Can Democrats get the DLC to cease and desist: Control over DNC!

[W stands for Wacko]

http://www.dnc.org/

http://www.dlc.org

Is it possible that Democrats could file a lawsuit to challenge the DLC's apparent influence over the DNC?

The DNC is a political party.

The DLC is not.

The DLC is certainly not a lawfully recognized controlling organization of the DNC, yet, the DLC exercises control over the DNC.

The same can be said for the Republican Party and the Neo-cons over at PNAC.

What protections can a political party expect from the federal government in terms of outside political action organizations taking over those political parties?

Our political parties have become separated from the people and taken over by special interest groups sponsored by CORPORATIONS.

By definition, these political parties are not what they were when they were adopted by the American Public, IMO.

What recourse do we as Americans have in order to reclaim these political parties?

What federal protections exist for the Republican and Democratic political parties against exploitation by outside groups that are not political parties, such as I have described in this thread?

Please, forgive me if I am intellectually challenged on these issues, but it seems to me that there is not some impossible to understand or incomprehensible and voluminously prohibitive protocol preventing ordinary Americans from having exclusive rights over their political parties.

The notion that people are second to any other entity in terms of the purpose of any political party or the U.S. Constitution is just more of the same mentality that has led our nation to personify corporations and to give them preference over people in the actions of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branches of OUR federal government.

WHAT RECOURSE does the American Public have to boot out the corporate sponsored special interest organizations and their influence over our political parties and our federal government from OUR political parties?

PLEASE, SOMEONE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

[filthyrichkleptocrat]

1. Apparent influence?

Not apparent to me, how embarassing.

DNC Officers
Howard Dean, Chairman
Lottie Shackelford, Vice Chair
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Vice Chair
Rep. Mike Honda, Vice Chair
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chair
Mark Brewer, Vice Chair, Chairman ASDC
Andrew Tobias, Treasurer
Alice Travis Germond, Secretary
Maureen White, National Finance Chair
http://www.dnc.org/a/party/ourleaders.html

From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[The Judged]

3. New Democrats (DLC) are using DNC to promote their own agenda.

Most Americans probably don't have any understanding of what the DLC is, and how it is using the Democratic Party, and the resources of the Democratic Party, to accomplish its own goals, which are not the goals of the DNC and, I dare think, those who are registered voters in the Democratic Party.

Most of us probably don't realize how strong the DLC's grasp and direct influence over the Democratic Party is either, to the point that even if the DLC were forced by judicial decision to cease and desist from controlling DNC resources, their members would still be able to act in harmony as the leadership of the DNC to force the DNC to act in the interest of the DLC.

Yes, the leadership of both organizations APPEARS to be different!

But if they are different, then why would the DNC gladly do the bidding of the DLC?

Why would the DNC leadership succumb to the DLC agenda?

Why would the DNC cower to a minority of its members?

Why wouldn't the DNC use its resources to promote those who are in agreement with the Democratic Party members in the street - those Americans on whose backs the Democratic Party was built and now sleeps?

At first, I was taken back by the Neo-cons hijacking of the Republican Party.

I ran left and right, forward and backward, proclaiming what I had learned.

Now, I am more frightened than I have ever been in my life, because I ran straight to the enemy!

The enemy has infiltrated the leadership of the Democratic Party.

The enemy is the reason why the Democrats seem to stand for nothing!

Now, I realize that the Neo-cons had a better plan than I thought!

Hijack both parties!

Hedge the Bet!

Anything to accomplish their goals!

By what authority do these DLC New Democrat Coalition members of Congress act against the interests of the DNC?

How can the DNC allow its members to be members of a pseudo political party?

How can these DLC members use the resources and election network of the DNC to get elected?

Why is it that the DLC members of Congress and state governments are being showcased for higher political office and true blue DNC members of Congress and state office holders are not?

How can these DLC members of Congress, who are clearly a minority of the DNC members in Congress, dictate to the DNC and all members of the Democratic Party what agenda the Democrats in this nation will pursue, what judicial candidates the Democrats in this nation will accept, and the fate of all Americans registered to the Democratic Party?

Is the DLC's influence over the Democratic Party permitted by the U.S. Constitution?

Where does the DLC get its funding from?

Can someone create a flow chart to illustrate the funding of the DLC, and therefore the clout that the DLC's donors must yield over these politicians?

I'd like to see if there is actually a correlation between the DLC funding and the actual legislative actions of the DLC members of the Democratic Party in Congress and State and local governments.

About the Senate New Democrat Coalition

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

About the House New Democrat Coalition

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3869

Finally, if t looks like crap, and it smells like crap, then it is crap.

Shouldn't the DLC be forced to become a political party in itself?

After all, it is really acting as a political party.

Those of you who will claim that if the DLC splintered from the DNC into a separate official political party that then the Democratic Party would not succeed or get its members elected should awaken your minds to the reality that even if the DLC members of the Democratic Party get elected, the Democratic Party agenda is not being advanced.

In fact, the DLC is more in line with the Neo-con enabler movement within the Republican Party than with the Democratic Party, IMO.

The difference, it seems, is that the DLC is the Neo-cons' hedge bet.

Meaning that if the Republicans should find themselves in trouble, the DLC will step up for appearances sake and maintain the status quo for the Republicans until the American Public falls back asleep at the wheel and the Republicans can gain control.

There is only one problem.

After 2006, the Republican Party will probably have a Super Majority in Congress, providing that the vote is again left unprotected.

Once that happens, the DLC will be reduced to the nothingness they really are.

They have intoxicated the Democratic Party into letting them lead the way for all members of the Democratic Party and the rest of the American Public straight to hell: a fraudulent Democracy that on the surface appears legitimate, while beneath the surface uses that legitimacy to enact serfdom, a police state, and a return to horrific ancient methods of control over the population of the United States.

Can the Democratic Party be taken over by the people, for the people, and to again serve the people?

Or

Is it too late?

Is it too late to root out the corporate members of the Democratic Party?

Is it too late to root out the Corporate influence over the Democratic Party?

Is it too late to stand together as a people and to elect ourselves, using our majority population, which gives us strength in numbers, by word of mouth, and without the big money, in order to put our smartest ordinary people, people whom we can trust, into public office, from the local public offices to the highest public offices?

Is it too late?

I dare say, I HOPE NOT!

I ask once more: WHAT CAN THE DEMOCRATS DO TO MAKE THE DLC CEASE AND DESIST?

and

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN THE LEAD MESSAGE OF THIS THREAD?

[MrBenchley]

27. "I ask once more"?

So is The Judged and W for Wacko just one person posting under two accounts?

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Wjhat specifically has the DNC done that the DLC wanted it to do?

:shrug:

[renie408]

6. Is Al From the Democrat version of Grover Norquist? n/t

[MrBenchley]

8. Didn't you know?

The DLC has its sinister tendrils everywhere, exercising invisible mind control. There was a thread on here the other night that ripped the lid off the way the DLC made Howard Dean do damage control for his gaffe in San Antonion, either by threatening him or bribing him (the anti-DLC faction hinted at both but refused to answer questions about either).

[lvx35]

2. Its a good question as well.

Though I am personally not aware of the DLC exerting that much control over the DNC, though you may be right. But I am aware of the core point of your post, the level of corporate control. I think its the question of our time in a lot of ways, and its deep. The corporations rule as long as money dictates our lives. How we start to transcend money, make functioning systems that work outside of it? This is the revolutionary question...And unfortunatly, outside of answering it, I don't things can change in any fundamental way. I think the real radical thinking is economic at this point.

[mopinko]

4. they are picking our candidates. torpedoing good grassroots,

anti-war, progressive candidates, and replacing them with clones. the dccc is run by rahm emmanuel, a charter member of the dlc. check the chart of where abramoff's money went- the dscc and dccc got a nice chunk of change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

[sybylla]

33. The DSCC and the DCCC are not the DNC

While the DLC may have a great deal of influence over the DSCC and the DCCC (a fact for which I have seen no evidence to support or contradict), they are not the DNC. They don't pick candidates. But they do control a fair amount of money.

So then the answer is to give money to the DNC or directly to candidates rather than the legislative PACs.

And as far as torpedoing grass roots, I'd need some evidence for that.

Democratic politics 101 tells me that the members of the DNC are grassroots Dems. No one from the DLC, DSCC or the DCCC has any say over DNC activities nor grass roots organizations on the local level. NONE. Because they are separate entities entirely, completely lacking power at the grassroots level. This is the very reason Democrats chose Howard Dean as chair of the DNC. Perhaps I'm fortunate in that I live in a state that broke its political machines over 100 years ago, but the kind of manipulations you describe never happen here.

Seriously, I'd like to see evidence of any Dem organization "picking candidates, torpedoing good grassroots, anti-war, progressive candidates and replacing them with clones." I would like to know what to watch out for if they try to bring that crap to my area.

[mopinko]

35. is 44% of the vote in a formerly red district in '04

2nd round dean dozen, 100 volunteers, increases in both number and size of grassroots contributions, a constant presence in the district for 3 years, lifelong resident, what you would call a bad candidate?

[iconoclastNYC]

5. DLC: Fellating Corporatists since 1985 ®

[MrBenchley]

7. Point by point, to counteract the hysteria

A) Anyone can sue anyone, except for citizens who wish to sue the gun industry for their irresponsible activities (the NRA and the GOP took away your rights to a day in court recently). Still the likelihood of Democrats suing each other (and on what grounds, one wonders idly) is unimaginably remote.

B) The DLC "controls" the Democratic party? That's news to me, and I'm sure it will be news to your fellow DLC-bashers who have to devoted umpty-ump threads to assuring us that the DLC is desperate, it's failing, it's unpopular and about to defect to the GOP, etc. Of course, they're full of crap, but that's what they post.

Of course, if the DLC did "cotnrol" the Democratic party, they would be utterly unlikely to sue themselves, wouldn't they?

C) When you say, "The same can be said for the Republican Party and the Neo-cons over at PNAC" what exactly do you mean? The GOP is about to sue "neocons"? Where's this about to happen?

D) "What recourse do we as Americans have in order to reclaim these political parties?" you ask. As I see it you have two courses of action:
--You could appeal to voters' enlightened self-interest and use calm reasoned arguments to convince them of the rightness of your cause, or
--you could post something like this.

E) You say, "By definition, these political parties are not what they were when they were adopted by the American Public, IMO."
Very true. When Americans first became Democrats (and ironically, called themselves Republicans in those days), it was because they wished to follow Thomas Jefferson and his cronies, and support such issues as the Tripoli war and the Louisiana Purchase.

F) You say "it seems to me that there is not some impossible to understand or incomprehensible and voluminously prohibitive protocol preventing ordinary Americans from having exclusive rights over their political parties."
Very true. All you have to do is convince the majority of your fellow citizens of the truth and necessity of your cause. I'll wait right here.

[Peace Patriot]

10. While the lawsuit suggestion is off the wall (desperation, I think), you

have not answered the point of the OP by saying "All you have to do is convince the majority of your fellow citizens of the truth and necessity of your cause."

What pious, cynical BS! Really. His POINT is that he and the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO OPPOSE THE IRAQ WAR and every other Bush policy, foreign and domestic, can NEVER GET THERE. We can never have our MAJORITY view advocated by the Dem Party presidential candidate. The DLC--a corporate-controlled outside lobbying group--is CHOOSING our candidates.

Do you think that the destruction of the Howard Dean antiwar campaign--over a doctored sound tape--constituted a free and fair discussion of the anti-Iraq war position of most Americans?

And where was the LABOR UNION position--and the position of hundreds of environmental and humanitarian groups, and that of the FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE who shut down the WTO in Seattle in 1999--on global "free piracy" (i.e., "free trade") agreements, within the Clinton administration? They gassed us and perpetrated a police riot against us in Seattle. They promised us labor and environmental protections in those agreements prior to the election, and broke their promises afterward. No labor and environmental protections. None.

And when they slandered these FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE, and the MANY MILLIONS we represented, on the covers and front pages and TV screens of every war profiteering corporate news monopoly in the country--making it appear that WE rioted--where were the DEMOCRATS to defend us and to repair the damage inflicted by NAFTA, GATT and all the rest? They were stuffing their faces at corporate lunches sponsored by the DLC!

So THAT's the problem. We get no advocate. We get no help. We get screwed. And we ARE the MAJORITY.

Fracturing and splintering the center/left is not a wise policy to suggest, and not a wise course of action. THAT's what happened in Germany in the 1930s, paving the way for Hitler's rise.

What we want is for the Democratic Party to jettison this overweening influence of the Corporate Rulers, and START REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!

Because nobody is. Those who try CANNOT survive the primaries without the DLC's filthy crown on their heads. They will be targeted and removed. And that is not right.

And now I have a question for you: Why is the Democratic Party leadership supporting Diebold (Bush backers) touchscreen electronic voting machines (paperless, no audit trail, no recount possible) in California, North Carolina and other places--and why are they supporting ANY election system run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming, controlled by Bushite corporations?

That is INSANE. So you tell me what you make of this insanity.

My opinion? Not all Dems support it. Russ Holt, for instance, is fighting it with a good bill, HR 550, in Congress. And I think we'll find a DNC/DLC dividing line between Dems who support honest, transparent elections, and those who don't. Those who support the corporate privatization of our election system, and control of vote tabulation by Bushite corporations, will turn out to be DLC, who have sold away our very right to vote to the global corporate predators that they are beholden to.

[MrBenchley]

11. THAT was the point of the OP? News to me.

If you want your complaint answered, I'd be happy to do that.

"Do you think that the destruction of the Howard Dean antiwar campaign"
Now I hope you're not telling us that all of the other Democrats running were pro-war....because that would be full of crackers. And yeah, it was awful that folks made fun of Howard...but he wasn't exactly setting Democrats on fire up to that point anyway. A lot of Democrats preferred candidates they'd actually heard of (or had supported from the git-go) and many of those who were familiar with Dean considered him too right wing and wishy-washy (check out his stance on flag-burning if you want to see a dainty toe dance) for their tastes.

Much of the call for protest in Seattle in 1999 was loudly anti-Democrat and anti-Bill Clinton, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to you that Democrats sat on their hands and didn't support the rioters afterwards. (For that matter, I don't remember Dean saying boo about the mess in Seattle). And there were groups threatening (and chortling over) violence in Seattle before the event ever took place. So excuse the fuck out of me if I say your protestation of innocence rings a bit hollow.

"What we want is for the Democratic Party to jettison this overweening influence of the Corporate Rulers, and START REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!"
And of course, you KNOW exactly what "THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!" want, and god help them if they want something else.

"Why is the Democratic Party leadership supporting Diebold"
Yeah? Which leaders are these? Be sure and show us exactly how they're supporting it.

Here's the California Democratic party's website. Show me the support for Diebold.

http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.947937/k.CC3A/Home.htm

Here's the North Carolina Democratic party's website. Show me the support for Diebold.

http://www.ncdp.org/

"And I think we'll find a DNC/DLC dividing line between Dems who support honest, transparent elections, and those who don't."
But since I actually read what the DLC says, I doubt that.

By the way, it's Rush Holt, not Russ. And he's a member of the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=253190

[NoFederales]

9. I think that a resurgence of democratic organization at the local level

and up is the only way to take back the Democratic Party. Howard Dean is correct in getting people to realize that funding must come from those democratically organized people. It's a helluva daunting prospect. Dean is belittled by the DLC and many others, but he is spot on in terms of organization. The message is clear--get corporate influence out of politics. That means you don't take their money to do their bidding. That means Congress has to pass election reforms specifically targeting how money flows into the political processes.

We need help from the bottom up AND the top down, but we need it from democratically principled individuals. Who will that be?

NoFederales

[sybylla]

34. That's it - that's why grassroots Dems made Howard Dean their leader

You nailed it. Howard Dean is getting guff because the DLC and it's corporate sponsors don't like him.

In reality, the DLC has no influence over the DNC. The real issue is money. Howard Dean broke the corporatist DLC hold on Dem politics with his fundraising and ass-kicking, in-your-face politics. When Howard Dean was elected Chair of the DNC by Dems like you and me, you witnessed and official boot to the ass of the centrist philosophy. It was in its final throes when Terry McAuliffe left - probably the reason he didn't stick around. Howard Dean is battling the DLC and their philosophy in the media and with money - the only thing that seems to talk in politics.

Definitely get involved with the party at the local level and don't give your money to PACs like the DSCC and DCCC. Send your cash directly to Dems who share your beliefs and are willing to fight the status quo. And if you send money to the DNC, I have no doubt it will be used to support grassroots efforts nationwide.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. I suppose if you can't win at the ballot box

you can try in the courtroom. I doubt that anyone would have the nerve to file such a lawsuit.

[MrBenchley]

13. Appears we're the victim of a hit and run....

[The Judged]

15. "I suppose if you can't win at the ballot box" rehashing Bush 2000?

That is what happened.

The lawyers for Bush/Cheney took it to the SCOTUS to stop the State of Florida from carrying out its election laws.

Why are you mentioning that in this thread?

Taking legal action to force the DLC to cease and desist from its operations from within the DNC and to cause the DLC to become a political party itself, if its goal is to get its candidates elected, is in the interest of the Democratic Party.

DLC candidates should use the DLC resources to get their candidates elected, not DNC resources.

Your comments are very degrading, IMO.

Next time, try making a difference that is good hearted and helpful to others, rather than slanderous and vindictive.

Thanks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Crybabies who cannot achieve their goals by winning elections

against other Democrats will never be able to beat Republicans. Wnat to get rid of the DLC? Run primary opponents against DLC members of Congress. Unless you are afraid that you will lose.

[W stands for Wacko]

14. Thank you for your responses, thus far. Can anyone answer MY questions?

Some of you have your own questions, but who of you has the answers to my questions?

BTW, Is it faulty logic to state that an organization is beyond contempt or wrongdoing on the basis of an evaluation of each of their activities and policies one at a time and refusal to evaluate the total impact of that organization, or is it correct logic to also take into consideration the net effect of that organizations impact?

To suggest that an organization cannot be VERY influential over another organization because of a lack of VISIBLE and direct control over it, even as membership in both organizations is required for for the members of the smaller seemingly non-controlling organization, and to ignore questions about the net effect of that smaller organization's influential relationship over the larger organization, on the basis that if you cannot see it it doesn't exist, is intellectually dishonest.

The DLC is not a lawfully recognized political party, but the net effect of that organization's activities are clearly to benefit from use of its co-dependency on the DNC for use of resources in getting its own membership elected and re-elected, getting its own membership to hold positions of prominence in the Democratic Party, and advancing its own political platform that is supported by corporate donors who otherwise are not supporting the platforms and candidates of the Democratic Party.

It is the transparency of the DLC's leadership in the DNC, the transparency of the DLC's steering of DNC resources toward their causes and members, and the transparency of the DLC's steering of the DNC platform toward their own that are questionable.

Yet, there are those, in DU, that point to DLC transparency as evidence that DLC influence over the DNC doesn't exist.

Fortunately, the argument that ones impact on another is non-existent, because one chooses not to acknowledge it or recognize it, it not a legitimate legal argument.

Yet, some people are strictly guided by such logic, even in their attacking demeanor toward those that are within their rights and supported by facts in their assertions of such impact.

If the DLC is not a pseudo-political party operating from within the DNC, then how is it that they openly advertise their own DLC political agenda which is not in line with the stated agenda of the DNC, they embrace the DLC political platform once elected, and they actively recruit DNC members to carry out their platform?

How can the DNC permit such dueling and contradictory agendas to be funded, endorsed, and supported by the DNC membership?

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Sure. The lawsuit would fail

What specific laws have the DLC broken?

[MrBenchley]

21. Can you understand his new "transparency" beef?

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. I certainly understand his beef, but

I fail to see how these concerns rise to the level of a legal controversy. There are no laws against what he is alleging that the DLC is doing.

[MrBenchley]

23. I guess what I'm asking is how is "transparency" "questionable"?

I could see somebody bitching about a lack of transparency, but this is the first time I ever heard anybody COMPLAINING that he could see what was going on...

[MrBenchley]

28. By the way....

Go re-read the original post, fi you can bear it, and then read post #3, "I ask again"

Isn't it supposed to be verboten to operate under more than one account?

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. How about treason?

Since they support this fucked up foreign policy of corporatist/Likudist imperialism which favors the interests of Israel and Texaco above the security of the United States.

[MrBenchley]

20. I already did, W for wacko...and you don't want to acknowledge it

"To suggest that an organization cannot be VERY influential over another organization because of a lack of VISIBLE and direct control over it, even as membership in both organizations is required for for the members of the smaller seemingly non-controlling organization, and to ignore questions about the net effect of that smaller organization's influential relationship over the larger organization, on the basis that if you cannot see it it doesn't exist, is intellectually dishonest."
So in other words, it's intellectually dishonest of ME to point out your claims are both unsupported by evidence and palpably untrue....

"The DLC is not a lawfully recognized political party, but the net effect of that organization's activities are clearly to benefit from use of its co-dependency on the DNC for use of resources in getting its own membership elected and re-elected"
Who are Democrats. The exact same thing could be said of the Progressive Democrats of America...a group that not even the progressives here seem to give two shits about.

"It is the transparency of the DLC's leadership in the DNC, the transparency of the DLC's steering of DNC resources toward their causes and members, and the transparency of the DLC's steering of the DNC platform toward their own that are questionable."
How so? How is this "transparency" questionable?

"there are those, in DU, that point to DLC transparency as evidence that DLC influence over the DNC doesn't exist"
Show us one of "those," please.

"If the DLC is not a pseudo-political party operating from within the DNC, then how is it that they openly advertise their own DLC political agenda which is not in line with the stated agenda of the DNC"
Yeah? Prove it. Show us both stated agendas so we can compare them, side by side.

"How can the DNC permit such dueling and contradictory agendas to be funded, endorsed, and supported by the DNC membership?"
First show us the contradictions in the agendas. Then show us the overlap between the two groups.

[savemefromdumbya]

16. What is the DLC for anyway?

:sarcasm:

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. It's...

The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. Under the leadership of founder and CEO Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service.

[UDenver20]

24. They have the same rights to exert their opinions and influence....

over the party we SHARE with them as you and I do.

If we don't like that, and if we change that, we become no better than the Republicans.

[Writer]

25. They have control of the DNC?

That's news to me. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

26. And that's why they're going to sue themselves....

[Writer]

29. I just read the rest of this thread...

and I am baffled by this notion of a DLC "in control." It's a claim esconsed in so much magical realism that I simply don't understand its origins.

Also there is this bizarre battle against "corporatism" (a term that, itself, I believe is inane). America is a capitalist nation, therefore, corporations will exist. The problem is not corporations, the problem is conglomeration of corporations, or unregulated corporations. We do not need to be anti-business to be anti-conglomeration.

Shall I pen a new term: "conglomeration-ism?" It seems more appropriate. Because, you know, the English language can't have enough -ism's. :eyes:

I believe this stems from a widespread sensation of powerlessness from liberals/Democrats. The liberal/Democrat world view is getting raped by another world view that in no way resembles it, and Democrats feel (I emphasize FEEL) they have no recourse. So the impulse is to attack vociferously that power that suppresses them.

For some reason, many perceive the DLC as a power that suppresses when it's simply another means to achieve the same ends that liberals pursue. Many don't agree with what the DLC stands for, and they are entitled to that opinion. Yet the paranoia I read from many liberals seems self-defeating. Every brick in the wall that comprises the liberal world view is under attack in their opinion, and they fear that losing even one brick in this wall will make the entire structure crumble. Therefore, every single brick is so precious and cannot be refuted - even if all the other bricks remain without provocation.

I don't see a solution here until we continue to wiggle out of this disease and ethically-deficient era in which we currently live and start winning a few elections. Liberals will win some and DLC-types will win others. Instead of battling apparent suppressors, we will be celebrating with champagne.

I rest easy in light of the internecine warfare. I, for one, am not afraid of the DLC or of liberal "grassroots" organizations. I am so grateful for both. I just wish they'd both shut up from time to time and let the rest of us figure out a way to whip the Culture of Malignant Narcissism currently gripping this nation.

[MrBenchley]

32. It's like a trip through the fun house at the carnival

What baffles me is that some "progressives" here seem more than content to wallow in their own powerlessness, as if they get a sick masochistic thrill from victimhood.

There's a organization for progressives JUST LIKE the DLC for centrists...except that not even the progressives here pay much attention to it. (weirdly enough, one of the few times it's been mentioned in the past month, other than by me, was in a DLC bashing thread claiming that the DLC was "desperate" due to that group's success). What few threads exist that are positive are started by folks with the group...and the threads always die within one or two posts for lack of support.

If they started threads promoting the group's solutions and programs, perhaps they could find common ground with moderate Democrats such as myself. But where's the fun in that?

[autorank]

30. The law treats corporations as "a person" There's your problem.

"Persons," you, me and every f'ing corporation in America all have the same rights to free speech.

To change what you want, this has to be changed. I'm not sure about how rock solid this is but it's a problem with campaign finance reform, for example. You can't limit "free speech" for GM just as you cant for we the people.

Sue DLC, don't know about that. Maybe just write a boat load of letters and get local committees to demand that the party reflect the will of its members. It's ultimately like employee owned corporations. Lets use SAIC as an example. It's a huge DC consulting form headed by a Kenneth Dahlberg who came to be known in Watergate times for depositing money in the account of a Watergate figure, one of the buglers I believe. He was never indicted. He's president of SAIC. The employees probably don't like that, I'm sure they don't, but the structure of "employee owned" corporations is such that their will doesn't matter. That's how I see the political system. Our votes are gladly taken (and stolen, not so gladly) and it looks like we have a say but there are all these layers between the masses and the representatives. They say that they represent us tub I doubt it.

Sorry I don't have better news but, hey, I could be wrong.

Good question though, keep plugging.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Corporations do not have the same rights as individuals

For example, individuals are permitted to donate $2000 per candidate per election for those running for federal office. Corporations are not permitted to donate any money to federal candidates.

[autorank]

38. They don't have exactly the same rights but in law they're treated as

though they were a person. It's a huge difference from treating them like regulated entities. It's a lot harder to regulate a person.

[wyldwolf]

31. bwahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha

Let me catch my breath.

[LoZoccolo]

40. What's funny to me is their total lack of acknowledgement...

...of how the system works, which would involve admitting that it's up to them to change things.

I'm not going to advocate the destruction of the DLC, but I'll tell people how to do it if they want to know:

People submit ballot petitions with a minimum number of signatures to get their candidate on the primary ballot. They then convince people to vote for the candidate in the primary. If their candidate is favored over the DLC candidate, then the DLC candidate will have no chance of winning the general election and governing.

Will they get this done? Which is easier: working, or complaining?

[The Judged]

41. So true! If only the Democratic Party knew this! Right?