Iraq was the inevitable consequence of the policy of the DLC...ignoring your base constituency.

[madfloridian]

This group was formed to make money so they did not have to depend on the base of the party. When you ignore your base and stand for nothing, tragedies like Iraq happen.

Freed from taking positions that make it hard to win.

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One.

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party.

They have effectively controlled the party since the late 80s. When you take corporate money, you inevitably end up doing their bidding. They took the power from the traditional base, and went after the white middle class.

From 1992:

Al From, the Life of the Party

"At From's instigation in 1989, after yet another debacle, Galston and Kamarck wrote a paper titled "The Politics of Evasion," drawing on census data, exit polls "and everything we could get our hands on," Galston says, to argue that the Democrats would never win a presidential election, no matter how high the turnout among blacks and other reliable supporters, unless they radically changed their message to lure back the white middle class. Aiming to attract a biracial coalition containing at least 45 percent of the white vote, the DLC and its think tank have spun out reams of policy papers on everything from defense to education to families to the economy."

Nothing wrong with that scenario...unless you take it too far. They did. They soon began scorning those they considered "on the left"...one of many terms they have for "activists", "fringe", or "elitist."

A party should be all encompassing...but that is not what they did. They all too quickly became sympathetic only to those on the far right of the party, those who had money. Again, that is the consequence of forgetting your base...if you don't need them financially...you don't need to worry about their needs.

We have Al From's own words from 1995 about Jesse Jackson.

Putting down Jesse Jackson and labor unions

We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."

The DLC in 2003 called us "fringe activists", told us to say Good Night, Vietnam.

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

As late as last October Harold Ford, the present chairman of that DLC, warned us not to "delve" into the past about Iraq.

Harold Ford: "I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past" in Iraq

Answer: I wouldn't call it pro-war.

Question: It was in 2003.

Answer from Ford: Well, pro-war doesn't mean that we support the way this president has gone about fighting. We were supportive of removing Saddam Hussein, instilling stability in the country, reducing the threat that America faced from Al Qaeda and, equally important, the threat we thought was posed by Saddam Hussein. If we knew then what we know now … I was in the Congress; I would not have voted for the resolution. But at the same time, we're in a different place now. I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past on this issue.

When you don't stand up against those in power who are doing wrong, when you don't stand up for things you believe in...then the result is tragic.

Iraq is terribly tragic, and it is the inevitable result of the policies of this group that turned its back on the party's traditional interests.

[madfloridian]

1. They even said Bush made the right call on Iraq.

Close call but right call by Bush

The administration's multiple diplomatic blunders in the run-up to the war naturally undermine confidence in its ability to win the peaceful struggle for democracy in Iraq that must follow victory in war. Worse yet, it's already clear that Republicans will use the war to distract attention from the administration's manifold domestic policy failures.

But Democrats must overcome both their own and the opposition's partisan instincts, and act in the national interest. The president's decision to prosecute this war without explicit authorization from the United Nations was a close call, but it was the right call.

If you don't stand for something, you cave to anything.

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R!!!

"We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Well if these asshats are going to "raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party," then I suppose they should get the votes they need to stay in office from the same source.

- Since they don't need us for anything. Hey, what's that smell?


DLC

[Diamond Dog]

3. K&R

Fuck the Democratic Leadership Council.

That is all.

[madfloridian]

4. They seem unaware they need our votes to win.

Perhaps they are not aware that times are changing.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[Dr.Phool]

5. They don't get mine anymore.

I don't car if they're running for mosquito control or president.

[madfloridian]

8. They've been this way so long they think this behavior is normal

They really sincerely think they are right, and there is nothing wrong with how they are acting.

[skyounkin]

6. Those

who forget the past are destined to repeat it.

ALWAYS remember the past. Especailly in Iraq.

[madfloridian]

7. You are right.

[madfloridian]

9. Lakoff describes them brilliantly.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com:80/madfloridi...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.

..."My colleague, Glenn W. Smith, has pointed to the DLC strategy of getting as many "swing voters" as possible and the minimum number of base voters needed to win. That is why the DLC and Rahm Emanuel argued against Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and for a swing-state alone strategy."

...."But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense

[paulk]

10. horseshit

first off, the DLC was formed to win elections after the disasterous campaigns of Mondale and Dukakis showed that the left wing of the party couldn't win a national election.

Go on with your revisionist history, though - the fankids won't know the difference.

Go on with your attempts to break up the Democratic coalition - your likely reward will be four years of John McCain.

Go on with your attempts to blame the Iraq war on the Democrats - it shows your true colors.


You, once again, don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[madfloridian]

11. New term...."fan kids"... cute.

I find that pretty sad. You are resorting to that now.

I am sure that anyone agreeing with me about the DLC will appreciate being called a "fan kid". How about "fan kiddy"?

I have never seen anything like this primary. Putting down good people who care about the party, calling them names.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

32. "the biggest shit spreader on this site" ....you just called me that.

I must have missed the truth you have been spreading. I consider that a personal attack.

[paulk]

40. I sure did

I meant it, too.

You miss a lot of things in your single minded devotion to trashing Democrats.

[Diamond Dog]

41. Hey, now. Watch it with the smart language.

Some of us aren't even single-minded in trashing corporatist hogs/Elephant Men like yourself. It's a natural body reflex, like a heartbeat.

[madfloridian]

12. "the fankids won't know the difference"

I think you just insulted everyone who agrees with me.

[paulk]

22. and that's why you post this garbage, isn't it?

your constant need for affirmation.

a shared sense of faux outrage .

LOL!

Hey, I'm just trying to fulfill your constant need to be offended at something!

[madfloridian]

29. "fan-kids"....that is just pathetic.

.

[paulk]

39. repeating yourself again?

surprise, surprise

[Diamond Dog]

14. Right. It was formed to take corporate donations in exchange for corporatist policies.

Glad to see you're on the same level with us, horseshit.

[paulk]

16. two whole days and it's "us", huh?

[Diamond Dog]

17. 'Us' is better than 'you'.

And certainly better than, say, 'those DLC shills over there'.

:-P

[DeSwiss]

19. "They were formed to win elections"

By becoming political whores with no values. Fuck 'em!

[paulk]

23. well, I guess not winning elections is so much better

that's the attitude that got us Bush in the first place - how's that working out for you, btw?

[Diamond Dog]

25. Pretty good, since we're about to have one of the first progressive Presidents in fifty years.

How's Clinton's fundraising efforts coming along over at the DLC?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

31. Obama is a progressive?

That's a hoot. Obama is every bit the DLC centrist that Hillary is. He's played you "progs" completely.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[DeSwiss]

49. I would tell you...

...that it seems that "winning with the DLC" means it comes at the cost of my civil liberties, whose losses are the result of their compromises with Repukes.

I would tell that such an attitude is empty and Machiavellian. "The ends justifies who you whore yourself to." But the DLC venerates such things. So I wouldn't bestow them with the compliment.

I would tell you that what they advocate is just another form of appeasement. Of the capitulation of one's values. Where we take on the values of our opposition, and marginalize some of our own. Progressives like me.

I would tell you that this is not new. And that we've seen its outcome before. It always ends in war, which is where we are now. Because when your starting position is to compromise with your opposition by mirroring them, you don't ask the tough questions and you end up accepting their outright lies. And their treason. And you do nothing. Which is what got us into Iraq.

I would tell you that getting us Bush came at the hands of Bill Clinton, the Godfather of the DLC. So asking me "how's that working out" is misdirected. We should ask Bill.

- I would tell you all these things. And more. But it wouldn't do any good. Because "winning" at any cost, including one's integrity and values is all that matters to some people....

on edit: spelling

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. To claim that the DLC was NOT....

formed in great part to gain access to the corporate money the GOP fundraising machine had been accessing is showing that you don't kow what the fuck you are talking about.

The GOP was kicking the Dem's ass when it came to fundraising -- the traditional Democratic fundraising avenues could not (some thought) compete with the kind of money the corporations could provide. The philosophy at the time -- and today remains -- "He who has them most cash, wins". The new strategy of Dems accessing the GOP's traditional money base was openly talked about at the time -- it is not some kind of revisionist history as you claim, and I saw it discussed and debated repeatedly on many of the political shows.

[paulk]

27. it does take money to win elections

and yes, there was a realization that corporate money was needed in order to compete with the Republicans - and yes, that has led the party down some paths it perhaps shouldn't have gone - but to attempt to lay the blame for Iraq at the feet of the Democrats - as the OP has done in her never ending attempts to trash and divide the Democratic party - is bullshit, and I'll stand by that.

[Diamond Dog]

30. Or, you could always answer my question.

The DLC is practically funding Clinton's campaign for her at this point. How's that working out for you?

[paulk]

34. you know, some of us actually have a fucking life

we have other things to do than make 100 plus posts a day on DU.

Like you.


ps - look up "ganesh".

Then take your foot out of your mouth. Be sure to wipe the "elephant" shit off first.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[bridgit]

26. spot on, "the fankids won't know the difference" they're out there drinking sand to boot

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

42. hey - it's the head of the local MF sycophant club!

Threatening to beat me up again, fanboy?

Go for it - you might just find out that being a bully in the real world is a whole lot tougher than from sitting being a keyboard.

[Diamond Dog]

43. Haha, right. Sitting behind a desk at DLC headquarters is totally 'real-life',

As opposed to, say, a fascist make-believe fantasyland wherein you can oppress the peons as much and as long as you wish with no repercussions.

How's Klinton's koffers, btw?

[madfloridian]

44. You calling that poster a "fan kiddy"?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. K&R!

I have a very l-o-n-g memory, and I remember at the time the Dems believed they were getting their fundraising asses handed to them by the GOP, who took corporate money by the handful. Certain Dems wanted access to that kind of money because they believed that money equated election wins.

It is NOT revisionist history -- it is the truth.

Thanks for once again putting it out there for us.

[uponit7771]

15. I don't know what the hell the DLC was thinking they were going to prove.

[Bonobo]

20. Precisely. That is why she must be called out on her "obliteration" statement.

Float a balloon out there like that and it is either going to get viciously popped, or it will keep floating up and become policy.

Wake up, people. That was a clear balloon.

[Diamond Dog]

24. It's obvious that Clinton is the DLC candidate, isn't it?

And she represents the traditional DLC policy of ignoring the grassroots to suck directly from the teat of Big Business.

This primary season certainly helped put that bit of nutfuckery to the lie, at least.

[Forkboy]

36. I thought it was DUer's policy that Nader is to blame for everything that's happened since 2000.

Don't you know we Dems don't have to look in any mirrors?

[Diamond Dog]

45. You know what I think, madfloridian?

Why, I think it's about time we establish a grassroots organization to directly counteract the influence of the DLC.

We could call it, say... the Democratic Principles Council. The DPC.

Whaddya think?

[madfloridian]

46. I think that might be a good idea.

What a thread.

[Diamond Dog]

47. I'm totally serious about it. You ought to make a post in the Democrats subforum.

A "What is to be done?" sort of thing. I'd do it, but I wager I'm not quite as intricately familiar with their operations as you are. But I'll back you on it all the way.

The DLC are as much our enemies as the Republicans.

[madfloridian]

48. Edited by self.

Because I think the term coined by Paulk is offensive, and I am not going to use it in posts anymore.