Want to know the DLC's agenda for America? Here it is

[dolstein]

Inquiring minds can go over the NDOL.org and read "How America Can Win Again" by Al From and Bruce Reed. Here's the link:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253473&kaid=127&subid=173

Here's the reader's digest version:

A New Democrat Plan for America to Win:

Security
--Increase U.S. Armed Forces by 100,000
--Require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus
--Reduce dependence on foreign oil 25% by 2025

Values
--Adopt a uniform ratings system for all media
--Ban the marketing of violence to to children
--Enact a voluntary system of universal service

Opportunity
--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products
--Cut $300 billion in subsidies and invest it in innovation, education and growth
--Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four: college, homes, kids, universal pensions. (From and Reed call on Congress to enact the family-friendly tax reform plan proposed by Paul Weinstein of the Progressive Policy Institute. The plan can be found here: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=253276&subsecid=163&knlgAreaID=125)

Reform
--Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door
--Ban partisan gerrymandering, and require states to offer a real choice

Personally, there isn't a single item on the agenda that I can't support. However, I think that voluntary national service is a cop-out. It ought to be mandatory. I'd require every high school graduate to spend two years in either military service, the peace corps or a revived Civilian Conservation Corps.

[stepnw1f]

1. SCREW THEM!!!!

Assholes! I am not getting my ass shot for some punk ass rich nazis. Go FUCK yourselves!

[dolstein]

3. Thanks for your input. Your selfless devotion to country is admirable

NT

[stepnw1f]

9. You Want to Die for Bush and His Buddies?

You damn right I am selfish. It's my goddamn life and Bush can't have it.

BTW - I didn't know Bush=My Country

Care to explain?

[dolstein]

33. Oh, I forgot -- no Republican ever died in a Democratic President's war

NT

[orleans]

114. so does that mean our kids should go and die in bushie's war?

just because--in the past--republicans died in a democrat's war?

it sounds like that is what you're saying. but i can't believe that that is what you mean.

[bowens43]

132. Are you a DLC shill?

You sound like one.

[stepnw1f]

195. Pretty Stupid Justification

Gee... yur just soooo patriotic... javul! Go try to guilt yourself to serve. What ya waiting for?

[IndianaGreen]

122. Spoken like a German circa 1939

after the glorious troops marched into Poland in self-defense.

[CWebster]

126. Which Country would that be again?

The one AIPAC lobbies for that makes all politicians dance as fast as they can?

[bowens43]

130. Seems to me the DLC should be renamed to the RLC.

There is nothing 'Democratic' about this platform.

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Tell us how you really feel???

:rofl:

BTW, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Edited for typo.

[Robbien]

22. Ha!

And remember the DLCers also agree with BushCo's policies in South America. The DLCers feel all South and Central American resources belong to the U.S. Not one spoke out against the coup of Haiti's Aristede or attempted coup of Chavez. Not one spoke out against the trade embargo of Cuba.

So if you don't want to die in Iraq, how about dying for a coca plant in Columbia?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Not to mention supporting the death squad governments and

Contras in Central America and Reagan's over-the-top military buildup.

[bvar22]

98. Kerry actually condemned Chavez!

Called him a threat to America.
If "America" is Rule of the RICH Corporate Omners, then I guess Kerry has a point.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lahey10152004.html

[Robeson]

104. I'm not surprised....

..He's corporate America, too.

[bvar22]

108. Our Corporate Emperors

Our Corporate Emperors and their puppets in the Republican Party and the DLC must be frightened by the populist reforms taking place in the Latin countries.

VIVA Chavez!

[Tigress DEM]

111. What the article actually says, is that Kerry condemed

the ties that Chavez had to terroristic activities in light of Sept 11 and this article was written right before 11/04 elections as another way to make Kerry look bad.

[Arkana]

29. Amen. I'm not going to fight for them. Fuck them all.

[MisterLiberal]

179. Nice sig!

I know it's Madison but where did it come from? A letter to Mrs. Peabody or something? I want to read more of it

[Robeson]

31. Thank you for succinctly expressing my viewpoints.

[Tigress DEM]

107. I agree with "Screw Them" but not for the military angle.

I say if we go to war it needs to be in real self defense and not on an oil chase, but being able to stand up in our own defense is not a bad thing. For the right reason, I could see laying my life down for this country, but Iraq and the oil just don't seem to do it for me.

This agenda sounds like Republican Lite to me. If we become the Republicans, then they don't need to worry about us objecting to anything.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING* ON THIS LIST THAT HASN'T BEEN PROMOTED BY THE REPUBLICANS. WHAT IS THE DLC THINKING? (* my bad - found one)

A New Democrat Plan for America to Win:

Security
--Increase U.S. Armed Forces by 100,000 (Bigger military - always a Republican agenda)
--Require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus (WTF?! How many DEMS have been protesting to keep military recruiters away from our young people with their lies and empty promises?!)
--Reduce dependence on foreign oil 25% by 2025 (*OK, so this one is a non-Republican idea. Kudos!)

Values
--Adopt a uniform ratings system for all media (Uniform Censorship is better than Partisan Censorship, but some Censorship must be in place or we don't have values? PULLEESE!)
--Ban the marketing of violence to to children (How about banning violence toward children? Much worse consequences than whatever kids see on TV is what is happening to them in their homes and certain torture camps that will remain un-named.)
--Enact a voluntary system of universal service (Oh, yeah, compulsorary goodness will solve the world's ills and then it is the individual not the country that has to clean up this mess while the rich people stand back and watch or hire someone to do their service work for them.)

Opportunity
--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products (Could be a good idea, but it's still along the Corporations KNOW what is best for America model.)
--Cut $300 billion in subsidies and invest it in innovation, education and growth (What, we screwing our poor people or the other country's poor people or both to get money for innovation, education and growth? How those kids going to learn if they don't have any food in their bellies to provide the protien to stimulate brain activity?)
--Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four: college, homes, kids, universal pensions. (From and Reed call on Congress to enact the family-friendly tax reform plan proposed by Paul Weinstein of the Progressive Policy Institute. The plan can be found here: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=253276&su... )

(Can anyone say Democratic voucher system and still no real progress for mainstream public schools in anything mentioned here?)

Reform
--Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door ( huh? You mean the lobbists access to those in power or the powerful's access to lobbist's money? )
--Ban partisan gerrymandering, and require states to offer a real choice (Sure, the DEMS should encourage erosion of their political base... makes a lot of sense if the DLC is really just another version of the Republican talking points machine. Bizzare!)

[iamjoy]

2. What About Health Care?

Overall, very good.

[still_one]

8. It is a generalities, nothing specific

HOW are they going to reduce energy dependence by 25%?

What about social security and medicare?

How are they going to create more jobs?

How are they going to get us out of Iraq, and build bridges which have been destroyed by this administration?

Why don't they float a mideast plan which solves the Palestinian and Israelli problem?

Full of nice things but lacking any specifics it means nothing

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. Al From is an asshole....a repuke plant!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[phoenixprogressive]

6. no conscription

We ended the draft to end govt. conscription. A national service of some kind should be encouraged but not required. Only paying taxes should be required.

[flpoljunkie]

7. You & the DLC lost me on #1-security; Bill Kristol could have written it.

I will give you the oil dependence part, but lacks spescificity on how to decrease dependence by 25%.

[Mass]

10. They lost me on 2

Get military recruiters out of highschools is more urgent than bringing them in colleges.

As for 1, it all depends what they want to do with these troops.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Kristol probably DID write it.

PPI/DLC is just PNAC slightly whitewashed.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

177. Oh, that's easy. Drill offshore and in Alaska and annex Iraq/Iran.

[still_one]

11. as far as your item of making national service mandatory

you can do it with your kids NOT mine

Governments lie, and our government has been no exception. Remember Viet Nam? Look at Iraq?

[JDPriestly]

12. My take.

I would not require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus unless the campus can set guidelines as to what the recruiters my do, promise, etc. Campuses also need to be able to monitor the recruiters and control them just as they do others who visit their campuses such as recruiters from private companies. A university should be able to regulate and limit military and other government recruiting in the same way that they can private recruiters.

Even 25% dependence on foreign oil by 2025 (twenty years from now) is too much. It should be 10% maximum by that time with penalties on oil companies if certain benchmark goals are not met every three years. Energy companies are getting a share of the petrodollars going to foreign countries and have the capital to make alternative energy possible. I don't think anyone else does. They lack the will and need economic incentives.

A lot of things are missing. What about health care, social security, so many, many things. Did you leave them out or did they?

[metrodorus]

13. Some is o.k., but the package is not for me...

Some of this is good, but it won't get me to pound the streets looking for votes.

In particular, I abhor the militarist stance of the first part. I want nothing to do with it.

But I really think the DLC is fairly discredited now. I mean, being Republican Lite will has gotten Democrats nowhere.

And I really am appalled by the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman, who has supported the base plans of the capitalist class while playing Mr. Moral. He didn't even put up a fight in Florida in 2000!

[wyldwolf]

14. I'm in

I might build in college credit for the national service, though.

Some may not know that Wes Clark adopted his national service plan from the DLC:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252098&kaid=131&subid=192

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. Now there's a shock

:eyes:

[Clark2008]

52. Which is the only good thing in the proposal.

Clark isn't a DLCer, even if some of them like him.

[Donna Zen]

81. Wes Clark's

plan didn't look anything like this.

Clark's plan was not one that called for continuous service at all. It called for volunteers of any age to sign up in case of a national disaster or a disaster over seas. The maximum time a volunteer would be asked to serve was 6 months with pay, health insurance, and a guarantee of their job when they returned. And even then...even after they had signed up, they could refuse to go.

Think about the Tsunami: Americans who wanted to help would have received the call. It is a wonderful way for others to view Americans who are not in military uniforms.

What Clark proposed looked nothing at all like this.

[bowens43]

140. Wow!!

Another reason not to support Clark!

[Donna Zen]

158. Except that

the poster stated something that was incorrect. The DLC proposal was not Clark's proposal.

[JDPriestly]

176. If Hillary is planning to be the insitutional candidate

of the Democratic Party, we are better off giving our donations directly to Clark or Kerry or our favorite candidates than to the Democratic Party at this point. Hillary's power grab is going to hurt the Democratic Party. Why does the DLC have to separate itself from the Party? Why do they have to have such a high profile. They seem to be an elite that wants to run the whole Party by grabbing power. Who belongs to the DLC? It looks like its just a bunch of high-rollers. I don't hear about grassroots DLC organizations. Are they just a corporate front? Does anyone know the story on this?

[RetroLounge]

173. Really????

I never would have guessed :eyes:

RL

[Mass]

15. Those are really the priorities of the country???

- bringing recruiters in colleges
- uniform system of media


What about healthcare accessible for all, decent revenues for our elderlies, or a foreign policy that will give us friends in the world.

I am not against all of these ideas, but it seems there is a problem with the priorities.

[Tux]

16. Perfect for parents

Adopt a uniform ratings system for all media

From their site, we should stand up to those who would steer the country away from mainstream values which means that non-mainstream people (non-Christians and such) will have no voice in the media and will be isolated in their own nation. Thanks, guys.

Now we can have a nanny state. Damned if parents raise kids anymore, let the gov and corporations do it. Fuck DLC. Their fucked up. I want to know HOW they will do all of their agenda. That is the important idea. Afterall, didn't compassionate conservatism sound good?

[wyldwolf]

23. do you have children?

If no, disregard.

If yes - here is my take.

There is nothing wrong with a system that alerts parents to what type of content is in the entertainment they will consume.

It isn't censorship.

If you don't care that your children see gratuitous sex, violence, drug use, etc., that is fine.

Having a system to alert people as to what is in the entertainment will not infringe on your right to consume it or allow your kids to consume it.

[Tux]

26. Slippery slope

One parent that buys material for their kids that isn't made for their kids will lead to censorship. I can see the anti-harry Potter freaks calling for it to be banned. Video games have ratings yet parents refuse to use it and want the gov to make a nanny state. That simple. Not my fault parents are too weak minded nowdays to raise their kids.

[wyldwolf]

27. If I'm reading you correctly...

..you believe that parents shouldn't impose censorship on their kids?

One parent that buys material for their kids that isn't made for their kids will lead to censorship.

Not at all. Parents can take their children to R-rated movies now. That won't lead to censorship.

[Tux]

34. Parents

Should raise their kids. If they buy stuff for the kids that isn't kid-friendly (porn, explicit CDs, crap), it's the parents' fault. That simple.

As for ratings, TV is classic. Parents bitched about TV and got a ratings system. They still bitched and got a V-chip in every TV. They still bitched so cable companies allowed them to block channels that required a password (better than the TV's similiar feature) and yet that isn't enough. There has to be a point where childless people and parents can share the same culture without making America into one. big Seamem Street. The main concern I have isn't just censorship but government approved parenting aka gov tells you how to raise your kids.

[wyldwolf]

38. ok

Should raise their kids. If they buy stuff for the kids that isn't kid-friendly (porn, explicit CDs, crap), it's the parents' fault. That simple.

I agree. But there is nothing wrong with details as to what may be objectionable in the material. If the parents truly don't care what their kids injest, warning labels aren't going to deter them from allowing their kids to consume non kid-friendly material.

The government wouldn't be telling you how to raise your kids. It would merely be saying, "if you buy this for your kids, here is what you can expect in it."

[Tux]

41. "if you buy this for your kids, here is what you can expect in it."

One problem: fundies. You think they won't put a bias into the ratings system? Fundies have influence in gov right now. Harry Potter would be Adults Only at least. These are the people that bitch about a PBS kid's show that once shown a gay family yet promote a violent film that glorifies torture and execution (Passion of the Christ). If fundies got enough members on the board, it's all going to be rated based on the Bible.

[wyldwolf]

43. I don't see that happenning

A rating system only explains content that is may be objectionable. It doesn't forbid parents from allowing the kids to consume it.

[Tux]

48. At first

Then it's censored, then banned. Slippery slope. If parents want to know the content, start a Web site to review things for parents. Gov isn't here to raise kids, people.

[wyldwolf]

49. I don't see that happenning

is there any precident?

[Tux]

53. Yup

1917 in Russia and the 30's in Italy and Germany. They're extremes but it did happen there. All of media and culture had to be state spproved.

[wyldwolf]

56. Did it start as a ratings system then advance?

[Tux]

59. No

But culture had to be controled. The main reason was so people wouldn't be corrupted by culture. Sounds similiar to people that want to rate everything so kids won't be corrupted. Just anoher path.

[unlawflcombatnt]

119. Excellent Points

It appears parents want the government to do the job that they won't do. This is even more true at the local level. Parents want to have all rights and control regarding their children, yet they want to blame the government for bad outcomes resulting from their bad parenting.

unlawflcombatnt

[Mass]

28. The main problem is that some of warnings are totally inadequate

A naked scene may lead to a R rating, but killing tons of people is only PG-13 as long as you do not see blood.

I appreciate an information, but I need more than a rating to know if I want my kids to see or not.

[wyldwolf]

32. I agree with you there....

...but the proposal goes beyond G - PG- PG13-R ratings.

For example, in my local paper, the movie section lists what may be objectionable - female frontal nudity, drug use, gross violence, for example - and sometimes they even list the amount of objectionable material.

[unlawflcombatnt]

120. David Sirota

Are you an opponent of David Sirota?

unlawflcombatnt

[Tux]

35. Flip the game box over

And read the box on the lower left hand side. It tells you why the game got the rating. Not hard, people.

[Mass]

39. I still would prefer adequate information and make my choice myself

I do not need the govt to decide for me what is adequate or not. Give me real information and I will know, but please, I have seen enough R rated programs where I did not take my 16 year old, then rented the movie so that he could see it because I thought it was particularly appropriate.

Same thing with video games. How am I able to know what "some nudity" means? Well, by now, I ask around me. It is usually safer than anything that is on the box.

[Tux]

42. Well then

Ask clerks, gamers, or use the links in my sig for gaming info. Detailing info for stuff seems good but fundies could use it an excuse to limit what is available. I wouldn't be so concerned if fundies weren't in gov but they are.

[progressoid]

184. Right , so why are you so opposed to a universal system such as on

the lower left hand side of a game box? If you are OK with this, why not a similar (i.e. universal) system for other media? It's not there to change the media, just help parents understand what they are purchasing.

There is nothing censorial about this. It's just a unified system of descriptors.

[iamjoy]

75. Ratings May Prevent Full Censorship

it sounds kind of like a paradox. But my theory is, you have an adequate rating system, not just G, PG, etc but more like the ones for TV where they state whether the rating is due to language, etc.

With a good rating system, the people who prefer their children only see wholesome movies can easily determine what to avoid. The people who object to some things not others (violence not sex or vice versa) can also make an informed decision. Therefore, people are less likely to be shocked and, "Oh my goodness, children might see this, so it must be pure." Imagine if everything had to meet the radical clerics idea of wholesome entertainment.

I know it is a slippery slope, but if you look back at movie history, everything had to be (what would now be considered) G Rated. Selznick got fined for letting Clark Gable say that famous line at the end of Gone With The Wind. Now we have a variety of ratings

[CTLawGuy]

194. yeah

imagine if the fundies call for harry potter to be restricted to "adults only"

polticize media rating systems, a great idea :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

30. Exactly.

Whose values? What will be defined as "out of the mainstream"?

[OzarkDem]

17. Puttting a 10 foot ladder down a 40 foot hole

their health care policy is incredibly bad, almost as bad as Repubs, which is downright sadistic.

Tax credits for low income working people to buy their own health insurance. Oy.

[mikehiggins]

19. Welcome to the Republican Party

I'd support the mandatory service, just so long as rich white kids could opt out if it wasn't convenient.

Seriously, what a pile of crap.

[unlawflcombatnt]

20. Thanks for the link

Dolstein,

Thanks for posting that link. I'm not happy with their subtle advocacy of minimally-restricted free trade. Here is a quote on their position:

"Fifth, to enable our economy to grow, we must expand, not restrict, trade. To assure that America can be a winner in the world economy, we must not only lower trade barriers and open new markets overseas, but also rigorously enforce trade laws and agreements. We must also expand and modernize our trade adjustment efforts to help those who are adversely affected by trade agreements."

I agree that we should rigorously enforce trade laws. But it sounds like they are advocating more. I don't like hearing the implication that "trade adjustment assistance" somehow makes outsourcing acceptable. That's been their position in the past as well. I think they are closet "free-traders."

I think they'd like us to believe the fairy tale that all those jobs we lose from free trade will be replaced with better ones. That simply hasn't happened in the past, and it's not going to happen in the future. Maybe I've misconstrued their position, but I doubt it.

Also, I saw no mention of rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2%. Do you know what their position is on that?

unlawflcombatnt

[unlawflcombatnt]

21. National Service

I almost forgot. I'm definitely not in favor of "national service." The solution to our military manpower shortage is to stop getting into unnecessary wars, and to pay our all-volunteer military more. Enslaving young Americans for 2 years of their life does not seem right to me.

unlawflcombatnt

[dolstein]

37. Tax cuts for the top 2%

I provided a link to the Progressive Policy institutes family-friendly tax plan. I don't know the specifics on the top bracket, but the proposal would definitely make the tax system more progressive.

[unlawflcombatnt]

118. More Progressive Taxation

I'm definitely in favor of more progressive taxation. I'm still suspicious of their trade positions, however. I could tolerate the "national service" idea, if everything else sounded good. But I still think the real solution to military manpower shortages is to pay them more, and avoid unnecessary wars.

unlawflcombatnt

[Kitsune]

25. Let's see...

Security:
No.
No.
Only 25%?

Values:
Good lord no.
Jesus fuck no.
This isn't what we have now?

Opportunity:
Sure.
Cut it from the Pentagon's budget and you have a deal.
Sounds good at a glance.

Reform:
I can buy that.
How on Earth do you ban something inherent in the system?


So, basically, if the top half of the list goes, I can mostly get behind it. The problem is, that's the part they all want to trumpet so they can seem "moderate."

[HughBeaumont]

36. This platform is stupid and borderline Repuke.

--Increase U.S. Armed Forces by 100,000
--Require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus
--I'd require every high school graduate to spend two years in either military service, the peace corps or a revived Civilian Conservation Corps.

Whatever. Your kids can die for the PNAC's oil-lust. America needs JOBS not soldiers. Conscription is a FAILURE when it comes to dealing with quagmires.

Here's an idea on how to increase the military numbers: STOP FIGHTING USELESS AND UNWINNABLE OIL WARS!! What's with this DLC gung-ho devotion to our military anyway? How much money is given from the discretionary budget to the military every year? How much of that money is taken away from social programs?

--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products

SIGH - good luck topping the cheaper Asians on that one. A good idea on paper, until you realize that it's just another intro for the DLC's unbridled capitalist/job offshoring agenda, one of the MANY reasons Hillareek, From and the DLC get NO support for me. Free trade is NOT fair trade. Offshoring is a faith-based crapshoot where the house ALWAYS wins. There is NO concrete evidence that better jobs are created for Americans as a result of it.

[wyldwolf]

40. how is that borderline repuke?

Say a Democratic administration is faced with fighting a just war.

Is building and having a strong military "undemocratic?"

You seem to beieve so. I'm sure FDR would disagree.

[AntiCoup2K4]

45. And what "just war" would that be?

Before that fucking moronic chimp got in the White House, and was then aided by your DLC buddies in enacting the Fourth Reich agenda on the planet, the US had no likely wars in the near future. Even that other Idiot Son of an Asshole in North Korea didn't have anything yet. China? always good to keep an eye on, but hardly a chance of war in 2000. Then as now their real threat is in the fucked up trade balance. Courtesy of your DLC friends, of course.

When did we NOT have a strong military in this country? What we don't need is a defense industry which requires perpetual war to sustain itself. But that's what 50 years of the BCE running the Republican party has given us, and now the DLC is trying to obligate the Democratic party to that same beast that Ike Eisenhower tried to warn us about as he was walking out the door in 1961.

[wyldwolf]

47. I understand you're anti-war

the sentiment oozes out of you.

Can't really reason with reactionaries.

If you can't envision a situation where our military would be needed for a just cause, well...

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. Of course I can envision such a situation

World War II was such a situation. Though it wouldn't have been if someone had stopped Prescott Bush and his friends from financing Hitler.

The civil war is debateable. Ending slavery was good. Losing the Freepers ancestors might have been better.

The Revolutionary war was neccessary, I guess. As it is, I pay more tax on beer than I do on tea even now, so I'm not sure I would have agreed on their reasoning.

Other than that, there really haven't been any even partially "just" wars. I have no problem with the US military defending THIS country, but that simply isn't what Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq were about.

[Jax]

62. Just cause?

Have you served in the Armed Forces?

Define just cause please.

[bushclipper]

70. I have

and I would describe a just cause as halting ethnic cleansing.

[HughBeaumont]

46. You tell me when was the last time we fought a JUST war.

WWII is NOT comparable to anything fought in the half-century plus after it ended. Right now, ANY war is most likely going to be caused and declared by the liquid manure currently holding the Oval Office hostage (NOT a foreign nation/despot) and it will be for the purpose of financial gain to the elite, fought by the poor. If you want to fight such a war, be my guest.

I can't believe you think conscription is the answer. The people who I would like to have defending me are people who WANT to be there, not those who aren't enthused or are just plain and simple not cut out for the military, physically or mentally. You need a certain mindset to be out there - you can't just send an average Joe/Jane with marginal reflexes and so-so instinct and expect him/her to soldier.

Meanwhile, the Asians are going to cripple us without even firing a shot. They're building technological greatness while we're worried about violent video games and burning billions a month on an unwinnable and offensive occupation that's amounting to something like spraying a kitchen counter for ants using old orange juice.

[Clark2008]

54. Kosovo. EOM

[bvar22]

66. I didn't know that Congress declared WAR on Kosovo.

Which country were we fighting?
Which Army?

[Clark2008]

77. Technically, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq, either.

They let the presinut make that insane decision.

But, for my money, having the military shoot people and bomb buildings is a war, no matter how you frame the debate.

[bvar22]

88. XZactly! Congress ABDICATED its Constitutional responsibility!

I really don't disagree with you, but I would like to make a distinction about "JUST WAR".

AFAIC, A JUST WAR must be declared by Congress as stipulated in our Constitution, not that this matters to the people who are being blown up by the bombs and bullets. I'm sure this distinction is lost on them.

[bowens43]

136. strong military???

We already spend more then the rest of the world combined. You want to increase the size of the military? I say it needs to be cut by at least 50%. The military is supposed to be for defense, nothing else.

[kenny blankenship]

170. We already spend more than the rest of the world combined on "defense"

Calls for further expansion are nothing more than Neo-Fascist masturbatory fantasies.

[SpiralHawk]

44. They don't have much a grip on the Vision Thing

Sounds to me like the same old pack of shit with a little updating. Ho hum. Excuse me while I go look elsewhere for a smidgen of leadership and vision, because these jokers sure as hell don't have it.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

73. Um, Vision Things do win elections

Its how you communicate your policies to the voting public.

I guess that's why DLC candidates just keep losing - since 1996.

[AntiCoup2K4]

79. The DLC doesn't win elections, nor do they want to.

They want to destroy the Democratic party from within, and THAT is the one thing they are doing well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Oh yeah, that platform is SOOOO inspiring

It's going to get the masses salivating for whoever the DLC candidate is.

[RetroLounge]

174. "The DLC is concerned with WINNING the next election"

Right, and there track record so far is pretty amazing...

:eyes:

RL

[bemildred]

51. "voluntary system of universal service" is an oxymoron. nt

[fujiyama]

55. Ehhh...

So they have some cute slogans like "closing the revolving door", and a lot of non solutions.

I have no idea how they plan to "increase the size of the military" or ban "marketing of violence to youth" and why should top private universities accept recruiters if the military continues its disciminatory practices on "don't ask, don't tell".

And the part I really dismissed them wa when they said "We've won some important victories in Iraq and Afghanistan".

What victories are those Dolstein? The Taliban is pouring back into Afghanistan. The US is refusing to confront Pakistan on anything. Britain is under the constant threat of terror. Iraq is a complete FUCKIN MESS! Suicide bombings daily and thousands of civilians dead. We've lost over 1700 soldiers and we've had victories?

They're rambling on about "values" while we're commiting atrocities in real life, they're going on about video game violence?

Oh and how come there is absolutely NO MENTION of civil liberties? What about the PATRIOT Act?

Fuck From and Reed. They have led the party nowhere. I'm relatively moderate (I actually believe Islamist terrorism is a threat) but I feel way to the left of these two. Maybe that's because they're way to the right.

[Larkspur]

57. So, dolstein, when are you going to Iraq to fight for your country?

You can be part of the 100,000 new recruits for the DLC Army.

[dolstein]

63. I registered for the draft years ago.

I thought it was a dumb idea to abolish the draft and believe it should be reinstated. If drafted, I would serve, I wouldn't flee to Canada.

[Larkspur]

85. There is nothing stopping you from volunteering to serve in the Army

You don't need to wait to be drafted.

[AntiCoup2K4]

86. If you support the war, Dolstein..... SUPPORT it. Sign up

I registered for the draft myself. They told me I couldn't vote against Reagan if I didn't. That's how I do all I can to avoid war, by not supporting warmongers. But if you believe in what the warmongers are doing, then go help 'em out. It's only fair.

[Freddie Stubbs]

169. Do you oppose rape?

If you do, you need to go to the police academy and become a police office so that you can arrest rapists. It's only fair, unless you think that this particular line of reasoning is faulty. ;)

[AntiCoup2K4]

181. Ridiculous comparison, Fred.

I oppose rape by not tolerating attitudes which encourage rape in the first place. I'm also perfectly willing to beat the living shit out of a scumbag rapist or would be rapist if neccessary. So you see, my "pacifism" does have its limits. Now on the other hand, if I were going around shouting that "we need more police to get rapists off the streets", then your analogy would be valid.

So again, when are you and Dolstein going to Iraq? ;)

[IndianaGreen]

123. What the poster wanted to know is when are YOU going to ENLIST?

The Army just raised the age of recruits, so unless you are pretty old dude, I suggest you put your DLC ass where your mouth is and march to Iraq with the rest of the rightwing chicken hawks.

[flpoljunkie]

131. How about the Army Reserve? They've raised the age limit from 34 to 39?

They have served well and long in Iraq--too long, in fact.

http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050322_280.html

Army Reserve Components Boost Enlistment Age Limit

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 22, 2005 – The Army Reserve and the Army National Guard have raised the age limit for recruits from 34 to 39, Defense Department officials said.

The move will add 22.6 million people to those who could potentially enlist in the reserve components, said Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke.

No other reserve component is contemplating such a move, officials said, and raising the age limit on active duty soldiers would require a change in law.

The idea came from the Army Reserve’s translator aide program. That program admits Arab linguists to the service up to age 41.

The new program will run for three years, Krenke said.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve need people. The Army Reserve has recruited 6,230 soldiers through the end of February. This is 89.7 percent of the year-to-date mission. The Army Guard is at 76 percent of their year-to-date mission, having recruited 16,835 soldiers. The Guard started the year with a 5,000-soldier deficit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. Dolstein said in a post a few weeks ago that he's in his early thirties

There's nothing to keep him from enlisting to fight the war he supports so much.

[Pithy Cherub]

58. No thanks, am DLC intolerant...

That has nothing in it which is inspiring, innovative or evokes passion. Bland personified. blech!

[Roland99]

60. DLC = GOP-lite

Screw them and screw Hillary.

[dolstein]

67. DU = Marx-lite

If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the GOP, then why should I even bother to make an effort to distinguish between DU and a typical left-wing Marxist organization?

[bushclipper]

71. I've seen their type all my life

Henry Wallis voters.

[Roland99]

72. Pro-big military, pro-NAFTA/WTO

no thanks

[OzarkDem]

78. Just give us one good idea

Can you find even one innovative, original, truly good and creative policy they've come up with?

[dolstein]

80. I think they're all good ideas

Let me ask you --

Do you think political gerrymandering is a good idea?
Do you think our reliance on oil imports is a good idea?
Do you think billions upon billions in corporate subsidies is a good idea?
Do you think a overstretched military is a good idea?
Do you think it's a good idea to market graphically violent entertainment to children?

Apparently you do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Okay, dolstein, I'll answer your questions

1. No, but at this point, ensuring honest elections is the more urgent concern. If the voting machines are rigged, you can have perfectly balanced electoral districts and it won't matter. In fact, having perfectly balanced electoral districts would make it easier to steal elections.
2. No, but where's the item about cutting our historically bloated and unbalanced military budget and using the money to fund public transit systems for each city (for the price of one B-1 bomber per rail line) and create high-speed intericty rail systems?
3. No, but who needs corporate subsidies when you see nothing wrong with sweetheart deals for military contractors?
4. No, but it's overstretched ONLY because our neocons and their enablers keep thinking up excuses to overstretch it.
5. No, but it's none of the government's business.

[OzarkDem]

185. Where is their health care agenda?

Do they have anything to offer besides tort reform and tax breaks for the poor to buy their own health insurance?

[snowbear]

90. DOLSTEIN: Then =WHY= do you post here ????

Sorry Dolstein - - but if you're going to add DU to your anti-DLC comments, why bother even coming here?

Why??? :shrug:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

91. Many of us here...

have asked that very question for a very l-o-n-g time. Years, in fact. ;)

[dolstein]

92. Why do I post? To remind DU'ers that the Democratic Party

wasn't founded by George McGovern and Jane Fonda in 1972. To remind DU'ers that the Democratic Party under FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ was a hawkish party that supported a strong military and wasn't reluctant to commit American troops abroad. To remind DU'ers that the decline of the modern Democratic Party can be attributed the rising influence of the anti-war, culturally liberal left, not the emergence of the DLC, which was founded after the Democratic Party lost control of the Senate, had lost four of the last five presidential elections (including two by historical landslide margins) and had witnessed a sharp erosion of support in what were once traditional Democratic strongholds.

Far too many DU'ers are living in some kind of fantasy world, believing that the Democratic Party attained majority status because it was uniformly liberal (it wasn't) and lost its status as a majority party because it moved too far to the right (it hasn't). The fact is, the Democratic Party is much more uniformly liberal now than it has ever been. It has moved sharply to the left on cultural issues, and has largely abandoned its traditional commitment to a strong military. It's also much smaller and much weaker than it has been at any time since 1932. Is this purely a coincidence? I don't think so.

As long as DU'ers seek to deny the obvious and to re-write history, and seek to equate liberalism with pacifism, I will continue to post.

[AntiCoup2K4]

102. FDR had to deal with Hitler and JFK had the Cold War.

Neither created the problem but they dealt with it. Hitler was an actual enemy, and the Russians came very damn close to being one in 1962.

JFK wanted out of Vietnam, and that very well might have been one of the reasons he was murdered (but that's another discussion entirely) LBJ was a goddamn fool to proceed with it, which he probably realized by 1968, hence his decision to get out of it.

Anyway, it's one thing to do what needs to be done to face a REAL enemy. It's another thing entirely to follow the example of known THIEVES and LIARS to continue their vaporware war against the Terrorist Tooth Fairy.

[dolstein]

105. You should have begun your post with "once upon a time"

After all, a fairy tale is supposed to begin with "once upon a time."

You can say that JFK wanted out of Vietnam, but you can't prove it. The only think we know is that JFK's hand-picked foreign policy team backed escalation of U.S. forces in Vietnam.

George W. Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but you can't lay the problem of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism at his doorstep. That problem has been around for decades. We've been lucky that it's taken as long as it has for terrorism to reach our shores. Personally, I don't think Bush has done enough to combat terrorism. The fringe left, on the other hand, apparently wants to pretend that terrorism doesn't exist.

[eridani]

116. No, but you can lay the problem of Islamic fundamentalism at Reagan's -

--doorstep. He was the guy who thought supporting bin Laden and Hekmatyar was such a brilliant idea. And before them, the whole bipartisan foreign policy establishment that thought it was a good idea to overthrow the secular democratic government of Iraq and bring in a dictator as vicious as Saddam. Oh, and the CIA supported Saddam as well, giving him a handy list of commies to execute, which he obligingly did. Given the choice between a real democracy in which people vote to control their own resources, and a nasty xenophobic fundamentalism which then becomes the only way for victims of our dictatorships to fight back, imperial thugs are never going to choose the former.

Read the Vietnamese declaration of independence, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945vietnam.html, and then tell me that our genocidal war against them had something to do with "freedom."

Our military has had absolutely nothing to do with defense of the interests of most of the people who live in this country (since WW II, anyway) and everything to do with defending the interests of a class of sociopathic thugs who are happy to live and do business anywhere.

You are actually right that lefties are demanding something new, though. Post WW II, the difference between Dems and Rethugs has been only that the former have been in favor of sharing some of the imperial loot with the general population, and the Rethugs want it all for the Masters of the Universe. I freely admit that we really are asking for something new when we want actual self-defense to replace imperial thuggery as our basic defense posture.

All of you delusional "muscular" idiots are nothing but badly informed and seriously stupid fluffy pink bunnies. You refuse to recognize that the most important strategic reality of the 21st century is that domination is expensive, and Fucking Shit Up is cheap. Wasn't the collapse of two large empires in the 20th century on the grounds of excessive expense a big enough hint for you? We can't afford world domination any more than the Soviets and the British could, and the only real policy question is whether or not we can give it up before we completely destroy our domestic economy. The DLC way is guaranteed to put us into Bladerunner territory, poor, miserable and begging for scraps from the Chinese and Indian engineers inventing the post oil economy.

[Q]

137. The 'fringe left'...you have the DLC talking points memorized it seems...

...and like the Bushie Republicans...you seem to be equating the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the 'war on terrorism'.

The 'fringe left' doesn't believe that a successful 'war on terrorism' needs to include attacking countries that have nothing to do with terrorism. Why that doesn't make sense to the DLC is beyond me.

If you want to debate a 'war on terrorism'...then let's do it. But stop pretending that there is any justification for an invasion and occupation of a country that posed no threat to the US and couldn't even defend itself.

I'm shocked that you would expect ANY Democrat to get behind a war on terrorism that has killed more innocents than terrorists.

[Burried News]

182. "The fringe left, on the other hand,

apparently wants to pretend that terrorism doesn't exist."
This is getting creepy.
Did you get this line from Karl Rove's speech in NY?
Regard's to Elizabeth for helping you out with the addendum to the Gangrich "Contract on America". Looks like plastic hair gets alot of people aroused.

[fujiyama]

197. Your problem

as well as the repukes' is that you believe Iraq is part of the WoT. Until you are willing to admit that Iraq was a major distraction and had nothing to do with terrorism, many of us aren't going to take your sanctimonious attitude seriously.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. JFK didn't really want out of Vietnam

Now, whether he would've fully commited the US to the war like Johnson did, is another story entirely.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

106. You are looking through the wrong end of your binoculars.

"There are cobwebs growing on the doors of Democrat Party HQ's all over the midwest, and we can't even find Democrats willing to put thier names on the ballot in many rural areas today, in places Republicans never had any hope of winning 20 years ago...."

If this is the case, then this condition has been caused by the policies of the Democratic party over the last 20 years:
*The ever rightward movement of the Democratic Party
*The abandoning of support for LABOR
*The shifting of support to PRO-BIG Business Corporate Donors
ALL driven by the DLC over the last 20 years!


I am with you!
Lets return to the CORE values of the Democratic Party!
The Party of FDR and John Kennedy!

STRONG LABOR
Strong Working Class Protections
Strong Social Support for those who need it
Regulation of Energy, Utilities, Communications, Transportation, Banking, Investment, and Insurance
WINDFALL Profits Tax
Progressive taxation (JFK "lowered" the TOP Bracket to 70%)
SANE Trade Policies that protected American Jobs and Industry
Individual Freedoms and Equality
Enforced Limits on Corporate size and power
Fair Competition protections for Small Business and Mom & Pop Farms
Constitutional Protections EXTENDED to minority groups.


THAT is a Democratic Party I can get EXCITED about!!!

[dolstein]

112. Nice try at revisionist history . . .

the truth is that the decline of the Democratic Party began in the late 60's and continued steadily throughout the 70s and 80s. This decline wasn't immediately visible at the Congressional level. Conservative Democrats continued to get elected to Congress from the South despite the national party's sharp move to the left, and the Watergate Scandal resulted in a Democratic Congressional landslide in the 1974 Congressional races. If it wasn't for Watergate, the Democrats probably would have lost control of the House in the 1980 elections at the same time it lost control of the Senate.

Ah yes, the Senate. DU'ers NEVER mention the fact that the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 1980, because it completely screws up their false chronology and makes it impossible to blame the DLC (which wouldn't be formed until after Reagan's 1984 landslide) for the Democratic Party's downfall.

As for the loss of the House in 1994, if you look at the seats that changed hands, most of them were in districts that had been voting Republican at the presidential level for many years. The DU "conventional wisdom" is that the Democrats lost control of Congress because liberal voters grew disenchanted with the rightward drift of the party and stopped voting. The truth is that the Democrats lost control of Congress because the Republicans, after years of trying, were finally able to convince voters who had been voting for Republican presidential candidates to vote for Republican congressional candidates. The Democratic candidates didn't lose because they weren't liberal enough. They lost because they were seen as too liberal. Racial gerrymandering also played a role. The Bush I administration actively promoted the drawing of "majority minority" districts in the South. This made it possible for a handful of liberal African American Democrats to get elected from the South, but left the remaining districts overwhelmingly conservative and increasingly Republican.

Sorry, but that's what really happened.

[bvar22]

115. Where did I revise history?

The previous poster stated that his direct observation was that the Democratic party had declined over the last 20 years.
Will you really try to deny that the Party has moved ever rightward over the last 20 years?

The previous poster then mentioned the Party of Kennedy, and I supplied some HISTORICALLY ACCURATE facts about the Democratic Party of the 60's.
Where is the revision?

*Has the Party moved to the RIGHT in the past 20 years?

*Has the Party LOST influence and Power in DC and the rest of the country over the last 20 years?

*Gee, I wonder if there is a connection?

*Why do more than 40MILLION Democrats not bother going to the polls anymore?

Here is some stuff for you to chew on:

"At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way."

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020805&s=borosage20020726

As Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, recently stated in an editorial, "The DLC stands for nothing, nada" (except the flow of corporate cash into Democratic coffers). "Centrism is wherever the polls say most Americans are. Centrism has no vision. Centrism doesn't lead, it follows. Centrism is nowhere." Or as progressive pundit Jim Hightower states so eloquently, "There is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos." The Democratic Party is no more. It has ceased to exist. It has expired. It is now time to form a true second party in this country.

Published on Friday, March 4, 2005 by The Nation
Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt
by Ari Berman

from the March 21, 2005 issue of The Nation


<snip>
"Major fissures emerged within the New Democratic movement as the DLC lost longstanding ideological and organizational support. Elaine Kamarck repudiated her "Politics of Evasion" argument--which laid out the policy blueprint for Clintonism--in a series of Newsday columns, arguing that the Dean campaign rendered the DC establishment "pretty much irrelevant." After Kamarck endorsed Dean in early January 2004, the DLC-friendly New Republic wrote: "Al From's Head Explodes." "The Democrats are not where we were fifteen years ago," Kamarck now says. "I think it's great that there's been a resurgence in grassroots activism on the left side of the party."
<end>
Read the rest of this article. Its GREAT!

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich – they are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it – including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

The 3rd Way (DLC) IS the WRONG WAY!

[Hippo_Tron]

113. The reason that much of DU is hostile to what you say...

Is because you are just repeating the talking points of the right wing. Zell Miller and other traitors like him attribute what you mentioned above to be the decline of the democratic party. Now why the hell would we take advice from someone who campaigned for Bush in 2004?

Every day, Rush and Hannity come on and talk about how the Democrats are the "pot smoking radical left hippies" or the party of "Hanoi Jane", etc.

And how exactly has the democratic party moved so far to the left on cultural issues, and how is moving to the left a bad thing. Are civil rights a bad thing? Is a woman's right to choose a bad thing? Are gay rights a bad thing?

I don't think that the DLC is soley responsible for our minority status, but I think that this "cultural left" stuff is a bunch of crap as well. A large part of losing our majority in the House came from the dixiecrats converting to the GOP. Do we really want the dixiecrats in our party? I certainly don't. I want to take back the south just as much as anyone, but I don't want to do it by appealing to racists in the Republican party or by appealing to the christian right. I want to do it by appealing to African Americans and to moderate and progressive whites.

If you could provide a better explanation of this "cultural left" that you are talking about, I would be glad to continue this discussion.

[flpoljunkie]

145. Sadly, the Dems have no compunction about throwing money at the Pentagon

A strong military, yes. But what we have is the military/industrial/government complex--where too much money is wasted on boondoggle programs like Star Wars, and Bush's son of Star Wars, bunker busters and mini nukes--and not enough spent on taking care of the soldiers we have. Dubya is well on his way to destroying the Army. Let's not give him more soldiers to destroy in his foolish quests for empire.

And, a the same time, we have crying unmet needs in our country--universal health care at the top of the list. Americans have been suckered to think "socialized medicine" by the Rethugs whenever this urgent need is mentioned. And, of course, there is our crumbling schools, quality pre-K-3 education, infrastructure, and poisoned environment.

But no, our first emphasis is the Department of Defense where we spent more than half of the world's total military expenditure and arms trade--$950 billion in 2003.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

It obviously takes a lot of taxpayer money and loans from China and Japan to try and maintain an empire. Tragically, our country's priorities are in the wrong place today and our future is in peril.

[bowens43]

147. A win for our party with your values

would be a loss. We might as well get rid of the 22nd amendment and give GW another 4 years.

This isn't your grandfathers Democratic party. We are no longer the party of war and segregation.

[Roland99]

159. In what shape or fashion does today's world equal that of 60 years ago?

Madmen like Hitler or Stalin/Lenin don't exist today.

BTW, do you like taking part in your own version of revisionist history? When did the Democratic Party form? Who was supporting and fighting *for* slavery? Hmmm?


Times change and parties change, too. Do you honestly think the GOP of today even remotely resembles that of Lincoln's era or even as recently as Eisenhower? If you do, you need to start drinking some cups of Wake The Fuck Up.

[bowens43]

134. If you don't see the similarities

between the DLC and the current iteration of the GOP , you're blind.

I'd rather be a marxist the a conservative. The DLC is not the solution it's a major part of the problem.

I personally will not support any candidate that agrees with this platform.

[IndianaGreen]

125. Did you notice the title: A New "Democrat" Plan for America to Win

The DLC refers to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party, the same way the pukes at FAUX do!

[bvar22]

61. I "LOVE IT" when the DLC invokes the FDR Military:

The DLC Marketing and Packaging Teams are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to this type of propaganda. The Republicans consistently try to attach themselves to John Kennedy the same way.



Lets take a look at the FDR military:


*Extremely limited foreign military involvement, exhaust non-military diplomatic alternatives, commit the Military defensively ONLY after Congressional Declaration of War!

*FDR valued the lives of his soldiers and took care not to WASTE them or Abuse them in needless WARS suppressing civilian populations in Foreign Countries

*FDR didn't spread our Military Forces over the globe in over 100 bases in foreign countries.

*FDR didn't loot social programs for military expansion

*FDR made the RICH pay their fair WARTIME Share. 90% top bracket.I fully support raising the Top Bracket to 90% as long as the "War on Terror" lasts!!!

*The FDR Military was "self sufficient" and didn't depend on "private contractors" to provide essential services. We should return to this policy for many reasons, foremost of which is that our War Machine NEEDS to remain FULLY accountable to the public with a CLEARLY DEFINED CHAIN of COMMAND. Nevermore should we tolerate a Sec of Defense saying that the "Chain of Command" was "MURKY". NO PRIVATE CORPORATE CONTRACTORS in our WAR MACHINE.

*Maintain only a frugal "skeleton military" during Peacetime. If we maintain a bloated Expensive Military Force, they will find a war.
(BTW: Did you ever get your "Peace Dividend"? Ohh,that's right. They found another war.)

*Under FDR, the US was "self sufficient" Maintaining a viable base of Heavy Industry, Manufacturing, Tool and Die, Fabrication, Textiles, Alloys, rubber,food, and the skilled LABOR to operate and quickly expand these industries is absolutely essential to our National Security!!! Those who support exporting these Jobs and Industries are weakening the US.


*MOST IMPORTANTLY, FDR believed that those who "risked all" should be treated as Heroes, not Slaves. The Democratic party need to take the LEAD in DEMANDING excellent benefits for our Veterans and their families, and Social Programs of 1st Class Housing Loans, School Tuition, and 1st Class HealthCare for LIFE. (not the crap offered today)

*Under FDR, our Military received the BEST weaponry and armor available

*Under FDR, our Military KNEW their lives wouldn't be wasted in STUPID WORTHLESS Wars.


Repeat for emphasis:
Under FDR, the RICH paid their FAIR SHARE.
The TOP BRACKET was 90%.
Raise the Top Bracket to 90% as long as the War on Terror lasts!!! (and then see how fast the so called "War on Terror" screeches to a halt!)


I can get behind THIS. WOW, I never realized the DLC was a radical Leftist organization!

[bushclipper]

68. I was born on the tail end of that period, and have studied it in depth

Extremely limited foreign military involvement, exhaust non-military diplomatic alternatives, commit the Military defensively ONLY after Congressional Declaration of War!

That's because there was an overwhelming belief in isolationism at the end of WWI - a period in which Republicans controlled the presidency. Harding for example, who took office in 1921, considered his election as a mandate to stay out of the League Of Nations.

FDR itched to get into the war almost from the start. And, contrary to what you wrote, FDR cut social spending drastically to fund our involvement in WWII.

Also, at the start of our involvement, we hardly had the best weaponry as you contend. I recall seeing news reels of our soldiers training with broom sticks.

There were numerous instances of private corporate contractors during FDR's running of WWII. In fact, Harry Truman convened special congressional war profiteering hearings on the matter.

These are matters of fact and historical record.

Other points of yours read like someone very angry lashing out with opinions that aren't based in fact.

Of course, we didn't have bases spread out all over the world during FDR's time because we were coming out of a time of Republican-influenced isolationism. But Truman certainly put us on that road with Korea.

The Democratic party has taken the lead in demanding excellent benefits for our Veterans and their families.

As for what our military "knew," well, who is to say? Certainly someone like you would make the case that Korea was somewhat worthless and the war was fought with FDR's military by FDR's Vice President.

[bvar22]

82. FDR's Military

"That's because there was an overwhelming belief in isolationism at the end of WWI..."
The reasons behind our isolation don't matter. Our Isolationism and Trade Policy with Japan PROVOKED the WAR in the Pacific. The DLC posters werelonging for the "Good Old Days of the robust FDR Military". I'm pointing out the REALITY.




"we hardly had the best weaponry as you contend. I recall seeing news reels of our soldiers training with broom sticks."

From the first day of WWII, the USA focused its MIGHT and RESOURCES providing our soldiers in the FIELD with the BEST WEAPONRY possible. In the early days of WWII, broomsticks WERE the best we had, and are entirely adequate for early rifle and bayonet training. Today in Iraq, our soldiers don't have adequate armor or vehicles because of poor planning and Corporate bottom lines.




"FDR cut social spending drastically to fund our involvement in WWII."
You may have a technical point in the cutting of Social Programs. He certainly replaced some of them with Military Service. The War Footing and Industrial Buildup replaced the need for the others. FDR DID NOT abandon the poor and working poor to fund unnecessary Military adventures.



"FDR itched to get into the war almost from the start."
There is a difference between "itching to go to war" and actually weighing ALL the factors and deciding NOT TO DO IT until ALL the pieces are in place. That is what FDR actually DID, not what he "itched" to do. If you want to see the difference, look at Iraq today.
FDR WON a World War on two fronts against two World Class enemies in LESS TIME than bush* and the DLC have had their phoney War on Terror.


"The Democratic party has taken the lead in demanding excellent benefits for our Veterans and their families."
The Democratic Party has been less than forceful and unified in requesting these. They have NEVER DEMANDED these benefits. The benefits the Democratic Party are requesting do not approach the benefits of the GI Bill for our vets after WWII.


These are matters of fact and historical record.


As far as being ANGRY, you got that one right. I am watching my Party dying from an internal malignancy, and I'm not happy about it. When I see the malignancy being spread on DU, I supply the proper treatment.

[Dr Fate]

83. self delete

n/t

[KoKo]

65. DLC=" Defeatist Life Contoll............UGh ........n/t

[welshTerrier2]

69. ummmmm ... is foreign policy irrelevant to the DLC ???

and FORCING colleges to allow military recruiters on campus ???

why not leave that up to the individual college?

also, is it fair to assume, after reading your Reader's Digest recap, that the DLC does not consider healthcare to be a prominent issue? i didn't see it mentioned in the DLC plan ...

[OzarkDem]

76. Exactly

They offer next to nothing in the area of health care reform. Same old RNC ideas about giving tax cuts to low income people so they can afford to buy health insurance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. Let me comment on the lame "tax credits for health insurance" idea

As a self-employed person, I am already able to deduct 100% of my health insurance premiums from my federal income tax.

That's no help with the fact that it's hard to pay the premiums every month and cover the high deductible.

It would be even less helpful for a poor person.

[welshTerrier2]

168. sounds like the DLC wants to eliminate medical deductions

here are two statements on this issue from the DLC:

1. "Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four: college, homes, kids, universal pensions." NOTE: no medical ??
2. "we must confront the perfect storm of soaring health care costs, shrinking access to health insurance, and global competition that is crushing American businesses that do right by their workers. We need to use information technology to reduce inefficiency, fragmentation, and waste in the health care system. We can both lower long-term health care costs and spur innovation in an area of American economic strength by launching a concentrated effort to find cures for the most debilitating and costly diseases, like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Even delaying the onset of those diseases would reduce the burden on Medicare and Medicaid dramatically."

Reducing costs and inefficiencies is all well and good but these are market-based approaches (lower the cost so that more can afford it) ... the goal must not be a system where more can afford quality health care; the GOAL MUST BE a system where every single American citizen has access to quality health care WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT OR NOT ...

The DLC seems more concerned about American businesses being crushed by health care costs than they do about the individuals who can't afford health care ...

i totally agree with your post that market based solutions, like giving a tax deduction (and the DLC doesn't even do that) or a tax credit (and the DLC doesn't do that either) for health insurance and medical expenses is the WRONG way to go ... the bottom line is that Americans must be able to have access to quality health care regardless of their economic status ... any system that fails to achieve that should be dismissed ... and any political group, for example the DLC, that fails to advocate for universal health care should be eliminated ...

[Q]

74. The DLC is helping Bush to coverup his (and their) war crimes...

...and lies to the American people.

Thank goodness more and more Democrats are waking up to the ENEMY WITHIN.

And look at this blatant promotion of NATIONALISM:

"...we need more patriotism and less politics. President Bush missed a historic opportunity to change the tone of American politics after Sept. 11. Yet even though he failed to rise to that challenge, Americans are still hungry to put country ahead of partisanship once again. Winning the war on terror is too important for either side to spend all its time pointing fingers at the other. We're Americans first, and we should approach this war the way the American people do: They don't care which party wins, as long as America wins."

Win WHAT exactly? The so-called war on terrorism being fought in Iraq? Why does the DLC insist on promoting Bush's lies?

[Robeson]

89. "Why does the DLC insist on promoting Bush's lies?"...

...You answered that in you opening heading. Its because they, too, are complicit in his crimes.

[Dr Fate]

84. Can they fight the Republicans/media?

That's where these "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections always fall behind.

None of this matters if you are afraid to tell the truth about your opposition or fight back, for fear of confrontation.

I'm not so sure voters really want Military recruiters breathing down the necks of their kids either- most people are starting to oppose the war.

[derby378]

87. "Fuck the DLC"

Fuck the DLC
They wrecked our party system
They don't give a damn 'cause they're
Career politicians
They trashed Howard Dean
They cost Kerry the election
It's time we kick them out and
Take the Dems in new directions

BAYH and TAUSCHER - time to clean your fuckin' desks
LIEBERMAN and LANDRIEU - selling out has made you lame
HILLARY and BYRON - last chance to jump the ship
So CONYERS and BOXER can live in peace without these dicks

(Sung to the tune of Fuck the Middle East by S.O.D. Sing it in the car, in the shower, at your next Democratic Party meeting, or anywhere you feel like singing!)

[MelissaB]

178. I love those lyrics.

There's something I can dance to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. Great, more militarism and censorship

We already have too much of both.

What about universal health care? Cheat-proof elections? Creating immediate blue collar jobs for the working poor by rebuilding the nation's infrastructure so that they don't take out their frustrations in bigotry?

The DLC platform above could have been written by Richard Nixon, although on second thought, he might have thought it a little too militaristic.

[mikelewis]

95. No doubt... I'd also like to know how they plan on recruiting so many...

Adding 100,000 new troops? From where? Unless they start allowing foreing nationals to earn citizenship by serving, they won't stand a chance at recruiting that many. Oh wait, we already do that, forget it then. They don't have a chance.

[Patchuli]

100. You a spy or a plant?

Forget that crap. I'm not moving 'right' for anyone.

[magellan]

101. The problem with the Democratic Party

...IS the DLC.

[CityDem]

109. Right out of Hillary's playbook

Move to the right to secure more votes. We only have one party in this country -- the corportists.

[T Town Jake]

117. Every bit of it sounds good to me...

...and with a Democratic President back in the Oval Office to oversee this program and restore some sanity, we can start turning this country around.
I endorse every bit of it.

[Q]

124. Strange that you would endorse such generalities...

...but that's your right.

But doesn't it offend you that the DLC doesn't want to debate THEIR agenda? They want party 'unity' behind THEIR agenda...but say nothing about allowing a democratic process to take place to find a consensus among a majority of Democrats.

In other words...where do liberals and progressives fit in this agenda beyond donating cash and voting for THEIR candidates?

[IndianaGreen]

121. "require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus"?

How do DLCers greet each other nowadays, Seig Heil?

[Dr Fate]

167. Not a mainstream idea either- most parents/voters dont want this.

More and more folks/parents now oppose the war.

[bowens43]

127. Is there anyone who still thinks that the DLC

anything to do with liberalism or the Democratic party? There is nothing in the security or values sections that I can support. I will not support any candidate who supports these things.

You think there should be MANDATORY service??? You have got to be kidding. No Democrat should support that.

A New Democratic Plan for America??

Who the hell are they trying to kid. This sounds more like a Republican Plan for America.

No fucking thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

133. The actual wording is: A New Democrat Plan for America

Like the GOP, the DLC refers to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party.

[bowens43]

138. Wow. I didn't catch that.

Talk about a dead give-a-way.

[CTLawGuy]

128. I disagree with about half of those things

Increase US armed forces - Why? We should be decreasing our military involvement, especially while the budget is out of balance.

Require Colleges to allow military recruiters - pure fascism, way to be like the republicans.

reduce dependence of foreign oil - agreed

uniform rating system for all media - not necessary and not the government's business anyway.

ban marketing of violence to children - would that also include banning children from watching advertisements for news stations that cover the REAL violence the DLC supports?

Voluntary universal service - unnecessary, if kids want to serve they'll figure out how to do it. Mandatory national service is tatamount to slavery.


--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products

vague. Don't know if I agree or disagree

--Cut $300 billion in subsidies and invest it in innovation, education and growth

I agree, beter than using the money for corporate tax cuts -- unless thats what they mean by "innovation" or "growth". Then I'm not for it.

--Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four: college, homes, kids, universal pensions

Whether I like this depends on the net effect on the middle class and poor, as well as the federal revenue stream.

--Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door
Depends on specifics but I like the idea

--Ban partisan gerrymandering, and require states to offer a real choice

I definitely agree. This is the best idea out of all of them.

[SaveElmer]

129. Thanks for posting this...you have guts to do this around here

I don't agree with everything the DLC stands for, but most of the items on that list are pure mainstream Democratic values. The problem around here of course is that if you even mention the DLC in a moderately favorable light, or even have the audacity to suggest maybe it would be better to fight the Republicans instead of ourselves, you are immedietely branded a traitor to the Democratic cause and flamed mercilessly. Kind of like what the Republicans do when we criticize President Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

135. The DLC is repeating the same crap that Zell Miller did

and dolstein, the original poster, was a great fan of Zell Miller up until the time Zell endorsed Bush.

[SaveElmer]

139. So what!!!

Has nothing to do with now...has nothing to do with the subject.

Classic strategy, attack the messenger....

It's about having diversity within the party...it is possible to be a good and loyal Democrat and disagree about issues!!!!

Fine...I notice you say he was a fan of Zell Miller up until the time he endorsed Bush...which implies he stayed loyal to the party!!!

[bowens43]

141. Did you look at the message??

As hard as it is to believe , the message is worse then the messenger.

[SaveElmer]

144. Hardly...

I don't really agree with the DLC on eveything, particularly their approach to security issues, though I think incresing the size of the army is a good idea right now...

As for the rest there is nothing there that I couldn't support, and seems well within the Democratic mainstream

Something here you disagree with?

Values
--Adopt a uniform ratings system for all media
--Ban the marketing of violence to to children
--Enact a voluntary system of universal service

Opportunity
--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products
--Cut $300 billion in subsidies and invest it in innovation, education and growth
--Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four: college, homes, kids, universal pensions. (From and Reed call on Congress to enact the family-friendly tax reform plan proposed by Paul Weinstein of the Progressive Policy Institute. The plan can be found here: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=253276&su... )

Reform
--Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door
--Ban partisan gerrymandering, and require states to offer a real choice

[IndianaGreen]

148. Enact a voluntary system of universal service

Voluntary as in joining the Hitler Youth? That was voluntary as well, except that Pope Ratzinger said that there was nothing voluntary about it.

Universal service is another name for servitude to the State either in the military or as a homeland security spy.

[SaveElmer]

150. Ah yes...the Hitler reference!!!

Usually at least one in any DLC thread!!!

Yes, I am sure the folks at AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps will be glad to hear they are being compared to Hitler youth!!!

Of course you hate the DLC so much you do not make your argument on what they actually propose, just what you in your all-knowing wisdom think they are proposing.

As we know Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh and the rest just want to establish a fascist military organization to support them while they work toward their evil goal of world domination!!!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

151. You have been drinking too much Kool-Aid

None of the DLC darlings will get us out of Iraq. So if you want Americans troops to continue to die on account of a lie, by all means join the DLC and stay the course.

[SaveElmer]

155. Yes...the second DLC hater talking point

Since I don't toe the line on Iraq (of course I never stated my position on Iraq), I want kids to die!!!

[bowens43]

160. Yes, there is.

--Adopt a uniform ratings system for all media
--Ban the marketing of violence to to children

We don't need the government raising our children for us.

--Enact a voluntary system of universal service

How can a voluntary system be universal. This is pure hogwash and maybe the first step toward mandatory service.

--Create high wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter of energy-efficient products

How does the DLC feel about CAFTA? They support it. That kind of negates any good they might claim to want to do on the job front.

These, in addition to the ridiculous notion that we need to increase the size of the military are enough to make the DLC and anyone it supports irrelevant. The DLC is nothing more then a covert arm of the GOP.

[Q]

143. Diversity...or selling out those who need us the most?

Perhaps it's that many rank and file Democrats don't enjoy being played like a cheap fiddle? This DLC propaganda about 'diversity' and 'unity' is nothing more than an attempt to convince us that they have to screw the poor and working class so THEY CAN WIN ELECTIONS.

It used to actually mean something good to be a Democrat. Now it's all about winning and compromising with fascists. The ONLY ones who benefit in this scenario are those running for office...like the DLC's new chosen one: Hillary.

Even in Dolstein's posts....you can see the SEETHING hatred the DLC 'centrists' have for the 'fringe left'. But considering their numbers...it's the DLC that's the 'fringe' of the party. They don't represent a majority of Democrats and never will.

It's not 'diversity' to become like the opposition. It's not diversity to throw away values and principles so that a few chosen politicians have a better chance of winning elections.

[SaveElmer]

146. Well that didn't take long...

Let's drum out all moderate Democrats...every person who ever belonged to the DLC, or ever spoke favorably about them should not be allowed to call themselves Democrats..

Is that your solution? We don't agree with them so we aren't going to talk to them ?

Tom Vilsack...your gone!

Mark Warner...don't even think about running for President!

Hillary Clinton...we don't care about the 12 years of abuse you have endured at the hands of the Right Wing...you are now the enemy!!

Evan Bayh...sorry we don't need Indiana!!

Tom Carper...leave!!!


Now there's a winning strategy!!!

[IndianaGreen]

149. It was Al From who first said that the antiwar Democrats did not belong

in the party.

The ruling class is edging their bets and they want to ensure that the Democrats don't nominate someone that will challenge their comfortable station in life.

This is why the DLC HATES US! They don't want the rank-and-file to get funny ideas about empowerment.

[SaveElmer]

153. You are scared of Al From...

Please... the DLC belongs to its members...and I completely reject your ruling class crap. The DLC consists of moderate to slightly left leaning Democrats, fully within the mainstream. It is possible to disagree on things and still be a good Democrat.

It is funny how certain politicians are praised to the hilt here (Mark Warner for example), but as soon as they have the temerity to try and work with moderates they are immedietely branded the enemy.

I don't absolve the DLC from some of the attacks they have been making...but they are not the enemy...George Bush is the enemy

I would say give Hillary a chance to help unite the party

[IndianaGreen]

154. Bush and his enablers are the enemy

Bush did not go into Iraq by his lonesome. He had plenty of company, including leading Democrats.

The DLC advocates a personnel change in Washington. We want real change, a 180 degree turn in conservative policies put in effect by Bush and several of his predecessors, including Big Dog.

[SaveElmer]

157. Who do you want?

And yes, right now...if it was Hillary Clinton, or Mark Warner...I would take the personnel change!!! Because I believe they are compassionate thoughtful people who would think about what they are doing, and do what they thought was best, even if I disagreed with them!!!

[bvar22]

161. The DLC belongs to its Corporate financiers.

If the Corporate money stops flowing into the DLC, the DLC ceases to exist. The DLC has NO grassroots support. It is funded ONLY by Corporate interests whose SOLE purpose is to INCREASE the influence of Corporate money in the Democratic Party.

The MAJORITY of Americans (not just Democrats now) are AGAINST the current Free Trade policies, and yet, there is the DLC, supporting CAFTA and lauding the glories of Free Trade. Why is that?

The MAJORITY of Democrats (and now Americans) are AGAINST continuing the War on the Iraqi People, and yet, there is the DLC wanting to EXPAND the military and send MORE of our children to die protecting the Corporate interests in Iraq. Why is that?

Over 80% of Democrats favor mandating increased fuel effiency in our cars, and yet, the DLC calls them fringe Lefties and continues with support for gas guzzlers. Why is that?

[Q]

156. Why the hell do you think the DLCers call themselves 'new' Democrats?

It's because they hate the 'old' Democratic party that was beholden to the people.

Liberals and Progressives never had a problem working WITH moderates. Keep in mind that it was the DLC that broke away from the party and claimed to have a mandate to change it.

The DLC is an exclusive, elitist club and liberals and progressives aren't welcome.

The point of contention here is that the DLC has TAKEN control of the party and claim that ONLY they can win elections. They have joined WITH the RWing in trashing Liberals...accusing them of everything from 'supporting the terrorists' to being unAmerican.

You want to talk strategy? Then how about the DLC including Liberals and Progressives when it comes to working on an agenda? How successful of a strategy is it when the DLC wants to do all of this without input from the rest of the party?

Look at the DLC's rhetoric. They're the ones with the hateful talking points about the 'fringe left'. They have no intention of working with us to pen an agenda that appeals to the majority of Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

162. The people you mention in that post ...

If they're the best the Democratic Party has, we're in huge trouble.

What a bunch of empty suits and sellouts...

[AntiCoup2K4]

165. Tom Vilsack should be gone for the shit he pulled at the caucus in 2004

Instead he was rewarded by the pieces of shit who told him to do it.

[htuttle]

142. This would be an excellent agenda...for Republicans

Seriously. If someone were to ask me to write up an agenda for a non-Mafia Republican party (as opposed to the Cosa Nostra we have in power now), this agenda would be very much what I'd expect them to adopt.

But since we're Democrats, where's the agenda point on providing universal health care?

And cutting foreign oil 25% by 2025 is going to happen whether we try to do so or not -- there will probably be that much less available on the market by 2025 -- that's 20 years from now! We don't have that kind of time. We need to be far more aggressive about switching to non-petroleum energies.

And what about ensuring that we only provide the best trade deals to countries that guarantee a worker's right to collective bargaining? What else is going to equalize wages around the world if not unions? If we allow only corporations to equalize wages globally, they are going to do so DOWNWARD only.

And not a word about CO2 emissions? No word of climate change action?

There is a LOT this agenda is missing for Democrats, but as I said above, it would be a respectable agenda for the Republican party if they were sane again.

[kenny blankenship]

171. I thought I was reading the RNC platform

until I saw the DLC label on it, and then I realized I WAS reading the RNC's platform.

[mattclearing]

152. They can't be serious.

Require military recruiters on campus? This sounds like a great waste of taxpayer money, and seems vaguely sinister to me. "Grades not cutting it this semester? Join us and kill for the politicians!"

How about fixing our foreign policy so that voluntary military service won't seem pointless and suicidal?

Ban the marketing of violence to children? Is this like that flap about Bugs Bunny? Who decides? Nice First Amendment you have there. Sorry, kids, you can't watch Star Wars until you're 18.

I'm still not sure what "Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door," is supposed to mean. If they're talking about getting lobbyists out of public service and vice versa, that's freaking hilarious when you consider the source.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

163. A challenge to all DLC supporters--if you're brave enough to take it

I challenge every one of you to ride public transit in your city and eat in working class and lower middle class restaurants and LISTEN to what people talk about.

Oh, you'll hear a lot you don't like, a lot of people who are totally taken in by celebrity gossip or people who think Bush is "cool" or people who are bigoted against one or several groups.

But in between the stuff that you will find offensive, you will hear stories of people's everyday struggles: working at a minimum wage job with no sick leave and having to drag themselves out of bed on Monday because they can afford to be sick only on weekends, having to choose between medical care and utillity bills, talking about an $8/hour job as if it's some golden dream because they're making only $6 now, having to move because their rent went up and they don't have money for a deposit on a new apartment, losing jobs that they worked hard at for twenty years because their boss was looking for slave labor in the Third World, losing their pensions because of corporate mismanagement...

Or if rubbing shoulders with the working class is too "icky" for you, just ask every person you meet in the next few days what they think of the health care available to them.

Listen to those stories honestly, and then tell me what part of that lame DLC platform meets any of those needs.

[bvar22]

164. Great Post, LL.

I second that challenge to the DLC supporters.


There ARE some Democrats who DO understand what is important and what will make a diference to Working Americans.
You can find them here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[ConservativeDemocrat]

186. Been there, done that, got the second-hand t-shirt...

Now here's my challenge to you, Lydia. Talk politics to some of those people. Try to get them to choose their obvious economic self interest over their bigotry.

Try. I dare you.

For every statement you make about outsourcing, they'll find some retort cribbed directly from some GOP/Theocratic talking points that they see in the media every day. The vast majority of poor Americans think they're overtaxed. Too many vote for Republicans because they think their taxes will go down. They also think the government is just a big give-away program to the people they hate: Blacks in the south, Mexicans everywhere else. People who compete for their barely above minimum wage jobs.

Many think the U.S. shouldn't be trying to reason with arabs who shelter "insurgents" - we should just carpet-bomb their cities until they decide to stop or until there are none left. And mention any of the social welfare programs that would directly help them, and they're usually not interested. If they did that, they'd have to admit to themselves that they're poor. Poor = Loser. So they don't.

They do, however, vaguely remember that things were better under Clinton. And if you stay away from topics on which you disagree you can sometimes get them to admit it.

I find it rather laughable that the hard left hates the DLC so much while simultaneously saying that Democrats need to get better at messaging. That's what the DLC has been trying to do. It's policies are barely different from the vast majority of Democratic voters, it just restates them to make them more palatable to the kind of voters I've just described. It works too, as Clinton proved.

But no, it's much more important to be more leftist-than-thou than to actually win an election and help people. So they act like the very caricature that the right lampoons - jumping all over themselves to accuse U.S. soldiers of being war criminals, believing in lunatic conspiracy theories (Made It Happen On Purpose), and - most absurd of all - pretending that the Democratic centrists are the ones driving people from the party.

It'd be funny, if it weren't so sad.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. I have talked politics to some of these people

Not the freepers or Bushbots, but to the disillusioned who have given up on both parties.

The right has used race to divide and conquer the working class. You're right about that, but these ideas don't come from thin air. They are deliberately fostered through whispering campaigns. How often have you heard the lie that "You can't fire a black person"? I've heard it for forty years, and it's simply not true.

The key is to give people a VISION of a better life. The Republicans give them two false visions: a 1950s America that never was and a kickass ruler of the world, a vision that misdirects that underlying anger that working class people feel about their situation. The fundies give them a false vision of a fundamentalist Christian version of Iran.

Most voters are neither imaginative nor well-informed, and so it's up to political leaders to supply a vision of a better America and promote it. "More militarism" is the Republicans' current vision, so by pushing that, you're validating them. The same is true of "protect children from disturbing images." You're validating the Republicans' tendencies toward censorship and busybody interference in people's private decisions.

It all comes across as "Me, too, only not as much." That aping of Republican positions is the main reason that the 2000 election was close enough to steal. Remember, just a couple of days before the election, about 1/3 of the voters were undecided. That NEVER should have happened and would not have happened if Gore had not been afraid to differentiate himself from the Bushboy.

A better approach than playing "me too" is to zero in on the Republicans' weak points and provide a positive, alternative vision that can be stated on the back of a postcard.

[bvar22]

191. Not So!

"I find it rather laughable that the hard left hates the DLC so much while simultaneously saying that Democrats need to get better at messaging. That's what the DLC has been trying to do. It's policies are barely different from the vast majority of Democratic voters,"


The Hard Right DLC differs greatly in policy from the mainstream moderate Democratic Voter.

1) The MAJORITY of Democratic Voters (and recently the Majority of ALL voters) are NOT in favor of expanding the war in Iraq.

2)"At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way."

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020805&s=bo...



3)

Published on Friday, March 4, 2005 by The Nation
Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt
by Ari Berman

from the March 21, 2005 issue of The Nation


<snip>
"Major fissures emerged within the New Democratic movement as the DLC lost longstanding ideological and organizational support. Elaine Kamarck repudiated her "Politics of Evasion" argument--which laid out the policy blueprint for Clintonism--in a series of Newsday columns, arguing that the Dean campaign rendered the DC establishment "pretty much irrelevant." After Kamarck endorsed Dean in early January 2004, the DLC-friendly New Republic wrote: "Al From's Head Explodes." "The Democrats are not where we were fifteen years ago," Kamarck now says. "I think it's great that there's been a resurgence in grassroots activism on the left side of the party."
<end>
Read the rest of this article. Its GREAT!




4)

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich – they are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it – including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."

You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

5) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Democrats (and now the Majority of ALL voters) support Single Payer (Universal) HealthCare. The DLC does NOT!



The above is only a sample of the issues oriented data I have collected on the issues pushed by the DLC, and where these issues fall on the Political Spectrum. On issue after issue, the DLC falls well to the RIGHT of the Democratic Mainstream (Moderate). In fact, when polled on the individual issues, the MAJORITY of Democrats agree with Kucinich, which makes HIM the center mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Just the FACTS.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

192. Hey bvar22 and other non-DLC Dems!

Check out my thread on a proposed un-DLC agenda!

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1957833

[bvar22]

193. Hey LL,

I thought your thread was thought provoking, creative, and in places inspiring.
It was a welcome break to focus on what we COULD and SHOULD be doing!
You post is an example of "How to Create a Vision"!

I had one going myself this morning, but unlike yours, mine was an attack. (sank like a stone)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1957681&mesg_id=1957681

(just checked it to get the link. You already been there.)
I know what you have been doing ALL DAY. I've been doing the same thing. :+


Go to the Lounge and vote in the Photography Contest. There are some beautiful pictures there.

Bout time for a meetup.
:hi:

[MsTryska]

172. i'm with you.......

i can get behind pretty much everything listed - except the "increase troops" bit, (means we'll stay in IRaq even longer if we allow it, most of the family values crap, and i'm not sure what to make of the Make America the largest exporter of energy efficient products.


do we mean products manufactured on american soil, or product manufacteured by barely american companies?

[RetroLounge]

175. JoeMentum!

Whoo Hoo :bounce:

RL

[evolved Anarchopunk]

180. it's funny really-

if you put the phrase "Stop aiding our enemies through foriegn policy" or "legalize pot" under any of those headings and you might just have another 100-200 million people who might just give 2 shits or fuck about the DLC, cuz their a joke, a big fat, lazy, conservative, DINOsaur joke.

I will embrace them election day, however, as true comrades if they so please...

as for your input about mandatory military service
*shiver*
*shiver*
-Dr. Dre Voice- Ahhh nigga you craaazy

[corkhead]

183. where is election reform, or affordable healthcare?

this is bullshit. what does DLC stand for? Democratic LOSERship Committee? this looks like an agenda for the Washington Generals to try to beat the Harlem Globetrotters. Or Maybe Charlie Brown's plan to actually be able to kick the ball Lucie is holding for him, or Colmes plan to actually be able to be equal to Hammity.

If this is what I have to look forward to in 06 and 08, I might as well give up now. this is not an agenda worth fighting for.

[Burried News]

187. Opportunity?

[Walt Starr]

189. Talk is cheap, where;'s the plans

And screw thtwo thirds of the security crap.

how ya gonna create the jobs? Talk is cheap.

Adopt a universal rating system for all media? Sounds like Adopt Censiorship would be more like it, especially from the talk of the DLC scum lately.

More an more it's plain to see, we have met the enemy and he is us.

The DLC is more responsible for the ills of the Democratic Party than any other organization.

[BamaBecky]

190. I'm sick and tired of the same ole same ole......I want a new party with

new blood..........Washington is corrupt from stem to stern.......

We need to start OVER.....fresh faces, new ideas........

Bama

[ZombieNixon]

196. I think 1/3 of those proposals have some worth, the rest are crap

I'm just about to enter college, and I sure as hell don't want recruiters on campus. Especially when dealing with private colleges, is there any legal way the government can require the institution to allow recruiters on campus. Even with public universities, I still believe the issue should be left up to the college to decide. Requirement stinks of fascism to me.

[kiki]

198. No violent TV for the kiddies...

...but as soon as they turn 18, they get to play war for really reals!

Whatta woild!

[mongo]

199. Where's raise the minimum wage

or protect a woman's right to chose
or universal health care?