Let's make 2010 the year the DLC made itself unelectable in a Dem primary.

[Union Yes]

I thank Mother Earth for the internet.

The DLC can no longer hide their evil intentions.

They can no longer hide the fact that their lips are glued to the ass of our corporate fascist overlords.

People are pulling their torches and pitchforks out of storage.

The DLC picked a fight with the poor and the middle class. Career mistake for them.

Considering the poor and the middle class are the base of the Democratic Party, brilliant strategy there DLC. Greed and corruption clouded your DLC brains to the point you thought you could pull the wool over our progressive eyes forever.

Then along came the internet and bam; your DLC greedy, corrupt, corporate owned, warpiggin, mother fuckin asses got exposed.

The Health Care Reform debate cemented your anti-middle class, pro serf, pro corporate fascist alliances.

The DLC showed America where it's loyalty lies. In bed with corporate America. But that orgy has come at a steep price.

Rising poverty and the foreseeable end to the middle class. Eternal war. The Detroitification of all of America. Poverty, mass unemployment, and ruin.

The HC debate has helped to fully expose the DLC's war against the middle class. All of this can be backed up by listening to Rahm, Geitner, or Sen Mary Landreau speak for 5 minutes.

Exposed for what you are. Or should I say for what you are NOT.

You, the DLC are NOT Democrats. Come primary season 2010, we the voters will show you the light, then the door.

Progressive candidates can defeat their DLC primary opponents by rallying around populist and progressive causes.

Repeal/reform of "Free" Trade is an immediate vote getter.

Ban of reimportation of slave/serf made foreign goods is a job maker at home. Again, a vote getter.

Single Payer. And nothing less. A huge vote getter. In a Dem primary, a Pro-SP candidate will destroy a Pro-HC for Profit DLC'er.

RX drug pricing reform.

Protection of Social Security.

Investment in mass transit and all infrastructure. Job creation is a vote getter.

Job creation and tackling unemployment will be front and center in Nov 2010's midterm election.

Bringing outsourced jobs back home and investing in our nation's infrastructure will create millions of jobs.

Progressives that grasp hold of a job creation platform win elections.

Jobs, Single Payer, Repeal of Free Trade. A winning progressive platform.

I still have hope.

Hope, remember that oft-damnable word?

I haven't given up on the Democratic Party quite yet. The scrapper in me relishes the upcoming primary season.

Progressives, we can save our party. No one else but us will do it.

Regarding the upcoming primary, progressives please ask yourself...

Are you ready for a fight?

I've never known a progressive that wasn't ready.

[Ken Burch]

1. Hear, Hear!

Only people who want the Democratic party to do WELL in elections should be Democratic nominees. And certainly only those who don't treat progressive ideas and activists with utter contempt.

[FLAprogressive]

2. K&R

[mmonk]

3. That's my strategy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. There's no question that 2010 is going to be an "Anti Incumbent" year.

The DLC suckups need to ask themselves the following question.....

Would you rather have your pathetic corporatist sellout candidate defeated by a REAL Democrat in the primary, or by an admitted Republican in November?

The primaries are definitely the REAL battle this time.

[girl gone mad]

113. Vote the bums out.

We're coming for you, corporatist dirt bags.

I can't count on one hand the number of people I know who want to stick with the status quo.

[laughingliberal]

5. K & R nt

[patrice]

6. "God", please bring us just one local candidate like this!!!

I'll work my butt off for him or her.

Solidarity, Union Yes!!!

[Union Yes]

10. Solidarity Patrice! Happy New Year.

:toast:

[NoPasaran]

7. It's still early in the evening

Pace yourself man, pace yourself.

[thunder rising]

9. You just gotta go with a good rant when it strikes .... yeah baby! Love it.

[Donnachaidh]

8. :best Austin Powers voice: Yeah Baby YEAH! n/t

[angee_is_mad]

11. How does Obama fit into this strategy

when we are trying to get poor and middle class people to vote for progressives?

How will progressives use President obama to get more progressives elected in 2010?

[Telly Savalas]

12. OK -- name some challengers for these primaries.

These primaries are coming up very soon. You can't just write a bunch of flowery prose on the ballot. You have to vote for somebody.

In what places are there candidates who can get elected in the general that can replace bad Democrats?

[ima_sinnic]

137. some info on progressive candidates at these links:

first, a recent DU thread has a post with several candidates listed, with links to their websites:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7233652
on edit: see post #16 below for the same list

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/campaigns
I don't know which of these are running in primaries and which in general elections.
This is the spin-off organization from Howard Dean's earlier Dean for America.

http://boldprogressives.org/home.htm
don't see any particular candidates mentioned at the moment, but a lot of activist resources for pressuring dinosaurs and supporting existing progressives, esp. on health care.

people should also check within their own state and local races to see what progressives might be running.

[aquart]

13. It must be such a comfort to have a bogeyman.

No individual is ever smart enough to oppose you, only mindless robots ordered by their overlords.

[Union Yes]

18. My, you sound scared by this..

do prgogressive Dems bother you?

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Already underway - kicking Michael Bennet out..

He's a carpetbagger picked by DLC Ritter.

Andrew Romanoff is my choice, and also the Colorado Democratic Party's candidate of choice after Salazar was nominated. Ritter overrode and pissed the hell out of everyone by picking Bennet over Romanoff.

Ritter is up for re-election, he's facing a very difficult fight this time.

Hawkeye-X

[sabrina 1]

94. Great, I'll look them both up and

donate if Romanoff is as good as you say he is. If Ritter was chosen by the DLC, enough said. Good luck in Col. and HNY ~

[mirrera]

15. Salut!

[liskddksil]

16. We can start with these progressive candidates

Jennifer Brunner, is Secretary of State in Ohio, and much more progressive then the establishment backed Lee Fisher, in the race for Ohio's senate seat.

http://www.jenniferbrunner.com /

Rhode Island State Representative Betsy Dennigan, who is progressive and pro-choice, is running in a primary against current Rep. James Langevin, who voted for the Stupak amendment.

http://betsydenniganforcongress.com/?page_id=10

Andrew Romanoff is the former Colorado House Majority Leader, who has bucked the establishment and even the President to run a primary against Michael Bennet, who voted against the Cram-down legislation, and until very recently was not generally supportive of the public option.

http://www.andrewromanoff.com /

Doug Tudor is a progressive Democrat running in the primary against self-proclaimed "blue-dog" Lori Edwards in Florida's 12 Congressional District.

http://www.teamtudor.org/index.asp

Bloomington Resident D'Ippolito is running against Evan Bayh.
http://www.tamyraforsenate.com /

Joe Sestak running against Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector.
http://joesestak.com /

Marcy Winograd running against DLC Rep. Jane Harman in California.
www.winograd4congress.com

Regina Thomas running against blue-dog John Barrow in Georgia. No website yet.

Also keep an eye on Lt. Gov. of Arkansas Bill Halter, who many believe could run against Sen. Lincoln.

[Union Yes]

22. Wonderful list and thanks for compiling these candidates with links.

I've had my eye on Joe Sestak for sometime now, since Spector switched to Dem.

I've just recently learned of Andrew Romanoff from debating with another DU'er in another thread and I'm impressed.

Anyway, Thanks again for taking the time to put this list together.

I'm preparing an email that is similar to my OP but cleaned up and a tad friendlier. Monday morning I'll be sending it to a number of progressive candidates. Including everyone on your list.

I'll be calling each and every one of these candidates to voice these ideas too. It seems a bit more effective to call and talk to them but emailing is effective too.

Once again thanks. Nice list!

:patriot:

[liskddksil]

29. Thanks and I hope groups, like DFA and PCCC will start

promoting these and other candidates real soon, because they're going to need the support of the progressive infrastructure to take on the money of the DSCC and DCCC.

[shadowknows69]

17. K+R

[JamesA1102]

19. You sound like Glenn Beck and the tea partiers

they you demonize a whole organization same as they do.

[Union Yes]

23. DLC demonized itself through their policymaking. Don't even try blaming me. nt

[JamesA1102]

24. Have you ever even read the policies of the DLC?

I get the feeling you haven't and are just demonizing them because they don't walk 100% in lockstep with your ideology just like Beck and the tea partiers.

[Union Yes]

25. You mean like Warpiggin, Pro NAFTA, Anti-Union, Anti HC reform,..

You can keep your quasi-Rethug stances.

So can the DLC.

Question, why not just become a Republican if you support policies that mimic them?

[JamesA1102]

26. By your statements it is obvious

that you don't know the policy stances of the DLC or what you are talking about. Just like Beck and the tea partiers.

[Union Yes]

27. Then present a valid arguement. Are you saying the DLC isn't a gathering of warpigs?

[JamesA1102]

38. No this is America

Guilty until proven innocent. You made the accusation, you have to prove it. And do so with solid facts.

[Union Yes]

57. You asked for it, here's your answer.

Warmongering: The escalation of the war in Afghanistan. The willfullness to deficit spend us into a bankrupt nation in order to warmonger.

The Afghan war is an unwinnable war that will drive our debt to 20 TRILLION DOLLARS.

The DLC is fully aware of this fact and still doesn't give a fuck. They want their war.

Anti-EFCA: The DLC opposes card check. DLC Senators oppose EFCA and won't vote for cloture. The DLC is the anti-union wing of the Dem party.

The DLC is the Pro-NAFTA CAFTA GATT/WTO wing of the Dem party. Job outsourcing enablers.

The DLC's lips are firmly glued to the ass of our corporate overlords. Banking, PHARMA, Oil, Military/Industrial complex and the "defense" industry, Health Insurance giants.

The DLC defeated single payer, then defeated the public option and left us with mandates and a sellout to Big Health Insurers.

I've done something you've failed to do in this short back and forth. Back up my arguements.

When will you do the same?

[JamesA1102]

62. Again you're throwing out accusations without any facts to back them up

Sounding more and more like Beck and the tea baggers with every post.

[JamesA1102]

63. BTW When I'm refering to facts I mean something like this

Press Release | September 6, 2006

DLC Joins with Top Labor Organizations to Endorse Employee Free Choice Act
DLC Chairman Gov. Tom Vilsack and Labor Leaders Among Those in Attendance

For Immediate Release

Contact: Jamie Radice
[phone]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Workers should have the right to request union representation without being subjected to intimidation or lengthy battles, according to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and labor leaders. Iowa Governor and DLC Chair Tom Vilsack, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, Change to Win Federation Chair Anna Burger, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee and United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard today joined DLC Founder and CEO Al From to announce the DLC's support for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The Act, which was reintroduced to Congress last year, seeks to strengthen worker protection by requiring that employers recognize unions when the majority of workers request representation, as well as provide mediation and arbitration of first-contract disputes. The act also authorizes stronger penalties for violations when workers are prevented from forming unions. The announcement is a result of an on-going dialogue between the DLC and top labor organizations.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254031&kaid=85&subid=108

Like I said earlier, you have no idea what the DLC policy positions are and like Beck, Rush and the tea baggers you're demonizing them based on nothing factual. Making them a convenient bogeyman for everything you're against without even taking 5 minutes to learn what they are really about.

[Union Yes]

77. A 2006 article? Give me a god damn break. Here's a NYT article from July.

Thank the DLC for dropping card check.

Without card check, EFCA is useless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8532394

[JamesA1102]

83. The article says nothing about the DLC

Are all your "facts" that reliable?

[HughMoran]

126. It's not about facts

You're wasting your time - you can't argue with a prejudice

[JamesA1102]

131. That's true nt

[Union Yes]

28. Rahm Emmanuel has repeatedly told the left to fuck off.

[JamesA1102]

42. Really?

Can you provide the actual quotes from reputable sources. And Rahm is just one person, he doesn't represent a whole organization.

More and more your tactics and logic sound like Beck and the tea baggers.

[Odin2005]

47. The DLC's rhetoric is a front for corporate crap.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

92. Why because you say so? nt

[laughingliberal]

72. Just like Beck and the teabaggers? Lol! Beck and the teabaggers are probably a lot more in favor of

DLC policies than they are of progressive policies. Funny comparison.

[JamesA1102]

76. Like Beck and the tea baggers

who operate on no facts demonizing whomever doesn't walk in 100% ideological lockstep.

[laughingliberal]

78. Fail. We see far too many DLC'ers here who bash on others who aren't jumping on the defend anyone

with a D behind their name bandwagon for that to sell. Hysterically funny attempt, though.

[JamesA1102]

84. And we've seen far too many demagogues here who use the same tactics

as Beck, Rush and the teabaggers.

[laughingliberal]

86. I am rubber and you are glue...

Sorry the teabagger references do not persuade and do not disprove the fact that the DLC has, largely, advocated for and passed legislation that has hurt workers and middle class people. If you favor those policies, good. But calling people who don't favor them teabaggers does not change their track record.

[JamesA1102]

88. Disprove the fact???

Nothing that has been posted proves the fact in the first place. That's where the tea bagger comparison comes in. They make a lot of accusations about organizations like Acorn without proving any facts too.

[laughingliberal]

89. The opposition to the DLC within the party is due to their corporate friendly policies like

NAFTA. I became a Democrat a long time ago in the days when Democrats stood up for the working class. Now we see our party move to the right, largely on the impetus of the takeover by DLC'ers, and sell the working and middle classes out for the corporate interests who fund their campaigns. And, again, calling us teabaggers does not change that. I'm still rubber and you are still glue. There is just as much demand for ideological purity coming from the DLC crowd. Only the ideology to which they demand loyalty is different.

[JamesA1102]

91. You make a lot of accusations but

I don't see you proving any of them. Just like a tea bagger.

[laughingliberal]

93. I see you name calling without refuting my points, just like a teabagger

You need proof that it was a DLC'er responsible for getting NAFTA passes or Glass Steagall repealed. Robert Rubin was not DLC? Is that your position? I'm still rubber, you're still glue.

Please, also, let me know which policies of the DLC have helped workers or middle class families. Perhaps I've misjudged them. Defend your position of support for them.

[JamesA1102]

96. This is America.

Those making the accusations have to provide the proof not the other way around. I have yet to see any proof presented for the demonization of the DLC that goes on here. All I'm seeing is the same type of tactics employed by tea baggers against organizations like Acorn including mis-stating their actual policy positions (such as saying they are against the Employee Free Choice Act when they have been supporting it for years) in order to deomonize them. If it is wrong when the right does it, it is also wrong when the left does it too.

[liberation]

98. Does the DLC pay double overtime if you guys have to shill on holidays?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Union Yes]

99. I know the DLC won't let em unionize! =)

[JamesA1102]

104. Another uninformed statement from an uninformed person NT

[JamesA1102]

102. Not being paid and not shilling for anyone.

Just someone with an open mind (the definition of a liberal) who believes in fairness and doesn't want to see any organization demonized based on falsehoods.

[laughingliberal]

109. As for unsubstantiated accusations, please let us know to which 'falsehoods' you refer nt

[JamesA1102]

111. Like saying they are against EFCA which is a falsehood.

I found that in less than 5 minutes on their website. Which goes back to my original point that most here who demonize the DLC haven't even spent the time to check out their real positions on issues. They just project what ever they are unhappy about and blame it all on the DLC to demonize them without any regard for reality, just like tea baggers do.

Keep on posting. You're proving me more and more right with each post. Thanks.

[laughingliberal]

112. I acknowledged they issued a press release voicing support for it in 2006. We're overwhelmed by the

commitment this shows.

[JamesA1102]

115. Wow you didn't even read the press release.

Of course can't let any facts get in the way of your pre-conceived bias. Just like a teabagger. Thanks for once again proving my point.

[laughingliberal]

119. I did read it and I have to say I am overwhelmed with the extreme effort of our masters issuing a

press release over 3 years ago saying they supported a policy which would help worker. I'm so overwhelmed with gratitude for this hard work on our behalf I can hardly contain myself.

[JamesA1102]

120. No you didn't.

Now you're just lying. Because they just didn't just issue a press release. If you read it you'd know that. Thanks again for proving me right!

[laughingliberal]

124. Yeah, I did. This is the link you provided. It is a press release from 2006

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254031&kaid=85&subid=108

We're all just wetting ourselves at this herculean effort of putting out a press release supporting a worker friendly policy over 3 years ago. Can't accuse them of not doing the heavy lifting here. Woo hoo!

[HughMoran]

127. Don't worry, they throw that "paid for" accusation at anybody who dares to confront

the demagoguery that passes for 'fact' all too often here.

[JamesA1102]

132. Yeah I know.

They have eyes but cannot see.

[laughingliberal]

100. I wouldn't call anything I have said as 'demonization' of the DLC

I have pointed out policies they supported which have hurt average Americans who work for a living and are not part of the upper 1%. Last I checked we still have a right to express our point of view. I have said they have supported and been responsible for passing legislation that has hurt working and middle class Americans to the benefit of the extremely wealthy-passing NAFTA and repealing Glass Steagall. If you approve of these policies, fine. I do not. And I don't think pointing out that these policies were anti-worker is demonization. It is accurate criticism. I think most Democrats (most Aemericans for that matter) believe NAFTA was a disaster for our workers. I think most Democrats are aware that the repeal of Glass Steagall was a big mistake that laid a lot of the groundwork for the current meltdown of the economy. And it is not in dispute that the repeal of Glass Steagall was supported by some well known DLC'ers.

If the DLC decides to support the EFCA, I will applaud them for that. I haven't seen any indication they are supporting it but if they do then good on them.

The teabaggers' problem is they don't have a clue what they are talking about. They raise hell about the 'government takeover' of Medicare, for God's sake. A complete lack of knowledge of the issue, there. They think the current health care legislation is a government takeover of of the health care system when the reality is it puts more power than ever in the hands of private, for profit corporations, another complete misrepresentation of the facts. It is not the same as pointing out policies the DLC have supported and do not deny they supported and disagreeing with them.

If you like NAFTA and the repeal of Glass Steagall then you have the right to agree with these policies. But they have not been good policies for most Americans and pointing that out is not demoniziing them or misrepresenting the policies the way teabaggers do. And this kind of name calling and ridicule is a tactic we have seen from the right wing for years. Marching in lockstep with Bush' was one of the things we most criticized about the Republicans these past 8 years and, yet, we have people in our party calling us teabaggers for not marching in lockstep with some of the people in our party. This is nuts.

[JamesA1102]

103. And like the tea baggers you don't have a clue either.

If you did then you wouldn't make a statement like "If the DLC decides to support the EFCA, I will applaud them for that." But they have been supporting it for years: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254031&kaid=85&subid=108 so you better start applauding. You're statement just proves that you don't know what their true policy positions are and are just joining in the mindless demonization of anyone that doesn't walk in ideological lockstep.

[laughingliberal]

105. Oh, wow! A press release from 2006 supporting EFCA. Hope they didn't strain themselves with that.

I do have a clue that the DLC was instrumental in giving us NAFTA and in the repeal of Glass Steagall. The press release to which you linked is from Sept 2006. I have heard little push from them to get it going. They may voice support but I've seen no action. Quite a few of their members have been part of the majority party in the House and Senate since 2006. I would expect if they are strong supporters of it we would hear some talk about getting moving on passing it. Otherwise it is lip service.

I know I listened to the president of the United Steel Workers union speaking with Ed Shultz on Air America last week and he was not very encouraged that Congress will be taking this up any time soon. And they are quite unhappy with some provisions in the health care reform bill that are unfriendly to workers in general and union workers in particular, provisions that members of the DLC in the current administration support like the tax on 'cadillac plans, ' that many union workers negotiated for in lieu of higher pay.

As I've said, if you like the laws we got from DLC'ers, specifically NAFTA and the Gramm Leach Bliley then that is your prerogative. Obviously you feel you have some reason to like and defend them. I don't see it that way. Perhaps you are one of the few that reaped a benefit from those laws. Most of us did not and we have every right to be suspicious of their support for workers. I don't owe our lawmakers one damned thing. They work for us. When they're right I'll say so and when they are wrong I will say so, also. Yippee for them for putting out a press release supporting EFCA over 3 years ago. Bad on them for passing NAFTA and Gramm Leach Blilely. Bad on them for pushing this industry friendly, HCR bill with no public option. There is no lawmaker who has earned my unquestioning trust and no party which has earned my unquestioning trust and support and I refuse to pretend they have. There are a few lawmakers who have usually stood up for working and middle class Americans and I am more inclined to hold a favorable opinion of them but it is not unquestioning even then.

[JamesA1102]

106. Wow you pick two issues and demonize a whole organization

based on that, then follow it up with unsubstantiated accusations. Face it, you use the same tactics as the tea baggers. You just don't like that I've put a mirror up to you and you don't like the image reflected.

[laughingliberal]

107. I made not one unsubstantiated accusation

Members of the DLC were instrumental in passing NAFTA and repealing Glass Steagall. Those 2 things alone have hurt the working class and the economy of this country enought that they deserve to be remembered for it if they never do another thing. Call me a teabagger all day long if you like. It changes nothing. It brings back not one job we lost to outsourcing. It brings back not one penny of the $5 trillion lost in the Wall Street ponzi scheme that was facilitated by the Gramm Leach Blilely.

You are free to support them all you like. I'm assuming you have benefited in some way from their conservative stands on issues. Good for you. Your snarkiness does not change their record or my opinion.

[JamesA1102]

110. That's still cherrypicking two issues

and demonizing a whole organization based on that.

BTW You're assumptions, or accusations, about me are totally wrong. I'm just an open-minded person (which is the definition of a liberal) who doesn't like to see blanket accusations make against anyone whether it be the right attacking Acorn or the left doing it to the DLC. But like a tea bagger you project unsubstantiated accusations against anyone who doesn't agree with you in 100% ideological lockstep.

And please make another post, for each post just proves what I'm saying more and more.

[laughingliberal]

116. I doubt anyone here, outside of you, thinks my posts have proven your points

The 2 issues I cherry picked have done vast damage to the workers and economy of this country. I have really seen nothing they have advocated for that did not enrich the ruling class.

My allegations about the damage they did with NAFTA and Gramm Leach Blilely are not unsubstantiated. I think most would agree that NAFTA hurt the working class more than any other legislation passed since the end of the depression. And Gramm Leach Blilely made possible the conditions that led to the economic meltdown we are now in.

[JamesA1102]

118. Sure they do!

You keep on going back to the same two cherry picked issues to demonize an organization. You're proving my point so much better than I can about your closed mind. Thanks.

[laughingliberal]

121. ROFL. You can not defend those 2 'cherry picked' issues.

We all know the damage NAFTA and Gramm Leach Bliley did to our country. Obviously you disagree. Does not mean you are right about it. And, yes, my mind is forever closed regarding NAFTA and Gramm Leach Blilely. The evidence of the damage these two pieces of legislation is not in doubt.

Here's some other things I have a closed mind about:

Cancer is bad for people
Hitler was a problem for most of the world.
George Bush was the worst president ever
Serial killers are a detriment to society
Water is wet

[JamesA1102]

133. Defending those issues is not the point.

Just as whether I agree or disagree with them is not the point. It is cherry picking two issues and using them to demonize an entire group of people.

And once again you've proven my point for me by making cancer and Hitler comparisons. Thanks again.

[laughingliberal]

138. Once again, those 2 issues are, without a doubt, the worst things to every happen to the working

class in this country, ever. Workers have every reason to be wary of anything this bunch that passed the legislation that transferred all the wealth of the nation to the top 1%. You can say I am proving your point but it does not make it true. I do oppose all policies and all groups who continue to transfer the wealth of the nation to the ruling class and drive the workers down. It is bad for the country (at least the part of the country who isn't in the top 1%). There is no defense for it. The only people defending them either are not aware of the damage their policies are doing (the bank bailout continues at the behest of the DLC'ers in the administration, the lack of a jobs program is due to their policies of favoring the rich and letting the workers flounder), or they are people who are benefiting from the policies. Otherwise, it is a case, like the right wingers, where average Americans have been brainwashed into voting for those who continue to foist failed trickle down economics on the populace, those who consistently vote against their own self interests like working class right wingers.

My mention of cancer and Hitler are examples of other things about which I do not have an open mind. Your insistence on people having an open mind belies the fact that there are issues about which an open mind is not a good idea. Your deliberate misconstruing of my point there is an indication, as have been all your posts in this discussion, of a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

[JamesA1102]

143. Being liberal means having an open mind.

Sorry that yours is closed.

You're still only talking about only two issues. Of course since you can't get beyond that you've now raised the bar on those two issues to proclaim that those two policies are "the worst things to every happen to the working class in this country, ever" without offering any facts to back it up. Just like the tea baggers calling healthcare reform the begining of communism.

And there are those of us who may not agree with those policies who still don't believe in demonizing a whole organization just because they don't agree with us on every issue. That kind of ideological rigidity and demagoguery is right out the playbook of people like Rush and Beck.

Again you keep proving my point for me by your own rantings.

[laughingliberal]

146. Being liberal does not mean having an open mind about fascist policies

Believe what you like and keep your mind as open as you want. When the DLC members propose policies I support, I say so. Most of the time they do not and their, overall, trajectory has been to move the party to the right. You are decidedly in a minority here with your support of them but you have that right. Support them, raise money for them, go to their rallies. I choose not to. Your simplistic reasoning convinces no one. When the DLC decides to actually do something worker friendly, I will support them in that. Until then I will work to support progressives who run against them. You seem to think this 'open mind' meme of yours holds water, It does not. I also oppose the election of Republicans and my mind is not open to supporting them, either. But carry on. You keep proving your lack of critical thinking skills and juvenile reasoning.

[JamesA1102]

149. Facist policies.

Sounding more and more like a tea bagger with every post. I especially like the insults and personal accusation as well as the putting words in my mouth in order to put me on the defensive. But they ar just cheap debating tactics used by the like of Rush and O'Reilly.

[laughingliberal]

159. Continuing to give more of the power which correctly belongs to the people

to corporate powers with no restraints on their power is fascist in nature. I see no reason to candy coat that. There is such a thing a fascism. It is a shame those on the right do not know what it is and use it as a slur against any leader of policy with which they disagree. It does not mean there is no fascism, just that they are unaware of what it is and they, in fact, support many policies that are fascist in nature without being aware of it. It is interesting you are complaining about insults and accusations when you have, in almost every post, accused people of being teabaggers. But, carry on. Projection is a psychological defense mechanism designed to keep people from insights into there own behavior which they are unable to process.

[JamesA1102]

162. No reason to candy coat prejudice?

That's what you're defending. And I never accused anyone of being a tea bagger just using the same tactics as tea baggers which they have been, now reason to candy coat that.

[sabrina 1]

114. How about their support for Bush's wars?

In general they support the ideas of the PNACers which is why they supported the war in Iraq.

The DLC is the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party, their policies are totally at odds with the Democratic Party platform except on a few issues which they don't care much about anyhow.

Eg, they give lip-service to womens rights and gay rights when it's close to an election but actually believe that these issues should not be focused on and aren't all that important.

They are FOR runaway Capitalism, the kind that brought this country to its knees. They also despise Liberals, or what they perceive as any kind of liberalism. They are far more in line with the Republican Party on most of the major issues. Their goal is to drag the Democratic Party as far to the right as they can.

Bit Tent didn't mean Republican lites, there already is a party for them. Big Tent meant women, minorities, the poor and the voiceless, labor and all those who were NOT welcome in the Republican Party.

DLCers I have talked to are not much different to Republicans I talk to. They believe that issues like gay marriage, womens rights etc. are 'pet issues' that the Dem. Party should not focus on. That's fine for them to feel that way, but they don't belong in the Dem Party if they think the Party has to change for them to be a part of it. I like the Party Platform the way it is. They don't, so that should settle it.

Rahm Emanuel speaks very well for them. He has said publicy that the Party should ignore the 'left'. Well, last time I looked, that IS what makes up the Democratic Party. Maybe it's Rahm you need to have a chat with. I think he said exactly what the DLC intends. Get rid of the 'left' altogother in this country and turn the Dem. Party into a Reagan Republican Party. I hate to tell them, it ain't going to happen.

[JamesA1102]

117. Wow. Another one who hasn't spent five minutes on their website

to learn their real positions and instead just throws out a lot of accusations to smear a concoted bogeyman.

[sabrina 1]

122. I have spent a great deal of time researching

the DLC and their ideas for the Democratic Party. Their website is not very informative as far as knowing what they are really all about. It sounds good until you start digging a little deeper. There's not much on there to give a real in depth look at their actual beliefs. As a matter of fact, I think it is about time to put together an OP that looks at the DLC in depth. I might do that when I have some time.

In the meantime, people are not blind. They are all over the 'left' blogs with their talking points, and have been for quite a while. They are easily recognizable with their disdain for the most progressive Democrats and support for war etc.

The DLC politicians all voted for the Iraq War, eg. Back then I couldn't understand what had happened to the Democrats. But having done quite a bit of research since then, what happened to the party and why they so often actually supported Bush's agenda, became clear.

They are welcome to stay, but not to change the Party Platform. If they want to be Democrats, then they need to start acting like Democrats. If you don't like a Party's platform what interest would you have in being part of it? They don't like it fine, but the rest of us do unfortunately for them.

[laughingliberal]

130. +1000 nt

[JamesA1102]

134. So you're saying that they need to walk in 100% lockstep

or be kicked out of the party. Sounds very tea partyish to me.

And since their website doesn't support the contention that they are evil it can't be trusted? That really sounds like the tea baggers.

Thanks. You've really helped prove my points.

[sabrina 1]

135. So, you're saying you want Republicans (lite)

taking over the Democratic Party and kicking out Democrats who won't march in lockstep with their Rightwing, Corporatist war-mongering policies? Sounds very suspicious to me ....

And are you saying that all you know about the DLC is what you learned from their website? Didn't you know that political websites are like political ads? Eg, if all I knew about Republicans was what was on their websites, I'd probably think they were a pretty decent Political Party. I never, ever use political websites as primary sources of information on political parties or candidates.

Although I have to say that even though they are trying to present their best face to the world, there is enough on their website, eg, their ideas about Health Care, to scare any real Democrat who actually cares about the American people.

[JamesA1102]

136. No I'm saying that I consider Republican lites to be

people who use the same tactics as republicans. The same dishonest demonizing of anyone who doesn't walk in 100% ideological lockstep. The same kind of fearmongering, paranoia tactics of "you can't trust their website, they have a hidden agenda" that Beck, Rush and the tea baggers use. The same kind of "I care more about america" than you demagoguery. They are the real Republican lites.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[laughingliberal]

142. The DLC is Republican lite and that's true whether you believe it or not

Your arguments are juvenile and show a deficit in critical thinking skills and you can parrot your inane arguments all day (and you have) and it will not change the facts about the DLC. Lawmakers who continue the transfer of the wealth to the top 1% at the expense of workers and middle class Americans are Republican lite. If you are not of the top 1% and you support them you are following in the footsteps of teabaggers who consistently vote against their own economic self interests. Don't let me stop you . Feel free to support candidates who screw the workers. I will continue to support progressives who do not screw the workers.

[JamesA1102]

144. Wow now you're into name calling.

That when I know I'm winning an arguement.

Keep going you just keep proving me more and more right with each ranting post.

[laughingliberal]

148. I don't think I called anyone any names. Perhaps your reading comprehension could use a little work

But carry on. You reveal a decided lack of critical thinking skills and juvenile reasoning ability with every post. To turn it back on you, you prove my points with every one of your posts. And you have, obviously, decided to support the DLC and your mind has been closed to any information contrary to your devotion.

[JamesA1102]

150. Wow first you deny calling me names then you call me names.

And again you put words in my mouth. It's your tactics that expose you and not me. Please keep posting and keep proving me right.

[laughingliberal]

154. You can not point to one place where I called you a name and your continuing to believe that is

what you are reading does call your comprehension into question. Or, if I'm wrong, please state what name I called you. You can't because I didn't. You have accused me of calling you names. The accuser must, in our legal system, provide the proof.

[JamesA1102]

163. Oh now the accuser must provide the proof.

Didn't realize it was OK for only you to make accusations without proof. As I said, please keep on posting. You are only exposing your hypocrisy more and more.

[laughingliberal]

141. I think this one's without any critical thinking skills. Waste of time to attempt to educate. nt

[JamesA1102]

145. Actually critical thinking requires an open mind and the ability

to put aside one's own bias to consider all the facts. You should try it sometime.

[laughingliberal]

153. Critical thinking does require an open mind like the ability to see

that much of what people object to about the DLC is valid. That open mind thing works both ways, you know. You show an obvious bias in favor of the DLC as evidenced by the fact that you have discounted all factual information about the policies enacted by them which many of us oppose. I also had a closed mind about most of Bush' policies, too and do not apologize for that. Your devotion to the DLC is commendable. I am sure they are grateful.

[JamesA1102]

156. No keeping an open mind means that you look for facts

to prove accusations. None have been presented. Just the usual non-supported rantings. Keeping an open mind means you don't demonize a whole organization just because you don't agree with it all the time. That's what the tea baggers, Beck and others on the right do with Acorn. It is just as bad as when the left does it too.

[laughingliberal]

157. Your reasoning is faulty. I don't keep an open mind about Republican policies, either

Facts about policies the DLC has supported have been posted. These policies are the reason we do not wish to work for or support DLC candidates. You have chosen to minimize the information about the policies of the DLC that we oppose. You have that right but it is not true that there have been no facts posted. Your repeating your mantra that there have been no facts posted does not make it true. Others reading this can clearly see the facts which were posted. I will also note I do not have an open mind about Republican policies, either and I do not apologize for that.

[JamesA1102]

165. Please you haven't posted one single fact

Just your opinions. Opinion and beliefs are not facts. But that's the problem with arguing with someone who is closed minded and driven by their own hatred, intolerance and prejudice.

[laughingliberal]

139. Nope 100% lockstep is not required. An overall approach to government based on

policies and laws that regulate the abuses of corporate America and protect workers and consumers is. The teabaggers want their party to march in lockstep with right wing fascism. We want our party to reverse the trends which have destroyed working and middle class Americans and given the power over government to sociopathic corporations. I really don't care what you think about that. Policies that favor workers and average Americans are at the heart of the Democratic party platform. They are the reason I am and have been a Democrat for the 36 years I've been voting. I will only support candidates who believe in policies who favor the workers over the wealthy. I will not support candidates who continue the policies which are transferring all the wealth to the top. If you are still confused as to what the DLC stands for you may do your own research. I have watched their actions while in the government. I don't have to read their website (although I have and they provide very little information) to know what their policies are. I have observed their actions while in office and I don't agree with their vision of government. And you, obviously, either don't realize what they stand for or you benefit in some way from them. Otherwise, you could be like the working class teabaggers who vote for Republicans who give tax cuts to the wealthy and destroy worker's rights. I will not vote for candidates who destroy the working class. If you want to, you have that right and your lack of critical thinking skills, evident here, and juvenile arguments are not persuasive.

[JamesA1102]

147. You don't have to read their website???

Again you just proved my point for me. Tea baggers don't do much reading either. They just believe the demagoguery of their leaders. Then resort to name calling when they can't prove that their hatred is justified and accusations are true using facts. Sound familiar.

[laughingliberal]

151. I have read their website. It is notable for a lack of substantive information,

much like your profile. I have also observed their policies and their legislation. Their website is words they wrote. Their actions are much more in evidence. Or did you never hear, "talk is cheap," or "actions speak louder than words." Your loyalty to them is commendable. I am sure they are grateful.

[JamesA1102]

155. Wait, you said you didn't read their website,

now you're saying that you did. Which is it? Your story keeps changing.

Once again you've proved one of my original points that their real stands on policies are ignored by those who would rather just project everything they don't like on to them to make them a convenient bogey man. But there are those of us who rather keep an open mind and despite not agreeing with them 100% on every issue just don't think they should be demonized. Sorry if that kind of tolerance offends you.

[laughingliberal]

160. I said reading their website is not necessary to know I do not agree with their policies

That is not the same as saying I did not read it. My point is I see what policies they have promoted and their actions speak louder than their words. I will read people's words and I will watch their behavior for consistency with the views they espouse. Or should I just base my support for candidates on their campaign ads?

on edit: Here is the exact copy of what I said in the post to which you refer:

<I don't have to read their website (although I have and they provide very little information) to know what their policies are.>

Please note it is exactly opposite of how you represented my words. It clearly shows me saying I have read the website.

[JamesA1102]

164. Sorry I misunderstood

but you keep changing your story so it is hard to keep track. And if you really had read their website you'd know that they provide a lot of information on a lot of issues. But why bother educating yourself, prejudice and blind hatred thrive on a lack of education.

[laughingliberal]

166. Haven't changed my story once

Have read their website. Have read their articles and position papers. Have also paid attention to the policies and legislation they actually vote for and enact when in power. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Do not agree with most of the positions they take and will work to elect legislators who are more in line with my positions. I believe that is what informed voters do-watch to see who is supporting the policies they agree with and support those candidates. Reading a group's website is all well and good but these people have a track record, also, by which they may be evaluated. I don't care for their track record. As I said before if reading the website is the only measure by which I'm allowed to judge candidates I might as well vote for people who have the best campaign ads.

We aren't going to agree on this. I, in no way, would suggest you don't have the right to work for the election of whichever candidates you choose based on your stand on the issues. I have the same right and am tired of people who, somehow, think I do not have that right. I've been an involved and active member of the Democratic Party since the 70's. Never voted for a Republican in my life and never will. I was an active participant in the civil rights movement, a follower of Martin Luther King, Jr and Robert Kennedy both of whom I met before I was even old enough to vote I was on Richard Nixon's enemies list before I was old enough to vote as were my parents. I lived through attempts on our lives by groups such as the KKK, the John Birch society, the Minutemen and many others. My credentials as a Democrat are without question. I have learned at the feet of some of the greatest leaders the Democratic party ever saw. I am a liberal Democrat who supports workers rights, strong unions, and effective social programs to provide a safety net. I support equal rights and opportunities for all people. I believe the bill of rights applies to everyone. I am against the erosion of fourth amendment rights we saw under Bush and am opposed to the continuation of these policies under the current administration. I am an RN who has spent my life working to help some of the sickest in our society and watching the deterioration of our health care system as it was taken over by the for profit vultures. I believe health care is a right and not just a privilege. I make no apologies for my stands on issues. They have been formed by years of study and years of experience. I will support candidates who support the issues I consider important. I resent those who want to browbeat others into their way of thinking or deride them for their opinions. Please feel free to work for the election of the candidates of your choice as will I.

[JamesA1102]

167. Please you change it with every other post.

Now you're comparing the DLC to the KKK and John Birch society. The problem is you can't defend against you're own hatred and intolerance. No one is saying you have to support any DLC candidate. But the smears like those above are unfair and born out of ignorance and prejudice. And it is you and most of the other DLC-hate crew that are doing the browbeating of anyone who doesn't see them as a bogeyman but rather give them a fair shake even if we don't agree 100% with their positions.

[laughingliberal]

168. No, I did not. There are only 2 choices here

You either deliberately misinterpret my meanings in order to distort and disrupt or your comprehension is limited. My mentioning of my families' battles was not comparing the DLC to the KKK or John Birch Society. It was to illustrate the path I have traveled as a Democrat which has more than earned me a place in this party whether you or anyone else agrees with me. That would have been apparent to anyone else reading my post. The definitive statement was "my credentials as a Democrat are without question." You appear to have trouble following different trains of thought and nuances in conversations. Or, as I said, you perhaps deliberately misinterpret to distort and disrupt.

Your accusation of ignorance and prejudice on my part holds no water. I have given examples of legislation the DLC has enacted in the past which I believe did great harm to working class American of which I am one. That is not ignorance, it is based on their actions. It is not prejudice to oppose candidates who hold positions I don't agree with. Prejudice would be to oppose a candidate without knowing their position. You have consistently accused me of ' cherry picking' 2 issues the DLC supported. Those are illustrations of their overall philosophy. Some other issues I have are the DLC members in the current administration who continue to funnel money to the financial institutions who are now using the money to create a new stock market bubble. The DLC members of the president's economic team oppose the reinstatement of Glass Steagall (which was repealed with the support of DLC members such as Robert Rubin) which most reputable economists believe was the regulation that kept us from a meltdown of this magnitude while it remained the law. You have offered no defense of their policies except to post one link to a press release from over 3 years ago where thy voiced support for ECFA. They have taken no action to facilitate EFCA becoming law. Should I see the DLC members begin to put any action behind those words from over 3 years ago, I will gladly support them in getting that law passed and praise them for it. I have no problem giving DLC members credit when they stand up for what I believe is right. I don't see them do that, often. I take umbrage with those, here, who do display their disdain of those of us not inclined to support the policies of the DLC. And I take issue with some members of the DLC coalition who have deemed the 'left' 'irrelevant.' Frankly, if they believe us to be 'irrelevant. then there is no reason you or anyone need persuade us to support them. Obviously, they seem not worried about our disapproval of their policies. I have displayed no hatred. My intolerance is only for policies and laws the DLC has enacted. I am not the "DLC hate crew." I am of the disagreee with the DLC crew and, unless you wish to call for a constitutional convention, that remains my right. I see many DLC supporters here browbeating those on the left for stating any disagreement with the policies of the DLC'ers in the current administration The continued distortion of my words in your posts is one example.

Give anyone you wish a fair shake. I oppose most of the policies the DLC supports and will continue to do so, unless their positions change. I have seen the results past legislation and policies they supported and do not believe they worked well for the American people. I prefer to lend my support to candidates whose positions more closely agree with what I believe. It would seem to go without saying that is how people decide who to support. Please be my guest in continuing your efforts to promote the DLC as is your right. I will continue to support candidates I feel best serve the interests of the people. I do not agree 100% with the positions of any candidate. But in order to support them I do need to feel their overall views on the role of government and the amount of influence corporations have on our government match my beliefs more than what I see from the DLC. You have said not one thing that proved the DLC to be amenable or committed to the types of policies I prefer in my lawmakers. Your continued distortion of my words is a tactic not likely to change my mind or anyone else's. If your arguments are meant to be persuasive, you may want to look into some basics of persuasive speech.

[JamesA1102]

169. Only two choices??? That's a black and white attitide!

Which is my point. It is not black and white. There is a lot of grey in there. Just because an organization doens't walk 100% in lockstep with you're ideology doesn't mean they have to be demonized and called facists or compared with the KKK (which you did even though now you are claiming that you didn't). And I'm not distorting your words. Why would I? They keep proving my original points over and over again. The problem is you don't have factual support for your rants and you're trying to justify intolerance, prejudice and hate. Unfortunately you're so blinded by your ideology you can't see that.

[laughingliberal]

170. And I'm ending this. The discussion is here for all to see

I believe my points were valid and coherent. I perceive yours as distorting and disrupting. We will leave it to the readers to decide. Welcome to my ignore list.

[JamesA1102]

172. Pleased to be there!

[KittyWampus]

20. How about making 2010 the year Progressives are made electable in primaries?

Your post is a good illustration of counterproductive negative thinking.

Successful people frame their desires in positive terms.

[Union Yes]

33. I wish I could agree with that sentiment, and it's not a bad idea but..

Warm, fuzzy, play-nice sentiments lose elections.

Will the DLC be waiting to play nice, hell no. They will work relentlessly to undermine all progressive candidates nationwide.

I'm not trying to be a smartass toward you. We simply have to grasp the reality of the situation.

Sadly, this is what American politics has resorted to and evolved into.

Sorry for being overly blunt. I do like the peaceful sentiment of your reply. I wish it could be that way.

Peace and HNY!

UY

[laughingliberal]

73. Too true for comfort. However much we have wished the tactics of 'going negative' were not so

successful against our candidates we see it work time and again. Sometimes, playing nice just doesn't get it.

[leeroysphitz]

21. I'm with you. I plan to primary EVERYONE I can in the upcoming elections.

It's all I have so I'm going to use it.

[liberation]

97. I don't have anything to add other than I just realized you have techno Viking in your tag line

and that is f*cking awesome!

Carry on ;-)

[H2O Man]

30. Recommended.

Knee-cap the DLC.

[bvar22]

31. Tough Fight, but I'm with you.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


Begin by NEVER donating to the DCCC or DSCC.
They are the Enforcement Arm of the DLC,
and use YOUR money to rig local Primaries.

[Kansas Wyatt]

32. DLC equals Republican

That is the bottom line and there are no consolation prizes.

[Union Yes]

34. Hard to find any truer words ever spoken on DU. 100% agree. peace. nt

[amborin]

35. KNR

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Something you guys continue to ignore . . .

it's a rigged game. How many times have there been perfectly acceptable Progressive candidates only for the all-powerful, corporate-sponsored DLC boys to come in and rig the game against the Progressive candidate and put all effort and all dollars toward their chosen sycophant? How many times have we seen this? How do you propose that we fight Goldman-Sachs money and their willing water carriers? All this rah-rah party shit is fine but you HAVE to be able to have a strategy as to how you're going to combat a game that is rigged from the start.

[WeDidIt]

37. Wow, the DLC has become the new Karl Rove

You should educate yourself about the DLC. They have almost no power and very little influence at all as an organization. It was mostly lost after the failures of 2000 and 2002. They sank in influence almost a decade ago and have never recovered. The biggest influence they have today is as a catch all bogey man to leftwing blogs and forums, and they ahve no input into that at all.

There is really no organized rightwing to the Dmeocratic Party, nor is there an organized left wing. In fact, if the left wing truly organized with strategic goals laid out and if a tactical plan to achieve those goals were implemented, the left could easily steamroll into absolute control of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the left wing of the Democratic Party is even more disorganized and in even bigger disarray than the rightwing of the Democratic Party.

As for me, I take the Will Rogers stance.

I am not a member of an organized party. I am a Democrat.

[Union Yes]

39. I notice in your avatar, Rahm turns to the left with his 'salute'. Rahm has repeatedly told..

the left to fuck off.

So tell me Wedidit, which DLC stance do you most endorse?

Warmongering

Unionbusting

Anti-EFCA

Pro-NAFTA CAFTA GATT AND "Free" Trade.

Job outsourcing.

Substandard wages

The Wealth Divide

NONE of those are Democratic values.

[WeDidIt]

41. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the DLC

other than sonme made up bullshit attributed to the DLC by liberal idiots on message boards.

Educate yourself. there is no DLC bogey man out there. As an organization, they are nearly powerless and have almost no influence.

[Union Yes]

45. You didn't answer. Which DLC stance do you most endorse? nt

[WeDidIt]

52. I'll answer yur question when you tell me when you stopped beating up your mother. n/t

[Union Yes]

54. Finding it hard to defend the DLC? nt

[WeDidIt]

55. I have never defended the DLC.

There's no need to. They have no power or influence beyond the minds of some people who wear tinfoil hats.

[TheWatcher]

66. You won't answer because you can't. Hence the child like responses.

Now, will you answer the question, or respond with your typical level of discourse?

Which DLC Stance do you most endorse?

it's a simple question, and it shouldn't be hard for you to answer.

Let's see if you can do it.

Civilly now. No insults.

[HughMoran]

128. "Civilly now. No insults."

" child like responses" - insult

"or respond with your typical level of discourse?" - implied insult

"Let's see if you can do it." - 'talking to a child' tone is an insult.

[TheWatcher]

161. And the most child like of all decides to chime in. Coming to the defense of one of your "bots"?

"child like responses"- NOT insult. Fact. If you check the posters history, this is the level of discourse he chooses to engage in most of the time.

"or respond with your typical level of discourse?" Again, FACT. see above.

"Let's see if you can do it." - 'talking to a child' tone is an insult. Again, off base. I was TRULY interested to see if he could do it.

He obviously can't, since he failed to answer the question.

The only insult to him really, is the fact that Uncle Hugh felt he needed to rush in and hold the kid's water for him, resulting in a typical embarrassing fail that made you both look silly.

Now, don't you have some "Message Disciplining" to do?

Run along and play with the rest of your flock. :hi:

[Cleita]

48. The DLC has it's own website and it doesn't take much reading

there to understand what they stand for. They also used to have a list of their members so those of use who read it before they scrapped the list know who is on it and the most powerful Democrats in the administration and in Congress are members so don't think we are so stupid to believe they are powerless.

[laughingliberal]

79. Yeah, we've been pretty clear about Rahm's nose thumbing at progressives and the

'left of the left.' Nice to have a clear picture of it, though, huh?

[Cleita]

44. Every single obstructionist Democrat in Congress and Joe Lieberman has

ties to the DLC and corporatism. The left wing is continuously marginalized by the DLCers because of some quaint parliamentary procedures that should changed. I think your assessment isn't true at all.

[WeDidIt]

50. And the DLC, as an organization, is virtually non-existent any more

Jesus, get real. It's a fignment of your imagination. There is no "all seeing all powerful DLC" out there.

[Cleita]

56. Looks pretty alive and well and very powerful to me.

Go to the number four graphic on features at their website and there are pictures of their members who are very much in power today including Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton. http://www.dlc.org/

[laughingliberal]

81. Whaddaya know? I found that picture and it looks like a class photo of this administration

Rahm, Hilary, Summers, Sebelius...I see no indication they are almost 'non-existent.'

[Cleita]

40. Yes, we managed to get the Republicans out of power.

Now it's time to get rid of the DLCers and Blue Dogs in Congress. Then maybe Obama will have to pull to the left because Congress will make him do it.

[LouKneeLib]

43. No DINO No

We need to keep fighting the good fight. Say no to DINOs....just say no.

[Union Yes]

60. I like. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

46. Down with the Corporacrat ConservaDINOs!!!

[Union Yes]

49. Testify! ... +1 nt

[RB TexLa]

51. I look forward to your post when we get Free Trade of the Americas and a NAU

Really, I do. Keep screaming at those clouds, "isolationism today, isolationism tommorow, isolationism foreva!!" that'll make them stop. :rofl:

[Union Yes]

53. Spoken like a true person that hasn't lost a job due to FT outsourcing. nt

Are you a corporate CEO by chance?

[Vincardog]

58. Add remove Rights from Corporations. No Corporate Money for Politicians at all

[Union Yes]

59. Corporate Personhood is like a case of Syphilis. I agree wholeheartedly with you. nt

[laughingliberal]

74. Corporate personhood is the root of the entire posionous tree. nt

[Dinger]

64. Rec # 47 From Me : )

[Union Yes]

67. Ah, "The work goes on" speech from Teddy still brings a tear to my eye.

Peace and HNY!

:toast:

[Beacho]

65. I think I was rec #46

I see the corporate-baggers are in full force with their smear tactics and telling people to shut up and sit down. As per HCR, I'm torn although I do lean to the 'better than nothing' side at the moment. What I can't stand is these fucking shills I've been running into here over the last few days using the tactics of street thugs to berate people that dare to question anything our Corporatista Overlords have decreed as orthodoxy. I have a message to you assholes, the more you use these shit heel Stalinist tactics, the more I want to kick the DLC's teeth in.

Epic Fail!

[Union Yes]

68. Damn Straight! Their tactics are resembling Rethug smear tactics.

Agree wholeheartedly with your reply.

Peace and HNY!

:toast:

[Beacho]

70. HNY to you to

:toast:

Here's to keeping up the fight, where ever it take us

[laughingliberal]

75. +1 nt

[TransitJohn]

69. K&R....time to get rid of the DLCbaggers.

:hi:

[Union Yes]

71. Anyone with transit in their name is cool in my book!

:hi:

[Lisa0825]

80. I made this during the Primary Wars....

[Union Yes]

82. I love it! Thanks for posting.

:rofl: :hi:

[northzax]

87. I know, thank god we elected the non-DLCer, right?

now we're sure to get equal rights, an end to the war, single payer, investigation of Bush-era crimes, etc.

right? right?

right?

[sabrina 1]

85. You're a fighter!

I like fighters. And that sounds like a real Democratic platform. I almost forgot what it looks like ~ ! :-)

[Union Yes]

90. Thanks!

I had to dig out and old dusty tome to find the old yellow dog Dem platform. I'd almost forgot what an real Dem platform looks like myself!

Peace and HNY!

:toast:

[sabrina 1]

108. I'm glad you did! It's easy to forget these days with

so many people claiming we ought to be standing up for eternal war and forgetting about prosecuting torturers, not to mention letting Private Corps write our healthcare bills AND putting them in charge of the whole thing etc. Sometimes it's hard to know which party we belong to anymore.

I like the idea of kicking out the rightwing infiltrators who are working hard to turn it into Republican lite.

No need to start a whole new party. Let THEM do that, or go back to the one they came from!

So, keep up the good work. We need to post that platform every once in a while and send some copies to the Democrats in DC because it looks like they've forgotten what party they belong to also. :-)

[TicketyBoo]

95. I've said it before,

and I'll say it again.

If you don't like Ben Nelson in Nebraska (or some Democrat cut from the same cloth), you'll get a Republican instead.

That's the way it is here, folks, and it may be that way elsewhere, too, for all I know.

We can dream, but this is the reality in Nebraska. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not going to look at the world through rose-colored glasses and try to pretend that it's any other way.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

101. Absolutely - the return of the OLD WAY Democratic jedis

who fought for the common man, the middle and lower classes, the workers, the unions, the WAGE EARNERS, the environment, education, peace, and civil rights

as opposed to our current Republicans in DLC Clothing Democrats.

I'd love to send empty suit Mark Warner packing at the first opportunity.

[peacetalksforall]

123. Excellent! Though the internet helped me understand what the DLC was up to

it was tv that first got me going about something that seemed very wrong. I noticed that the same people kept appearing on the tv shows and they were milquetoast. All calm, all smiley, all friendly, all ready to be creamed with a grin. Oh yes, it sounded like they were saying something, but there was no fight there. I realized then and later that the reason they were on those shows all the time is that they were never fired up to fight. They knocked themselves over to make it appear like they were best buddies with the people who were making porridge out of the Democratic Party. I am still sickened as I write this. Watching them went on for two plus decades, in my experience.

The internet proved to me that I was on the right track - thanks to all the contributors from DUers, bloggers, articles, columns. My credibility meter was honed by listening to them. It was all empty rhetoric. I was able to identify the people I could trust - the ones I thought were genuine.

My position (unless someone educates me, is that supporting the DLC is the same as supporting the Republican Party.

I could say more, but I don't want to start a war on the first day of this year.

I'm ready to fight them, but it does mean fighting the WH and Cabinet as well.

[laughingliberal]

125. Highly rec

Great post! Accurate and flushed some real trolls out of the woodwork. Good job!

[flvegan]

129. Please take note of the DLC apologist idiots in this thread.

Shouldn't be difficult.

[laughingliberal]

140. Yes. In particular some really obvious juvenile arguments with a decided lack of critical thinking

skills. No matter. This post has 71 recs. At least the DLC apologists appear, without a doubt, to be a small minority. As well they should be.

[JVS]

152. Ignored sure is busy

[laughingliberal]

171. And just got a lot busier. Lol! nt

[Kaleva]

158. Anybody being primaried yet or is this the usual big talk and no action.