ThisisHell is going to talk about the DLC and its strong ties to the Right

[Robbien]

When the DLC gets to the specifics of foreign policy, such as supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there seems to be little separating its "progressive internationalism" from the "neo-imperial foreign policy" of the Bush administration and its neoconservative advisers it criticizes.

Guest: Tom Berry talking about 'Right Web: the Architecture of Power That's Changing Our World"

Listen at:
http://www.wnur.org /

[Alerter_]

1. Kerry would rather have McCain than a DLCer like Clark

at least that's what it would seem considering the news

[Tinoire]

2. Uh Alerter... Kerry is the original DLC - DLC to the core. n/t

[Catholic Sensation]

21. no, the original dlcer was clinton

sorry to burst your bubble

[sundancekid]

4. before you pin labels on people, you may want to study their positions

while long, this ("Broken Engagement") is an excellent historical article by Clark, and puts him quite far from the PNACers, and quite insightful into their reach into other "strange bedfellows" -- but NOT Clark's own philosophy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.cla...

[wyldwolf]

19. Have you heard Kerry say this?

[Tinoire]

3. Good for them. DLC, PPI, PNAC- same shit, different out-house.

Just posted this earlier, but repsting here as it's relevant:

The fact that the biggest neo-cons out there were big-time Liberals should make people stop and think about the Neo cancer eating away at both parties.

Richard Perle is still a Democrat and so are half the people at the American Enterprise Institute, the parent organization of PNAC. The DLC is in bed with PNAC up to its neck to the point of having signed PNAC documents.

===
"It's Time to Get Over It"
Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On
By MARK HAND

The DLC is following the footsteps of its neo-conservative,
war-mongering predecessor organizations of the 1970s: the Coalition
for a Democratic Majority (CDM), founded in 1972 by the likes of
Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and
Jeane Kirkpatrick, among others; the Committee on the Present Danger
(CPD), founded in 1976 by Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Norman
Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, et al; and the
Committee for the Free World (CFW), founded in 1981 by exactly the
same crew. Rounding out the picture, CFW's chairman was Donald
Rumsfeld.

The "missing link" between the "Democratic" DLC and the now-
"Republican" CDM/CPD/CFW neo-cons, is the Social Democrats-USA,
(SDUSA), whose chairman, Penn Kemble, was the Executive Director of
the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in 1972, until he brought in
Richard Perle's underling Stephen Bryen to take his place. Bryen, who
created the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) in
the early 1980s, when he served as Perle's aide at the Department of
Defense, is another leading member of the neo-conservative gang that
wants to go to war against the entire Arab world in the name of
anti-terrorism. Providing daily coordination between Perle and Bryen
would be Joshua Muravchik, a fixture at nearly every American
Enterprise Institute event--but also a leader of SDUSA since its
creation.

The DLC and SDUSA both maintain extremely close links to Tony Blair's
British "New Labour" party faction, and in parallel, are out to
recreate a new version of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in
time for the 2004 elections. The battle cry for this effort is to
follow the "strong defense" lead of the original CDM's heroes: the
late Dem Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators
Jackson and Moynihan. The Cold Warrior and fanatically pro-Israel
Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today. Former DLC
president Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a
"'Scoop' Jackson Democrat." It was these two Senators' offices that
housed the Straussians behind the no-exit Iraq War.

From Jackson's staff came:

* Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense and a leading
Straussian chicken-hawk;

* Richard Perle (on Jackson's staff from 1969 until going into the
Defense Department in 1981), and until his recent forced resignation,
chairman of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board. It is reported that Perle
maintains Democratic Party membership to this day, out of fealty to
Scoop. Perle later brought along Doug Feith, now Rumsfeld's
Undersecretary for Policy, who has been a Perle "groupie" since the
late 1970s, largely due to Feith's family background deep in the
terrorist movement founded by Zionist fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky. In
the 1980s, Feith financed Perle through the International Advisers
Inc., a firm in which Feith was the only stockholder;

*Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy, a "private"
neo-con group which cheerleads for imperial wars and brutally
anti-Palestinian policies;

From Moynihan's office came:

* Elliott Abrams, an Iran/Contra convict who now tries to shape
Administration Middle East policy from the National Security Council
staff;

* Abram Shulsky, who heads the Office of Special Plans under Feith in
the Pentagon, which concocted fraudulent intelligence estimates used
by the Administration to justify the Iraq War;

* Gary Schmitt, the head of the empire-promoting PNAC and a close
collaborator of Shulsky. Schmitt worked under Roy Godson of the
National Strategy Information Center in the early 1980s. Godson was
active in the CDM in the 1970s, narrowly escaped prosecution in the
Iran-Contra scandals of the 1980s, and now is a consultant to Feith
and Shulsky's Office of Special Plans.

Other leaders in the CDM were:

* Stephen Bryen, who became Executive Director of CDM and then of
JINSA, after being kicked off the staff of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee for passing classified Pentagon documents to
Israeli officials.

* Penn Kemble, the first Executive Director of CDM, who paved the way
for Bryen to take the job over, later chairman of SDUSA.

In 1999, Norman Podhoretz, known as the "father" of neo-conservatism,
wrote that the CDM was created to destroy the policies of 1972 Dem
nominee George McGovern in the Democratic Party, especially because of
McGovern's opposition to the Vietnam War. Podhoretz even admitted that
the CDM was a flop that "never got off the ground." But in the
mid-80s, the DLC certainly did get off the ground, and controls the
Democratic Party today.

{Issues.527.62}: Tom Paine {nasrudin11f} Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:51:48 CDT
http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui3TdR+-il... -

===

Kerry's version of PNAC:

February 18, 2004

"It's Time to Get Over It"
Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On
By MARK HAND

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the battle to control the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

The rest of this excellent work with its supporting documentation can be found here: http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html

The war in Iraq has been bogus from the start and SHAME to any Republican or Democrat who in anyway supported, shilled for or excused this war.

[Q]

6. I wonder if even most of those who call themselves 'DLCers'...

...on this board know what the true DLC agenda is all about?

- Liberals and Progressives are asking the same questions the 'real' conservatives in the GOP were asking in the 80s and 90s about the Neocons: are they working with us or trying to take over the party with a separate agenda?

[wyldwolf]

9. sure we do... but the basic premise of your theory is flawed

Like most Americans, the DLC is for a strong national defense and this seems to be where the "progressives" part ways with the DLC most often.

But we are inline with the national opinion.

The flaw in your premise is this: You assume far left "progressives" control the party (or else what would the DLC be "taking over?"

[DUreader]

27. "Took over" is a better descriptor, it has already happened

nice slander of progressives there , did you learn that from the

repub. technique of demonizing everythinh liberal?

If you were being sarcastic, I can't tell

[wyldwolf]

28. Yeah, it has happened...

And, no, what you call my "slander of progressives" is really a knock at those here who believe that only those who fall in line with their ideology are progressives.

When they speak of most dems, they create a distinction between the dem in question and "progressives."

They're trying to lay claim to the term and to make it an exclusive domain of the far left.

[DUreader]

35. Now you effectively smear by labeling 'far left'

have you listened to the this is hell show, can you refute

their assertions?

I have not heard it, so no comment from me

[wyldwolf]

50. I'm glad it is effective...

..even though it is no smear. But if you're so concerned about smearing, why are you not responding to the posts called DLC dems names?

But I was refuting another poster, NOT the radio show.

Sorry.

[bvar22]

51. "Strong National Defense"....

...is another way to say "massive corporate welfare for armaments industry", is another way to say "diverting the national wealth into the pockets of the rich and investor class, is another way to say.....


There is NO JUSTIFICATION for the obscene amounts of taxpayer money being spent of the US MILITARY.

[wyldwolf]

53. I wasn't justifying that... I just said I was for strong national defense

Certainly, as Wes Clark said, the defense budget can and should be cut.

But that is another issue altogether.

[Cheswick2.0]

142. so exactly how is this disaster in Iraq "defense" of America?

?

[Tinoire]

10. Bingo Q! Bingo again! At this point it's a 'bipartisan merger'

A vicious metastizing cancer infecting both lungs at the same time as each side focuses on only the other lung.

I watched the alarming takeover of the Republican party- it's no different than what happened to ours and it's the same people behind BOTH.

[freetobegay]

15. I am A DLC member

Trust me when I say I know what the DLC stands for. I wake yp every morning & thank God for the DLC! And thats from a Gay white man!

[Finch]

20. Here Here!

My understand of the DLC has always been that it is here to attempt to represent the views of the natural constants of he Democratic Party, ordinary working and middle class Americans who want to have a government that helps others as well as them and yet does not curtail their freedom to progress and amass wealth and live a comfortable existence, who do not believe dogmatically in the same democratic principles as many liberal activists do. But at the same time the DLC is a broad organisation with the likes of Kerry and Feinstein on the left to the likes of Bayh and Lieberman on the right. I myself am a moderate-populist pretty much in line with Edwards and I to thank god the DLC exists… people don’t realise how broad and inclusive an organisation it really is.

[wyldwolf]

25. very good description

ordinary working and middle class Americans who want to have a government that helps others as well as them and yet does not curtail their freedom to progress and amass wealth and live a comfortable existence,

Exactly.

But I also want a strong national defense.

[mhr]

78. So Does The DLC Support Outsourcing And The Loss Of Good

American jobs overseas.

When I hear Kerry Speak it sure sounds like right wing speech to me - strong corporations and screw the little guy.

Can't have it both ways.

[wyldwolf]

82. examples?

[Classical_Liberal]

133. How come they oppose national health insurance

How come they don't do anything about the taft hartley act. How come they don't do anything about Shafta?

[ibegurpard]

135. Based upon what I've seen of your opinions

that does not surprise me one iota.

[Robbien]

5. So basically all the money goes to NeoCons and DLC

And liberals have no structure to collect money and strengthen our power.

[Q]

7. Liberals and Progressives have been pushed out of the party...

...just as the Conservatives were pushed out of THEIR party in the last couple decades. It should come as a warning that the 'New' Democrats and Neocons are more willing to work with each other than with their traditional base.

- And you might have noticed that anyone who even LOOKED LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE were eliminated early on in the campaign...the DLCers labeling them as 'too radical' and 'out of touch' to be considered for high office.

[wyldwolf]

23. more conspiracy ranting...

...especially this part:

And you might have noticed that anyone who even LOOKED LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE were eliminated early on in the campaign...the DLCers labeling them as 'too radical' and 'out of touch' to be considered for high office.

What is interesting is you assume here that the DLC is in control and has pushed "prooooogreeeeesssiiiiives" out of the party. (It also didn't escape my attention that you failed to name any of these that were eliminated.)

In another post in this thread you say:

Liberals and Progressives are asking the same questions the 'real' conservatives in the GOP were asking in the 80s and 90s about the Neocons: are they working with us or trying to take over the party with a separate agenda?

Here, you indicate that the DLC is only trying to take control and have not yet pushed out the "proooogreeeeessssiiives."

So which is it? Are you confused?

[wyldwolf]

11. That is correct - you have no structure...

...to collect money - because collecting money is something you seem to abhor.

So without a money base to organize, you have no real chance to succeed - which probably isn't what you want anyway. What would you have to complain about, then?

[Robbien]

12. So you are okay with the one party rule?

The New Right Party consisting of NeoCons and the DLC?

[wyldwolf]

13. where did I say or imply that?

There is a myriad of differences between the DLC and the GOP. Some just seem to have a problem with the DLC's stance on a few issues - national defense being the main one.

You're sounding like the black and white "us or them" neo-cons you are complaining about.

You're not going to get everything the way you want it.

[Robbien]

14. I just wonder why the DLC keeps hiding behind the Democratic label

I suppose it is because the only way to get in power is to hide behind the Democratic label to get the liberal vote. They like to deceive in the same way that BushCo likes to deceive.

[wyldwolf]

18. because they're democrats

Why does the far left keep hiding behind the democratic label?

The party is a big tent.

Check: The DLC is already in power.

The DLC decieves about as much as the far left and their wacked-out conspiracy theories.

[Robbien]

22. We are not far, we are the left. You are the New Right

And yes, you are in power which explains your arrogance.

And you also use the BushCo tecnique of labeling anything that is not "Right" as far out leftie conspiracy theories.

[wyldwolf]

24. no, you are the far left if you think anything to the right of you is..

..."The New Right."

Which explains your superiority complex.

[Robbien]

26. Well, good luck with this tactic. Do you think you swayed

any votes?

Why should I care if Bush/Kerry is in power. No difference.

[Catholic Sensation]

29. yeah they're SO similar

I mean one has a 96% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (Kerry), the other put a logging industry lobbyist in charge of the department of the interior

One wants to roll back the tax cuts on the top two percent (Kerry), one wants to give more supply side tax cuts.

One wants to make sure a woman has a right to choose (Kerry), the other wants to make sure she doesn't.

One believes that one's public duty shouldn't be influenced by one's personal religious beliefs (Kerry), the other went to "God" (not the one I worship) to go to war.

One is against the death penalty (Kerry), the other was like some kind of authoritarian dictator when it came to executions.

One believes healthcare is a right not a priviledge (Kerry), the other is against any kind of national healthcare.

One wants to make sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes (again, Kerry), the other allows corporations to exploit tax loopholes.

Oh, but they both believe that strong national defense is a good thing. What an awful idea that is

[wyldwolf]

31. Well said

..and if I might add - a strong national defense is what allows these crybabies to whine about, not only Kerry, but Bush as well.

[Robbien]

36. All of that will be quickly thrown to the side if it conflicts

with Free Trade and Globalization.

The New Right DLC's first priority is their foreign policy and globalization. Human rights are given lip service to get the liberal vote.

[Catholic Sensation]

41. please give me evidence of Kerry doing this

or did you pull this theory right from your ass as I suspect

[Robbien]

44. People are out of work, people are out of benefits

Where was Kerry?

[Catholic Sensation]

46. *sigh*

Kerry is one senator out of 100. I'm sorry, I didn't know 1% of half of America's legislative body had the power to put people to work, especially considering THE MAN'S PARTY DOESN'T CONTROL THE MAJORITY!

"People are out of work, people are out of benefits" and the fact the REPUBLICANS ARE IN CONTROL has nothing to do with this, it's all John Kerry's fault.

I'm sorry, but being one out of 535 legislators DOESN'T GIVE YOU MANDATE CREATING ABILITY.

hint: that's why John Kerry's running - to create a better mandate for this country, i figured since this wasn't obvious, you needed this to be explained to you.

[Robbien]

52. Yes, he is just one

But, you said he cares about human rights. I said he only cares if it does not interfere with his main New Right DLC agenda. You asked me to provide proof.

I did and your response is "he is only one man". I did not say Kerry had to provide benefits to the unemployed, I just said he should have done his part in supporting the effort. But he did not.

[Catholic Sensation]

56. you didn't provide proof

Give me ACTUAL PROOF he decided he'd rather millions of people be unemployed and without healthcare benefits.

[Robbien]

61. Where was his vote on extended benefits

Where is his support for cheaper drugs.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbien]

66. I do not have a dem bashing ass

I do have a New Right DLC bashing ass. I liked the old defunct Democratic party.

Yes, I heard that the press release said he was told his vote wouldn't count on the extended benefits vote. So, since it was not a priority, he didn't bother wasting his time.

[sangha]

71. Where was Robbien when people became unemployed

Robbien can complain about what others didnt do, but I've haven't seen any evidence that Robbien gives a hoot about the unemployed.

[wyldwolf]

64. read posts 57 and 58

...and ONE issue gets you off?

[wyldwolf]

59. you provided ZERO proof

This is what you must prove:

The New Right DLC's first priority is their foreign policy and globalization. Human rights are given lip service to get the liberal vote.

Your attempt at proof was:

People are out of work, people are out of benefits. Where was Kerry?

As though one Senator has the power to improve these things.

[bvar22]

57. The extension of unemployment benefits....

....was defeated in the Senate last week by ONE VOTE. Guess who didn't show up?

ANSWER: The DLC candidate for president.
Like others have said....lip service.

[Catholic Sensation]

58. okay, so it would have been a tie

Bills don't get enacted based on ties.

who breaks the tie? Hmmm? The Senate MINORITY Leader? No, I believe it would be DICK CHENEY.

[QC]

102. That's an old trick, and you fell for it.

Do you honestly think that the GOP would not have switched one of their votes if Kerry had been there? They do this routinely, because nothing comes to the floor before the whips have counted the votes.

The press obligingly spread the story, and many Democrats swallowed it.

[camero]

60. the party doesn't control the majority

But hello, how many dems voted aginst the Patriot Act? Not too many.

The only one who even spoke out against it was Robert Byrd. Bless his soul.

[wyldwolf]

30. No more votes swayed than the daily dem bashing that goes on here..

... and if you don't care whether Bush or Kerry is in power, you're asleep.

[Robbien]

32. No I am awake.

The New Right DLC and the New Right PNAC are the same party, you are both hiding behind the labels Democrat/Republican to get the liberals and conservatives to vote for you. The only difference is who gets the power and the spoils, Kerry or Bush.

[wyldwolf]

33. proof or just a far left looney conspiracy ranting?

I suspect the latter.

And why not respond to post #29?

[Robbien]

37. No, I will not respond to you

You only argue using the New Right DLC's tacit of labeling.

Well, my last words to you. I am left/liberal, you are new right. You just convinced me NOT to vote for Kerry.

[Catholic Sensation]

43. that's pathetic if true

some anonymous poster "convinced" you to not vote for Kerry? That's sad

[Robbien]

45. It is true, but not because of

some anonymous poster. I have been researching the New Right DLC for the last year or so and do not like what I see.

I will vote my conscience, and it is not Kerry.

[Catholic Sensation]

48. if you're voting nader, you're not voting your conscience

[Robbien]

54. No, not Nader

I will spend some time looking at the Liberty party and if it has nothing for me, the Presidential part of my ballot will be left blank.

[wyldwolf]

62. The Liberty Party?

I think they're for injecting religion into government.

http://www.liberty-ca.org/religion.htm

is there another "Liberty Party" or do you mean the Libertarian party?

[Catholic Sensation]

65. how progressive and liberal of you

Non-procreative unions have no legitimate governmental purpose and are unconstitutional.

Yes, being anti-gay marriage is such a progressive and liberal value.

Hypocrite

edit: even more good liberal values on this site"

Abortion

The Liberty Party affirms a woman's right to choose when and whether to carry a child into the world but assumes her right to decline ends at conception and is then a privilege (subject to the will of the people)..

Birth Control

The Liberty Party opposes artificial and natural birth control, believing it unnecessary and contrary to religion, sound mental health and good common sense.

Adoption and Unwanted Children

The Liberty Party believes a child is best raised by the natural parents. A need for adoption and public fostering of parentless children indicates that something has already gone wrong. These children are best placed into homes most closely representing a natural upbringing.

so you're going to support an anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-adoption party, AND YOU DARE QUESTION JOHN KERRY'S LIBERALISM?

[Robbien]

67. Thanks for the info

I said I would look at the Liberty party because I have not to date. I will research it for myself and if it is as you say, then they do not get my vote either.

Kerry has no liberalism and if the Liberty party is as you say, it has none either.

It is very clear Liberals do not have a party.

[sangha]

73. And it's clear that you won't contibute to the solution

How anyone who cares can refrain from voting for a Presidential candidate is beyond me. Obviously, someone doesn't care, but will criticize others for not doing something while they sit on their own ass.

[Catholic Sensation]

121. Did you not read my post 29?

Seriously, are you functionally illiterate or something?

- Best environmental rating from the League of Conservation Voters, hardly a conservative or centrist trait.
- Pro-choice 100%. Said he's making THIS the requirement for any judicial nominees.
- Believes in progressive taxation
- Supports Gay/Lesbian couples being given all the benefits a straight couple would receive.
- Guaranteed healthcare for 97% of the population, the top 3% can pay their own way.
- Supports expanding stem cell research
- Against drilling in ANWR
- In favor of the seperation of church and state

you're either some kind of ultra-Marxist, or terminally stupid, if you think Kerry is a conservative.

[wyldwolf]

47. "the New Right DLC's tacit of labeling"

...spoken by the person doing labeling himself...

...and, just so you know - the post I asked you to respond to wasn't made by me. But you responded anyway. Hee hee!

[wyldwolf]

49. and you still won't provide proof which only means one thing...

[Finch]

17. I also don't understand the hatred for the DLC...

... but there we go some of the popular myths about the DLC that are given credence by many on this board are plain laughable.

[Robbien]

8. Good question about Free Trade

The NeoCons will not budge from current Free Trade policy even though there are many in the new right of the DLC are beginning to think maybe we should not keep treating our neighbors like dirt and maybe give our neighbors a few small bones.

[Finch]

16. God Bless Scoop Jackson.

A staunch defender of American interests.

A Champion of the rights and interests of organised labour.

A strong believer in the central principles of this party.

But a nationalist and a hawk who did believe that American should champion the cause of democracy as it had done in two world wars and was doing at the time in the face of the tyranny of communism.

Today he might have been a DLC'er and yes i expect would have voted for the Iraq war, but he would have been incensed by the deception of the Bush administration in making the case for war and would have been to the left on economic issues.

[hedda_foil]

101. Good old Scoop ... the inspiration of the neocons.

Where do you think Perle, Wolfowitz et al came from?

The issue isn't whether or not Scoop would have been a DLC'er ... in terms of foreign policy of course he would have been. I have no problem with individual Democrats being hawkish on foreign policy. The problem is when the entire party is subverted and undermined from within under the leadership of a couple of one-time congressional aides from Louisiana, with funding from right wing sources.

[Lars39]

34. LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC

With thanks to Eloriel and others....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

[Catholic Sensation]

39. yes, let's rely on seventhson

like how he continued to pursue the John Kerry/Intern thing. How he said John Kerry's Jewish roots will hurt him, and that because he wasn't aware of them immediately, he's an anti-Semite. How about his "proof" of the Skull and Bones, Illuminati, etc. all working together to bring down this country?

Yes, let's all rely on seventhson for objective analysis of people to the right of Karl Marx.

[wyldwolf]

42. the links are full of posters like that

... and I've seen the "points" raised in them over and over - and most have been shot down over and over.

[sangha]

68. And the links lead to LaRouche

and other nutballs like that.

[wyldwolf]

69. LaRouche? Well, the choice is now even clearer

DLC Kerry or LaRouche-ites.

Kerry is the clear winner.

[Classical_Liberal]

134. i choose making Kerry and Bush beg for mercy to get out

of this war. They will both have to do that to get any help from the UN and the EU thank god! That is the only silver lining.

[Lars39]

103. You must not have read thru all the first link.

[wyldwolf]

40. yeah, what I see is...

...a lot of "we can't win" whinning from the far left about being "taken over" by those who have different opinions and are better organized.

One of the more ironic ones is Strange Bedfellows: Republican Donors fund DLC Meeting - sort of like the Republican donors funding Ralph Nader's campaign?

[freetobegay]

55. Well now that leaves you in a quandry doesn't it?

Kerry is DLC through & through. Need I say more?

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 11:47:37AM EDT, Saturday, May 15, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
1 days,
12 hours,
12 minutes, and
23 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[bvar22]

70. Hypothetical question:

Would Franklin Roosevelt recognize the DLC as part of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

Would John Kennedy?

Would Robert Kennedy?

Would LBJ?

Would Jimmy Carter?

Would Dwight Eisenhower?

I think NOT!

I've been a member of the Democratic Party for 50 years. My core values haven't changed. The current leadership of the Party (the DLC) do not represent me.
Anyone attempting to argue that the direction of the Democratic Party hasn't changed is either very young, or suffering from memory loss.

[MisterP]

72. remember, they're the "old party,"

dangerously outdated in the New Era where historical analysis is worthless, since "everything's" changed since Reichstag II and the WTO taking over the reins of government...

[wyldwolf]

74. hypothetical answer

You mean the FDR that put Japanese Americans in internment camps and was anxious to fight WWII (thank God) so much so that many theorize he allowed Pearl Harbor to happen?

You mean the LBJ that started the "Rolling Thunder" campaign? THAT LBJ?

The Jimmy Carter that helped start the war in Afghanistan?

JFK: Several assassination attempts of Castro, stiff-armed the Civil Rights movement because working with them interfered with his legislative agenda, assassination of Diem, coup in Iraq, coups in South America, and let's not forget Vietnam.

RFK: One of the most prominent 'Red hunters' in America before his (some might say convenient) conversion pre-1968. Instruemtal in planning the assassination attempts of Castro, assassination of Diem, coup in Iraq, coups in South America, and let's not forget Vietnam.


Dwight Eisenhower? He was a republican. Your core values haven't changed, huh?

[camero]

75. We understand that part

But will Kerry join that list? It seems he is at the moment.

[wyldwolf]

77. Apparently bvar22 doesn't understand that part

...or else he wouldn't have put the named politicians on some higher moral ground than the DLC.

And, as usual, attacks on Kerry are mainly guesswork (it seems he is at the moment )

[camero]

80. Don't deny it

He voted for the war. He said he would keep the troops in Iraq. That's definitely being on that list.

That's one flip-flop that I would love to see Kerry take.

Also, his vote for the Patriot Act puts him on that list.

Your denial of reality is amusing.

[wyldwolf]

84. where have I denied it?

Your assumptions are even more amusing.

[camero]

85. You didn't acknowledge it

[wyldwolf]

89. there was nothing to acknowledge

..we weren't discussing Kerry or IWR. We were discussing someone's misguided few of democrats of the past.

I won't acknowledge someone who states what they perceive something to be as fact.

I could say, for example, that because Ralph Nader refuses to allow his workers to join Unions, he'd be an anti-union president.

Or because Dean put rightwing judges on the bench in VT, he'd do the same as president.

Or that Kucinich, who was anti-choice until he realized he'd never get national democratic support, would overturn Roe v. Wade.

After all, it sure seems that way!

[camero]

96. Kerry supported IWR

Why don't you just admit that? Your insults get you nowhere.

[wyldwolf]

107. I realize that. But that wasn't what we were discussing

You came into the middle of a thread and threw that in.

That wasn't the point.

[camero]

112. That's the whole point

Since Iraq is part of PNAC's agenda. Which is what the parent thread was about. It's you that has hijacked the thread.

[wyldwolf]

123. No. read the subthread starting with post #70

[camero]

140. The point starts with the parent thread

And his IWR vote is a telling glance at his ties with the PNAC agenda.
As well as his vote on the Patriot Act.

It would be wise for him to change his thoughts on these two issues.

[Catholic Sensation]

141. So Paul Wellstone was a PNACer?

Because he voted for the Patriot ACT as well.

[camero]

143. Bless his soul

He's not still trumpeting it as Kerry is. I have no idea if he still would but I doubt it highly.

[camero]

144. self-deleted-dupe n/t

[bvar22]

83. You didn't answer my question.

These people had their shortcomings, but in the Principles of Democracy, and representing the Working Men and Women, they agreed. WORD.

The fact that you discounted Dwight Eisenhower as a Republican proves my point.

"Every gun that is made,
Every warship launched,
Every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense,
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed;
those who are cold, and are not clothed."....DW Eisenhower 4-16-53...A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!

The platform of the DLC is considerably to the RIGHT of the leader of the REPUBLICAN PARTY of the 50's.

Case closed.

[wyldwolf]

92. I see. So labor issues are the sole determinant?

My answer is YES, they would have been DLC, despite their shortcomings. They do, after all, all fit the description DLC haters have for the DLC.

Do we want to breakdown Eisenhower's record as president? Reagan and Bush have said equally heartwarming things.

[wyldwolf]

115. ,

[Robbien]

76. While we were sleeping the New Right DLC took over the party

They along with the New Right PNAC are hiding behind our old party names. They have hoodwinked us old Dems and GOPers where now one party is in charge. They are using labelling to keep us from seeing their one New Right Party.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Thank you for calling me a "whiner"

The only part of the DLC that is "in line with the interests of working class Americans'" is the part about "a strong defense," and that's only because Americans have been taught since grade school to equate patriotism and militarism and to support military adventures overseas unquestioningly. Because our troops are always for "freedom and democracy," you know, even when they aren't.

In practice, "a strong defense" means a blank check for the Pentagon and its corporate suppliers, even if it means starving domestic programs.

If that's what it means to be a DLC Democrat, then I definitely am not.

Instead of imposing our will on other countries through military might or lopsided trade agreements, let's be a shining example for the rest of the world by tending our own garden and "helping" other countries only when they ask for it.

[Lars39]

105. If taking RW money is what it takes to "win"....

then the DLC are far worse than "whiners". At the very least at this point it makes the DLC enablers.

[ithacan]

81. DLC goal: Destroy the best values of the Democratic Party

these guys would rather throw an election and see the Republicans win than allow a revitalized progressive Democratic Party win.

They are traitors, infiltrators who are attempting to hijack the party so that both parties are nothing but tools of corporate interests.

Remember back when the DLC webpage said that the Democratic party should not work to bring its base out to vote. The DLC was saying to the Democratic party base, to unions, to African Americans, to progressives, "Fuck You."

The DLC is even more dangerous than Bush. At least Bush admits to being a republican. The DLC is trying to hijack the Democratic party to deprive Americans of real choice at election time.

[wyldwolf]

86. Far left "proooogreeeesssssiiiivvvvveee" goal: Re-elect Bush

these guys would rather throw an election and see the Republicans win than allow a proven liberal like Kerry who doesn't meet their ideological purity standards win.

They are traitors, infiltrators who are attempting to hijack the party so that both parties are nothing but tools of corporate interests.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. What are you on, wyldwolf?

I am not an infiltrator, and I am not trying to elect Bush.

We already have two parties beholden to corporate interests, with one being the "kinder, gentler" defender of corporate interests, and the narrowest range of permissible political discussion in the Western world. The Republicans set the issues, and the Democrats mostly say, "Me, too, only not as much."

(Talk to some Europeans, as I did recently, and they'll tell you that Paul Wellstone and Dennis Kucinich would be considered center-leftists in their countries, that John Kerry and Howard Dean and Bill Clinton would be considered center-rightists, that the current Republicans would be considered rightists or outright fascists, and that we have no major political figures who would be "far left" in European terms.)

[wyldwolf]

106. what are YOU on, Lydia Leftcoast

So, someone can call me a traitor and an infiltrator for supporting DLC candidate and I can't return the "favor?"

As I've said before on these types of threads, I do not care what how Europeans classify our politicians.

And again, you refer to a small core of issues LATELY when you say "The Republicans set the issues, and the Democrats mostly say, "Me, too, only not as much." "

[Robbien]

87. Yes, it is more dangerous

It will be interesting if the New Right DLC will be able to keep liberals hoodwinked long enough to win an election.

It does not have mine.

[ithacan]

88. DLC/"New Dems" to Democratic base: F*** off

the DLC "New Democrats" have proclaimed that mobilizing the Democrats' base is the recipe for Democratic defeat.

This is from their statement on the 2002 election, which is up on their web site:

and as yesterday showed for the umpteenth time, efforts to energize one party's base often energize the other's -- a real problem for Democrats since the hard-core conservative GOP base is significantly larger than the liberal Democratic base. The loss of Paul Wellstone's Senate seat represents a hard- to-miss rebuke to the base-mobilization strategy for a Democratic future: it's hard to imagine a more mobilized base than that of the Minnesota DFL during the last few days of the campaign.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&cont...

I have to admit I continue to be flabbergasted by this.

The wrongness of this "conclusion" is so obvious as to lead me to think that a) they are out of touch with reality; or (more likely) b) they want to get rid of the democratic base, distance the party from it and prevent the base from coming out to vote in primaries for example.

They are telling African-Americans to f*** off.

They are telling union members to f*** off.

They are telling progressives and leftists to f*** off.

They are telling the working poor to f*** off.

They are telling the working majority of Americans to f*** off.

If these guys maintain control over the democratic party it is doomed.

Their mission is to subvert and split the democratic party, to make sure that there is no strong leftist party fighting for working people in this country.

They are working for their corporate masters, don't forget that.

[ithacan]

91. more evidence: DLC funded by right wingers

THis is from an old thread, but very relevant for this discussion:

hedda_foil (3235 posts)
Oct-16-02, 02:54 PM (ET)

14. I've been digging some more

Trying to find where Simon B. Rosenberg, the young President and Founder of the New Dems came from besides the DLC. He seems to have emerged out of nowhere. While looking, I found this very important article from The American Prospect. This is just a couple of snippets. The whole piece needs to be read and digested. There is also info about people and groups trying to mount effective opposition to them.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html
<snip>

One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

<snip>

NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

With three full-time fundraisers plus consultants in New York and Los Angeles, NDN runs a prolific schedule, holding more than 100 events last year. Most of them are typical Washington, D.C., money events, with the usual cast of characters from PACs and lobbying houses; a smaller number are held around the country. NDN also holds some large-scale happenings: Last year, its annual legislative retreat was held at Disney World in Orlando, Florida, where members of the congressional New Democrat caucuses mingled with wealthy contributors from the private sector. Even more ambitious was its annual retreat in June, a three-day gathering spread out all over the San Francisco Bay Area, at which no less than 23 House and Senate Democrats met with executives who paid $1,000 each for the event, which was cosponsored with TechNet.

To many up-and-coming politicians, NDN's events are heaven-sent forums at which they can strut their stuff and ring up contributors. Case in point: Tom Carper, the newly elected senator from Delaware. Last year, NDN raised $55,000 for Carper's Senate race. But it provided an intangible benefit as well. "He's a believer," says Rosenberg. "In addition to all the support we gave him, he'd come to a lot of our other fundraisers, and he was able to meet a lot of new people and develop new contacts. That's one of the reasons why so many elected officials come to our events." For politicians like Carper, NDN is a pipeline for campaign contributions. For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists. "The candidates are validated to people in the room as New Democrats," says Rosenberg.

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support.

much much much more
------

[Robbien]

93. Yep, the New Right are not democrats

The New Right are hiding in our Democratic/Republican parties.

[ithacan]

95. More on Koch Industries:

Koch Industries

Major GOP Donor Receives Federal Oil Contract
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 23, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Department of Energy's selection of Koch Supply & Trading, LP, to supply oil to the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), is drawing fire from groups who accuse the administration of rewarding one of the Republican Party's largest donors with a plum government contract.

Koch Industries and one of the company's senior officers have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions since 1999 and before, with federal election records showing the bulk of those contributions going to Republicans.

But a defender of the administration's choice for the SPR believes critics would be unhappy regardless of which oil company was selected. "You could throw in any other oil company's name and would probably say the same thing ... what is relevant to them is that it's oil and they hate oil," said George Landrith of the free-market advocacy group Frontiers of Freedom.

Koch Supply & Trading, LP was selected Aug. 8 by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham to "provide approximately eight million barrels of crude oil to the SPR."

Koch Supply & Trading is part of the Kansas based Koch Industries, a conglomerate of oil and gas holdings that bills itself as the largest privately held companies in the U.S., with annual revenues of $25 billion.

According to Abraham, "The SPR provides the nation with an energy resource that can be used as directed by the president to protect Americans against future supply disruptions." Koch is scheduled to deliver oil between October 2002 and April 2003.

Quid Pro Quo?

According to Federal Election Commission data compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics, the Koch Industry PAC gave $436,774 to congressional candidates during the 2000 election cycle with 76 percent going to Republicans and 24 percent going to Democratic candidates.

David Hamilton Koch, executive vice president and Koch Industries board member, made personal contributions of $250,000 to the Republican National Committee between 1999 and 2002.

The PAC also gave $5,000 to President Bush's 2000 campaign, and David Koch gave $1,000 to the Bush campaign.

In addition, FEC records show Abraham received $8,500 dollars from Koch Industries for his failed Michigan Senate 2000 re-election campaign and another $5,000 in 1996. Abraham received another $1,000 for his 2000 campaign from David Koch.

Sheila Krumholz from the Center for Responsive Politics pointed to Koch's pattern of political campaign contributions and claimed it loomed large in the company being selected by the Energy Department.

"It does not surprise me in the least given their history with the current Bush administration," Krumholz told CNSNews.com.

Krumholz explained that when you combine the Koch Industry PAC with individual Koch family donations and other Koch subsidiaries, it reveals that Koch entities gave 88 percent of their total donations to the GOP and conservative causes and 12 percent to Democratic candidates and causes in the 2000 election.

"History has shown pretty consistently that having a relationship with key politicians pays off in spades when you need it," Krumholz said.

John Coequyt, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, agreed that Koch's pattern of campaign donations might have played a role. "I am sure it doesn't hurt," Coequyt said. "Now they are given a very large contract with the U.S. government. Of course as an environmentalist, I am offended by that," Coequyt added.

~snip~

Koch's Political Donations

Koch has given to numerous political causes including the libertarian CATO Institute and the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Paul Weyrich, president of the conservative Free Congress Foundation wrote during the 2000 election campaign that Koch was being unfairly singled out by the Clinton administration for environmental penalties because of its support for GOP and conservative causes.

~snip~

Landrith agreed with Weyrich's assessment that Koch's donations to the GOP and conservative causes may have resulted in the Clinton administration targeting the oil conglomerate for environmental fines.


more
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1B7624E1

Paul Weyrich is a right wing think tanker.

[wyldwolf]

99. mischaracterization

efforts to energize one party's base often energize the other's --a real problem for Democrats since the hard-core conservative GOP base is significantly larger than the liberal Democratic base.

This was a true statement in the perspective of the Republican smear machine. However, they never said mobilizing the Democrats' base is the recipe for Democratic defeat.

It was also taken out of context. You left out these parts:

We do not accept the idea that the results represent some sort of huge policy mandate for the President, even if he had a policy agenda to advance.

and..

Democrats, especially at the congressional level, need a new, clear message, that is positive, centrist, but unmistakably distinct from that of the Republican Party or the President.

Kinda blows your whole theory on the DLC being like the GOP.

[hedda_foil]

97. We seem to have a little pack of DLCers teaming up on this thread.

Their technique is a bit transparent, but what they hey.

Now, let's stop trading insults and opinions, and get down to brass tacks.

First, I strongly recommend that ever DUer READ the site discussed on This is Hell (see original post on this thread). I've been researching the DLC, PPI, PNAC, and think tanks for almost two years, and this is the most concise and comprehensive discussion of the whole mess I've ever seen.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/index.php Start with the DLC, PPI and Will Marshall.

Then, if you want more background on the whole thing, Eloriel archived all of our DU research threads on the DLC from the old DU. Here's the link. Read and bookmark it if you can because there's a LOT of information you need to know here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

This is why very few of us backed DLC candidates, and why most of us will vote for Kerry with a great deal of distaste. At least he and his ilk aren't psychopaths and are far less likely to destroy the world than the current bunch.

And if you want to continue to piss us off with your triple-teaming of DLC memes, be my guest. Just don't think you're fooling anyone. You're not.

[ithacan]

98. hey Hedda!!

I'm just going through some of those old threads, they really lay out the evidence that is so very damning to the DLC! One DLC mole seems to have disappeared at the first sight of proof that the DLC is funded and backed by right wingers...

[hedda_foil]

111. Hi Ithacan! Don't miss the new stuff I linked to.

It's a fantastic summary of the entire "movement," and every bit of it is exquisitely sourced.

For instance, here are some tasty morsels, including From and Marshall's background, which we hadn't been able to track down previously. All the emphases are mine.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985 Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long of Louisiana, took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party’s centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long’s policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director. Today, Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC think tank he founded. (11)

In his “Saving the Democratic Party” memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a “governing council” that would draft a “blueprint” for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from “the new bosses”—organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups—that were keeping the party from modernizing. From’s memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, “Within a few weeks, it counted seventy-five members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group ‘the white male caucus.’” (7)

Although DLC members shared, for the most part, the neoliberal perspective of centrist Democrats such as Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Michael Dukakis, they took a much harsher, conservative stance on social justice and foreign policy issues. Regarding foreign policy, the DLC attempted to resurrect the hard-line anticommunism of Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson but rejected the New Deal politics that Jackson and other traditional “New Deal liberals” embraced. In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the contras, applauded President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the cold war, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of “Great Society” of the Johnson administration, DLC Chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, “while racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it’s time to shift the primary focus from racism—the traditional enemy without—to self-defeating patterns of behavior—the enemy within.” /b]This speech signaled the end of the “New Politics” of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb’s speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

<snip>

Funding

The DLC and its close associate, the Progressive Policy Institute, are the recipients of grants from many Fortune 500 companies and such right-wing foundations as the Bradley Foundation. Corporate contributors to the Progressive Policy Institute include AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. (17) The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to one magazine report, the DLC enjoys funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon. (9)

<MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE>

[wyldwolf]

104. we seem to have a little pack of far leftists teaming up on this thread

...relying on unproven conspiracy theories, partial info, LaRouche information, and the like to advance their agenda.

Just don't think you're fooling anyone. You're not.

But we could care less if we're pissing you off.

[Lars39]

108. Imagine that !!! Progressives on a progressive board!!! Horrors!

[wyldwolf]

110. DEMOCRATIC underground

See? Define progressive.

[Lars39]

114. Democratic Underground is not an official site of the Democratic Party.

It is a progressive site.

[wyldwolf]

118. That's true... but it isn't called "Progressive Underground"

But if you'll notice the rules:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

Democrats of all stripes are the first priority. Other progressive are welcome who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

[FubarFly]

117. Ho hum

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

[wyldwolf]

120. ho hum II

The democratic party is leftwing in the US.

Most telling here:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes (listed first), along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vas majority of our visitors are Democrats...

[FubarFly]

122. Never said you weren't welcome

Now the real question is, do you consider yourself to be a progressive?

And if so, how can you rationalize DLC foreign policy as a progressive goal?

[wyldwolf]

124. never said YOU weren't welcome

I consider myself progressive.

Give a definitive definition of "progressive."

[FubarFly]

125. I asked you first...

How can you be a progressive,(by your own definition), and rationalize DLC influenced foreign policy? I'm genuinely curious.

[wyldwolf]

126. to answer your second question (I answered your first) I need...

...a definitive definition of "progressive."

Is there some "progressive" organization that has a branded and universally accepted definition of the term that we can refer to?

[FubarFly]

127. Use your own definition.

I'm easy.

[wyldwolf]

128. well, that would be unproductive

...you wouldn't just accept it. You'd then tell me how my definition isn't really "progressive."

But if you want to continue down this road, it will have to wait. I have a meeting to attend.

[ithacan]

130. whoville calls...

[FubarFly]

131. Oh? You already know my response? Curious.

Makes me wonder why we even bothered to have this discussion.

Enjoy your meeting.

[Robbien]

113. Is the New Right DLC ever able to make a statement

without using deceptive labels? The New Right DLC steals a party and then tags its original members with libelist labels. Is that how your New Right DLC candidate will rule the country, by deception? You and your New Right DLC candidate are so enticing.

[wyldwolf]

116. Is the far left ever able to make a statement

without using deceptive labels? The far left want to steal a party from the original moderate base and then tags its original members with rightwing libelist labels. Is that how your far left candidate will rule the country, by deception?

Wait! You don't have a candidate with a shot at winning.

You and your far left loon candidate are so enticing.

[hedda_foil]

119. Leftists, eh?

Gee, define leftists, why don't you.

And while you're at it, read the link I posted to Right Web.

I love the way the DLC flaks manage to use the exact same language as the RNC to label virtually the entire base of the Democratic party. It's quite instructive when you think about it.

Meanwhile, continue to wave your arms and shout about "loony leftist conspiracy theories." It's always an interesting diversionary tactic. Unfortunately, we've seen it so frequently from the Republican right as well as from the DLC that most of us are pretty much immune. But it's still fun to watch.

On edit: Ooooh! "Far left loon candidate"! That's a good one! I wonder who that might be. Then again, it really doesn't matter because that kind of term seems to appy to any candidate who isn't bought and paid for by the DLC, no matter how moderate they might be.

[Catholic Sensation]

129. Basically, what I've seen, is constant dem bashing from both sides

DLCers bashing leftist/liberals, and leftist/liberals with unrealistic beliefs bashing anyone who dares be closer to the center than they are.

Here's an idea for people like wyldwolf, robbien, and anyone else bashing members and candidates from the democratic party as being "too right" or "too left": you're not helping shit.

Before anyone claims I've taken part in bashing the left on this, read my posts, they're not "bashing" the left, they're DEFENDING John Kerry against unbelievably idiotic claims from faux college Marxists. If anyone here were to claim John Kerry is too liberal, I'd have done the same on this thread as I have done in real life.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be a big tent, and yet from what I've seen, a bunch of people inside the party want to divide the party like Bush has divided this country. That's a winning strategy: piss off each other and create strife within the party. If the goal of the unrealistic "far left" and the vitriolic moderates in the party is to screw this great institution forever, then I congratulate you on your success so far.

News flash for people like wyldwolf, robbien, etc: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS A MULTITUDE OF IDEOLOGIES. UNLIKE THE REPUBLICANS, WE HAVE OPEN MINDS ABOUT EVERYTHING.

edit: just so people know, I did a term search on this entire thread, haven't found one person claim Kerry is too liberal or too leftist.

[wyldwolf]

132. I agree with you 100%

I try to never bash anyone until I am bashed.

I believe there is room for many many people in our big tent. However, I am very sensitive to the moderate bashing that happens here and my fist reaction is to bash back.

Howver, my true feelings is this:

I do not personally despise or dislike anyone on this board. I also don't take my trash to other boards. Like Vegas, what happens on DU stays on DU.

I would be proud to go into political partisan battle with everyone here against the GOP. I just don't relish being attacked by my own and my first inclination is to attack back.

You should see me against rabid repukes!

[ithacan]

136. the problem

is that the DLC is funded by right wingers and by corporations. That is their major source of funding, as documented above.

That is not bashing, it is laying out facts.

The issue for me is not Kerry, who I will vote for without any major problems (as long as he keeps fighting Bush).

The issue is not whether the Democratic Party will remain a party with a variety of viewpoints, a big tent. In a two party system that is unavoidable.

The issue is whether one particular group (DLC) that is founded by and dependent on huge amounts of money coming from proven right wing sources, as well as from the same corporations that are controlling the Republican Party, will succeed in taking over the party and purging anyone who does not toe their conservative line by setting up a "litmus test" for democratic candidates, something the DLC does do, and by characterizing anyone who calls them on their corporate funders as illegitimate.

That does not seem to be a healthy situation.

[Catholic Sensation]

138. well my post wasn't directed at you

from what I've read, you've been fairly articulate in voicing your displeasure with the Democratic Leadership Council and its beliefs.

It was basically directed at the people who instead of using facts to lay out their arguments, they use their personal beliefs on the matter, and when called on it like robbien, act like little children. "wah, he voted for iwr, he's a right wing lunatic" type shit annoys me, because it's disingenuous to believe a couple of issues define a candidate's placement on the political spectrum. There also seems to be some equating "strong national defense" with "hardcore conservatism" prevalent, which is idiotic no matter how one slices it.

[bvar22]

137. I disagree.

The DLC controlled DNC is very closed minded about Free Trade. It would not even be discussed without the input of DK and Nader.

The DLC is closed minded about the continuing consolidation of corporate power into the hands of a few.

The DLC is unified in supporting the current incarnation of Corporate Globalization.

The DLC is unified in using our military to support Corporate interests.

The DLC is unified in subordinating Human Rights and Labor Rights to Corporate Pofits.



NOTE: I will vote for Kerry. I will continue to work for Labor Rights, Human Rights, Disarmament, and Peaceful answers NOT MILITARY SOLUTIONS.
No one should vote for Nader, but everyone should listen to him.

I no longer donate to the DNC/DLC. My money goes to Mark Dayton to be used as he sees fit.

Call me far left; label me however you want.
I know where I stand.

[Catholic Sensation]

139. didn't say the dlc was open minded, said the democratic party is

why can't arguments ever be made without words being put in others' mouths?

The DLC, DS-USA, DNC, and whatever other groups make up the democratic party are ALL closed minded, but the party as a WHOLE is open minded to allow ALL personal beliefs on individual issues be represented by the Democrat lable. THAT'S why I'm a Democrat, and not some registered Socialist or Green.

Evidence of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S open-mindedness was evident in this election's primaries. The fact that the far left was represented by a brilliant politician like Dennis Kucinich, the liberals represented by John Kerry, Wes Clark, and slightly less so by Howard Dean, moderate liberals represented by John Edwards, and conservative democrats were represented by Joe-mentum in one nomination cycle speaks volumes of this party's big tent mentality.

Compared to the past few GOP primaries where the choices were between far right interventionist militarism mixed with fiscal responsibility and far right interventionist militarism mixed with fiscal idiocy, we're the "melting pot" America claims to be in terms of personal political ideas.