ 17:
Yikes...really revisionist. There's a pretty strong argument that Barack Obama wouldn't be knocking on the door of 1600 Pennsylvania if Howard Dean hadn't fixed this party. The Clintons/Emmanuel hate Dean. I wasn't a Deaniac, but Howard Dean is one of the primary reasons for success in this election cycle.
It's 50+1 vs. 50-State and I hope the latter wins the day in this election.
I do believe that there are some members of the DLC who are Democrats who remain so because they are pro-choice, support affirmative action and do not believe in discriminating against gays. They do however, represent the more moderate wing of the ruling economic elite who do not want the Democratic party to be a voice for working, middle class and poor people and use their position in the Democratic party to act against our interests.
Snowball @ 49:
Are you actually saying that Lieberman suppoprted Lamont after he lost to him in the primary?? Then maybe you can explain to us all how he remained in the Senate and become the most Republican Democrat in the last century. I bet you'd like to see a McVain/Lieberman ticket, wouldn't you?
Saloum @ 42:
Nobody says it didn't happen. Obama was one of the least forceful of far too many Democrats trooping through Connecticut speaking for Lieberman. We weren't thrilled with it but we can't dump every one of them. Nobody's perfect and you'll have to look long and hard to find anybody who agrees with you 100%.
Might as well let Lamont speak for himself:
Ned Lamont
Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ned-lamont/why-im-supporting-barack_b_8098...
Why is it that when a democrat says something stupid, it means that they just aren't being "good democrats", but when a republican says something stupid, they're just stupid?
I totally hate party-hackery-bickering. It's so useless and old.
I hope that Dean's 50 state strategy works this year too. I'm tired of that 50+1 strategy and I was glad to see Dean's ideas get a few wins in '06 that we probably wouldn't have otherwise.
marie @ 58:
The point that should be made (and that is often purposefully ignored) is that Obama did not support Lieberman after he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. The majority of Democrats put their support with the Democratic candidate and I can't remember any offhand that supported Lieberman after he split from the Democratic party.
marie @ 58:
Agreed! You can't be any more anti-war than Boxer and Kennedy, but they supported Lieberman in the primary also.
jeff@57
You know full well I was referring to Obama.
Thanks for trolling!
Snowball @ 63:
Sorry, but I did not, and my previous apology to you has for some reason not appeared. Maybe I've been banned.
[You haven't been banned, and the post you mention didn't get caught in the spam filter, go to moderation or end up on another thread. But it wouldn't be the first time a comment is no where to be found-Sitemonitor]
Please folks, be careful with the "quote this comment" button and make sure you're not attributing quotes to the wrong people. It's like the game of Telephone where what people say is diluted and misconstrued along the way as it is passed along.
jeff@64
If you apologized, I'm willing to accept.
Thank you, Sitemonitor, and I did, and do apoligize Snowball.
[I believe you. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said comments don't show up on occasion. Sometimes they really don't show up-Sitemonitor]
I've often lost some of my best posts with this commenting system. Then, when you try to post it again, you get a "you've already posted that" message. It can be frustrating.
Drew @ 60:
I hope you weren't implying that Ford is a "Democrat". Corporate whore is his primary defining feature. Every other attribute is secondary.
And yes, Repubs are just stupid. Or ignorant of reality. Or both.
Otay @ 69:
I find it ironic that Ford likes Chris Shays. They have almost opposite voting records and stances on issues. Besides a few of Shays controversies and his Blackwater business, he's done a lot of voting with the Democrats. Shays has been a longtime advocate for GLBT community, was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, supported gun control, and recently suggested getting a timetable to withdraw the troops (which was a reversal of his Iraq policies up to that point). Ford has supported bans on benefits for same sex couples and is against gay marriage, was critical of Democrats that opposed Samuel Alito and the Iraq war, and supported several Repub proposals (like intervening in the Schiavo mess).
I'm not saying that I really like Chris Shays but I wish more Republicans shared some of his views.
Like I said above Roark77, there exists in both parties, that mushy "moderate" I would say moderate corporate, middle that would probably best start a centrist party akin to the British Liberal Party. The Republican party used to be like that but has lost its way by pandering to the religious right to get voters to support it who otherwise would have no interest in its economic positions. I myself, want a party that supports my economic interests (I'm on the upper end of the working poor, not middle class but I have health insurance from my job and can afford to pay rent and eat with little wiggle room) and is liberal to libertarian on social issues. I think the Democratic Party should be that party.
It's weird about Ford, even though he's pandering to the right on social issues, he's also no Progressive on economic issues. I presume it has much to do with his district and a heavy element of political opportunism. Didn't work out well for him as he lost his election. It seems the DLC is searching for ways to propel their pro-corporate agenda and decided to imitate the Republicans on social issues. That's why they hired former Christian Coalition spokesman Marshall Wittmann. What they don't get is that political parties in a democracy are supposed to represent competing interests and political philosophies. They are not supposed to be like sports teams that can switch players and whose only objective is to win elections. They're floundering and becoming quickly irrelevant.
SassySandy @ 11:
Wasn't lady McCheney a member of Common Cause in the 80's?
Sorry, I don't see how this is off-topic at all.
It's really quite simple.
Harold Ford shows love for a sickening CT Republican, gets slammed.
Barack Obama shows love for a sickening CT "Independent" in bed w/the GOP, and it's forgotten.
I'm simply pointing out the double standard that exists.
There are many more examples, but I'll wait for a more on-topic thread to post why Barack should NOT be our candidate.
Ford should just be a Faux News "liberal," where he'd fit right in.
Saloum @ 74:
Actually you didn't point out a double standard at all. Ford is showing love for a Republican right now, while the Republican still is a member of the Republican party. Obama supported Lieberman for Senate before he lost the nomination to Lamont. Bill Clinton also supported Lieberman for Senate before he lost the nomination and publically defended Lieberman's war record. A lot of Democrats supported Lieberman in the primary (Reid, Schumer, etc) and Hillary Clinton supported Lieberman but warned that he would not have her support if he lost the primary.
Your point isn't a double standard at all. You're trying to compare Obama to Ford by implying that Obama supported Lieberman all the way and that's factually false. If you're suggesting that Obama is less of a candidate for supporting Lieberman then explain why Clinton is also less of a candidate since she was a long time supporter of Lieberman as well?
Otay @ 69:
Why is it than when a politician is a corporate whore, they are never ever ever a "Democrat", but sometimes a "Republican"????
If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...
I think you have to get this naive idea out of your head. There is no such thing as "true democrat" or "true republican". There is only PEOPLE and THEIR IDEAS. The sooner you realize this the better off you will be. People do not think, act, or behave according to the group of people they are labelled as belonging to. They think, act and behave according to THEIR OWN thought processes.
This ridiculous group think is what Orwell and Jung warned us all against you know. Don't be fooled.
Roark77 @ 70:
Why do you find it "ironic"? Do you not know how politics works yet? Don't be so naive. There is a political reason why Ford is supporting Shays.
And if I were you, I wouldn't focus so much on what people "support" or "advocate" by words alone. Go by consistency in actions.
i've been saying it for years . . . ford is an empty suit of rhetoric that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Drew @ 76:
Enabling corporations to run our government is not "Democratic" by a long shot. It goes against the primary defining characteristic of the "Democratic" party, by definition.
Otay @ 79:
Enabling corporations to run our government is not "Republican" by a long shot either. It goes against the primary defining
characterstic of the "Republican" party, by definition.
America is SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy! Did you know that? Everyone who thinks America is supposed to be a democracy is FLAT WRONG AND SHOULD STFU. The founding fathers HATED democracy, because they knew that the country would turn into 51% majority ruling by tyranny over the remaining 49%. If you are in the 49%, you have no rights. How evil is that? A Constitutional Republic on the other hand is much better, because 99% of the population would not be able to violate the rights if the remaining 1%. This is what made America great for so long, but ideology and rational philosophy were never America's strong points, so the people eventually came to believe that we are supposed to be a democracy. Eventually, the people will come to believe that that we were supposed to be a fascist country all along, once fascism finally takes hold.
If you want to fight this latest trend of fascist corporatocracy, please don't think "democracy" is a proper and strong enough ideological fighting machine. You cannot fight an evil with another evil. Those who think democracy is the best form of government and society are the ones who are letting this country become fascist, as good as their intentions are to the contrary. This is because to fight fire (fascism and/or communism) you have to use water (liberty and true republicanism), not oil (democracy).
A society that EXPLICITLY accepts and promotes the idea that 49% of the population doesn't matter, this society will NOT STAND THE TEST OF TIME. Eventually it will fail. The ancient Greeks knew this, because they were strong in philosophy. America is ignorant of this, because it is not strong in philosophy, it is strong in "how can I get mine"? type of ideology.
Ask any democrat if they feel bad, in any way, for the hard-core democrat-hating republicans that are going to have to live in a country whereby the majority of the country (democrats) wants to violate his rights in any way such as taxing them to provide healthcare. They will laugh in your face and say how bad republicans have made the country, so they should shut up and "do what's right for the country", i.e. JOIN THEM.
Ask any republican if they felt bad, in any way, for the hard-core republican-hating democrats over the last 7 years and they will laugh in your face and say something like "at least taxes are lower", so shut up and be glad, and vote republican in the next election.
Meanwhile, some of us are shaking our heads at these bickering fools that seem to care less about the individual and individual rights (the only proper rights for mankind). Some of us do not want what either party is offering, because in both cases at least 49% of the population is going to get shafted in the next election. THAT'S why the country is so "divided", and has been "divided" for many many years. It is the fundamental reason for the decline of our society (in addition to central banking, which is a primary facet of the Communist Manifesto.
So while the corporate-fascist republicans and worker-communist democrats in this country bicker over the proper form of society, libertarians say none of them can work, as has been proven by logic and theory as well as throughout history numerous times.
Harold Ford, Jr is a pseudo republican, he has no personality, he sides with the surge, and believes we are winning in Iraq when he appeared on Bill Maher.
Harold Ford, Jr needs to retire from politics completely, he is an embarrassment to any democrat, and their values. He is a total hypocrite and has been a demonstrable failure as the DLC Chairman
karesf @ 55:
Watch you call a revisionist asshole.
Harold and Joe L can both join the repukes as far as I'm concerned. Good riddance. Go on the Heritage Foundation payroll jackass, and quit trying to fool people into thinking you represent anything democratic anymore. Frankly, anybody who can't see the winds of change comming at this point, and would choose to still cozy-up to the neocons, is too stupid to waste time on.
And after Billary is smitten, the DLC should be cast adrift from the Democratic party. The sheeple flirted with republicanism, and they found out it wasn't what they bargained for. Thus, the DLC (repuke lite) is, and has been irrelevant for a couple elections now.
Read Ford's statement on the Shays comments here: http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2008/02/ford-statement-on-shays-com...
Comments are restricted to registered users only.
Login - Register