Okay, I admit this....I support the DLC

[...of J.Temperance]

I'm a Democrat and I support the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC raises huge amounts of money for my party, the DLC supports and campaigns for my parties many talented politicians.

I'm proud of my party, and I'm proud of the DLC, without the DLC we wouldn't have had President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore.

There, so I've said it and I now feel a lot warmer and fuzzier.

[Skink]

1. The DLC that Clinton was part of still belonged to the Democratic party

[cally]

2. You are brave

I support much of what the DLC did to give us Clinton and Gore. I think they've jumped the shark since * and helped to push the Dems to appease the RW rather than fight back. The DLC has certainly helped with fundraising.

[...of J.Temperance]

12. I was nervous about posting this thread

Then I thought, what the heck I'll just post it.

I'm not 100% content about what the DLC have been doing. Just like a lot of people I'm appalled at the often support for the nightmare that is Iraq. I'm also not 100% content with Al From, and I'm rather uncomfortable with a lot of statements that Marshall Whittman comes out with.

However, as I've stated many times, we can't agree on 100% of things, but I'm content agreeing on 60% of things.

The DLC raises funds for my party in ways that the DNC cannot, and it's an important arm of the Democratic Party.

[fooj]

37. I look at it as being a Democrat. Period.

IMO, there is NO DIVISION NECESSARY! DNC, DLC..blah, blah, blah...

A UNIFIED PARTY is what I'd like to see. A united Democratic Party...it's the divisive behavior that concerns me. If the DLC raises funds for "my party" then what party does the DLC belong to? I mean...aren't they Democrats, too? Solidarity goes a long way...

A girl can dream, can't she?

Peace.

[...of J.Temperance]

39. This is such a nice post fooj

Thanks :) I agree with what you say, but I felt the need to post this thread because, well, it seems like we can't go a day without some huge DLC thread that's negative.

The negativity has to become positivity, as you say, we're all Democrats, and the Democratic Party is our party....and thinking positive is a winning philosophy.

Heck I now need to have a nap some!

[fooj]

41. You are too kind.

It just seems like common sense to me. :grouphug: We are all in this together, right?

Peace.

[ronnykmarshall]

141. Unified?

Oh sweetie, you really are dreaming ain't ya? This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. DLC and Satan and Hillary Clinton is his spawn.

Haven't you got the memos?

[depakid]

3. Who'd have thought?

LOL.

It's OK. From yesterday's Warner thread, we knew anyway. ;)

[...of J.Temperance]

20. Darn, I thought I was being rather subtle with the Warner thread :)

LOL!!!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

7. well put, and quite correct

When will we learn

[FrenchieCat]

26. War?

What War?....as most in the DLC would say!

[Lost-in-FL]

29. Not in my case...

That is one of the few things I don't like about the DLC. Like someone mentioned, you don't have to agree with something a 100%. I don't agree with some of the stuff here at DU and my I guess is that many people either.

[...of J.Temperance]

32. I think the classic example of the 100% thing is Senator Lieberman

I'm appalled by Senator Lieberman's support of the Iraq War Civil War Quagmire. However, Senator Lieberman is pro-Choice, pro-Minimum Wage, pro-Civil Rights, pro-Union et al.

So, whilst I cannot agree with Senator Lieberman regarding Iraq, I completely agree with him on social issues.

You can't have a 100% pure candidate or politician and nor should you, I don't think it's good agreeing on 100% of the issues. If I can agree with a candidate or politician on 60% of the issues, then that's good enough for me.

I would rather have a Democrat in office that I agreed with on 60% of the issues....than have a Republican in office that I disagree with on 100% of the issues.

To me I see this as being pragmatic.

[smoogatz]

92. Lieberman is pro pro-choice-lip-service

but showed his true colors in the Alito cloture vote. He's a craven Bushco appeaser, and is complicit in undermining reproductive rights for all American women. We all need to support Ned Lamont in the CT primary.

[still_one]

5. and we can thank clinton for NAFTA

and the beginning of jobs being off-shored

The DLC has made us what we are today, ineffective. They support the Iraq war, they are for the patriot act, and I see very little difference between what they represent, and what comes out of this administration

[...of J.Temperance]

9. Vice-President Al Gore supported NAFTA as well

If you can remember, Vice-President Gore went on Larry King Live and debated NAFTA with the batshit crazy Ross Perot.

I have been against the Iraq War from day one and I'm still against the Iraq War. It was and is pointless and it's cost many lives in the cause of nothing.

I have been against the Patriot Act from day one and I'm still against the Patriot Act.

The DLC is a big tent, just like as a whole the Democratic Party is a big tent. We have differing views on a wide range of topics, and this is a good thing, because heck it'd be immensely tedious if we agreed on everything all of the time.

[still_one]

53. The DLC IS NOT A BIG TENT

and disagreeing a a wide range of topics is NOT necessarily bad, but when they don't encompass fundamental issues such as abortion, civil rights, and illegal wars, and THEY decide who will be the nominee, I want nothing to do with them, and if they continue to exert the power they do on the Democratic party, then I will have nothing to do with that democratic party either

[karynnj]

69. It is a pretty wide tent from its most conservative to most liberal

members. I don't think they decide who the nominee is, but they can certainly help the candidate(s) they want. They have money and organization and that helps. But if you look at 2004, they likely would have preferred Lieberman, Clark (mostly Clinton support), or Edwards. By January 2004, they didn't want Dean. They gave Kerry no support until he started winning - and even when he was the nominee, they spend more time complaining he wasn't Clinton, then helping him.

What this says is that something DID change in 2004. Dean and Kerry are the two people who generated the most support up from the grassroots - and for all 2003/2004, they not the party's favorites were the top candidates. Lieberman who led polls in 2002 and 2003, had no genuine support at all.

[karynnj]

67. In fairness, jobs were being outsourced

prior to NAFTA. The changes in technology that made it feasible and the wage diffrencial that made it possible were already there. Most of the out sourced jobs have nothing to do with NAFTA.

[ulysses]

6. I'd have never known.

:think:

[...of J.Temperance]

23. Stop that!!!!

:rofl:

[jpgray]

8. Sorry, but in the words of Mark E Smith

"The difference between you and us is we have brains."

The DLC does some good, yes, but they are as strategically moronic as Ralph Nader.

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Gosh, hello my fellow fan of The Fall and the mighty Mark E. Smith!!!!

As you can see from my username, although DU informed me that The Impression of J.Temperance had too many letters :(

The DLC cannot be compared to the idiot Ralph Nader, sorry.

[ulysses]

11. LOL!

The DLC cannot be compared to the idiot Ralph Nader, sorry.

Absolutely not! After all, Al From has led us from success to success.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. Yes and Ralph Nader gave us Junior in the 2000 election

If Ralph Nader would have just fucked off with his pointless and bitter and useless Green Party, then Vice-President Al Gore would have got most of the votes that Nader got....thus the 2000 election wouldn't have even got to the Supreme Court with Fat Tony.

[ulysses]

16. a lot of power you give Nader and the Greens there.

You might want to ramp up the DLC apologia some.

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Ralph Nader had power in ONLY one state, he got in the way

Like the irritating, lop-sided weasel faced little twit that he is.

[ulysses]

19. because name-calling is such an effective way

to bring people to your point of view.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. Well I don't want to bring Ralph Nader to my point of view do I?

Gosh, I'd rather just shoot myself than have to tolerate Ralph Nader babbling on incoherently at me.

He does have a lop-sided face, he does look rather like a weasel....and his party the Green Party is funded by and large by the Republican Party.

[Armstead]

58. And Bill Clinton has a balloon nose -- How is that relevant?

And Ralph nader's face is lopsided because he has a nerve condition.

[...of J.Temperance]

78. President Clinton isn't an election spoiler like Ralph Nader is

So because Ralph Nader is an election spoiler, I think I've got a right to say anything I want to about him.

I wasn't aware that Ralph Nader had that nerve condition, so obviously had I have known then I wouldn't have commented that about his face....however I stand by my previous comments about him.

[Armstead]

97. I will repeat my request to another poster on this thread...

Forget about nader's role as a spoiler (which I also have problemns with) and look at his positions on real issues. Tell me what are so awful or radical about his stands on issues like economic justice, restraining elite power and encouraging grassroots civil society that is so radical that Democrats should not be able to hold similar positions?

[LincolnMcGrath]

99. I've tried as well. Nader was a non-issue in 00 and 04.

ahem: For the hundredth time DUers,

The votes outside the two big party were at historic lows in 00 and 04!

Not that it will be heard this time.

[...of J.Temperance]

109. Hey, I can't hear you....could you shout that a bit louder huh?

;)

[ronnykmarshall]

139. He's gotta lot of nerve.

[ronnykmarshall]

142. Oh dear.

:popcorn:

[BootinUp]

13. Don't let em get you down J.

The spine meme rules around here: Ignore the opinion of the voters, stand up beat your chest and declare your favorite conspiracy theory, proceed to win elections.

Then there is the wishing for the 50's meme: Ignore the effect of manufacturing competition from around the world when attacking elected party members.

As for tax policy we will never make any progress reversing the damage from Reagan years if we keep loosing elections because of points 1 and 2.

[...of J.Temperance]

17. Yes, beat your chest and bang those pots and pans!!!!

Ignore the mainstream voters and just preach to the choir, and of course that really wins elections doesn't it?

You know I agree with your points and I like your posts Jim :)

[Armstead]

60. Ignore the effects on manufatcuring?

The DLC/NAFTA/GOP/WTO crowd arte the ones who are ignoring the effects of global competition on industry.

They have this weird belief that you can create a level playing field between between workers in impoverished countries with a prevailing wage scale of $20 a day and the United States, and that this will have no negative impact on America's economy and standard of living.

The globaslists are the ostriches.

[BootinUp]

70. You seem to think

That you can control what people do with their money. The best you can do with government policy is to create incentives. In the end the investor decides what to do.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

96. I expect better from you

Than name calling.

My grandfather was a union man at Ford and a Democrat, my parents are Democrats, I am a Democrat. If you don't believe me, just let me know, I can arrange to prove it to you.

Certainly you can use tariffs to protect certain industries. I think economists would advise against long term tariffs as a means of propping up industries that cannot compete. But I am not saying I would never support tariffs. Make a case with specifics that can be debated, I guess that would be better than name calling.

[Armstead]

100. I apologize, but my name calling was in response to your dismissive tone

I try to keep debate civil, but sometimes my Irish dander gets raised. I apologize if it seems like name calling.

My basic point was that taken as a whole, the idea that "free markets" should dictate everything, and that we have no ability to intervene through actions like trade policies and anti-monopoly regulation is the core of the Republican conservative philosophy.

Liberals believe that free enterprise and international trade are necessary and good, but that they do require clear guidelines and regulations to restrain the tendency of economic forces to devolve into oligopolies and erode the position of workers and consumers and the public basis of democracy.

The Republian conservatives have been relentlessly pushing rightwards away from a balanced position for many years. So what is portrayed by the corporate media and political collaborators in both parties as the "center" is actually far to the right of where most people are in their guts.

The major problem for the Democratic Party is not that liberals are out of step with what the majority of Americans want and believe in. It is that the Democratic party has stopped championing those liberal instincts for too long.

[BootinUp]

103. I never took the extreme position

Economic theory changes over time. Where are the experts with credentials who are advocating tariffs? I'll be glad to throw my weight behind a credible plan provided it appears to have some momentum and makes sense in laymans terms.

I read statistics, I know that the middle class and down are losing their share of the pie. I am here offering my advice for exactly that reason. I don't expect a lot of bloggers here to agree with me. But I still get to have my say too.

[Armstead]

105. I will try to dig up some links when I have time

There are numerous "legitimate" eonomic arguments against the phony form of "free trade" that has been pushed for the last 15 years.

Some of them are simply based on "What does your instinct tell you?" Others are more based on statistics and analytical models.

I'm kind of busy at the moment (popping in and out of DU while working) but i will try and locate some links for you.

In the meantime, I'd suggest an exercise. Ask yourself some questions that an average working person might ask about all of this.

Such as: "How will it help me and my community to close our local factories and send our jobs to China?"

"How am I supposed to pay my basic expenses if my competition is in some country where they pay people $10 a day?"

"Why is the CEO of my company telling me i have to take a pay cut or lose my job, while he is making $15 million a year plus bonuses?"

And, in a more altruistic vein:

"How is it helping some farmer in India to push him off his farm and forcing him to work on a plantation as a modern serf?"

"Why is it necessary to pay poverty wages to overseas workers in dangerous sweatshops, when the companies that contract for their work are making billions in profits?"

These are not radical or leftist questions. They're the kind of questions that average ordinary people are asking everyday. The problem is that hardly anyone is addressing them in Washington.

[BootinUp]

107. I'm well aware of these economic issues

as I indicated already. Emotional pitches are not what I was looking for. So if you find something with more meat let me know.

[Armstead]

113. You are contradicting yourself by calling them "emotional pitches"

You say you want the Democratic Party to address the concerns of "the center." but at the same time, you dismiss the real questions as too "emotional" and just a "pitch."

My point in asking those questions was very "pragmatic." The Democratic "centrists" either ignore or dismiss those concerns whenever they are raised.

"Losing your job to outsourcing? That's okay just get training for the great new jobs that are being created."

But when it is pointed out that the great new jobs are also being outsourced, the answer is "Don't be so old-fashioned and leftist. Just go out and get trained for the new,new jobs that are being created."

Lemme put it another way. in the middle decades of the 20th Century, the US had a lot more guidelines and standards of behavior that business was eitehr required or expected to follow. For example, the minimum wage was allowed to rise periodically to reflect the rising cost of living.

That was also the period of America's greatest prosperity in a broad sense, both for business and for average workers.

Although some rethinking was required in the 70's, it was NOT necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater by moving so far in the opposite direction towards totally unrestrained corporate power and Markets Uber Alles.

How about recognizing that core fact, as a starting point for any attempt to really address the concerns of Americans who are oppressed by the reversal of the last 30 years away from a balanced approach to a completely Corporate domonated and right-wing reliance on Milton Friedman?

As part of the answer, let's recognize that not too long ago policies like protectionism did help to protect America from being ravished by the forces of unrestrained markets and amoral global capital.

[BootinUp]

117. No, but I think we are going round in circles

I disagree with your perception that elected Dems dismiss these issues because of lack of caring or concern. And that was not why I dismissed them either. The failure is in having workable solutions that attract consensus of opinion. That is primarily a job for economists. Politicians should be selecting economists that work the problem with the right goals in mind and that have a level of respect in their field.

I sincerely doubt there are easy fixes, it took awhile to make this mess and its going to take awhile to clean it up.

[Armstead]

119. I don''t say it's lack of concern

It's often well-meaning Groupthink by elites in Washington who are only talking to each other and their elite Beltway strategists.

They take the blood out of issues, and are afraid to really address the real concerns of people in a meaningful way. We can't use market research to replace out own hearts and souls and brains.

And I don't think that real discussion about the difficulties is going around in circles. Even though it may seem like banging heads against walls, that is the only way the different factions of the left half of the spectrum are going to come up with any coherent strategies and message.

A livable minimum wage, for example, is an idea that would certainly resonate with a majority. Not a unanimous majority, but excepting the freepers and right wing corporate interests, most reasonable people belive that if you work full time you should be able to pay your basic living expenses. Such a policy could also make acomodations for struggling small businesses, or otehr specific circumstanes. But setting a general guideline to ensure a reasonable basic standard for working people is a rational and positive message.

Lemme make a suggestion. Look at the positions of Bernie Sanders. He is outspoken in raising the bread-and-butter issues and how the position of the middle class is being undermined. And he walks his talk by supporting things like grassroots economic development and rational regulations of major corporations.

AND he also carries his state by wide margins every time. Whatever he's saying RESONATES with the same voters you say we must appeal to.

And before you come back with the Vermont granola stereotype, I will point out that Vermont has a lot of the same blue collar working class types and hardscrabble rural people that you'd find in any Red state.

[Armstead]

114. Duplicate posting

[iconoclastNYC]

85. Incentives

Avoiding import tariffs is an incentive to keep jobs in America.

[Arkham House]

14. I can see the point of "triangulation"--

--that the Clinton administration practived with great success in the 90s. This was basically a DLC philosophy, if you will--appeal to middle-of-the-roaders in a broadly conservative era by taking the Left for granted--where else were they going to go?--and stealing the GOP's clothes on various issues. But times have changed. The dispute between the DLC types and the "real" Dems today isn't about issues, or even strategy and tactics--it's about what *kind* of country we've become, and the nature of the enemy. Ever since Clinton's election, the GOP right has been in a continuing battle to delegitimize *any* Dem. They demonized Clinton, and came up with the ridiculous "impeachment". They stole the 2000 election, with total disregard for the letter or spirit of the Conbstituion--as blatant an attack on the premises of the Republic as Fort Sumter was. And we've seen all the horrors since... The problem is that the DLC believes that we're dealing with an "ordinary" opposition, in "ordinary" times. We, on the other hand, see a "crisis of the regime", with a ruthless, increasingly Leninist GOP. Given that, we feel that only telling the truth can save the country, at all costs, and no matter the consequwnces. Anyone can reasonably disagree about economic issues, though I personally find outsourcing an insane practice that only benefits the corporate elite. (And amusingly enough, old-time suupply-sider conservative Paul Craig Roberts agrees with this.) But I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that we are facinf Fascism in this country. And that *is* the problem--the "DLC" types--using the term broadly--don't seem to realize this...

[...of J.Temperance]

22. So who are "real" Dems?

The dispute between the DLC types and the "real" Dems.

Who are "real" Dems?

Do you like New York Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer, he's going to be the New York Governor, he's a fab fellow, he's intelligent and talented and he's an enormous asset to my party....and he's DLC.

There's many people on DU that like Eliot Spitzer a great deal and they admire him....he's DLC, so does this mean that he's not a "real" Dem?

Who is a "real" Dem, John Murtha?

[Mythsaje]

40. Some very good points here...

You're right about the nature of the difference between the way WE see the enemy and the way THEY seem to see the enemy.

Thanks.

[...of J.Temperance]

79. Again, who are the "real" Dems and who is WE and who is THEY?

Thanks.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Lost-in-FL]

27. My guess is that they won't like me either...

[...of J.Temperance]

31. Hey I like you....you just quoted me afterall in my own thread

:)

[Lost-in-FL]

33. I wasn't talking about you... I share your views.

:toast:

I am a centrist democrat also. Pro-choice, against death penalty, pro-2nd ammendment, I think NAFTA should be reviewed, anti-**, against all organized religion, anti-war vet, conservative on economic issues (not 100%), pro-civil rights, pro-gay issues, etc.

[...of J.Temperance]

38. Okay

I understand :) I'm pro-Choice, pro-Death Penalty, pro-Second Amendment, yes NAFTA should be reviewed, yes I'm anti-Junior, I'm not against all organized religion, I'm against the Fundie type religion.

I'm against Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm not a Pacifist, for example I think that some form of action should be taken against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, this doesn't have to be military action....but the former are harboring and training real terrorists and the latter are funding real terrorist organizations.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I'm pro-Civil Rights and I fully support gay rights.

And I'm proud to say that I'm a Democrat and I'm proud of my party.

So we're kind of the same huh?

:toast:

[BigYawn]

43. Hey...have you been peeking inside my brain?

If not, then how come our views are so similar?
Except for one perhaps, I am totally conservative
on economic issues. The only issue I disagree with
most democrats is on taxcuts. I am seeing the marvellous
economic revovery (GDP) for the 3rd or 4th time, each
time followed after taxcuts.

I am also for abolishing corporate taxes and tightening
tax loopholes for individuals. The corporate tax is very
regressive. I have done a lot of study on that subject.
It punishes all the stockholders and all the consumers.
OTOH every corporation is owned by some individuals, and
they should pay the tax based on their income levels.

[...of J.Temperance]

30. DU is also a big tent and DU is for all sections of the Democratic Party

I have to say that the Conspiracy Theories do my head in though.

The majority of people on DU I don't think will be surprised by my thread....I think by various posts I've done they already know what I've stated tonight.

I've already many times stated that I'm a Centrist Democrat, that I'm liberal on most social issues and conservative on many economic issues. The majority of people on DU also know that I'm pro-Death Penalty and pro-Second Amendment.

They also know that I totally dislike Junior and everything he stands for.

DU is big enough for all views from all sections of the Democratic Party. We mightn't agree on some issues, but at least, by and large we respect one anothers opinions and their right to express them.

[driver8]

46. Hey you...where have you been hiding??? I've missed you!

Glad to see your name around these parts again.

[...of J.Temperance]

74. Hello :) I've just not been posting as often

You've got a new avatar I notice!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

25. You are fine ... J.Temperance

Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

In the words of George Harrison, it's all part of the stew.

[...of J.Temperance]

28. Thanks AtomicKitten, I think you're fine too :)

I just felt the need to do this thread. I think it happened because of a thread the other night.

That's a great picture of Vice-President Gore and Tipper :)

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Heck I only need one more vote and then I'll have five votes

Somebody please give me one more vote :)

[AtomicKitten]

35. my pleasure!

[...of J.Temperance]

36. Oh gosh thanks :) That's fab! Now I can go and have a nap

:)

[radio4progressives]

42. What do you have against the Working Class?

Are you a person of privilidge? If so, then it would make complete sense for you to "love" the DLC... after all, you are one of them.

If not, if you a member of the working class, the DLC is just as much your enemy as the Bush Crime Family is to all working people.

Allow me to recommend that you read The Global Class War and then after you've read it, see if you think you can honestly say that you love the DLC - (unless you're one of them of course)

The Global Class War
How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future—and What It Will Take to Win It Back

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_global_class_war

[Wetzelbill]

44. well...... you just make sure they give me lots of cash

since you're my campaign manager. :)

[...of J.Temperance]

81. It's okay Mr. Bill, I've been fundraising for you as your campaign manager

I've got the fundraising under total control....'um, okay so I did spend some of the money that's been raised, I needed more Milk Duds, chewing gum and Planter's Pumpkin Seeds....but it's okay the campaign finances are still good :)

[radio4progressives]

104. I'll ask You Again J.Temperance.. Why Are You Against The Working Class?

Are you a person of privilidge? If so, then it would make complete sense for you to "love" the DLC... after all, you are one of them.

If not, if you a member of the working class, the DLC is just as much your enemy as the Bush Crime Family is to all working people.

Allow me to recommend that you read The Global Class War and then after you've read it, see if you think you can honestly say that you love the DLC - (unless you're one of them of course)

The Global Class War
How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future—and What It Will Take to Win It Back

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_global_class_war

[...of J.Temperance]

108. Sorry :) I wasn't ignoring you

My Dad own's a bio-chemical firm, I suppose that makes me a person of privilege....although I feel horrified at having to write that.

No I'm not against the working class. As I've commented previously, I'm pro-Minimum Wage, I'm pro-Affordable Healthcare, I support a Payroll Tax cut and I support Progressive Taxation, I'm also pro-Union.

I've not read The Global Class War, but I'll see if I can get it and give it a read.

[radio4progressives]

110. Thank you J. Temperence... please read it soon, ok?

It will open your eyes wide shut... ;)

[...of J.Temperance]

112. That's okay

It's just this thread is kind of HUGH, I'm doing the best I can to navigate. There's comments that I still need to respond to....and I saw Mr. Bill's comment and so as his Campaign Manager I thought I'd better respond uber fast.

Yes I'll get that book and I'll read it :)

[OneBlueSky]

45. well, I don't . . . the only way we'll ever achieve progress . . .

in this country is to take politics and government back from the corporations that control them . . .

populism (n.) . . . A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

[Adelante]

47. Big tent

Yes.

[MrBenchley]

48. I yet to hear any good reason not to...and I see lots of reasons to do so

And the rampant dishonesty of our anti-DLCers only encourages me to support them more strongly.

[LWolf]

49. I never would have guessed. n/t

[zanne]

50. Exactly. What difference does admitting it make?

It makes me wonder how you present yourself elsewhere.

[...of J.Temperance]

83. I present myself elsewhere good, I've got Dolce and Gabbana sunglasses

And the lenses are peach-tinted as well. I'm very well presented elsewhere, so well presented that most people think I'm French or Italian....oh but once when I had my black lacquered cigarette holder and my Dolce and Gabbana sunglasses on, this gentleman told me that I looked like a female Russian spy in a James Bond film. I thought that was a pretty rad comment.

So yes, I present myself elsewhere incredibly well but thanks for wondering :)

[mmonk]

51. To each his or her own.

I support the constitution of the US and full rights for all Americans. I am against concepts such as pre-emptive war which have their precedence in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I am against world dominance plans which include pre-emptive war and torture and other violations set forth at Nuremburg. I am against spying on American citizens outside of existing law, especially as their rights under the constitution are under attack. Therefore I cannot be DLC as they have sent memo after memo asking democrats not to criticize this outlaw administration on these points and always suggest to take on the republicans in some other manner.

[still_one]

57. you could not have said it better

[Minnesota Libra]

52. The DLC at least gives us an alternative to the Bush's of........

......the world. :applause: That having been said I wish there was an alternative that didn't include the Ralph Nader's of the world. OK everybody, flame away. :hide:

[still_one]

54. I believe it was the DLC that empowered bush and company

to where they are today

I also agree that I wish there was an alternative that didn't include Ralph Nader

Of course we had Howard Dean, but the DLC was instrumental in insuring that HE didn't get the nomination, and Paul Hackett, he also made too many waves...

[mmonk]

55. I know what you mean

When the parties converge as much as they have now with the DLC influence, real choice is removed. This to me, is a step towards a lasting sort of dictatorship on the behalf of a few.

[Minnesota Libra]

61. I agree TOTALLY and wish some who wants better would......

.....give us REAL CHOICE, a party that would truly be a common sense choice. O8)

[BootinUp]

80. No, it was the American people

that empowered bush and company. Same people that took power away from the democrats.

[...of J.Temperance]

86. I think that the

Election of 2000, Al Gore did win in 2000 and it's a tragedy for not only America, but for the world that the SCOTUS with Fat Tony handed that election to Junior.

The Election of 2004, this was a monumental misjudgement by a huge section of the American people. Whilst I agree that there were some underhanded things in Ohio with Kenneth Blackwell....Junior somehow won nationwide by 3 million votes and that's completely mind-boggling.

The election was about National Security, and of course if our ticket would have been Clark/Edwards, then we'd have won the election. It would have been President Wesley Clark and Vice-President John Edwards. Whilst I like Senator Kerry, he just wasn't tough enough, he wasn't a fighter.

[Armstead]

59. Please do me a favor -- Research what Ralph Nader stands for

Do a little Google search on Nader, and temporarily ignore his role as a political spoiler. Just look at his positions and statements and actions on the REAL ISSUES like the economy, corporate power and the operation of democracy.

Then tell me exactly what he stands for on the issues that you find so repellent.

[Fovea]

56. I appreciate your sentiment

I don't share it, but I respect your feelings on the matter.

The DLC is no longer triangulating the middle. The demographic middle has moved left, the political middle is still moving rightward.

Several key Republican problems are also DLC problems.
I feel the Democratic party needs a progressive stance, because corporateism has failed the American people. The DLC has its place, but that place is not, ironically, the leadership role.

[LynneSin]

66. Consider this:

I agree with your stance on the DLC but....

if the DLC candidate wins the primary then I would hope that everyone would consider voting for them in the general election. Because we need a majority if we're going to get anything done and in order to get that majority we'll have to hold our breath and vote for a few stinkers in order to get that majority.

Primaries is the time for us to oust bad democrats but general election is the time to oust all republicans and when I say republican I mean the folks that put an "R" next to their name and would vote for Frist or Hasert for their majority leader. As 'DINO' as some democrats might be, they'll still support Reid/Pelosi for their party leaders and they'll help put some great democrats into committee chair seats which might actually allow us to get some stuff done in DC

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

68. Bingo. There is already a conservative party for conservatives

Why do DLC types want to eliminate the actual dynamic of a liberal vs. conservative political system by watering down the Democratic Party with pseudo conservative corporate policies?

[...of J.Temperance]

72. The mainstream is in the Center, the mainstream is Moderate

Where have the DLC types watered down the Democratic Party with pseudo conservative corporate policies?

Being business-friendly is not watering down the Democratic Party, being business-friendly is pragmatic. Capitalism isn't bad, I'm not saying that the Enron's of the business world don't deserve to get their asses kicked, because they do and I'd put Kenneth Lay in jail this second if I had that power.

However, as a whole Capitalism is a positive thing and it benefits society, by creating jobs and keeping the economy going.

What I think you'd like is a purge of the Democratic Party, you I think would like to kick out everyone that's not on the ideological Left, and where would that put the Democratic Party? I'll tell you, we'd have about 18 Senators and 80 Representatives.

I'm not a conservative, so why do you think I should join a conservative party?

I'm a Centrist Democrat, I'm a Moderate Liberal, I'm neither Left nor Right, I'm in the Center. This is where the mainstream voter is. The mainstream voter wants neither Left nor Right, they want something in the middle that's balanced.

The Democratic Party is also in the Center, if we weren't, if we were on the Left then wouldn't Dennis Kucinich have won all the 2004 Primaries, wouldn't he of become the 2004 Presidential nominee? Yet he couldn't even get 10% of the vote in his own state of Ohio....so what does that say do you think?

As I said earlier, my party is a big tent, and that big tent is sufficient enough to hold all sections of the Democratic Party. There's things that obviously we don't agree on, but there are many more things that we do agree on, and instead of concentrating on what we don't agree on, we should be concentrating on the things that we do agree on.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error and also added a paragraph.

[Armstead]

75. That's a false dichotomy

You are using the same phony choices that the GOP uses to portray things.

There is no such thing as "the center." That is a totally subjective term, as is "moderate."

I consider myself a moderate liberal. I support capitalism. I believe that business should be able to opoerate without excessive paperwork and restrictions. I believe that true competition and free enterprise are good things. etc. etc. etc.

But in the current political creatred by both the GOP and the DLC Democratics, I am considered a "leftist" because I also believe that we have gone way overboard in the last 30 years. We have allowed the eocnomy to become monopolstic, we have made government subservient to Corporate Power, and we have allowed right-wing corporate values to smother humanistic social values and the public interest.

For example, it's a cop out to say "Oooooo that bad Ken Lay should go to jail" while ignoring the underlying problem that Enron reflected.

Kenneth Lay and Enron should not have been able to acquire the power over our basic infrastructure that he did. Even if he had been a saint. That was a dangerous concentration of power, and it subverted the whole idea of a public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Corporate Democrats jumped on the scam of privatization along with the Republicans. Don't forget that Enron experienced its growth in the 1990's.

Enron was merely a symptom. Until the DLC Democrats stop enabling the diserase, their claims of being "the center" are meaningless. And they are destructive, because they undermine the counter balance to keep the reins on the wealthy and powerful.

[BootinUp]

89. The false dichotomy

is with those that pretend they can move the whole electorate by showing more spine, IOW, telling Americans they are thinking wrongly all the time.

[Armstead]

94. Another false dichotomy

What makes you think that most Americans aren't already instinctually more liberal and open to reform that you give them credit for?

It's not a question of telling them they are wrong. It's a matter of showing that Democrats are on their side in the bread-and-butter issues that matter. That includes standing up and challengi8ng the increasing concentration of wealth and power.

They know they're getting screwed. But they don't see either party as really offering any meaningful alternatives, so they either succumb to "they're all the same" cynicism or they grab onto the GOP mantras, which at least are clear enough to provide a path of least resistance.

Don't forget that in at least two states that voted for Bush, the same electorates also voted to increase the state minimum wage.

[LincolnMcGrath]

95. How well did 'run to the right' Lieberman do in 2004 primaries.

Connecticut Primary; Lieberman 6,703 votes 5% 0 Dels.


OHIO Primary; Kucinich 107,685 votes 9% 4 Dels.



Pretty sad, considering Joe was on the winning ticket four short years earlier. Attacking Gore and running to the right worked out real well for Mr. Lieberman didn't it?

[...of J.Temperance]

71. Why not be a Republican? Because I'm an intellectually honest DEMOCRAT

Okay? Good.

[MadHound]

63. Yeah, the DLC raises a lot of money

By selling out Democrats, progressives and liberals for that lovely corporate lucre. Thus, we have our leaders made into corporate slaves, doing what their corporate masters bid them, and ignoring the needs of everybody else. Yeah, that's just a wonderful thing:eyes:

And you make the Clinton presidency sound like a good thing. Even though Clinton sold us all down the river what with NAFTA, welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, "don't ask, don't tell, and many other pieces of corporate friendly legislation. Sorry, he may have been charasmatic, and able to connect on a personal level, but his administration was another step on the road towards corporate hegemony over all. Was he worse than Bush? No, but that isn't saying much, and Clinton's policies set all of us up for a lot of the pain we're feeling now.

[LynneSin]

65. DLC would be better organization if they ousted Al From

He's just a blowhard if you ask me.

[Catchawave]

73. I support Democrats and

corporations that support Democrats. I have no problems with the DLC.

Another great thread J. :hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

76. Shucks thanks :)

And I totally agree, there are many corporations that support the Democratic Party. Also, Governor Jon Corzine used to be a big shot at Goldman Sachs, and he's a pretty good fellow, so there's just one example that people aren't evil!

Oh and the fellow who owns Starbucks, he's a big Democrat as well. So there's another example and gosh I like Starbucks :)

:hi:

[Catchawave]

102. I'm glad you like Starbucks...

My DIL manages one in Ft Lauderdale, and they're very employee friendly.

"Since Starbucks began with a single store in 1971, its overriding philosophy has been this: "Leave no one behind." With that in mind, new employees get 24 hours of in-store training, steeping themselves in information about coffee and how to meet, greet and serve customers. Full health-care benefits (medical, dental, vision and alternative services) are offered to all employees, including part-timers who work at least 240 hours per calendar quarter. The EAP is available to all employees. Employees share in the company’s growth via "Bean Stock" (stock options) of up to 14 percent of their gross pay, and a stock-investment plan allows them to buy shares of Starbucks common stock at a discount (85 percent of fair market value) through payroll deductions. The company also matches employees’ contributions to their "Future Roast" 401(k) plans, adding from 25 to 150 percent of the first 4 percent of pay, depending on length of service."

more here: http://www.workforce.com/section/02/feature/23/52/96/

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[NativeTexan]

87. You are saying what I have been saying.......

.....for a long time! THANKS FOR THE POST!!

[...of J.Temperance]

90. Thanks to you as well!!!!

I'm just glad that some people agree with me, and that this thread hasn't offended that many people. It's nice that this thread is pretty positive, I was as nervous as heck posting this thread, because I didn't want it to descend into an argument, so it's fab that it's rather good-natured.

Thanks Native Texan :)

On Edit: Darn paragraph.

[NativeTexan]

132. All Dems are good. The idea that the DLC carried the.........

.....Republican's homework for them is crap. There ARE those who believe that the DLC is just TOO conservative for them...IMHO, they are wrong, but they are also welcome to their own opinion, as I am mine. I am a moderate. To some in here, that makes me a right wing, conservative extremist...LOL. I am a Texas Yellowdog Democrat! I have never, and WILL never, vote for anything but Dems. I always remember my Daddy, God rest his soul, telling me that he only voted for a Republican ONCE in his life. After WWII, and having served under Eisenhower, he felt led to vote for him for president. "I knew from that point on that I would never make THAT damned mistake again," he told me. And I am not ready to have to go repair a cemetary lot from his turning over in his grave if I ever DID vote for anything but Dems!!

Stick to your guns! None of us are wrong! We are ALL more right than the Bush Fascist Party and the Village Idiot who heads it!!!

[NativeTexan]

88. AND I don't belong to an organized political party.......

.......I AM A DEMOCRAT!!!

[leftstreet]

91. Admitting it is generally the first step to recovery

[LincolnMcGrath]

93. lol

:rofl:

[HardWorkingDem]

98. As long as ANY org, person or group helps further the Dem cause..

I'm for them too and we should use them if they use us. Though I am mad at hell at the DLC, I do accept their importance to Democratic politics.

We all need to stand back and re-examine the Dem party and what it is supposed to stand for, and if we do this, we will see that there is all sorts of room in our tent for all sorts of Dems.

Let's face it - while the DLC is nothing more than the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, it is still a member of the Democratic Party. We must accept that of the two major parties, we truly are the Big Tent party while the other party is the lip service of the Big Tent philosophy.

[smoogatz]

101. DLC=Democrats Lose Continually

Aka: Democrats: Lapdogs and Capitulators. Or: Democrat Lackeys of the Corporatocracy. Your post begs the obvious question: what have they done for us lately? Under DLC leadership, we've lost the last two Presidential elections and control of the House since 1994; now we control none of the three branches of government, and the fourth estate (the media) has also swung definitively to the right. Some leadership. As for fund-raising: much of the corporate money "donated" to DLC candidates comes with a clearly implied quid pro quo: you scratch ours and we'll push your agenda at the expense of the American people. And the funny thing is, turns out that wild-eyed maniac Howard Dean is a far more effective fund-raiser than the DLC drones. Raising money from actual people!! Over the internets!!! Who'd-a thunk it? The DLC needs to pull its head out of its corporation-distended bunghole and offer the country a clear alternative to the unpopular Republican government and its unpopular war. Instead, they keep serving us the same cold, coagulated slice of Republican Lite. Thanks but no thanks.

NB: Clinton would likely have lost in '92 if not for Perot--let's not give the DLC more credit for his win than they deserve. The '96 win against Dole was a no-brainer: the economy was booming, the dollar was strong, gas was under a buck and we were an unchallenged superpower at peace. Can't exactly give that one to the DLC, either. As for Clinton himself, I believe it was Atrios who said he was a pretty good President, for a Republican.

[BootinUp]

106. Its not rocket science and its not due to lack of spine.

The reason for all the losses you speak are a failure of the party to adopt National policy positions that appeal to more than NY, CA and other very blue areas. And to make matters worse it is only getting worse as the growth in our country is happening in the redder areas.

[smoogatz]

111. The Democratic party's traditional positions work for me.

Pro-national-security, pro-labor, pro-education; pro-environment, pro-civil rights, pro-choice, pro-science, pro-competency-in-a-crisis; anti-corruption, anti-corporate-welfare, anti-wars-of-choice, anti-government-infringing-on-privacy, anti-letting-terrorists-blow-us-up; anti-incompetence.

We have the issues, we're just afraid to articulate them. Backing off on choice and talking about "faith" as a means of appeasing the mythical fundie vote are bad ideas, first offered as "advice" by Republicans. Most of the country is bright purple rather than definitively red or blue.

[BootinUp]

115. Your position

is that analyzing losses and compensating is a waste of time then?

Sort of a line in the sand, sort of like what Nader did in 2000.

[smoogatz]

116. I think the key word is "compensating."

Tell me how you propose to compensate, and I'll tell you whether I agree. I don't think compromising on an issue like choice, on which 60-70% of Americans agree with the traditional Democratic position, is a winning strategy, no.

[BootinUp]

121. But I can't agree with your

characterization of the choice issue. Exit polling from Nov 2004 does not agree either. We have to be more creative in addressing the concerns of rural America, or we will continue to decline. Either its a right to privacy as decided by the Supreme court or its something the legislature will decide. So why do we spend so much time on it when it clearly is protected at this moment in time. Our national party position could be:

The National Democratic Party sees choice/pro-life/abortion as a constitutional issue, currently protected as a right to privacy as determined by the Supreme Court. The National Democratic party believes that States should determine any legislation efforts on this issue at this time.

The National Democratic Party provides statistics and information on the problems and suffering caused when abortion was outlawed prior to Rowe v Wade to educate younger generations of voters.

The National Democratic Party supports the following programs to reduce abortion. Educational programs and other support programs for minors and young adults.
...


Something like that, and then stop forcing candidates to answer questions on it to win a damn primary and refer all questions to the above. There really is no point in shooting our own over this issue unless there is specific legislation being discussed.

I guess I'll put my asbestos suit on now.

[smoogatz]

123. There was no exit polling in '04 that specifically addressed choice.

Talk about mischaracterizations. What the infamous '04 Mitofsky poll asked about was the extremely vague proposition of "moral values." If you can poke around in those entrails and tell me all of those people heard "moral values" as code for abortion, I'd like to go in with you on the next Powerball drawing. Don't forget that 11 states had anti gay marriage amendments on their ballots in that election. Here's a good critique of the Republican "moral values voters" storyline: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

I think backing off of choice as an election issue does nothing but show that we don't know what we stand for, and that principles don't matter to Democrats. When a woman gets pregnant, her decision to carry that pregnancy to term should be between her, her partner and her doctor. The government has no business telling women whether and when they should bear children. Period.

And in case you missed it, South Dakota is on the verge of passing legislation banning all abortions in the state except for those that would save the life of the mother (no exceptions for rape, incest or health reasons). The SCOTUS is likely to come down on the side of South Dakota, assuming the law is challenged, which it will be. So this is hardly the hypothetical issue you pretend it is.

[BootinUp]

127. Have you seen this?

The actual poll data may not be available online without a subscription but there was this analysis at alternet:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20709/

Still a Roe v. Wade Country

Gallup has released a useful new report on abortion and public opinion. As the report notes, Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, the public does not favor unrestricted access to abortion, though different questions return different answers on the level of restrictiveness the public actually favors (see my earlier analysis of abortion and public opinion).

The sensitivity of public opinion on abortion rights to question wording suggests that the politics of the issue are particularly sensitive to how it is framed in political debate. As Alan Abramowitz observes:


I think that these results , and similar results from other polls, help to explain how Republicans have been able to use the abortion issue to their advantage in recent elections by downplaying the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade while emphasizing support for restrictions on abortion such as the ban on "partial birth" abortions, parental consent, waiting periods, etc. Liberals are now associated with the idea of "abortion on demand" which is opposed by a majority of the public. As long as there doesn't seem to be any immediate danger that Roe will be overturned, liberals are likely to remain on the defensive on the issue of abortion.

Food for thought...

Source used for this section:

Jeffrey M. Jones, "President Bush and Roe v. Wade," Gallup Organization, November 30, 2004

Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.

[LincolnMcGrath]

128. John Podesta

President and Chief Executive Officer of CfAP


He was a member of what administration?

[BootinUp]

129. This question

is related to what post? Podesta, wasn't he Chief of staff for CLinton during part of his tenure? Look I don't do this for a living I have to look stuff up. Secondly, I gotta run for a while.

[smoogatz]

130. That analysis is both slippery and obviously dated.

Here's the sentence that moots the whole thing: "As long as there doesn't seem to be any immediate danger that Roe will be overturned, liberals are likely to remain on the defensive on the issue of abortion." The danger is now immediate and real. I'm telling you, backing off on choice just makes us look like a bunch of moral cowards. Either women control their own bodies or they don't. The right keeps trying to parse little bits and pieces of the choice/privacy issue into wedges to motivate the fundies, and they've done so with some success with their parental notification and late-term restrictions; Roe doesn't protect abortion into the third trimester, anyway, so fine--and as a parent I think it's reasonable to want to know if your underage daughter is having a surgical procedure. But if we're talking about adult women in the first and second trimester, it's none of your or my or the government's damned business. And if Democrats abandon choice, they abandon the majority of Americans who believe that the government ought not to be sticking its big, gloved hand into womens' uteruses.

[dolstein]

118. Sorry, but the DLC isn't a political fundraising organization

From the DLC web site:

<<DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.>>

Frankly, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when even the occasional DLC supporter around here doesn't seen to understand its function. Perhaps the original poster was confusing the DLC with the DSCC or DCCC.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was wondering about the claim that the DLC pours tons of money into the party. They don't. So why exactly do we have them telling us how to lose elections?

As for the argument 'well they had a big success with Clinton'. The election of Clinton coincided with the long term downward spiral of Democratic Congressional strength. DLC candidates have run and lost (we will ignore the fraud issue, which I think is very real) for president twice since Clinton left office. The DLC controlled the DNC until the election of Howard Dean - in other words they controlled the main party organization through the entire period of Democratic Party decline. On what basis can DLC supporters claim that the DLC presents a winning message?

[BootinUp]

124. controlled?

No one can control the democratic party and its various smaller groups. I would suggest a quite different analysis. Clinton forsaw the need to run on a New Democratic platform in order to win post Carter/Reagan. It worked. Other candidates that lost did not have the foresight. In addition there was a backlash from the Clinton Healthcare effort, and Newt's contract with America was a very effective lie. The rise of the Christian right (lord help us). The actual fact is that voters are not the same and do not have the same opinons as 30 years ago. You have to adapt to the times.

Take any loss you want to attribute to the DLC and lets go back and try to find analysis of what happened. I am confident you will see it had nothing to do with the DLC effort in itself which is simply asking people what they want and forming policy proposals around that. Candidates are free to use the information or not.

[dolstein]

126. Please get your facts straight

<<The election of Clinton coincided with the long term downward spiral of Democratic Congressional strength.>>

You concede that the downside spiral of Democratic Congressional strength was a long-term process. But then you try to tie it to the election of Clinton. Which is it? The truth is that the decline of Democratic strength in Congress can be traced back to the mid-60s. The Democrats in fact lost control of the Senate in 1980. DU'ers conveniently forget that. And if it wasn't for the Watergate scandal, which ushered in a huge Democratic freshman class, the Democrats probably would have lost the House by 1980 as well. Obviously, the tax increase approved by the Democratic Congress in 1993 didn't help matters, nor did the approval of gun control legislation. But to blame Bill Clinton (and by impliciation the DLC) for the loss is just plain ridiculous. The DLC wasn't even formed until the mid-80s, by which time the Democratic Party had succeeded in losing four of the last five presidential elections as well as the Senate.

<<DLC candidates have run and lost (we will ignore the fraud issue, which I think is very real) for president twice since Clinton left office.>>

True, and get who nominated them? That's right -- DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS NOMINATED THEM. Isn't it a bit odd that the DLC candidates, who DU'ers claim to by DINOs, had greater appeal among the primary voters than DU faves Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich?

<<The DLC controlled the DNC until the election of Howard Dean - in other words they controlled the main party organization through the entire period of Democratic Party decline.>>

Actually, the DLC has no control over the DNC. The members of the DNC consist primarily of state representatives, and the national chair has to be approved by those representatives. If anything, the members of the DNC are more liberal than the Democratic rank and file.

And of course, you keep trying to blame the DLC for the decline of the Democratic Party, even though that decline began decades before the DLC even existed. The worst you can say about the DLC is that they failed to stop the decline, even though one of their own remains the only Democratic president to win two full terms since FDR. And of course, the more liberal elements failed to stop the decline as well and have had zero success at the presidential level.

[rucky]

120. I'm proud of the Republican party.

Without them, we wouln't have had President Lincoln, or Eisenhower to warn us of the "military industrial complex."

:eyes:

[nickshepDEM]

125. Right here w/ ya'.

[...of J.Temperance]

131. This thread is still going....but I want to thank everyone who's responded

And also the people who gave me 16 votes. I like that this thread is good-natured, and that it hasn't become a thread where a lot of people are shouting at one another. Of course, there are differing views in this thread, but those differing views have been put across in a polite and respectful manner.

I'm also glad that the GD: Politics moderators haven't been given too many headaches in this thread, I think there's been a mini-headache in one instance ;)

Heck, I think I need a short nap now.

[mzmolly]

133. The more the merrier I say. I think diversity is strength so long as we

allow one another to exist and appreciate what it is that each offers. The DLC should stop maligning in the left and visa versa. I think we need an alliance personally.

Recommended.

[Capn Sunshine]

134. Yeah, good times....

I've been amember of the DLC since it's inception. We had some great wine tastings back then. I am a member, but a dubious one. Used to be, we knew what we were fighting about. used to be, that they listened to the membership aboutthings where they might have more experience , like what happens in an ill-advised invasion and occupation of a country without any strategy.

Not so much any more

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Shizaad]

136. It's not like he's gay and just came out of the closet.

He's not entitled to a bunch of emotional support. The DLC is the sell-out to big-business club. I say screw the DLC and I'll never trust anyone who defends them.

[Hippo_Tron]

137. The DLC didn't make Clinton president, Clinton made Clinton president

Clinton is still the most charismatic politician in the democratic party and had an incredible campaign staff that knew how to beat Lee Atwater's smear campaigns.

[SeaBob]

138. DLC

In my mind the DLC is whats causing most of the Dem's problems... They are just as bad as the repukes. all they do is raise money and pocket it

[ronnykmarshall]

140. Oh dear.

It was nice knowing you. You know now all the "popular" kids are gonna talk about you and put dog poop in your locker.

Good luck, hon.

:sarcasm:

[SeaBob]

143. DLC

you can be forgiven if you repent right now

[Walt Starr]

144. I can understand that

I just hope you understand that the DLC is the primary reason I have left the Democratic Party and am takling a strategy of withholding my vote in many races.