DLC: "The Republicans' favorite Democrats"

[Q]

I would like to invite you to join with me in a discussion about the Democratic Leadership Council, Progressive Policy Institute and the hundreds of elected Democratic officials around the country that entail the 'center-right' of the Democratic party called the 'New Democratic Coalition'.

It has been said that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about the DLC, that they have no real power in the party and that even if they did...they're still (D)emocrats and have a right to their 'opinion'. But the truth shows a different reality...where the DLC can't disguise their disdain for 'New Deal Liberals', have a powerful hold on the party's infrastructure and discourage debate about their support since the 80s for the Reagan and now the Bush agenda.

This discussion is important to those of us who would like to see an even playing field when it comes time to decide the direction of the party and nominees for president. Many rank and file Democrats are still under the impression that we use a democratic process to choose which candidate the party will run for president. But the DLC has built up enough power and influence within the party to steer the nominating process towards their chosen candidates. At the same time...they use millions in corporate 'donations' to spread suspicion and doubt about liberal and progressive candidates...insisting their anti-Iraq war, corporate accountability and social democracy positions makes them 'unelectable' in a nation gone conservative.

I believe we're going to see a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 elections in 2008. The DLC will manufacture consent for a 'New Democrat' candidate like Hillary Clinton while attempting to frame the debate by once again insisting that ONLY they can win with their center-right agenda. Unless a grassroots movement is formed to counter their anti-left rhetoric and abandonment of traditional Democratic principles...the Democratic party will suffer the same fate as the Right when they were taken over by powerful corporate interests.

This is not to say that the party should simply accept the agenda of either the left or the right. It IS a call for a new approach to building a consensus within the entire party that encompasses a broader spectrum of ideologies and ideals. Every candidate needs to be treated fairly and the DLC needs to back off and let a true majority of Democrats choose their leadership without the interference of dirty politics and manufactured consent bought by lobbyists of corporate welfare.

Below you'll find some background on the Players in the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute. It's a long read...but take the time to follow the links and study what they're all about and decide if that's what you want YOUR Democratic party to become.

------------------------

DLC's (co-founder) Will Marshall: "the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

"Most rank-and-file Democrats, of course, are just as patriotic and zealous about vindicating our national honor as any Republican. But let's be honest: Cultural elites with influence in the party often give off more than a whiff of fashionable anti-Americanism. They tend to equate patriotism with jingoism, see America more as a global bully than as a victim of a terrorist conspiracy, haul out the tired Vietnam metaphor anytime U.S. troops encounter difficulty abroad, and are as hypercritical of America's faults as they are forgiving of those of our adversaries. Take Iraq. It's one thing to say, as many thoughtful Democrats do, that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But it's quite another to depict it as the expression of a new U.S. imperialism, or as a Bush family vendetta, or as a plot to grab Middle East oil, or, most ludicrously of all, as a pretext to enrich Halliburton. What leftish elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon. And while heartland voters may be too reluctant to hear reasoned criticism of U.S. policies, they are essentially right in believing that America has mostly been an indispensable force for good in the world. So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." --- http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Will Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic Leadership Council (aka: 'the white male caucus')

Excerpts:

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." - 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.” 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.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the defeat of neoliberal technocrat Dukakis opened up new political room for the DLC and validated its claim that a conservative agenda was the only hope for reviving the Democratic Party. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, who accepted From’s request to become DLC chairman in 1990, helped synthesize the various currents driving the Democratic Party to leave both “New Deal” nostalgia and “New Politics” of the Sixties’ progressives behind. Clinton successfully redefined the Democratic Party, molding it into an organization led by New Democrats, who seized hold of the political center by targeting swing votes of the middle class and advocating the politics of growth rather than redistribution and safety nets. - As Kenneth Baer observed in his book Reinventing Democrats, the DLC, after several clashes with the leadership of the party’s progressives and traditional liberals, refined its mission to function as “an elite organization funded by elite—corporate and private—donors.” (10) However, leading DLC voices such as Al From have continued to harbor hopes that the DLC and its think tank will one day constitute the core of the Democratic Party, not just a fifth column working within the party’s elite.

In May 2003, Al From and Bruce Reed sent a memo to party leaders arguing that Dean’s efforts to energize traditional party constituencies around a populist, anti-war, and liberal message would doom the party to the fates suffered by George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Then, at the July 2003 DLC annual conference, the DLC leadership blasted Dean and other presidential hopefuls for flirting with a “far-left” critique of the Bush administration and pointed out the political folly of attacking Bush’s tax cuts and his national security leadership. Commenting on the “Democratic Weaselship Council” in Salon.com, Joan Walsh observed that the DLC was “in danger of adopting a political terror strategy involves doing the enemy’s work for them: damaging your own party’s candidates by declaring them ideologically flawed and unelectable.” Though claiming to be centrist, the DLC leadership often manifests itself as extremist and conservative, as charged by many on the center-left like Dean. - But, blinded by their own triumphalism, New Democrat ideologues fail to acknowledge that they have fallen in line behind the ills of neoliberals, neoconservatives, militarists, and social conservatives who have transformed the Republican Party over the past three decades. What’s more, the DLC/Progressive Policy Institute has also proved itself an effective shill for transnational Wall Street capitalists, although it faces competition in this role from the Republican Party and its array of affiliated policy institutes and think tanks. Such rightward leanings prompted the America Prospect’s Robert Kuttner to call the DLC the “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats.” --- http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php


Also:
Progressive Policy Institute
Will Marshall

[mattclearing]

1. Yeah, you won't find too many defenders, of course.

I don't see how anyone can take the DLC seriously.

I give the vast majority of Republicans credit for at least knowing who and what they are, and calling themselves Republicans.

A lot of these DLC'ers simply have no principle, no underlying foundation in social or economic justice, no care for anything other than corporations.

They have no business calling themselves Democrats.

[Warpy]

7. Oh, you need to take them very seriously

because they've been entrenched at the center of party power for far too long, dragging the party to the right, neglecting the party base of working people, and generally disenfranchising anyone who isn't a yuppie or corporate type in the process. They will be extremely hard to dislodge, and I hope Dean is equal to the job.

They originally came to power as a loosely organized group of all white, all conservative and mostly southern Democrats who promised the party bosses they could counter the Nixonian southern strategy and get elected.

Well, the proof is what we have right now. By offering the working class base nothing but the business as usual that was killing them they've managed to lose all 3 branches of government.

Party conservatives need to remain in an advisory capacity. However, keeping them in a leadership position has been a total disaster for the party and the country. They need to step down or be thrown down as soon as possible.

[mattclearing]

16. I know they're for real.

But I feel like ideologically, there is very little real defense for their positions.

I agree that they need to be treated as the minority interest group they are, measured by their numbers, not their ability to raise money.

Give Howard Dean credit for at least realizing that if rank-and-file Dems want an agenda they can be proud of, they will have to pay for it, and giving them a decent way to do so.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

104. Bingo! The DLC is an ENEMY of America just.....

as the Neo-Cons are!

[detroitguy]

116. I disagree...

...Sorry, but I really would not equate the DLCers (most of whom are well-meaning) to the throughly evil neocons. The DLC needs to back off on its attacks on liberals, that is for sure. But given the choice of having a guy like Evan Bayh as president, vs, day, Condi Rice, the choice for me would be pretty clear.

BTW, when I have exposed some Republicans I've met to DLC literature (thinking it would soften their idea of what a Democrat is) it has not helped much. They tend to think the ideas on the DLC Web site are little more than re-packaged "liberal socialism."

What I really think needs to happen is this: The DLC and the liberals need to call a truce and concentrate on defeating the GOP.

[Totally Committed]

208. The stuff you find when you Google....

Please Read:

Debunking Centrism, by David Sarota
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota

Lots more, if people are willing to look!

TC

[FreedomAngel82]

45. I'm not fond

of the DLC myself. I'm new to the democratic party (first election) and from what I've been reading and hearing I didn't like them. I remember reading how Kerry wanted to attack back the SBV people but they wouldn't let him for some reason. I also remember reading they didn't let anybody bash Bush at the DNC while the republicans totally trashed Kerry. :( I think they probably also gave him some bad advisers and he, being silly, trusted them. Is there anything Dean can do about them?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

110. That's the DLC! Don't attack your own kind.

The DLC would never want to attack the Republicans, afterall, "Republican = DLC"! No apologies! The DLC is a fringe group.

[CTLawGuy]

2. the election of Dean

as DNC chair is proof that the DLC is on the decline. Losing three straight elections can't be good for their credibility.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. That's one thing I was worried about

That Dean wouldn't get the chair and they'd give it to someone like Roemer or Flower. Not to diss those guys or anything but Dean was just the best qualified. So I was really relieved when he got the chair and definietly thanked God.

[atl_dem]

51. how can you say this

you are saying the dlc lost the last 3 elections... first of all the democrats lost the last 2 elections... second of all, you are saying the dnc is the democratic party... but associating Kerry as a core dlc type... and blaming the loss on the dlc... this reflects a total abscense of personal accountability.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

106. I have read your other posts and you are setting up a double standard.

You blame the "left" for all the losses even though DLC candidates have lost elections too? :wtf:

[ClassWarrior]

109. Actually the Dems won the last 3 elections, despite the DLC.

NGU.

[Blue Wally]

112. I guess they are saying 2000, 2002., and 2004 is three

[niceypoo]

207. The DLC attacked Dean as ferverantly as the GOP did

during the democratic primaries. They were largely responsible for his downfall. Had Dean won the nomination we wouldn't be dealing with Bush right now.

[atl_dem]

3. dlc

I think the only reason Dems win on a national level is b/c of the dlc.

Lost
80 -
84 - way liberal
dlc created 86
88 - non dlc'er
00 - non dlc'er
04 - non dlc'er

won
92 - dlc'er
96 - dlc'er

if you like being a loser dish the dlc

[Zynx]

4. Gore and Kerry were DLC.

[atl_dem]

8. You people are in la la land.

Gore and Kerry were dnc at core and flirted with the dlc... clinton was a dlc'er who flirted with the dnc.

[CTLawGuy]

10. the DNC isn't a faction organization

the DNC is the party ITSELF. The DLC is an interest group WITHIN the party which seeks to control the DNC. Democracy for America is another such interest group.

Don't confuse what the DNC does with what the DLC does.

[atl_dem]

17. real world

The DNC was the party itself until 1986. The dems had lost 4 of the previous 5 elections

68
72
80
84

So dems that actually wanted to win the presidency created the dlc in 1986.

The DNC wing controlled the nominating process until 92 when the dlc got Clinton nominated... success.

Gore was/is a political opportunist. He is fine with losing as long as he feels self-righteous... core dnc.

Kerry was more of a dlc'er than Gore in my opinion but couldn't get past labels. Kerry was cast as a DNC'er and went down as one.

The dlc is the good guy... the dnc is the bad guy as far as achieving national power is concerned.

The last 37 years prove this beyond a doubt.

On a local level it is a different story... but you have to distinguish or you the democratic party will be obsolete... look at the presidential maps in 2004 and 2000.

If Hillary is nominated the Republicans will have a celebratory feast.

[CTLawGuy]

20. DNC

stands for

Democratic National Committee

This is their website: www.democrats.org. You'll notice Howard Dean is the Chairman.

Read this section of the website. It explains what the DNC does. http://www.democrats.org/about/function.html

The DNC is the governing body of the entire party, including the DLC, DFA, kucinich supporters, LaRouche supporters, and anyone who calls him or herself a Democrat.

It is the means by which the party performs its functions including:

-nominating candidates (the DNC makes the rules for how that happens)
-wrtiting the platform
-fundraising for Democratic party-building (registering voters, etc.)
-organizing and holding the Democratic National Convention where our nominee is chosen.
-coordinating state parties.


----------------------
Now, I know that was a lot of information, but now let's compare that to the DLC.

This is their website: www.ndol.org

The DLC only represents a certain group of people WITHIN the party, not the entire party. Read this: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893


Here's what the DLC does:

-thinks up ideas that they think the DNC should promote.
-supports candidates who agree with them for the nomination process that the DNC regulates.
-Raises money to help only candidates who agree with their ideology.


DNC and DLC are NOT comparable organizations. In a sense every Democrat belongs to the DNC. The DLC, though, is only a certain subset of DNC members who hold conservative beliefs.

So, when you say Al Gore was DNC but flirted with DLC, it doesn't make sense.

[atl_dem]

31. well articulated

but in the real world few voters grasp this distinction and the DLC'ers have in fact been the most successful leaders of the Democratic party over the last 14 years. Can you name a core DNC leader who is actually LIKED on the national stage?

[CTLawGuy]

33. you didn't even read what I wrote

read it.

I think most voters understand the difference between a central party organization and a party faction, which serve VERY DIFFERENT functions.

[atl_dem]

38. I read it.

Can you reply to:

"Can you name a core DNC leader who is actually LIKED on the national stage?"

--

"I think most voters understand the difference between a central party organization and a party faction"

You are over-estimating the intelligence of the typical voter.

[CTLawGuy]

42. DNC chairs in the past

haven't been real public figures... I think Dean is a very "rally the troops" type of leader, very public, and who has a broad following. So I would say him.

[ClassWarrior]

107. Can you name a core RNC leader who is liked on the national stage?

NGU.

[candy331]

86. Darboy, thanks for the information as more of us out here than you think

are new to politics and don't know the under workings.Education of this sort should be at the core of interest to bring people to the party. A nice web site by the dnc with educational info and tauted by Dems in all public speaking arenas would be helpful. People vote stupidly because they are ignorant so wolves in sheep's clothing appeal to their emotions to get their vote then eat them alive when they get in office.

[CTLawGuy]

111. you're welcome

political education is important. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

47. True

I agree.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

5. corrections

Gore was a DLCer just like Clinton in 2000, and Clinton won a whopping 43% of the vote in 1992. Also Kerry is a DLCer, or at the very least, someone tolerable to the DLC. (Notice how they didn't attack Kerry like they attacked Dean.)

[Vickers]

6. Statistics aside, do you agree with the basic tenets of the DLC?

:shrug:

[atl_dem]

81. yes

[Trish1168]

196. NO!! And I don't want Hilliary!!

I don't want republicans in democrats clothing. Hilliary's move to the right only proves how disingenuous she is. She is owned by the corporations. I will donate whatever I can to her opposition, if he/she is a true reformer. I used to be a (moderate) republican only a few years back. Now I'm angry with them (despise, hate, abhor them). W shows their true agenda, which is to abolish the middle class. They want no hope for anyone to improve their lives and circumstances. W has made this all crystal clear. He is wreckless, irresponsible and I think maybe Rove's agenda is a fascist-dictatorship disguised as democracy (we're mostly there).

So, if I'm going to vote democratic (and I will from no on), I want to vote for a grass-roots reformer like Dean or better yet Kucinich!! If I had known more about Kucinich last year, I would have totally supported him (but I didn't make the effort to inform myself until after the stolen election).

[Warpy]

11. you're a southerner

so it's understandable that you'd feel that way. You agree with their policies.

However, look at what their policies have accomplished.

It's time for them to GO. No, you won't like what happens. But it's time.

(By the way, Clinton campaigned on economic populism against the wishes of the DLC. He didn't govern that way, but campaigning that way got him elected. Good puppies like Gore and Kerry toed the party line and the elections were close enough to be stolen)

[atl_dem]

22. 42 years ago dnc had success - nice track record

the last non-southern dnc core president was kennedy

the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

"Clinton campaigned on economic populism against the wishes of the DLC"

much of his econ populism was refined in the DLC... not tired old rhetoric from the dnc.

"Good puppies like Gore and Kerry toed the party line and the elections were close enough to be stolen"

they towed the dnc line and all democrats paid the price

[Warpy]

27. Read Kerry's proposals

Then read the DLC proposals.

They are identical.

Kerry was a DLC candidate. His policies were DLC. His handlers were DLC handlers, lobbyists between elections.

Please don't pretend that the conservative DLC policies that appeal to southerners and yuppies are sound.

They are not. They don't address anything that has happened to working class people over the past 30 years.

That's why they keep LOSING.

[Eloriel]

168. Logical fallacies abound

You are equating Dem wins to the DLC without taking ANY other factor(s) into account. There is no PROOF whatseover that Clinton's DLC-ness was THE key to his victories and plenty of evidence that there were many other factors -- such as the fact that he was one of the most talented and charismatic political figures of the 20th Century, and there's PLENTY of Proof for that.

There is nothing about the DLC which is appropriate now, in this environment, and that's assuming there ever was (doubtful).

You need to look into their background just a bit. They're NOT what they seem to be. There are ties to the rightwing, and Will Marshall and probably others have ties to PNAC as well.

Here are my accumulated DLC links. Go educate yourself.

DLC
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735&page=

Ask the questions NOW of the DLC and Clinton. Corporate funding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1372759#1373432


NEW ADDITIONS:
RIGHT WEB: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

Overview of DLC
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

PPI
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

WILL MARSHALL: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.phpAlthough

(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2784312
Link: http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm


===================================================
WILL MARSHALL: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.phpAlthough Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)


=======================

(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2784312
Link: http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm


Open Letter Concerning the Draft at The Weekly Standard-PNACer's-Heads up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3032579#3032703

See Post #16 re Marshall Whitman and Christian Coalition
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1524979#1524986


New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1481121#1481428

WTF? Roemer (Candidate for DNC Chair) funded by Scaife!? <[br />http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1475435&mesg_id=1475435
Mercatus Center (Roemer, Scaife funded)
http://www.mercatus.org/capitolhillcampus/article.php/933.htm

Bill is not longer DLC. In fact, he told them off a couple of years ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1483636#1483676

[Q]

182. Thanks for taking the time to post that info and links...

...but I'm not so sure they're being read by those who have their minds made up.

I happen to believe that the DLC rode Clinton's wave of success and not the other way around. He came at just the right time for the Dem party...after 8 years of the Gipper's faith-based trickle down and Senior Bush completing Reagan's third term.

But Clinton supported just enough of the DLC's agenda to make them think they had become KingMakers. Unfortunately...it was their agenda that pissed off the base the most. NAFTA turned out to be a job killer. Welfare 'reform' benefited the right more than the left and put more families in poverty. The telecommunications bill left the door wide open for a RWing media monopoly.

And really...who cares if the DLC takes credit? That's not the issue. The issue has always been that they refuse to acknowledge that the 'third way' is not the only way to win elections and that their Bush appeasement and enabling is killing our party.

[mattclearing]

13. I think this is oversimplifying matters a bit.

The main issue that most Dems have with the DLC is that they view bedrock Democratic principles, like labor protections, minority issues, and social safety nets like Social Security, as little more than window dressing, to be changed or tossed out as needed.

Their inability to appreciate the ideological foundations of their own party, and their repeated attempts to shout down members of their own party, to publicly shut down debate within the party in the same way that a Fox news anchor would, are just utterly unacceptable.

I think adopting fiscal conservatism was a good deal for the Democratic Party. I think that is enough, to not be tax and spend liberals anymore.

The rest of the DLC agenda is, frankly, a lot of Republican talking point nonsense tailored to ensure that both major political parties are out to screw the American people in favor of corporations.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Q]

184. Good points...

It has always amazed me...in reading the rhetoric on their websites...that the 'centrist' DLCers seem to hate what they call the 'labor-left' as much as the RWingers. I was appalled the first time I read what they think of worker's rights and other 'bedrock' Democratic principles.

But isn't this what the Democratic party is supposed to be all about? Can America afford two parties backed by the same corporate special interests? The GOPers used to call unions a special interest of the Dem party...but at least THAT special interest was 'of the people'.

[mattclearing]

206. That's the whole point, though.

They aren't us. They are them.

Their money comes from the same place that Bush money comes from, for the same reasons, in an effort towards the same goals.

[welshTerrier2]

36. oops ... self deleted ...

[marions ghost]

79. Actually there are many who believe

00 = Gore won
04 = Kerry won

Your "winner/loser" stats in post #3 don't hold up anyway, alt_dem.

The comparison is too simplistic. Clinton had a lot of support other than DLC. There are too many other variables. The argument can't be reduced to win/loss. (Make the same comparison in 2030 and there might be something to it).

[atl_dem]

83. denial

Some people are less than ok with being habitual losers.

Lest you forget, presidential elections do involve actual governing for 4 years.

[marions ghost]

90. Sorry...

There is no solid assumption that Gore and Kerry were in fact LOSERS, given the controversial circumstances of the last 2 elections. So to base your statistics on the assumption of presidential winners/losers is flawed. It's also too simplistic an argument in other ways.

This whole DLC vs DNC argument mirrors the factional problems within the Dem party at state and national level, but to argue that DLC candidates and their principles are "winners" --and therefore other Dems should bend that way is to miss the truth of what is happening. Doesn't the DLC realize yet that in an era of mass media manipulation, corporate exploitation and election theft, all of our fond ways of looking at the political scene have suddenly changed?

****Since the Democratic Left is nowhere near as scary as the Republican Right...CAN we actually work TOGETHER to defeat THEM, instead of working against each other??? This is the big picture challenge now. Yes the DLC helped bring some "fiscal conservatism" to the party, OK. But now, in light of serious threats to our Democracy in general, maybe the DLC will lose some of their arrogance and knee-jerk competitiveness, and avoid smears like "the rancid Anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." That kind of rhetoric is inherently destructive. It is one of the worst lies ever perpetrated in US political history.

[Blue Wally]

113. Other than the fact

"There is no solid assumption that Gore and Kerry were in fact LOSERS, given the controversial circumstances of the last 2 elections. So to base your statistics on the assumption of presidential winners/losers is flawed. It's also too simplistic an argument in other ways."

That someone else got inaugurated after each of the elections. Every discussion of party strategy here in DU usually gets divebombed by the "we only need to fix the voting machines" crowd.

[marions ghost]

156. And you would represent the

"elections are a taboo topic crowd" I guess?

1. Alt_dem (post #3) brought up the recent elections as a clear winner/loser scenario to support his arguments. I responded to that. There are better arguments to support the DLC if that's the goal, than "Gore and Kerry lost." No certainty on that point.

2. Gee, MY post that you conveniently selected a line out of, DID concern other things, and so do the majority of the other posts on this topic, so how is it that you feel "dive-bombed?" (You would prefer to hear nothing about elections, apparently, until the next theft)?

3. We need to fix the voting system AND a lot of other things. There are so many connections. There can be no separation. The politicians who are figuring that out will be the winners in the future. PUH--leeze, I'm not stupid enough to say "we only need to fix the voting machines." I'm saying that you can't base sweeping arguments on flawed assumptions, in this case about those particular election outcomes.

4. Party strategy is important. Nobody's saying it isn't. I would say it's critical right now.

[jpgray]

102. Specious reasoning at best

You can use the same logic to argue only someone named Bill Clinton can win, since DLC candidates Gore and Kerry lost. If the DLC was where the victories are at, their 2002 strategy would have been a success, Daschle would still be in the Senate, and John Kerry would be president.

[detroitguy]

9. I've been to a DLC event...

...and I have looked at their Web site and publications. And, frankly, I don't see them as closet right-wingers. They are pragmatic, experimental and have some good ideas.

That said, however, I think they are wrong to criticize the more liberal elements in the in the party - who have some darned good ideas of their own. Any "struggle" between liberals and centrists (I see the DLC as centrist) should be friendly and respectful.

Neither group should be interested in running the other out. People of both tendencies should listen to each other, borrow each other's ideas and build consensus in the party. In that way, we'll tend to put forward the best ideas and connect to the electorate better.

We do not want to have happen to us what happened to the GOP, in which the right-wing viciously beat down the moderates. That will, in the end, bite them in the ass. Being a "big tent" will be good for the party. Division and acrimony will not.

[atl_dem]

18. I agree completely!

Well said.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

105. Several of my ideas and policy ideas may be seen as "DLC".

However, I take offense to the DLC calling the "left" UnAmerican. The DLC is too busy being a right wing corporate facist cult than being for the people.

[Eloriel]

176. Your suggestion would be a very good one were it not for the fact

that it's based on an assumption that both sides in this little intra-party conflict are equally valid and are operating in good faith. There is plenty of reason to have strong suspicions and serious doubts about the DLC folks. (See my previous post for more links than you could want on the subject.)

Further, even if that were not the case, any faction that wants to destroy what the Democratic Party has stood for (hint: the little people) is, by definition, an enemy of the Party as a whole. The DLC wants to throw over all the traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party. That doesn't even make good common sense and I don't know why ANYone lets them get away with it in any way -- but it IS the kind of suggestion that will help Republicans win more elections, just as the DLC since Clinton has helped Republicans win more elections AND more legislative victories.

[detroitguy]

199. Sorry, but...

...I take issue with the premise here. I do not think the DLC "wants to destroy what the Democratic Party has stood for (hint: the little people)" or "throw over all the traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party." That is your perception. But I don't think they are nearly as sinister as all that.

[Racenut20]

12. Your "Better Idea" is ?????

Clinton used the DLC as a core support group.

[derby378]

15. If the DLC can't bring in the South, marginalize the DLC

Take a good look at the electoral maps from 2000 and 2004. Nothing but red. This is flat out unacceptable considering the number of Dems in the South. Don't tell me about the touchscreens or about Katherine Harris; I already know. Tell me about how we're going to get people like Max Cleland re-elected. And then tell me what the DLC's plan is to accomplish said objective.

[atl_dem]

75. assumptions

you are working on the assumption that the DNC can bring in the south if the dlc is marginalized... in my opinion this is the republican strategy for total political dominance...

[Trish1168]

197. Max Cleland should run for president

His was the most obvious case of election fraud. The only problem is too many people don't believe fraud took place.

He was on the 9/11 commission, and I think this is why they put so much effort behind defeating him. He was being loud about their obstructionism.

I don't care that he lost his senate seat. He is a good man, a true patriot and he wants the truth about 9/11. If we ever return to sanity, I hope it gets investigated.

[democrank]

14. I don`t feel very charitable toward the DLC.

According to the DLC, anything to the left of Lieberman doesn`t deserve to breathe their air. They`ve all but forgotten basic Democratic values and have instead bent to the whims and wishes of big corporate donors. What`s worse is how flagrantly they took the base for granted, perhaps assuming we had no other place to go.

When the Democratic base understands the extent of its power and states its willingness to use it, the DLC will start listening....or else. The party can not win without its base. We must learn to frame the debate and stand up for our basic values. We must lead the way and not wait for some bogus directive from the DLC.

[atl_dem]

19. snotty self-rightous dnc losers

bash the dlc at your own peril... if after looking at the maps of 2000 and 2004 you still feel the need to attack the DLC you are completely lost.

The good news is Dean isn't going to fold to these types.

[CTLawGuy]

21. Howard Dean has no love for the DLC

they constantly trashed him in the primary and afterward.

[atl_dem]

23. watch

Dean is going to be acting more like a dlc'er than clinton ever did

[CTLawGuy]

24. haha

No, he is not going to offer up watered-down versions of Republican policies and be defined by an unhealthy OBSESSION with being "electable".

Those were the very things he was fighting AGAINST.

[atl_dem]

25. funny

unhealth obsession with getting elected

very funny

that sums it up

the mainland of america views those types as snotty self-righteous dnc losers and if you haven't noticed they are the ones that are laughing right now

[CTLawGuy]

26. so, are you against the DNC?

you are new here, but I just want to clarify.

Note I didn't say "getting elected" I said "being 'electable'" as defined by the DLC. This seems to mean voting for everything Bush wants just because the "swing voters" might like it.

[atl_dem]

28. hmm

No, I am against the DNC eating their own.

You might be smart enough to intellectualize the difference b/t "getting elected" and "being electable"... perhaps that is the problem.

[CTLawGuy]

30. being "electable"

(notice the quotes), is being so afraid of losing, that you don't take any positions other than "I'm for baseball, mom and apple pie, and whatever my opponent is for, but I would do it in a better way."

"Getting elected" is taking a strong enough position so that people know what you are actually going to do once in office. It is also taking a position that differentiates yourself from your opponent and encourages voters to think about issues in more than one way (that ONE way is often the Republican way).

If you do this, you get elected. If you don't, you may be "electable", but you don't get elected.

[ClassWarrior]

108. I wish I had a crystal ball.

Where'd you get yours? Diagon Alley?

NGU.

[Trish1168]

198. I wonder if Howard will get frustrated with them and run again

for president!

I'd back him whole heartedly.

[B0S0X87]

29. You guys are all forgetting something

Left-wing candidates gave the Republicans five out of six presidential elections from '68 through '88.

I always liked the words of Paul Tsongas when he was lambasted for being a non-traditional democrat: "Let's try winning and see what it feels like. If we don't like it, we can go back to our traditions."

Face it, parties change. After the defeat of Goldwater, the Republicans went through a long period of introspection and came out a much, much stronger party.

[CTLawGuy]

32. yes,

the Republicans came out a much less moderate party and they took stronger positions.


Unless you think Ronald Reagan was a moderate.

[atl_dem]

34. yea but

democrats had enough pride in not appearing like they were trying to appear "electable" so it is all good... let's do it again. /sarcasm

[American Tragedy]

194. The Republicans emerged more right-wing than ever before

By the late 1980s and 1990s, Barry Goldwater, openly pro-choice and pro-gay, was so vilified by the Republican establishment that they tried to have his name erased from buildings and schools named in his honor.

[atl_dem]

35. you may disagree with some dlc principles but to demonize them is DUMB

Blueprint Magazine | April 15, 2003
First Principles
By Al From

Table of Contents

Democrats have a mountain to climb in 2004 -- not only because President Bush is popular but because our national party has seriously regressed in the past two years.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton broke our losing streak in presidential elections. With his leadership and New Democrat ideas, Democrats helped restore America's confidence and prosperity at home and spread peace throughout the world.

But without a Democrat in the White House, congressional Democrats did not build on the Clinton-New Democrat progress. Now old doubts have reemerged about our party's ability to keep our country and economy strong.

We paid a big price for that failure. As we head into the 2004 campaign season, Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. They dominate the national debate today, much as they did at the height of the Reagan presidency.

If Democrats expect to return to national leadership, they must recapture control of the national dialogue. They can do that by returning to first principles and demonstrating a clear sense of national purpose.

Recently, I came across the first public document ever released by the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985. What's remarkable is how relevant it is today.

"Throughout this century, the Democratic Party has been an engine of opportunity and progress -- an agent of hope and change -- in America.

"Democrats have spurred upward mobility and spread prosperity to millions of Americans -- ours is the party of the people. It has been the voice of working men and women, winning for them the right to decent wages and working conditions. It has stood with racial and religious minorities against injustice and discrimination. It has promoted quality education for all of America's young and has secured, for older citizens, a living income and decent medical care. And Democratic policies have nurtured the spirit of enterprise that has made our people the most productive and prosperous on earth.

"Under Democratic leadership, America has championed the cause of liberty throughout the world. The American people fought and won two world wars against powerful enemies of freedom. They rebuilt Europe and Japan, fostered economic cooperation, forged strong alliances, and led the free world in checking the spread of communist tyranny. Under Democrats, America has stood for hope, for fundamental democratic rights, and the quest for lasting peace.

"Today, this proud Democratic tradition of principled and effective leadership is endangered by Republican control of the federal government and domination of the national political debate.

"The gravest threat confronting Democrats today is that of realignment. Not only has our party lost four of the last five presidential elections, but post-1984 polls show a dramatic surge in the percentage of Americans (particularly among the young) identifying themselves as Republicans. In an inversion of historical roles, Republicans are bidding for majority status by portraying themselves as the party of growth and change while depicting Democrats as custodians of the status quo. And they have launched a systematic effort to dismantle the Democratic heritage of progressive government.

"Out of power, Democrats cannot reclaim or long defend their political heritage. We must begin winning national elections again. We must allay public doubts about our party's ability to handle two basic responsibilities of government: keeping our economy and our nation strong. Democrats must demonstrate that we possess both the compassion to care and the toughness to govern.

"To reclaim our party's progressive legacy, Democrats must, above all, impart a clear vision of national purpose.

"The DLC's founders believe that the Democratic Party must stand today -- as it did under Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy -- as a force for advancing the common interest; for spurring growth, creating jobs and opportunity, and defending freedom. Our allegiance is not to past programs but to these enduring principles. The Democratic Party's genius lies not in the faithful maintenance of shrines to past accomplishments, but in the unrelenting drive to make our society a living monument to hope and progress.

"Democrats must again be willing to test new ideas, to risk new departures, and to define new standards of excellence. We need not to resurrect the New Deal, the New Frontier or the Great Society, but to summon the same bold and enterprising spirit -- the same refusal to accept mediocrity and injustice -- that gave rise to them."

Rekindling that spirit led to the New Democrat Movement and the Clinton presidency. Now we have to rekindle it again. We can do it -- if we have the will to challenge old orthodoxies and pursue new means for furthering our party's progressive ideals.

Al From is founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

[welshTerrier2]

43. what about 1994 ??

you know, i think you've missed the key element in the BP ...

first, though, let me point out that you highlighted that we should support the DLC because Clinton won in 1992 ... fwiw, i didn't like Clinton ... i saw him as republican-lite ... i think he sold out the traditional principles of the Party and further enabled the great corporatocracy ... i'm quite confident you disagree with that but understand that many of us didn't see Clinton's nomination and election as such a good thing ...

now, you were quick to highlight that the DLC insider won in 1992 and 1996 ... of course, you can't necessarily conclude that he won because he supported the DLC agenda ... bush was a badly wounded candidate in 1992 and barely had the support of his own party ... but even accepting your point, you seemed to have conveniently omitted 1994 ... that was the year that the republicans really came to power, wasn't it? the Gingrich revolution ... with a DLC'er in the White House and the DLC in control of the Democratic Party, the republicans seized control of the House and eventually the Senate as well ... and with the DLC in control of the Party, things are even worse today ... so you go ahead with your scorecard of how the DLC has done ... but you might want to make note that they've been in control for a longtime and Democrats are not doing very well ...

and finally, and I'll confess to not having read all your posts in this thread, i didn't see any comments from you about the essential point in the BP ... the point was made that the Party needs to allow the grassroots to participate more actively in the selection of candidates ... the assertion was that the DLC has been able to substantially control the money and the process ... do you agree or disagree with that point?

[atl_dem]

50. grassroots

"the point was made that the Party needs to allow the grassroots to participate more actively in the selection of candidates ... the assertion was that the DLC has been able to substantially control the money and the process ... do you agree or disagree with that point?"


The DNC picked candidates from 68 to 88... the results sucked.

The DLC influenced candidate selection in 92, 96. Gore just rode Clinton's coattails.

Kerry was the quentissential dnc candidate. Lieberman confuses things b/c he claims he is a new democrat but just kind of rides clinton's coattails again... and Mass. and Conneticut politicians just can't reach the voters the democrats need to reach.

I agree in theory that the grassroots needs to participate actively in teh selection of candidates... but the DNC machine has historically hijacked the nominating process in the DLC in my opinion has reflected more of the grassroots than the dnc.

As pointed out previously the DLC is just an opining entity the dnc is the "machine" of the democratic party... the dnc lashing out against the dlc like it is subordinate to the dlc is counterproductive to say the least.

[welshTerrier2]

52. you are self-contradicting

somewhere above, you provided a scorecard of how the Party has been doing when they did, and didn't, nominate DLC candidates ...

you gave the DLC credit for Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 ... now, you state that the DLC "is just an opining entity the dnc is the "machine" of the democratic party" ... so, now the DLC should not receive any credit or blame for anything because the DNC is in control ...

you can't have it both ways, my friend ...

and, as i pointed out, if you want to sing the praises of 1992 and 1996 as proof of the DLC's success, you failed to comment on 1994 and the pathetic state Democrats are in today in both the House and the Senate ...

[atl_dem]

62. see post #20

The DNC thinking they can have it both ways so many years IS the reason we are in the situation we are currently in.

"you failed to comment on 1994 and the pathetic state Democrats are in today in both the House and the Senate"

I suppose all the blame should go to that little faction of the dem party called the dlc who Q-types are trying to bash b/c they can't take personal responsibility for their own inadequacies.

[CTLawGuy]

60. The DNC holds primaries to pick candidates

every 4 years, not only certain election cycles. That is its job.

The DLC is an influence group within the DNC. It is said that the DNC has been controlled by the DLC since Clinton was elected.

The DLC influences the process put forth by the DNC to nominate a candidate. The DNC does not itself influence the process, it must be neutral since it represents the ENTIRE party. Therefore, the DNC could not have "picked" candidates from '68-'88 as you suggested.

If you want to talk about non-DLC candidates, use that term, or use "old left" or something similar.


To put it bluntly, if you cannot understand how the DNC and DLC are different, you will not be taken seriously on DU.

[atl_dem]

77. old left

so your saving grace is the lastest northeasterner, Dean, who will save the old left from itself and remove that bastion of republicanism, the dlc? To put it bluntly that is not much of a respectable position.

[Padraig18]

53. The Republicans controlled the Senate BEFORE the DLC.

In the interest of accuracy.

[welshTerrier2]

55. appreciate that ...

of course, the point still stands ... the Party has moved to the right and has faired poorly for a very long time ... and with Daschle as minority whip, we appeased and appeased and appeased ... 100,000 dead Iraqis, PNAC in full blossom, massive budget deficits ... and more and more republican control in both the House and the Senate ...

perhaps a new path would make some sense ... no?

[Padraig18]

57. The key to change is funding.

If people want to make the DLC less influential, the answer is remarkably simple: enable progressive candidates to obtain sufficient funding from other sources, like a Dean-led DNC, e.g., or go with public funding (only) of political races. The DLC would wither and die, if either of these came to pass.

[welshTerrier2]

64. my "key to change" is process

i totally agree with the points you made about funding ... but the most important change i think the Party needs to make is in reforming its infrastructure ...

i'm a registered Democrat ... i'm never notified by the Party about meetings on the platform ... i have no idea how or why the Party selects what candidates it will support ... i've started getting much more involved and can see even more clearly now how arcane the process is ...

how many Democrats really had any say about how the Chairman was selected or how the platform is built? most Democrats just read about Dean's election in the paper ... that's a recipe for failure ... we need to begin a massive outreach program to try to get Democrats to take a more active role ... we need to build a national database of email addresses for ALL registered Democrats ... we need to encourage regular dialog between our elected leaders and the grassroots ... these things will take time and will require endless changes ... but i see this as a critically important goal ... if we don't listen to voters and give them meaningful incentives to be more involved, we'll just keep withering away ...

[Padraig18]

69. That's the 2nd part of the equation.

We need to get involved because it's our party. I wouldn't expect those in power to get in the habit of notifying those who are essentially uninvolved about anything to do with the process, generally speaking. That's why it's essential the we each take it on as a personal responsibility to become and to remain informed what the activities of our party areat the local, district, state and national level.

[ulysses]

114. oh, there's no need to demonize them.

Marginalize & oppose at nearly every turn, sure. But there's no need to demonize.

[welshTerrier2]

37. great post, Q !!!

eventually your post will be misconstrued by all the "why are you always so divisive" types ... and even those on the left are likely to miss the essence of what you wrote ... we'll end up with a debate about the DLC or which wing of the Party should be "in control" ...

but THE ISSUE is not left vs. center ... it is not about the reality that the DLC is indeed republican-lite ... whether they are or not (btw, they are) is NOT THE ISSUE ...

you correctly raised the most important theme in your post ... will ALL Democrats have a say in the process or will the DLC insider power elites be able to annoint (btw, they will choose Hillary) the next nominee ???

every Democrat should support the key point you raised ... do we actually have Democrats, worse yet, DU'ers, who would not want to see more participation and more democracy in the internal processes of the Party?? I just watched a round table discussion on MTP with Friedman, Dowd and Safire and they already have totally conceded that Hillary will be the nominee ... they also gave her the nickname "Hillary the Hawk" and talked about how this was the only possible winning strategy for Democrats ...

there is no way I will vote for Hillary or any other Democrat who supports more PNAC funding ... i did that for Kerry; i will never do it again ...

Party insiders need to create a structure that encourages more participation ... most Democrats have no idea how decisions are made within the Party ... and all we see is more and more apathy ... Democrats are not innately apathetic ... i believe many have been ignored for so long they see no structure to participate in ... many of them no longer vote ... it's killing the Party and it's not democratic ...

Will Dean be the great reformer? only time will tell ... but every Democrat needs to work to change the way the DLC has been running things ... job one is not picking candidates, defining a platform or even defining a media strategy ... job one is getting ALL Democrats involved ...

[atl_dem]

40. much needed discussion - it will continue the next 3 years for sure

but I am a bit taken aback at how comfortable the DNC cheerleaders have become with being constant spectators spouting off about how self-righteous they are... it reminds me of that guy in monte python that keeps getting nailed, cut, hit and keeps saying "I am going to get you next time" b/c of the attitude "I am better than you and I have the moral highground.".. ridiculous.

[welshTerrier2]

48. "with being constant spectators"

why do you conclude that DU'ers or especially the original poster is a "spectator" ??

and why is having an opinion "self-righteous"? i hate the DLC ... it's not about being self-righteous ... i've read the divisive bullshit they post on their website ... those fucking asshole DLC'ers said that the reason baby boomers were protesting the invasion of Iraq was because "they were nostalgic for the protests of their youth" ... fuck you, Will Marshall ...

and i am neither a DNC cheerleader nor a spectator ... i have watched my party continue to sponsor the corporate agenda ... and i've watched them play "macho politics" to support bush's PNAC agenda and the Iraq invasion and occupation ... you think i'm cheering for the DNC ??? i'm not sure i'll even remain in the Party ...

and spectating? i worked my ass off for Democrats and gave them some serious money in the last election ... i've recently been elected to the Democratic Committee in my town and i have plans to try to change how the Party does business in my State ... so no, i am not a spectator ... and one last thing ... it appears you're new here ... it's unlikely you know many in the DU community ... on what do you base your observations that people on DU are "spectators"? for a new guy, you sure seem to know a lot about us ...

[Q]

185. I'm old enough to have...

...watched the political process over the last 30 or so years. The Democratic party at least used to work together to build a consensus for policy and legislation. But then a dramatic split in the party came about in the 80s....with 'Reagan Democrats' voting for and supporting for many Reagan policies that hurt the Dem party's base.

The RWing of the GOP has been clever enough to do more than just push their own agenda. They have been hard at work trying to erode the base of the Dem party by helping to divide the party over issues like labor, choice, education and separation of church and state.

The right isn't trying to solidify their base with these wedge issues. They're meant to divide US. And it worked...because there were just enough 'centrists' in the party to fall for their ploy and vote for their 'moderation' of so-called liberal policies.

[DaveinMD]

39. and another divisive thread

same crap, different day.

The DLC doesn't control the party. The DLC doesn't control the nomination process. If it did, Lieberman would have been the nominee. This is beyond ludicrous.

[Q]

183. Indeed they did want Lieberman...

...but they chose DLC Kerry instead when the polls started coming in. Many Dems simply don't like Lieberman for the way he treated Gore after 2000..and for other reasons.

The DLC may be corporate shills but they're not stupid. They needed someone that looked 'strong on national security' and could look good promising to kill more terrorists than Bush.

You could also say that the Neocons don't 'control' the Republican party. But have you noticed that the Bush WH uses their playbook? That's how the Neocons and the DLC 'controls' their parties. Neither is actually part of any visible party apparatus. They work under the radar and would prefer that voters don't know much about them.

I'm sorry that you find this discussion 'lubicrous'. Perhaps it is to those who feel the status quo is good enough. But many of us don't feel that way and are searching for ways to get the DLC to accept that fact that Liberals, Progressives and Populists aren't going away.

[DaveinMD]

191. Its ludicrous because

you don't win elections by driving people out of the party. You are making the same mistake that they did. You win elections by winning the votes of liberals and moderates.

And I'm sorry, but Kerry was not DLC no matter how often you say he is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. The DLC would be "moderate" Republicans if the right hadn't highjacked

the Republican Party. Now, they're attempting the same in the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, they've been quite successful ever since Clinton had the key to the White House handed to him by Ross Perot.

Since Clinton has departed, the myth of being "centrist" as a winning strategy has been shown to be a crock. By abandoning all principles in an attempt to appeal to to mythical "middle", the Democratic Party is crumbling into irrelevancy.

[SixShooter]

49. Not really

All across the South right now you see Southern Democratic Governors who've won in very red states..

The DLC is an important faction within the party, just like DFA like someone else said. They dont have horns and tails and pitchforks. We have to kill this notion that "anyone to the right of Barbara Boxer is a Republican lite" if we're going to compete on a national level.

[atl_dem]

56. Agreed

Well said... that is my only point in this diatribe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. And, remind me how many southern states went for Kerry?

Competing on a national level requires a party that actually stands for something. However execrable we may find the reactionary priniciples of Bush and the Republican party, they are there for all to see, and they seldom waver from them. Their staunch pro-"life", pro-gun, pro-big business, pro-war, hyper-"patriotism", pro-Christian, anti-woman, anti-minority, dreams of erecting a sort of patriarchal Maryberry USA, sells to white people.

They don't hide it, they don't deny it, they put on their cowboy boots and strut it.

The Democrats, on the other hand, under the influence of the DLC, offer "compromise". The "not as bad", "were not liberals" version of the Republican platform.

It's time that the Democrats start running on their own platform rather than a watered down version of the Republican's.

But, I doubt that will happen.

[atl_dem]

66. huh

Apparently, you think kerry was more of a core dlc candidate... do you really believe this?

I haven't heard anyone in this discussion say that.

That's how q-type democrats and old-style-dnc'ers save face... attack their own. Very sad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Care to answer the question?

Kerry bought into the DLC tactics of not being a "liberal". His stance on the war was nearly identical to Bush's. The rest of the policies that he ran on, were aimed to appease the right wing of the Democratic Party. Universal health care? The environment? Affirmative Action? Taxes? Globalization? Education? All of them were sold as "not as bad" as the Republican version.

Not to mention the Great Goose Safari to pander to the gun nuts.

[atl_dem]

78. confusion

you seem to be saying Kerry doesn't take responsibility for how he ran... it was the DLC influence that screwed him up... newsflash, the dnc had significantly more to do with the Kerry campaign than the DLC... two words, Bob Shrum.

That damn goose safari... cooked up in the inner war room of the dlc political machine. /sarcasm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. How many southern states did Kerry win?

Are you saying that Kerry didn't run to the right? Certainly you don't think that the DLC was urging him to run to the left? Was he too "moderate" for the south? Should he have run even more to the right?

He pandered to the right and lost. Just as the Dems lost congress for doing the same.

[Q]

97. Kerry is a member of the DLC...

...go to their website and look at their member list. You'll also find Hillary Clinton...the next Dem nominee.

Don't listen to Shrum...listen to Al From, Bruce Reed and Will Marshall. THEY developed Kerry's campaign strategy on Iraq and advised him to take advantage of the 'anyone but Bush' voters to go after the 'swing' voters while ignoring the base. They also advised him to go 'soft' on Bush and present a 'positive' message instead.

Gore left the DLC in disgust after they pubicly berated him for his 'populist' acceptance speech. DLC Lieberman and his New Dem allies betrayed Gore during the recount and to this day insist that he 'lost' because of his 'populist campaign' and not election fraud or the illegal SC decision.

Kerry campaigned as a DLCer. One only has to compare his campaign to the DLC rhetoric to see that this is true.

[Padraig18]

61. "anyone to the right of Barbara Boxer is a Republican lite"

That mindset is far too prevalent, sadly.

[welshTerrier2]

71. my republican-lite definition

i would define republican-lite as any non-republican who frequently votes WITH the republicans on key issues ... would that be a fair definition?

now, if you don't think most Democrats qualify, then say so ... but the definition seems reasonable to me ...

[Padraig18]

72. 'key issue'

As Shakespeare wrote, 'Aye, there's the rub'. What is or is not a 'key issue' is where the debate should be centered.

On edit: The future os Social Security is a 'key issue', IMO, whereas whether or not John Negroponte is confirmed is not, e.g. .

[AntiCoup2K4]

63. "They dont have horns and tails and pitchforks...."

Well, they would, but even Satan has standards :evilgrin:

[lastliberalintexas]

88. Not really

The Southern Dems who've managed to win are the complete opposite of the DLC. Southern Dems tend to be more liberal economically (ie, populist, pro-worker, Bryant types) and more conservative socially. That's 180 away from the pro-corporate, elitist DLC.


I understand that there is a place in the party for people who are more conservative. But not for anyone who favors Corporate America over the good of people.

[B0S0X87]

115. I don't think it's a "mythical middle"

Over 30% of Americans are registered independents and most of them are either centrist, center-left, or center-right. The theory behind running a centrist is that he'll pick up 30-40% of the vote automatically from his party, and then if he wins most of the moderate vote, he'll win easily.

It seems like a solid theory to me. In practice, it hasn't worked as well, but lets be reasonable. We can't run Barbara Boxer on a platform of supporting gay marriage and gun control and expect her to win Mississippi.

[Padraig18]

44. Same shit, different day.

How many of the 'discussions' will we have to wade through? One a week? Two? Five? Ten? Focus is one thing; obsession is something altogether different. The first is healthy; the latter is unhealthy.

:eyes:

[Q]

65. A reminder that YOU don't have to 'wade through' any discussion...

...but you should allow others to join the debate without being harassed and intimidated.

If this is indeed the party of the 'big tent'...then the DLCers should allow other opinions to have a place in the public forum. The DLC has tried to dominate and frame the debate since the 80s. It's time the other side of the political spectrum in the party joins the debate without fear of being yelled down by the Centrists.

[Padraig18]

70. It's a tiresome debate, and beating a dead horse doesn't make it less so.

The problem has been raised and discussed here ad nauseum, as have its solutions. It i'snt like the opening post is breaking any new ground at DU, Q. You yourself have probably started no less than 100 threads about this topic, or close to it. Hells bells, you started a HUGE thread on it just this past week. Trust me, most posters here don't suffer from short-term memory problems.

:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

80. So don't beat the dead horse, but find out what killed it, for fucks sake!

Although "dead donkey" would be a better metaphor than "dead horse" in this case.

And the cause of death is cancer. A cancer called the DLC, which ate away at the donkey's flesh from the inside. Despite the warning signs, the patient ignored the symptoms, writing it off as just a small "moderate" infection.

Actually the patient isn't dead yet, but it's mortally wounded. Hopefully the patient's new doctor can save it, but he can't do it alone.

[Padraig18]

82. You might want to read my posts upthread, if you think I don't know

I know. I care. I think I have a fair idea of what needs to happen, too. This never-ending political 'autopsy', however, doesn't seem to be in the least productive--- just obsessive.

[Q]

170. Detaching yourself from the debate might make you feel...

...better. It's seems that you get really upset when you visit my threads...so I wouldn't want you to get a hernia lifting for the DLC.

I will keep repeating threads on the DLC until enough Democrats become knowledgable on the issue to fully understand the implications of our party being influenced by 'lobbyists' for the Pentagon, Energy industries and wall street.

Dems need to know WHY Gore won but didn't take office. They need to know that Kerry was a DLC candidate who was advised to downplay Bush criminal behavior, corruptions and lies that took this nation to war. Just because the DLC wants to live a lie doesn't mean the rest of us have to join them.

[Armstead]

68. The DLC is obsessive. So is the GOP.

The DLC is obsessed with killing off the basic principles of liberalism. Unfortunately, they are the best allies the GOP has because of that.

A typical example from the excerpt above by Will Marshal: "But let's be honest: Cultural elites with influence in the party often give off more than a whiff of fashionable anti-Americanism. They tend to equate patriotism with jingoism, see America more as a global bully than as a victim of a terrorist conspiracy, haul out the tired Vietnam metaphor anytime U.S. troops encounter difficulty abroad, and are as hypercritical of America's faults as they are forgiving of those of our adversaries."

That kind of horseshit is walking right into the GOP trap.

Anyone who is smart and successful and liberal and HONEST about America's dark side abroad is automatucally part of an "anti-American cultural elite"?

Gimme a fucking break. Anyone who spouts that kind of GOP nonsense is no friend of mine. They also are no challemnger to the right-wing's demonization of nanyone who is not a rah-rah Corporate Conservative.

[Eloriel]

179. Thank you, Amrstead. That's a perfect quote --

it could SO easily have been lifted from FreeRepublic (if any of them were that educated over there).

[Geek_Girl]

54. I think this is the Main reason why the DLC

has been able to control the policy and positions of prominent democratic leaders.

-Raises money to help only candidates who agree with their ideology.

If Dean is successful in raising money it could mitigate to a certain extant the corporate control on the party. The DLC should also try to tap into the grass roots energy and embrace policies on economic issues that are popular with the democratic base and most Americans.

[candy331]

84. I watched quite a bit of that " State of the Black Union" on C-span

yesterday and if the Blacks do come together with their covenant/contract that they talked heavily about I think the Democratic party is going to take a further nosedive. The speakers talked about the Dems taking them for granted and the power structure at the top in the party excludes them.They recognized that they were blindsided by the gay issue and abortions and wondered how the hell did those issues come in the middle of really serious issues for them. Will be pretty interesting to see if they come together as a united group.

[Tinoire]

89. I watched that yesterday too. The Dems have no idea what's coming

The assortment of Black Leaders they had in that room electrifying the crowd by agreeing they weren't going to take it anymore and were going to write their own agenda and to hell with both the Democrats and the Republicans was... awe-inspiring. I hope they accomplish their aim because most of their goals are my goals. If they do come together, and I have no doubt they will, we can expect to see more progress in our politics for rudimentary issues that are a primary concern to a very important and pissed off voting block.

[Tinoire]

87. The DLC needs to go. They're neocons in Progressive-speak

The DLC and its think tank the PPI have the same proposals as the Neo-cons but they write it in Progressive-speak. Take any of their positions and compare it to the neo-cons; you won't find "a dime's worth of a difference". They were instrumental in, not just supporting, but egging the administration on for the war and when it comes to supporting Bush's bold new agenda such as reforming the bankruptcy laws (applying to people not corporations), privatizing social security or determining who will be the people's Attorney General, there's the DLC front and center with their group of politicians who had to answer correctly on the DLC's questionnaire and sign loyalty oaths to them before being heralded into the inner sanctum.

A lot of people were turned off to Kerry because he is DLC and the founder of the PPI, Will Marshall, was his campaign foreign policy advisor. Their main talking points were that anything Bush could do, they could do better. Hogwash. Most normal Dems do NOT want anything to do with what Bush was doing- the war being a PRIME issue. If you go to the AEI, PNAC's parent organization, the transcripts of their interplay with the DLC on such issues as No Child Left Behind will absolutely disgust you.

A nutshell of an example is this one...

You know how angry we are at Bush's foreign policy agenda. Check out the PPI's position:

Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” It’s likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with PPI’s criticism of those who complain that “the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America’s national security strategy.” In fact, in assessing the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda, the institute stated, “we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough.”

The statement, according to the PPI media release, “takes issue with left-wing activists who routinely call for deep cuts in military spending, reflexively oppose the use of force, and embrace an anti-trade, anti-globalization agenda that would damage the U.S. economy and condemn developing nations to perpetual poverty.” (snip)

(snip)

The neoconservative leanings of the PPI are evident in the writings of the contributing authors to Progressive Internationalism. In a March 9, 2004 essay, Ronald Asmus and Michael McFaul assert that “a bipartisan consensus is emerging in America about the need to bring greater freedom and democracy to the Greater Middle East.” Having signed on to the neocon agenda of invading Iraq, based on false claims about Iraq’s stockpiles of WMDs, the liberal hawks after the invasion also became among the most vocal advocates of the regional political restructuring plans of such neocon institutes as the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century. Asmus and McFaul call for a ten-fold budget increase for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental “democracy-promotion” institute that was established as a neoconservative political project in 1983. Despite their proposal that Middle Easterners themselves take charge of the region’s democratization and restructuring, Asmus and McFaul say that NED should work closely with business and labor in this political project of overhauling the greater Middle East and argue that “nothing would set back the democratic cause in the region more than a premature American disengagement from Iraq, where a critical democratic transition is now underway.” They also advocate that NATO assume a role in Iraq. (10)


Both in articles in the DLC’s Blueprint and in media interviews, PPI President Will Marshall has struck out at Democrats who have either opposed the Iraq invasion or who call for the U.S. to pull out before it is commonly agreed that the “liberation” of Iraq is, as President Bush declared on May 1, 2003, “mission accomplished.” On the “They Said It” part of its website, the Republican Party highlights Marshall telling the Los Angeles Times: “You hear way too much from the Democrats in this race about turning over the whole mess to the U.N. Well, that's not credible and most people know it. It doesn't have the power to achieve the only outcome we can accept.”

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


Check out their funding...

Funding

PPI is part of the Third Way Foundation (whose chairman is Al From), and describes itself as a “nonprofit corporation” (emphasis added). Between 2000 and 2002, the Foundation received $225,000 from The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of major top right-wing foundations. http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?2355


The DLC and its closely associated Progressive Policy Institute are the recipient of grants from many Fortune 500 firms as well from 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.

“Progressive Policy Institute,” Capital Research Center, 2002
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC101

The Third Way Foundation, which is an umbrella group for the New Democrats of the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation.

(13) “Third Way Foundation,” Capital Research Center, 2002
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC102


According to a magazine report, the DLC counts on funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon. (14)

John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

(14) John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml


More, much more here... http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php


Oh and their latest coup? They just brought one of Ralph Reed's right hand men from the Christian Coalition, a PNAC signatory named Marshall Wittman on board and made him both a DLC and a PPI spokesperson/Sr, Advisor. He's listed right up there with Al From and Will Marshall. This is some very, very sick stuff.

Reposting from an older post because this is damn important:

It is NOT by accident that the DLC and PPI are very close in philosophy to... elements on the other side. The DLC's latest acquisition from the neo-cons is a PNAC signatory named Marshall Wittman who was one of Ralph Reed's right hand men in the Christian Coalition. They think so highly of him that they made this "prodigal son" an official DLC spokesman and a Sr Advisor of the PPI (the DLC's version of the AEI). The gall.

The Christian Coalition is now in the Democratic Party courtesy of the DLC. It is little coincidence that we are suddenly hearing all this talk of "fath-based initiatives" in the party & politicians are mentioning "God" in every other sentence and letting us know how they just pray, and pray and pray several times a day.

We are in a fight for the soul of our party and they will stop at nothing. Big, big money at stake here. What we are fighting are the corporations, the Military Industrial complex, the National Endowment for Democracy, the neo think tanks, etc... They spend most of their energy trying hard to fracture the anti-war movement knowing full well that it's the glue holding many of us together because of our rage over Iraq and the political cohabitation that led to it. They will stop at nothing to divide us nor will they stop at anything to keep power including inventing candidates they're trying to spin as "progressive" and creating new think tanks with the words progress and progressive prominently displayed (and no I'm not talking about PDA).

We need to eviscerate these people. They're NOT elected by us and have NO business setting policy- NONE. The stakes are way too important.
==

Straight from the page of the DLC's neoliberal Progressive Policy Institute, they seem SO proud of their latest addition as they trumpet his "accomplishments":

PPI | Bio | September 22, 2004
Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919

*Here's the entire Staff list: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112

In order to find the right spokesperson, please contact our press office at [phone].

DLC Spokespersons:

Al From, founder and chief executive officer of the DLC.

Bruce Reed, president of the DLC.

Holly Page, vice president for strategic development for the DLC.

Ed Kilgore, policy director for the DLC.

Debbie Cox, chief of staff for the DLC.

Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow.

PPI Spokespersons:

Will Marshall, president and co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Rob Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and director of PPI's Technology & New Economy Project.

Paul Weinstein Jr., chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute and PPI senior fellow, covering issues of pension and tax reform, transportation policy, and corporate responsibility.

John Cohen, director of PPI's Community Crime Fighting Project.

Edward Gresser, director of PPI's Trade and Global Markets Project.

David Kendall, director of PPI's Health Priorities Project.

Jan Mazurek, director of PPI's Energy and The Environment Project.

Steven Nider, director of foreign and security studies.

Andrew Rotherham, director of PPI's 21st Century Schools Project.

Fred Siegel, PPI senior fellow, covering urban issues, smart growth, and transportation.

Marshall Wittmann, PPI senior fellow.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=1238



Marshall Wittman

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of the nation's most quoted analysts on political and congressional issues. He specializes in the growing role of the independent voter.

Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Wittmann also was the legislative representative with the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and a public affairs specialist with the National Treasury Employees Union. He holds both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan.

Wittmann is widely quoted on issues concerning politics, elections and Congress. He has been published in The New York Times and The Washington Post.

http://pewforum.org/events/0410/wittmanbio.htm

You really have to get a load of this site!:

Bioethics
Death Penalty
Faith-Based Initiatives
Just War Tradition
Religion and Gay Marriage
Religion and Human Rights
Religion and Public Schools
Religion in American Public Life
Religion in Politics
School Vouchers
September 11 and Beyond

http://pewforum.org/issues /

====

At the Hudson Institute, Wittman was the

Director, Project for Conservative Reform
Senior Fellow

http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_...

(the page was recently blanked out now that he's had a miraculous transformation from neo-con to Dem but the links of his name still point there).

And when you research Marshall Wittman + Conservative Reform, you discover that he left that to go manage John McCain's campaign (oh yeah, Wittman had managed Alan Keyes campaign at one time)

Bill Kristol and Marshall Wittman- real tight buds there.

Really scary stuff...

===

and disgustingly enough, they are a good representation of the New Democrats aka the DLC. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the NeoConservatives and the NeoLiberals- there only difference is an argument over which of the two darts is in the exact center of the bull's eye.

I took this from IRC. Fascinating web-site; Noam Chomsky is on their Board of Directors http://www.irc-online.org/content/index.php

<snip>

Origins and History

<snip>

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.” 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>

Writing shortly before the November 2000 election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart.” (9) Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies (((that's us- the old Left!))) has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.

<snip>

<snip> blinded by their own triumphalism, New Democrat ideologues fail to acknowledge that they have fallen in line behind the ills of neoliberals, neoconservatives, militarists, and social conservatives who have transformed the Republican Party over the past three decades. What’s more, the DLC/Progressive Policy Institute has also proved itself an effective shill for transnational Wall Street capitalists, although it faces competition in this role from the Republican Party and its array of affiliated policy institutes and think tanks. Such rightward leanings prompted the America Prospect’s Robert Kuttner to call the DLC the “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats.” (2)

<snip>

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

====

Funding of the DLC and of the Progressive Policy Institute

Corporate contributors

- AT&T Foundation
- Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust
- Prudential Foundation
- Georgia-Pacific Foundation
- Chevron
- Amoco Foundation

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.

DLC enjoys funding from

- Bank One
- Citigroup
- Dow Chemical
- DuPont
- General Electric
- Health Insurance Corporation
- Merrill Lynch
- Microsoft
- Morgan Stanley
- Occidental Petroleum
- Raytheon

Taken from John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

Sources:

(1) New Democrats Online: DLC Biographies: Al From,
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131

(2) Robert Kuttner, “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats,” American Prospect, vol. 13, no. 12, July 1, 2002
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html

(3) Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Policy, October 30, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

(4) Ralph Nader, “The Corporatist Democratic Leadership Council,” In the Public Interest, August 1, 2003
http://www.nader.org/interest/080103.html

(5) Center for Public Integrity, Silent Partners: New Democrat Network.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=420

(6) New Democrats Online: New Dem Directory.
http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

(7) Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein, Storming the Gates: Protest Politics and the Republican Revival (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1996), pp. 67-73.

(8) William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck, The Politics of Evasion, Progressive Policy Institute, 1989.

(9) John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

(10) Kenneth S. Baer, Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (University Press of Kansas, 2000).

(11) “Will Marshall,” Progressive Policy Institute Bio, September 14, 2003
http://www.ppionline.org /

(12) “About the DLC,” Democratic Leadership Council, January 1, 1995
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

(13) Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Denounces Democratic Leadership Council, Stuns Centrists,” Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2003.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/122503/wor_25dean.shtml

(14) Joan Walsh, “The Democratic Weaselship Council,” Salon.com, July 29, 2003.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/howard_dean/109387.html

(15) “The New Democrat Credo,” DLC, January 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

(16) “New Democratic Coalition,” DLC, December 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

(17) “Progressive Policy Institute,” Capital Research Center, 2002
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC101

(18) “Third Way Foundation,” Capital Research Center, 2002.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC102


===

If you want to know why their positions differ very little from the neocons, here is a list of the think tanks they like:

American Enterprise Institute

Brookings Institution

Business Execs. for National Security

Cato Institute

Center for American Progress

Center for Defense Information

Center for Education Reform

Center for Policy Alternatives

Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Centrists.Org

Citizens for Tax Justice

Committee For Economic Development

Communitarian Network

Concord Coalition

Corporation for Enterprise Development

Economic Policy Institute

Kaiser Network - Health Policy

Manpower Demonstration Research

National Civic League

Natural Capitalism

New Economy Information Service

The Radical Middle

Resources for the Future

Rockridge Institute

Urban Institute

http://www.coloradodlc.org/thinktanks.htm

[IndianaGreen]

91. The DLC is also anti-Labor

Great post, Tinoire. Excellent thread, Q.

The DLC is also anti-Labor for they advocate neolib economic policies that have cost American jobs. The DLC prefers the cold cash of its corporate friends over the sweat of working men and women.

Labor is getting the hint:

On February 1, over 300 USWA members converged on the Indiana Statehouse to lobby on issues important to working families. Steelworkers Associate Member, family farm activist and former congressional candidate, Mel Fox, spoke at the event and rallied the workers to fight back against politicians who favor corporate special interests over workers’ rights.


Steelworkers Rallying in Indiana

http://www.uswa.org/uswa/program/content/1919.php

BTW, how about voting for Q's thread for the Greatest Page?

[Tinoire]

92. Thanks. And done

I keep forgetting about voting for GP!

Yes, anti-labor. Basically anti-anything that's for the people over corporations. Thanks for that info about Labor beginning to fight back! Did you watch Tavis Smiley's "State of Black America" yestereday? Black America is coordinating to strike back too. I smell populism on the march :)


State of the Black Union 2005, Morning Session (02/26/2005): rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/15days/e022605_smiley1.rm?start=:18.0&mode=compact

State of the Black Union 2005, Afternoon Session (02/26/2005)
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/15days/e022605_smiley2.rm?mode=compact


While America grows more divided by race, class, gender, and moral values, now is the time for African Americans to set a National Agenda for health, education, politics, and for US!

Join Tavis Smiley, Tom Joyner and 35 of America's top Black leaders policy makers, educators, health care professionals, and community organizers, as we discuss innovative solutions for African Americans to help bring America out of crisis.

Topics include: Healthy living ideas and holistic treatments - Nutrition and fitness - Sexual health - Elder care - Men's & Women's health - Mental health - Voting rights - Strengthening our public schools - Wages and employment - Economic development - Family, faith, and politics...

www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/ bawnews/bawcommentary/sobu05

Cornel West, Minister Louis Farrakhan, political strategist Donna Brazile, Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, former Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, economist Julianne Malveaux, Coretta Scott King, Rev. Al Sharpton, Jehmu Greene, president of Rock the Vote; and Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Also Faye Wattleton, Center for the Advancement of Women, Dr. L. Natalie Caroll, National Medical Association past president, Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League and Phill Wilson, executive director, Black AIDS Institute.

[IndianaGreen]

94. I missed watching Tavis Smiley's "State of Black America"

Several unions have concluded that their money is better spent organizing workers than in giving money to political parties that only pay lip service to Labor while voting for anti-worker trade deals and passing anti-worker legislation.

The current debate on Social Security illustrates the problem. All Democrats should be opposing Bush's dismantling of SS, instead you find DLC darlings like Holy Joe seeking compromise.

[atl_dem]

93. ironic

while chastising the dlc for being anti-labor I hope you enjoy the next 4 additional years of Republican rule... suck it up and bash your own... that will get the dnc, well, that will get the dnc right where they are... not in very good shape. The black democratic leaders appearing segregationalist is also a juicy irony.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Some people have problems with strong Black and women leaders

that's just too bad.

[atl_dem]

96. agreed

I'm all for it... long overdue.

[CindyDale]

98. I don't understand why the right wing has to control both parties

in a two-party system. That doesn't even make sense to me, and I consider myself moderate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

99. The right wing doesn't control both parties. n/t

[bvar22]

100. Good Post, Q.

This battle is as important as the battle with the Republicans. This may be the last opportunity to wrest control of the Democratic Party from the Corporations (DLC). The Dean win at DNC is encouraging, but this is a figurehead position, and has little power in the smoky back rooms where the REAL decisions are made.

Two things have become painfully clear since 2000.

1) The DLC promotes policies that benefit Corporate Management and the investor class at the expense of Labor and the Middle Class!!!

2) The DLC would rather see a Republican win an election than a liberal Democrat. The DLC has used Party money to attack liberal candidates.

I will no longer send money to or vote for a Democrat who supports Corporate Profits over Labor and the Middle Class.


The DLC is undergoing skin changes faster than most other reptiles. They are adopting new names like neo-liberal and new progressives in an attempt to confuse voters and camouflage their true alliances. This is the same old shit in a new package, a marketing scam used by their masters in the Corporate World.

One way to immediately identify the snakes is the Free Trade issue. The REALITIES of the current trade policies are no longer debatable. NAFTA and all the other alphabet Global Trade Policies are destroying LABOR and the WORKING CLASS! The Corporate Masters of the DLC couldn't care less about who gets an abortion or who has a gun, but they will fight like a cornered RAT to protect their Trade Treaties that are destroying middle America. I cannot vote for or send money to ANY politician who still supports these policies or votes for legislation that supports these policies.

There are other issues that are important to me, but this issue (FREE TRADE) will immediately expose those Democrats who have SOLD OUT!

[gulfcoastliberal]

101. The last thing the dems should be doing is selling out core principles.

I hate how From calls everything "past accomplishments" that should be abondoned at will. Mostly by taking repuke ideas and calling them a "3rd way". What a load of malarky.

[me b zola]

103. Great post, Q

Yesterday Tavis Smiley hosted a conference of many influential Black leaders from across the country. It was an extraordinary event, attended by extraordinary people. I was surprised not to see any threads on it yesterday, as it is very relevant to the direction & leadership that is necessary of our party.

The Rev Jessie Jackson said, among many things, that whites do not vote their interest, blacks do. What he and most of the panelists argued that must be demanded from any party that they will vote for are traditional Democratic values; jobs, living wage,education, community economic development, a lessening of the gap between the wealthiest & the poorest, cooperate responsibility,labor unions,the end of the strangle hold of the prison-industrial complex, voting reform, hands off SS & other safety nets, an end of predatory lending,and health care as a right, not a privilege

To put it simply, the DLC values are rooted in corporatism. It is NOT in the interest of ANY non multimillionaire to vote DLC. It IS in our interest to vote traditional Democratic values.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

[Cuban_Liberal]

117. By all means, let's beat this dead horse yet again!

[Zhade]

118. Kick (and read my sig line, people, chock full o' truths about the DLC)

:dem:

[Cappadonna]

119. Marshall has point (Scary, I know) The DLC is the Left's own fault

Yes, the DLC and the Clinton administration were corporatist whores who long sold their souls to the Neocon death cult for some morsels of useless political capital (and in Bubba's case, lots of fame, an adoring public and plenty of scanty booty calls). Yes, the DLC would like to nail even moderate guys like Dean to an upside down cross and feed them to ravaging hyenas. And yes, I come from the state that has the reigning king of the DLC spineless wingnut sellouts, Holy Joe Lieberman.

That being said, the DLC has a point. Think of the DLC less as republicans in disguise and more as political careerists who would sell their own mothers for power. Pretty much sums up the Clinton policies. Now, how did such rank opportunists get such power in the DNC? Because the so-called left is littered with loudmouthed freaks (Ian Churchill and at times, Michael Moore), violent directionless punks (anti-WTO protestors) arrogant moralistic demagogues (Nader), incompetent hucksters (Sharpton, although he has improved over the years), neurotic self-imported conspiracy theorists (Chomsky), ineffective wimps (the 80's congress), Hollywood premadonnas (Alec Baldwin), weirdos and whine crybabies with tired stump speeches about nuclear holocaust and the white devil (Almost anyone who regularly broadcast on Pacifica radio). And lets not forget the corrupt local Dem pols who robbed the poor and working class blind over the last 30 years. (Yes, repubs AR bigger crooks , but that's not the point).


Essentially, the progressive movement has become so inept, disorganized, unfocused and just plain wacky since the 60's, that the DLC has stepped in to fill the void of a true opposition party. The left had been slouching towards Gomorrah long before Bill and Hillary showed up. Frankly, if Dukasis hadn't sucked so badly as a candidate, Clinton would probably still be chasing trailer trash around Arkansas and Hillary would still being trying to slit her wrists to escape Little Rock.

Its almost as if the progressive movement dropped dead after Nixon got thrown from office.

If you want to see what Marshall is afraid of, go to your local Green Party chapter meeting (I'm not speaking out school years, b/c I'm a registered member, 4 years and counting), or (ugh!!) the Natural Law Party. Tired old hippies, college drop anarchists, guilt ridden blue bloods and snotty college professors who long lost site of how to actually get things done, and frankly, don't really care that they did. Because progressive lost steam and direction in the late 70's and 80's, Democrats were desperate for a win in the 80's, even if it meant selling their ideas short.


We should ask the question of "how the hell do we keep getting saddled with sellouts like Clinton and losers like Kerry?" If we look deeply, we know the answer........the true voice of opposition has all the coherence of Ozzy Osborne after a bender
and as shrill as Anne Coulter. The so-called left is quick to plan a protest and blog until their fingers callous. But here are some questions that I think we should all start asking ourselves:

-How many people are actually committed to getting rid of Holy Joe or Zell the Dueler?

-When are progressive Dems/Greens/Socialists and left leaning libertarians going to pool their resources together to beat obvious opportunists like Mike Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton?

-When members of the so-called "Far left" stop looking at Bill Clinton and Al Gore as the great Satan?

-And when will the Greens stop worry about running non-races for governor and actually focus on local school boards and city councils?

-When are intellectuals such as Ian Churchill and Noam Chomsky going to figure out that equating every American leader to Mussolini dilutes their argue?

-Better yet, when are they going to offer workable ideas to solve or nation's problems?

-When are so-called Black leaders going to stop blaming white people for everything and start taking some of the jackass overpaid rap stars to task about marketing death and nihilism to youth?

-When will the Dems and/or Greens start talking about solutions to working class problems that don't involve hiking taxes all the time?

- When will we learn that religion and conservative morals aren't evil and that we simply alienate people when we think that way?

-And for all that is sacred, when the Hell is Nader going to get a hint and stop running for President?



In short, stop looking at the DLC as the disease, and merely as the symptom of the progressive movement's own weakness and attitudes. So long as the so-called far left vests in quixotic crusades and political non-suitors, Bill Clinton is the best thing you'll get to a progressive president for the forseeable future. Progressive means to advocate change. Its time advocate change with our party/political affiliation in tactic and thought patterns.

[bvar22]

122. One thing you forgot to mention.

The DLC was (and is) able to use the CorpoFriendly Media to marginalize anything left of Mussolini. Your list of buzz words, Corpoganda, slimes and insults have ALL been created by the CorpoMedia and repeated by the DLC.
Good Work.
The DLC is proud of you.
Pick up your check Monday AM.!

[Cappadonna]

180. Again your missing the point

I never said the DLC is right! Why else would I have left the Democratic Party to go Green? My point is that as far as tactics and ideas, the so-called progressive movement is well, dead. Yes, there is a vibrant anti-war movement, the mobilization of retired people against the Bushista scam on SS and the slow rumbling of a reawakening of the labor movement. But, without a clear and direct plan to take the reigns of power (short of getting muskets and shooting NeoCons on site) we're pissing in the wind.

Your response points to a few problems that progressives have:

1) We equate anyone who disagree with us as corporate shills, uncultured morons or spineless lapdogs.
2) We don't take criticism very well which leads to #1.
3) We fail to see our own issues in tactics and presentation because of #2, which leads back to #1.
4) Rinse and repeat.

Its in this circular think that we defeat the very principles and ideals we strive for.


So long as we as progressive shrug off the VALID criticism that the DLC has of the left, we will continue to only talk to and amongst ourselves. The road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but it tar pitched with arrogance.

[wyldwolf]

120. Q - been working on this a looooong time, huh?

Didn't you promise to call this thread "DLC's Will Marshall: "the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."?"

I've finally figured out the root problem you have with the DLC, regardless of your "conspiracy mongering left" rants you put up weekly... You're either unable or unwilling to actually do any work away from the safety of your keyboard to effect change. So to make yourself feel better, you wail away at one of just a few organized movements in the Democratic party that has had any success.

I would like to invite you to join with me in a discussion about the Democratic Leadership Council, Progressive Policy Institute and the hundreds of elected Democratic officials around the country that entail the 'center-right' of the Democratic party called the 'New Democratic Coalition'.

Again? You do this on a weekly basis.

[Cuban_Liberal]

121. At *least* weekly. n/t

[ulysses]

123. one can only assume

that you have long been complaining to Al From about his regular attacks on the left as you're complaining to Q here.

[wyldwolf]

124. The point isn't the "complaining"

It's the "all he does is complain."

Al From, correct or incorrect in his policy beliefs, works to achieve them.

[ulysses]

143. we can't all be the head of a policy think tank.

That's the problem with being among the hoi polloi - most of us have jobs that prevent our working the levers of party politics as trippingly as those in the more ethereal realms. Those methods of change available to the rest of us, as often as not, are deemed unacceptable by others among the masses who get offended when we challenge our betters.

[bvar22]

125. Admittedly, the DLC has been "wildly" succesful!

The DLC/DNC has made more money than ever. Set records in 2004. In some areas, they made more money than the RNC. They have prevented ANY liberal voice from emerging inside the Democratic Party. Look at the success they had with Dean, Clark, and Kucinich. The DLC Corporate owners can count their money as "well spent"!

Yes, the DLC has been successful; the BIG Corporations are happy!
The DLC has been very successful, if you don't count getting Democrats elected.

[Cuban_Liberal]

126. And who was to blame for our losing them BEFORE the DLC?

As I recall, we lost the Senate in the '80's, and every Presidential election from '80-'88. There was no DLC then.

[wyldwolf]

129. Well, some of it HAD to be FDR's fault, right?

I mean, in 1938 the Dems lost 80 House seats and six Senate seats. In the sixth year of the FDR-Truman years in 1946 the Democrats lost 13 Senate seats and 56 House seats.

[Padraig18]

134. No, you must remember-- the DLC is the source of all our misfortune.

Everything was perfect before the DLC. We never went through cycles where we lost seats in Congress or the White House. Everything is all the DLC's fault, wyldwolf.

;)

[bvar22]

133. Sure there was.

The CorpoParty was already well established in the 80's. It just hadn't shed it skin yet morphing into the DLC.

BTW, the DLC is shedding its skin once again and morphing into:
The Third Way
The NeoLiberals
The New Progressives.

Same CorpoShit, different wrapper.

[wyldwolf]

135. how about the 30s and 40s then? DLC time travelers?

In 1938, the Dems lost 80 House seats and six Senate seats. In the sixth year of the FDR-Truman years in 1946 the Democrats lost 13 Senate seats and 56 House seats.

[Padraig18]

137. So, McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis were all 'corporate'?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

eyes:

[wyldwolf]

139. for the sake of his argument right now, yes...

... ask him again in another thread within a different context and the answer will be no.

[Padraig18]

146. But this is about the DLC, wyldwolf, and how EEEEEVIL the are.

That they didn't even exist when we lost the Senate or the White house 3 times in a row shouldn't matter, should it? Or that we won the WH 3 times in a row after they formed?

[wyldwolf]

148. excellent points!

[flaminbats]

181. the DLC is the neocon wing of our party.

It seems odd only one year after Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, a group of wealthy campaign donors and neoconservative politicians would suddenly create a Democratic Leadership Council.

They knew Reagan's victories were not enough, they had to control the majority party for real power. The DLC was not formed to moderate our party, but to promote Reaganomics and the social agenda of Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed. This would make Democratic leaders even more receptive to the Republican agenda, fearful of angering "Reagan Democrats", while allowing loyal Republicans to always attack us "tax and spenders" as counterculture, anti-American liberals.

Only by starting a similar group within the Republican Party to promote liberalism and progressive values, can we again make a national impact on public policy. It has become a fatal move for liberals and progressives to abandon the Republican Party completely. No movement can be successful by working within a single party, liberals knew that a century ago and now conservatives wish to monopolized this strategy. :smoke:

[wyldwolf]

210. you're a bit confused

After Reagan's SECOND landslide victory over a weaker Dem candidate, the DLC was formed as the Democratic answer to being constantly outspent and outcommunicated by the right.

[wyldwolf]

127. well there is a paradox here...

The DLC has been very successful, if you don't count getting Democrats elected.

Clinton, '92
Clinton, '96
Gore, '00 (I happen to believe he won)
Kerry, '04 (well, SOME believe he won.)

and...


Jim Aldinger, Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA
Dede Alpert, State Senator, CA
Phil Angelides, State Treasurer, CA
Patrice Arent, State Senator, UT
David Aronberg, State Senator, FL
Toni Atkins, City Councilmember, San Diego CA
Loranne Ausley, State Representative, FL
Janice Bacon, Morgan County Commissioner, IN
Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Thurbert Baker, State Attorney General, GA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
Gonzalo Barrientos, State Senator, TX
Viola Baskerville, State Delegate, VA
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Chris Beck, State Representative, OR
Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
Marshall Bennett, State Treasurer, MS
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Barbara Blanchard, County Legislator, Tompkins County NY
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Alice Borodkin, State Representative, CO
Lisa Boscola, State Senator, PA
Betty Boyd, State Representative, CO
David Braddock, State Representative, OK
Daniel Brady, State Senator, OH
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
Bob Brink, Delegate, VA
John Y. Brown, Secretary of State, KY
Matt Brown, Secretary of State, RI
Don Brown, Jr., City Councilman, Louisville, CO
Polly Bukta, State Representative, IA
Chuck Burris, Mayor, Stone Mountain, GA
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Robert Butkin, State Treasurer, OK
Thomas Campbell, State Delegate, WV
Jane Campbell, Mayor, Cleveland OH
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Adolfo Carrion, Borough President, Bronx NY
Jo Carson, State Representative, AR
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Nancy Chard, State Senator, VT
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Ken Clark, State Representative, AZ
Paul Clark, Town Supervisor, West Seneca NY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Martha Coakley, District Attorney, Middlesex County MA
Steve Cohn, City Councilmember, Sacramento CA
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Fran Coleman, State Representative, CO
Patrick Colwell, State House Majority Leader, ME
Kathleen Connell, State Controller, CA
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Roy A. Cooper III, Attorney General, NC
Lou Correa, State Assembly Member, CA
Dolores Coulter, Mayor, Barnegat Township NJ
Cathy Cox, Secretary of State, GA
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
Chris Cummiskey, State Senate Assistant Leader , AZ
Don Cunningham, Secretary, Department of General Services, PA
J. Joseph Curran, Attorney General, MD
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Richard D'Amato, State Delegate, MD
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Preston Daniels, Mayor, Des Moines IA
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Ray Davis, Registrar, Stafford County VA
Nadia Davis, School Board Vice President, Santa Ana, CA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Peter Derby, Trustee, Irvington NY
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Jim Doyle, Governor, WI
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill SC
W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, OK
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Robert Faucheux, State Representative, LA
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
John Fernandez, Mayor, Bloomington IN
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Michael Finifter, State Delegate, MD
Joan Fitz-Gerald, State Senator, CO
Michael Fitzgerald, State Treasurer, IA
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, Laredo, TX
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Romanie Foege, State Representative, IA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Dan Frankel, State Representative, PA
Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta GA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Jim D. Garner, State Representative, KS
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Allen Jay Gerson, Council Member, New York City NY
Gabrielle Giffords, State Senator, AZ
Glen D. Gilmore, Mayor, Hamilton NJ
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Jeff Gombosky, State Representative, WA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Phil Gordon, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Ken Gordon, State Senator, CO
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI
Darlene Green, City Comptroller, St. Louis, MO
Ron Greenstein, State Representative, FL
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Wendy Greuel, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Peter C. Groff, State Representative, CO
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Bob Hagedorn, State Senator, CO
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
DeAnna Hanna, State Senator, CO
Michael J. Hare, Council Member, Wilmington DE
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Martin J. Heft, First Selectman, Chester CT
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Leigh Herington, Senate Democratic Leader, OH
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Richard Hildreth, Mayor, Pacific WA
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Bob Holden, Governor, MO
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Dave Hunt, State Representative, OR
Ross Hunter, State Representative, WA
Geri Huser, State Representative, IA
Daniel Hynes, State Comptroller, IL
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of Agriculture, GA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Robert Jackson, State Senator, KY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor, Menlo Park, CA
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
Robin Johnson, Alderman, Monmouth IL
Steven B. Jones, State Representative, AR
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lt. Governor, VA
Vera Katz, Mayor, Portland, OR
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
Joseph E. Kernan, Governor, IN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Marjorie L. Kilkelly, State Senator, ME
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Richard Kriseman, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Annie Kuether, State Representative, KS
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Leah Landrum Taylor, Assistant Minority Leader, AZ
Patricia Lantz, State Representative, WA
Peter Larkin, State Representative, MA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
David Lemoine, State Representative, ME
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Gary Locke, Governor, WA
Charles Love, School Board Chairman, Hamilton Co., TN
Frana Araujo Mace, State Representative, CO
Alice Madden, State Representative, CO
Scott C. Maddox, Mayor, Tallahassee, FL
Louis Magazzu, Freeholder, Cumberland County NJ
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Steve Marchand, City Councilman, Portsmouth NH
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, DE
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Rosemary Marshall, State Representative, CO
Barbara Matthews, Assembly Member, Tracy CA
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IL
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IA
Kenneth McClintock, State Senator, PR
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Matt McCoy, State Senator, IA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Dolores Mertz, State Representative, IA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, KY
Carl Miller, State Representative, CO
Tom Miller, Attorney General, IA
Doug Milliken, Treasurer, Centennial CO
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Richard Moore, State Senator, MA
Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, NC
Mike Moore, Attorney General, MS
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
John Morrison, State Auditor, MT
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York City, NY
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Pat Murphy, State Representative, IA
Ed Murray, State Representative, WA
Therese Murray, State Senator, MA
Ronnie Musgrove, Governor, MS
George Nakano, State Assembly Member, CA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Gavin C. Newsom, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco CA
Alice Nichol, State Senator, CO
John O. Norquist, Mayor, Milwaukee, WI
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator, IL
Norman Oliver, City Councilman, Wilmington, DE
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alex Padilla, City Councilman, Los Angeles, CA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Sally Pederson, Lieutenant Governor, IA
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
David Pepper, City Council, Cincinnati OH
Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, NC
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Ed Perlmutter, State Senator, CO
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Janet Peterson, State Representative, IA
Anthony Petrucci, County Commissioner, Dauphin Co., PA
Terry Phillips, State Senator, CO
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Tom Plant, State Representative, CO
Margaret Planton, Mayor, Chillicothe, OH
Charles Potter Jr., Council Member, Wilmington DE
Ray Powell, Commissioner of Public Lands, NM
Debra Powell, Mayor, East St. Louis, IL
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Brian Quirk, State Representative, IA
David Ragucci, Mayor, Everett, MA
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Eric Miller Reeves, State Senator, NC
Peggy Reeves, State Senator, CO
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Ann H. Rest, State Senator, MN
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN
John Richardson, State Representative, ME
Elaine Richardson, State Senator, AZ
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
John Riggs IV, State Senator, AR
Joe Riley, Mayor, Charleston, SC
Stacy J. Ritter, State Representative, FL
Carroll G. Robinson, City Councilman, Houston, TX
Andrew Romanoff, State Representative,, CO
T.J. Rooney, State Representative, PA
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Laura Ruderman, State Representative, WA
John Ryan, Council Member, Barnegat Township NJ
Timothy J. Ryan, State Senator, OH
Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator, CO
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Sharon Sanders Brooks, State Representative, MO
M. Susan Savage, Mayor, Tulsa, OK
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Dan Schooff, State Assembly Member, WI
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Derrick Seaver, State Representative, OH
Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County, WA
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
Tyrone Smith, Water Basin Municipal Water District Board Member, Carson CA
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
James Smith, House Democratic Leader, SC
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, FL
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Carol Spielman, County Board Member, Lake County IL
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Gregory R. Stevens, State Representative, IA
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
Christopher Travis Swanson, Kern County School Board Member, Tehachapi, CA
Daryl Sweeney, Mayor, Carson, CA
Harvey D. Tallackson, State Senator, ND
Abel J. Tapia, State Representative, CO
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Mark Taylor, Lieutenant Governor, GA
Paul Tessier, State Representative, ME
William C. Thompson Jr., Comptroller, New York City NY
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, GA
Lois Tochtrop, State Representative, CO
Charles F. Tooley, Mayor, Billings, MT
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
George Van Til, Surveyor, Lake County IN
Tracy Vance, Vice Chairman, Lee Co., IA
Juan Vargas, State Assemblymember, CA
Jennifer Veiga, State Representative, CO
Val Vigil, State Representative, CO
Michael Vilarreal, State Representative, TX
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA
Val D. Vincent, State Representative, VT
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Lewis J. Wallace, State Representative, CT
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Steven Warnstadt, State Representative, IA
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Patrick D. Welch, State Senator, IL
Steve Westly, State Controller, CA
Michael J. Wildes, Mayor, Englewood NJ
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
J.D. Williams, State Controller, ID
Constance Williams, State Senator, PA
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Suzanne Williams, State Representative, CO
Sue Windels, State Senator, CO
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA
Cathy Woolard, Council President, Atlanta GA
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR
David Yassky, City Councilmember, Brooklyn NY
Caprice Young, President of the Board of LAUSD, Los Angeles CA

[bvar22]

131. Gee, I must have been mistaken.

I thought the DLC presided over losing:

The House of Represenatives
The Senate
The Presidency

My bad.

[wyldwolf]

132. you were

The DNC presided over LOSING:

The House of Represenatives
The Senate
The Presidency

[bvar22]

140. The Party Platforms for 2000 and 2004

WERE PURE DLC.

The symbiosis between the DNC and the DLC is evident to all.
The only ones who deny it are those who wish hide their shame.

[Padraig18]

141. I deny it.

I'm also a huge Dean supporter, and have no shame to hide.

[wyldwolf]

142. proof?

?

[Q]

155. Why is it...

...with the Defenders of the DLC that their argument always boils down to 'winning'? What good is winning when you have to sell your party's soul to do it? What good is winning when you have to give up so much to criminals and thugs?

The DLC brags about winning elections for us. But what have these 'wins' brought us? And why do the Republicans control all branches of the federal government and most of the states? Where does the great strategies of the DLC fit into this scenario? Just WHAT have they won for us?

When we lose...the DLC blames it on the Liberals and populism. When we win the DLC takes the credit. It seems as if they are faultless and blameless. To make matters worse...after we lose to election cheaters...they won't even admit that there HAS been cheating and join with the other side in calling those who complain 'conspiracy nuts' or worse.

It's one thing that they're FOR Bush's wars and doctrine of 'kill em all and let God sort em out. It's quite another when they JOIN WITH the Bushies in denouncing those against this madness and label them as unAmerican, unpatriotic and part of the 'fringe'.

Anyone who supports an illegal, aggressive war that didn't have to be fought in the first place is an enemy of the truth and the American people. If you think that's harsh...then we have a long way to go before we find common ground on these and other issues.

[Padraig18]

157. What exactly did we win when the loony left ran the party?

We lost every GE from '80-'88, and we lost the Senate. We got Clarnece Thomas and Fat Tony Scalia appointed to the SC. Exactly what did that benefit our party, Q?

[ulysses]

159. loony left?

You mean the loony left that likes to stand up for, oh, human rights?

[Padraig18]

161. Oh, come on!

With that, I'm going to bed.

:eyes:

[ulysses]

162. sorry, friend.

You decided to sling the "loony left" idiocy.

[Padraig18]

138. The DLC didn't exist when we lost the Senate.

So yes, you ARE mistaken.

[Padraig18]

144. *crickets*

Gee, that little fact seems to have gummed up the argument.

[wyldwolf]

145. he won't address anything we've raised in the last several posts

But I'm sure he's Googling away, searching for a snappy comeback.

[Padraig18]

147. So I've noticed.

The problem with the anti-DLCers is that they have to deflect attention away from the facts they don't like.

[ulysses]

149. ? The DLC was founded in 1985. n/t

[Padraig18]

150. And immediately cost us the Senate and White House?

Surely you're not buying this horseshit, are you, uly?

[ulysses]

151. that wasn't my claim, or bvar's.

The DLC was *very much* in existence when we lost the Senate, however.

[Padraig18]

152. What year? n/t

[ulysses]

153. 1994. n/t

[Padraig18]

154. we lost the *Senate* under Reagan, uly.

We lost the House in 1994.

[ulysses]

158. we controlled the Senate again

from 1987 to 1995, 100th through 103rd Congresses.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

[Padraig18]

160. So, the loss wasn't permanent?

Might not here be a lesson there?

[ulysses]

164. there are a variety of lessons there, sure.

Then again, I'm a loony leftist (with a better grasp of history than you have, I'll add), so you should probably help me out with exactly what those are.

[wyldwolf]

165. we controlled it again in 2000

[ulysses]

167. thanks to a moderate Republican's defection, sure. n/t

[wyldwolf]

171. ..but we DID control it.

we also won back seats in the House in 98.

And again, there is no proof the DLC is responsible one way or another.

[ulysses]

172. then by the same token

there's no proof that an excess of liberalism was responsible for any losses in previous years.

[wyldwolf]

173. who has made that claim on DU?

[ulysses]

175. I never said anyone did on DU.

That's certainly the reason behind the DLC's existence, however.

[wyldwolf]

177. So?

If they want to believe it, fine.

Anyone with any political savvy knows party power runs in cycles - and power usually changes hand when people rebel against the entrenched power.

But no one in this thread has made the claim you bring up, but the "DLC caused us to lose" meme is repeated almost daily.

[wyldwolf]

163. we lost the senate in 80, 82, and 84

[ulysses]

166. never lost the House in those years, though. n/t

[wyldwolf]

169. so... that means...

...we didn't lose the House in those years...


But we did lose the presidency and the senate.

And we've yet to see any proof the DLC was responsible for the wins or losses.

[ulysses]

174. ok, you win.

The DLC is the political equivalent of a garden club. Al From holds no sway in the party whatsoever.

Y'all have fun. I'm going to go sit on a beach somewhere and watch the world go to hell. Somehow, it'll be the fault of the loony left, I'm sure.

[wyldwolf]

178. and you'll blame it on the DLC

[Q]

128. In a sense you're right...

...I do most of my 'activism' on my keyboard. I write letters to members of congress, etc...but I'm mostly involved in local politics. Not that it's any of your business...but I have limited mobility due to 'disability'. Home is where I work, write and make the DLCers nervous at the prospect of being exposed as the Democratic Party's Neocons.

But you're not concerned about what I do away from my keyboard. You're simply doing what the DLC does best...cast dispersions against those who challenge their right-wing agenda and Bush enabling. I think you and a few others on this board are simply upset that the DLC is FINALLY being exposed for what they are: corporate shills trying to push an agenda that a majority of Dems would reject if they knew the WHOLE truth. The truth the DLC is anxious to keep from the rank and file.

How in the hell do you think a small group of Neocons were able to take over the Republican party? They did it by manipulating the political process and buying off people and media behind the scenes. Like the Neocons...the DLC doesn't need to worry about winning a consensus or actually pretending to represent a majority of Democrats. They're nothing more than an unofficial, unsanctioned group of conservative political hacks calling themselves democrats that want to bring back the 'good old days' before Unions, Welfare and Affirmative Action.

Just as predictable as my DLC threads are the same group of 'muggers' showing up to chill the discussion and ignore the fact that a majority of Democrats don't want the DLC's stinking corporate money corrupting the 'party of the people'.

See you next week...and the week after that.

[wyldwolf]

130. just two points, Q

1. I'm deeply sorry about your limited mobility and didn't intend to make light of it. Local politics is where it all begins.

2. The DLCers aren't nervous at being exposed as you imply because they're no neocons.

[Q]

136. The only reason I mentioned...

...my 'limited mobility' is because I'm sick and tired of people trying to deflect discussions away from the main premise by the time-honored straw man of asking what posters do beyond posting on DU. This is simply irrevelant to the discussion.

I have to wonder if you're just simply defending the DLC in a kneejerk fashion. They fit most of the criteria of Neocon status...they simply keep a few 'old party' issues around to keep the Dem rank and file believing that they're still voting for the 'old' Democratic party.

And in the end result...I don't have to know anything other than the DLC supports Bush's illegal war and trickle-down economy to know they're bad for 'our' party. There are things that Democrats of conscience simply can't compromise on and still call themselves DEMOCRATS. That the DLC can compromise on these things...like election fraud, torture, illegal wars and allowing criminals to run free in the WH...means that we will never have anything in common. And I'm not alone in feeling this way.

The DLC isn't 'moderning' the Democratic Party. They're selling it to the highest bidder.

[Q]

186. Of import...

"...the DLC leadership blasted Dean and other presidential hopefuls for flirting with a “far-left” critique of the Bush administration and pointed out the political folly of attacking Bush’s tax cuts and his national security leadership."

The DLC claims they're simply a 'think tank' with no desire to influence elections. But why then do they attack Dem candidates that aren't DLC approved? Why can't they let other candidates run the kind of campaign they want to run and let the best 'man' win?

It seems to me that the Democratic base wanted a candidate that would attack Bush on his weakest points...his tax cuts to the rich during a 'time of war' and his many lies that unnecessarily took this nation to war.

Candidates who refused to talk about these issues would have been seen to be ignoring reality or complicit in hiding the truth.

I believe this was one of Kerry's biggest mistakes. He followed the advice of the DLC instead of following his instincts to return fire when attacked and be on the truth's side instead of the politically expedient.

If there ever WAS a time to break out of the centrist, moderate role...it was in 2004 when Bush had become a virtual dictator with a rubber stamp congress and stenographer media.

[wyldwolf]

187. a few problems with your "of import"

The DLC claims they're simply a 'think tank' with no desire to influence elections. But why then do they attack Dem candidates that aren't DLC approved? Why can't they let other candidates run the kind of campaign they want to run and let the best 'man' win?

A think tank's role is to provide suggestions, opinions, and alternatives on policy and then present them. In politics, that is done by critiquing the policies of other politicians.

You act as though the Dem candidates who you feel were attacked by the DLC were not doing any attacking of their own. I hope you're not suggesting that non-DLC candidates should have sole rights to criticize other candidates but the DLC candidates can't because they have a think tank behind them.

And where have the DLC ever suggested they don't want to influence elections?

It seems to me that the Democratic base wanted a candidate that would attack Bush on his weakest points...his tax cuts to the rich during a 'time of war' and his many lies that unnecessarily took this nation to war.

Which is what Kerry did. Were you not paying attention?

I believe this was one of Kerry's biggest mistakes. He followed the advice of the DLC instead of following his instincts to return fire when attacked and be on the truth's side instead of the politically expedient.

I don't recall any such advice being given by the DLC.

If there ever WAS a time to break out of the centrist, moderate role...it was in 2004...

This statement hinges on the accuracy of the former statements you made here. Those were not accurate, so this statement isn't either.

[Q]

192. It's true that all candidates attack each other...

...but the DLC chosen ones had the advantage of a corporate-backed attack machine with the name of Clinton behind them.

You say that you hadn't heard what advice the DLC gave Kerry. Why would you expect to recall such things? His campaign matched the DLC's rhetoric on any given subject. Is this another coincidence theory?

It doesn't matter if you think it's an inaccurate assessment to say that 2004 was no time for moderation. But I think the proof was in the pudding. Of course the DC centrists probably don't believe this way...they've been willing to work with the wannbe fascist Bush government all along in the hope of getting a chance to lick his boots and share a seat at the table of power. But someone needed to fight him in 2004 and we see the results of the lack of fight: Bush with even more power and more Dems willing to 'compromise' with his regime. This may be a good thing for the politicians...but the people are paying for it.

[wyldwolf]

195. oh, so it's a jealousy thing? Or you feel the playing field isn't level?

Well, tough.

Simply because your brand of progressive politician can't seem to get organized and financial backing to compete doesn't mean the rest should stop.

You say that you hadn't heard what advice the DLC gave Kerry. Why would you expect to recall such things? His campaign matched the DLC's rhetoric on any given subject. Is this another coincidence theory?

Give me all the examples.

Here is a counter-example. I recall Kerry bucking Clinton's advice on gay marriage.

It doesn't matter if you think it's an inaccurate assessment to say that 2004 was no time for moderation. But I think the proof was in the pudding.

Right - which is why Kerry got more votes than any Dem in history?

And do you want to take Kerry's stance on the issues one by one and see how well they jive with national opionion?

All of your empty leftist rhetoric aside...

[Q]

200. Indeed...it would be too democratic to expect an even playing field from..

...from other Democrats. I have to thank you for pointing out why the DLC is so hated within the party by Dems that have taken the time to look at their agenda. I would expect From or Reed or Marshall to say the same thing to the 'looney left' if they complained about FAIRNESS. They are EXACTLY like the Bushie Neocons in that nothing is out of bounds when it comes to getting what they want. The cutthroat politics of the Neodems and Neocons.

You're not saying that the best person with the best ideas should win...but the one with the most power, money or best smear machine. That's why the DLC is so dangerous to the Democratic party. They don't GIVE A SHIT about other Democrats and their 'party of the people' agenda. They want no part of that bleeding heart crap. They simply want power. And this is what makes them the counterpart to the Neocons.

Gore got more votes than Clinton. Kerry got more votes than Gore. See a trend there? Democrats wanted Bush out of office and they would have voted for ANY Democrat in order to do it.

Gore won in 2000 by any measure. But the DLC won't count him as their man and their win because they would have to admit that his POPULIST CAMPAIGN was the reason. In fact...Gore left the DLC behind right before his acceptance speech...when he lambasted corporate cheats and polluters and started his populist campaign. A campaign the DLC and Lieberman tried to undermine at every turn. But Gore won despite their efforts to derail his progressive agenda.

Your rhetoric about the DLC is jumping all over the place. You want to take credit when DLC politicians do good and blame the 'left' when they do bad. But the only real success you can point to is Clinton. His welfare reform, NAFTA and telecommunications ideas come right out of the DLC. Funny how they all benefited the Republicans.

The DLCers don't know what to do about the Kerry loss. You can bet the farm that THEY would be taking credit if he had won. They would be bragging about how he took their advice to go soft on Bush and promote his own Iraq war policy. But like the cowardly bullies they are...they slithered back to their offices and began writing New Dem Propaganda about how Kerry wasn't centrist enough or the anti-Iraq war Dems were crazy or that Kerry didn't do enough to appeal to the knuckledraggers.

The DLCers have become the Grima Wormtongues of the Democratic party...whispering bad advice in the ears of their candidates...only to feign ignorance when everything goes to hell.

It wasn't Kerry's stances on traditional Dem values that hurt him. It was when he took the advice of the DLC about Bush and Iraq that got him in trouble. And you brag that Kerry got the most votes of any Dem in 'history'...but don't want to talk about why he lost. And unlike Gore...he couldn't even pull off a popular vote win...after four years of the worst president this country has ever seen. So tell us...what good does getting the most Dem votes do when the other side gets even more votes? And forget another round of election fraud...the DLC doesn't want to talk about that.

I find it disturbing that you and other 'centrists' on this board have to resort to implying that there's something bad about being a 'leftist' in a party that was built on progressive values. It's not the 'leftists' that are the usurpers here...but a group of Republicans in Dem's clothing pretending to 'modernize' the party. And they do this...not for the party or the people...but for their own benefit and that of their corporate sponsors who want to preside over the death of the old Democratic party.

[wyldwolf]

201. ok, I finally understand...

...aside from your leftist rhetoric, I see that you don't understand that to win in politics and project your message, it takes organizational and fundraising skills.

Those of your stripe don't seem to have it, so instead of working to correct the problem, you bitch and moan that those who do know how to organize, raise funds, and project their message should "play fair" by halting their techniques.

It's political "political correctness!"

I find it disturbing that you and other 'centrists' on this board have to resort to implying that there's something bad about being a 'leftist' in a party that was built on progressive values....

A double standard from you. YOU can spew all manner of vitriol at "centrists" but when the table reverse, you complain.

The rest of your post? The same ol' stuff from you. blah blah blah evil DLC blah blah blah...


You have a very limited knowledge of the history of Democratic policies.

I have to thank you for pointing out why the DLC is so hated within the party by Dems that have taken the time to look at their agenda.

Well, sense there is no measureable criteria for this, I'll just have to say it's wishful thinking on your part.

You're not saying that the best person with the best ideas should win...but the one with the most power, money or best smear machine.

No, you just made that up. To say the person with the best ideas should win goes without saying. But that means different things to different people. See? It's subjective.

But it does take a bit of strategic planning and financing to put forth those ideas - traits those like you clearly do not have.

and, again, the rest is just more fist pumping blah blah blah leftist rhetoric.

[cajones_II]

202. I found it interesting that talkingpointsmemo.com

has Ed Kilgore, noted DLC spook, acting as guest blogger while Josh Marshall is out. I gues the blood thing is pretty thick. I still like Marshall (Josh) he's pretty straight-up. I had no idea he was so cozy with the DLC.

By the way, Howard Dean calls the DLC " an interest group inside the beltway" and says to mainstream America, they are meaningless.

I've noticed in my short time here at DU however many view the DLC as some hugely influential organized conspiracy like "the brethren".

I suspect the truth lies in between.

[wyldwolf]

203. You raise good points, but it really is simple

Howard Dean is correct and as a former member, he should know.

But people who occupy certain positions on the political spectrum need a boogeyman to motivate them to action.

The right traditionally had communism, socialism, Clintonism, and terrorism as a root of all evil.

To bad some on the left concentrate their boogeyman hating energy on other democrats and not some entity on the GOP side.

[bushclipper]

204. amen!

[Q]

205. I'm not sure you even 'get' what it means...

...that Dean was a 'former member'. Like for Gore...the DLC probably looked good at first. What could be wrong with an organization...well-financed by corporations...that wanted to find a 'third way' approach to politics? But I believe Dean and Gore and who knows how many others saw that the DLC wanted more from them than they could give and still be able to sleep at night.

It's just plain funny that you would infer that 'people in certain positions' need a 'boogeyman' to motivate them into action and then go on to suggest that their motivation is 'hate' of other Democrats. This is silly rhetorical nonsense worthy of a right wing smear machine.

Let's not pretend that the DLC doesn't have THEIR boogeyman to motivate the right wing of the party. They constantly demonize the 'left' as not only enemies of the war state...but of the Democratic party itself. Their favorite target of 'hate' is Michael Moore, MoveOn and anyone that presumes to speak out against theirs and Bush's illegal wars or corporate whoredom.

And here you are lecturing the 'left' about not hating the GOP side enough when the majority of Bush appeasers and Neocon agenda rubber stampers come from the DLC. In fact...the DLC constantly lambasts the 'left' for fighting Bush...accusing them of being 'conspiracy' nuts for spreading 'lies' about Bush's just war in Iraq and his tax cuts for the rich.

Unlike the DLC's transparent hatred for the 'looney left'...the left doesn't 'hate' the DLC. It's just that we will no longer relinquish control of our party to RWingers disguised as Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

209. do you have a cut and paste database for the rhetoric you spew?

Unlike the DLC's transparent hatred for the 'looney left'...the left doesn't 'hate' the DLC. It's just that we will no longer relinquish control of our party to RWingers disguised as Democrats.

Sorry, from what I've seen of your posts on DU, the Democratic party was never "yours" (except may for a few months while McGovern was losing.)

But rest assured, we won't relinquish control of our party to socialist far leftists disguised as Democrats.

[Q]

211. No...I visit the DLC/BluePrint/Progressive Institute/New Dem Network...

...websites and study what they have to say.

You always seem to assume that any kind of disagreement with the New Dems equates to hatred. They are not a 'boogeyman' as you suggest I see them. They're a right wing organization that wants to change 'our' party in ways that many Dems don't like. You're trying to personalize this and attempting to make dislike for the DLC seem irrational and without cause.

Who in the hell are YOU to say whether the party is 'mine' or not? Who are you to even imply that I'm not a 'good' Democrat because I oppose the DLC? Your arrogance is matched only by the likes of From...who calls Dems like me 'elite' because we dare speak out against their corporate whoring of 'our' party.

"Socialist Far Leftists"

Is it any wonder that you and the DLCers keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in the shithole of irrelevance? You all seem to use the same talking points about the 'left'. We can't be DEMOCRATS because we envision a different type of party than the New Democrats. I realize that you and yours think it's silly to believe that political parties and governments can do more than just serve themselves. I'd rather be part of the party that's 'out of touch' than join your cynical mindset that thinks winning is everything and democracy is only a word used to trick people into voting for your side.

You don't know it yet and you lack the sense to feel it. But the New Democrats have already lost. Yes...they'll probably get their candidate as the nominee again in 2008. But those the New Dems have tried to silence for so long will eventually rise up and kick the DLC's greedy, self-serving asses out of the party. They won't be welcome where Democrats join together to build a party that serves the best interests of all Americans.

You can mark these words and remember them well.

[wyldwolf]

212. more of the same (yawn)

[CWebster]

188. And it's not so subtle

Loose cannon media frontman, Joe Biden, was out blabbering about how Hillary was unbeatable just 4 months shy of 4 years til '08. Yet, he suggests that no one else should even bother.

[wyldwolf]

189. What does Biden have to do with the DLC?

..and is he not allowed to express his opinion?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

190. the DLC is the GOP's creation to infiltrate and kill "the beast" Donkey!

[Q]

193. Just this morning...

...I watched a poster that has taken centrist positions on this board call another poster part of the...

LOONEY LEFT

...because he didn't agree with the other poster's opinion.

the DLC 'infiltrates' the party machine while their 'advocates' go among the masses ridiculing the 'left' for their 'power to the people instead of the corporations' positions. It's like having the 'thought police' follow you everywhere you go.

What would you do if you were a GOP or Neocon strategist and needed to find a way to sell your totalitarian agenda and at the same time weaken the party of the people opposition? Perhaps the first thing you would do is attack the Party of the People's 'special interests' like labor, minorities, teachers and defense lawyers. Attack them so viciously that the POTP opposition finally throws them away so they can get some of that cold campaign cash offered by corporate welfare lobbyists and compete for the faceless 'middle class'.

The RWing Neocons didn't HAVE TO destroy the Democratic party in order to get their 'cooperatoin'. They simply planted right-wing seeds in the party and watched them grow for decades. Now they have a bountful crop and everything they've always wanted...including little or no opposition to hold them back.