Would you be willing to rid the Democratic Party of DLC types if it meant a GOP Congress?

[Tony_FLADEM]

In my opinion any DLC candidate is better than most Republicans. I don't see any DLC types apologizing to BP or telling children to eat out of garbage bins during the summer. If given a choice between a traditional Democrat and a DLC Democrat I would choose the former. However, certain parts of the country are more conservative and only DLC Democrats have a chance.

They agree with traditional Democrats on the issues, they just have a different means of trying to achieve these goals. If you will remember, the Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years because of Conservative Democrats in the South. Whomever controls these seats in the south tends to have the majority in Congress.

So I guess I'm not bothered by the DLC and I much rather defeat Republicans.

[leftstreet]

1. Harry Truman n/t

[Junkdrawer]

4. An updated paraphrasing: If a Republican and a DLC Democrat are running...

A corporate ass licker will win every time.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Exactly!

[NoPasaran]

14. Vlad the Impaler

[Ron Green]

2. Yes, I would. Then maybe the REAL Democrats could get busy,

take back Congress, and start to govern.

[Oregone]

33. So a Democrat without a left-of-center political ideaology is fake?

"Inappropriate attacks against Democrats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603151

Please self-censor

[Ron Green]

62. Yeah, in my opinion (and I still can have an opinion here, I hope)

DLC types are not real Democrats in the mold of FDR, Henry Gonzales, Gene McCarthy, Gary Hart... and so on.

Your admonition to me to "self censor" is bullshit.

In my opinion.

[NJmaverick]

3. That's a thoughtful and well reasoned post. I agree with your assessment

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Tony_FLADEM]

21. Everything this Democratic Congress has passed has had support from some DLC Democrats

Would you rather have what this Congress has passed or what Republican Congress' have enacted in the past.

[H2O Man]

23. I think that everything

those Republican Congress' have passed in the past had a wee bit more DLC support. As noted, I think that mice are cuter than rats, though as rodents, they pose a risk of spreading certain diseases.

[Swamp Rat]

53. I highly resemble that remark!

:D

[H2O Man]

55. It struck me

that Oregone might alert me to this! (Sorry! Not intended!)

[tekisui]

6. Interesting question.

There isn't a lot of daylight between the DLC/Blue Dogs and the repukes. But, there is some. I am against voting for conservatives of either party. I used to think the Democratic could exploit the conservative Democrats. I thought the party could use them to get the majority and then implement liberal policies.

The inverse has been more the case. The conservadems helped the Democratic Party get the majority, and then the real Dems bowed over and compromised (every step) to them. I like to think of the Blue Dogs as "Rational Republicans".

But, I would also trade my Blue Dog (Heath fucking Shuler) for a one-term Repuke if it meant getting a real Democrat into Congress from our district. But, it is a risky gamble.

[Swamp Rat]

8. False dichotomy. eom

[sufrommich]

9. certain parts of the country are more conservative and only DLC Democrats have a chance.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

[leftstreet]

16. How come the Republicans never have to do that?

How come the Republicans don't run strongly left campaigns in areas where people are less 'conservative?'

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

19. Neat trick, huh.

;)

Alex Trebek: For $200, 'who is Will Marshall?'

[sufrommich]

20. The republicans are the party of the south and a few

states in the west. They are the party of angry,elderly white people. They've now lost every constituency except those. They've painted themselves into a corner that defies any hopes they have for the future by appealing to a very limited group. Is that what you want?

[leftstreet]

22. Think how they'd sweep 'liberal' areas by going antiwar...pro labor...

lol whatever a 'liberal' or 'conservative' area is, I've never understood that

[Tony_FLADEM]

25. I agree with your assessment of the Republican Party.

However, they have one issue that keeps them in the game and that is the deficit. The DLC is for balanced budgets and making some choices regarding spending. If the Democrats balanced the budget the GOP would ceased to exist.

[sufrommich]

29. I think a balanced budget is a ruse the GOP uses to

convince people to vote against their own interest. Their ideas on how to balance are abhorrent. I would rather the democrats focused on getting people jobs.A balanced budget can wait for better days.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Demonstrably false and highly illogical. Balancing the budget had no effect on the viability

of Republicans and Republicans regularly expand budget deficits and have boldly stated that deficits don't matter.

Your statement and the formative ideas behind it are based on a piece of beltway bullshit that is based on clear and obvious misinformation.

[scheming daemons]

28. They used to... Arlen Specter, for example

But today, they've purged their party of all non-right-wing elements.

[Tony_FLADEM]

31. Did you notice the Republicans never had big majorities.

The Democrats have bigger majorities because most people agree with the Democrats on the issues. There budget issue keeps the Republicans in the game however.

[leftstreet]

35. Then why would Dems go right? To lose their majorities?

Wait...what?

[Tony_FLADEM]

37. They would go center on the budget to make the Republican Party extinct.

Most people agree with Democrats on Social Issues, Education, The environment, etc. They only have the deficit issue to use against the Democrats. There has not been a liberal majority in the congress since the Democrats lost 48 seats in 1966.

[treestar]

39. The M$M is in their corner

And they do. Brown, Snowe and Collins are considered "liberal" by the average freeper.

[fascisthunter]

10. yes, I would

while we may be defeating a party, we are selling out our values and principles, and it's also proven to be detrimental to our country. I want many things to happen, but winning just isn't enough. We have shifted to wards corporatism, and the ideals and principles the Democratic Party used to stand for are not compatible. When wealth is given every consideration, a human being is being denied civic right to be represented fairly.

The DLC represents corporate intesrests over human interests... having the DLC within the Democratic Party is a "poison pill". It's already done plenty of damage in allowing Republicans to do as they always did, whether in power or not, and that's represent corporate interests as well as a bunch of extremist nutters who believe in the end-times.

[William Z. Foster]

11. other way around

What you suggest won't happen. A more pertinent question is this: "are you willing to get rid of the left it if means GOP control?" That reflects what is actually going on and what is most likely to happen.

[tekisui]

15. I don't think anyone here in their right mind would support that.

Not if they were honest with themselves.

And, if they did, they are likely on the wrong forum and should be considered trolls.

[William Z. Foster]

26. you just proved my point

Funny.

[bluestateguy]

12. I can tolerate a DLC Democrat IF:

1) He or she is a fighter, and not an appeaser to the Enemy Party

2) He or she distinguishes them-self as different from a Republican in more than cosmetic, hair-splitting ways.

3) There is no excuse for being a DLCer in a Navy Blue state like Connecticut (yes that means you know who). I'll cut a DLCer from Alabama or Idaho a little more slack.

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. "I don't see any DLC types apologizing to BP"

Give Mary Landrieu a few more days.... She's already whining about not being able to drill and fuck up the planet anymore, so not a lot of difference, really.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Typhoid Mary is as bad as Bobby Jindal

No one in Louisiana, however, is as bad as David "I pooped my diapers when I got caught with that hooker" Vitter... not since David Duke.

[Oregone]

30. "Inappropriate attacks against Democrats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603151

Please self-censor as soon as possible to avoid inflammatory attacks against Democrats

[Swamp Rat]

32. LOL!

I guess I'm a 'gone pecawn'. :D

[Generic Other]

47. Why did this make me giggle?

You silly old rat!!!

GO waves and hugs!!!

[Swamp Rat]

50. Way'at dawlin'!!

:hug: :* :loveya: :hug: :* :loveya: :hug: :* :loveya:

[bemildred]

18. The "DLC types" are perfectly willing to rid the party of us if if means a GOP congress.

So I don't see the relevance of the question. It's about who controls the Democratic Party, not about who controls Congress. I mean, I wish that were not the case, but that is the case.

[dkofos]

24. yes

[Oregone]

27. "DLC types" seems derogatory

Can I remind you these people won with the support of the Democratic establishment, and their behavior reflects on the Democratic Party. Using this derogatory term to refer to an arbitrary classification of Democrats is nothing short of an attack on the very party itself.

"Inappropriate attacks against Democrats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603151

Please self-censor with more appropriate language

[Swamp Rat]

36. LOLOL!!!

:rofl:

I thought letter 'D' in 'DLC' stood for 'Derogatory', as in the 'Derogatory Looney Cabal'?

At any rate, it sounds like a cool band name. :headbang:

[Tesha]

34. The reason Democrats so often lose elections nowadays is that the DLC has destroyed "the brand".

DLCers are "Democrats" who oppose most traditional Democratic policies
and support the policies that uses to be supported by Rockefeller Republicans.

As a result, the average person on the street has no idea what the Democrats
stand for these days and can't distinguish Democratic policies from Republican
policies so see no particular reason to vote for Democrats.

I would gladly eject all of the DLCers even if it meant losing a few election
cycles while we re-established a strong, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners
"brand" for the REAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Otherwise, Democrats will slowly fade into nothingness.

Tesha

[sufrommich]

38. Are you old enough to remember when the south was

democratic? When was this era where all democrats were liberal democrats? There has always been a conservativwe wing of the democratic party.

[H2O Man]

41. Yet when faced with

the question of if it were nobler to pass Civil Rights legislation and lose the racists southern democrats, or to ignore the rights of non-white citizens and keep the racists, most DUers would likely think that LBJ did the right thing.

The removal of a tumor often leaves a scar.

[sufrommich]

44. Point well taken. I will still make the argument that a party

must appeal to the largest constituency possible.There are areas of this county that will never be led by a liberal democrat.

[H2O Man]

49. I agree.

The most obvious example would be President Obama -- if he attempted to pass more meaningful legislation, he would be prevented from doing so -- by both parties.

[sufrommich]

52. It's going to take a long time and many tears to get rid of the

stench of the Reagan Revolution. We lost the white, blue collar voters who were hoodwinked by stories of welfare queens and gun grabbers, but time is on our side.

[H2O Man]

57. The damage they have done

is terrible. It includes the severe harm to the Constitution, to our federal government, and everything right down to families and individuals. I share your belief that we can -- and must -- work to repair that damage. I also agree with Martin Luther King that time alone is nuetral: it is always a matter of how we use time. The rabid republicans, sadly, have been using it to their advantage. It's high time that we turn the tide in a big way.

[Tesha]

63. Why yes, I *AM* That old, thank you very much.

BUT I ALSO REMEMBER THE DEMOCRATS PASSING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964, SOMETHING TODAY'S "Democrats" WOULD NEVER DO BECAUSE
THEY'RE CHICKEN-SHIT SCARED LITTLE PUNKS.

But as I said, the DLC has destroyed, in the voters' minds, any clear
concept of what Democrats stand; the Dixiecrats you refer to at least
had the courage of their convictions to leave the Democratic Party for
the Republican Party, much as the DLC members should do instead of
just routinely torpedoing our party and its initiatives from within.

Tesha

[Catherina]

40. Yes. The DLCers are driving perfectly solid Dems to other parties or non-voting.

A snake in your bed is more dangerous than a snake in the yard.

[nashville_brook]

42. fortunately the political process does not resemble your scenario.

[Cleita]

43. What makes you think running progressives would result in a GOP Congress?

What's resulting in GOP victories is a combination of rich candidates to buy their office with their gobs of money coupled with elections that aren't above board. When was the last time you were sure every vote counted was counted and reflected the will of the voter?

[donco6]

45. Is this a trick question or what?

The only correct answer is no. Silly.

[RainDog]

46. but you leave out a big part of that history

...which is that moderate, generally northern, republicans have aligned with democrats to pass necessary legislation while those now identified as the DLC (southern democrats) obstructed legislation.

the problem, honestly, is the backward ideology of the south. -- I'm from the south, so this is not someone from another region spelling a lesson - this is a truth.

To counter the problems of the south, the govt. needs to remove religious conservatives from positions of power in appointed offices and stop funding religion through govt - a matter that is unconstitutional anyway.

that way, the populists of the south will have to run against those who actually create problems for them - unregulated capitalists.

[backscatter712]

51. No. An asshole on our side is better than an angel on their side, game-theory-wise.

I'm going from game theory here - we do not want a GOP majority in Congress - that will guarantee that we get shit on. Even Ben Nelson votes our way much of the time, a lot more than any Republican who's getting whipped by Mitch McConnell into playing Party of No.

The majority party in the House gets to pick the Speaker (and I like Nancy Pelosi a hell of a lot better than John Boehner,) gets to set the calendar, gets to pick which bills go to which committees, and just flat out gets a hell of a lot more power than the minority party.

We get a few things done with a Democratic Congress, even though we've got too many douchebag conservadems. But we'll get absolutely nothing if the GOP takes Congress.

Now granted, I'd rather have progressive Dems than conservadems - that's why we have primaries, and that's why I'm supporting Romanoff here in Colorado, and gave money to Bill Halter. But under no circumstances would I ever support a Republican.

[Texasgal]

54. UMMM...NO.

And I honestly don't care if I don't pass the "purity" test.

NO AND HELL NO!

[HughMoran]

56. Destroy Dems ability to implement any liberal policies, thus hurting my children, just to make a

point?

No.

[TheKentuckian]

58. I don't understand how the OP can say the DLC types agree with traditional Democrats

on the issues but not on the methods to reach the goals.

The very heart of the conflicts is the issues and ideals. Certainly, execution is at issue as well because very often implementation can actually preclude the goal and regularly guide away from the supposedly agreed upon destination.

I honestly see a selling of platitudes and smokescreens to pretend away doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps it would be instructive to break down in a flow tree or a similar device some examples of how traditional and third way type Democrats start with a common aspiration on a divisive subject and how each or at least how the 3rd way thinkers hash out how they take their path and reach the same promised land.

I see no smaller gulf in ideas, ideals, and aspirations than existed between Democrats and Republicans of years past, maybe even greater differences in some respects.

[stray cat]

59. W and Cheney were not so bad - just look how well things are going

Besides privatizing social security, getting rid of public education and abolishing medicare and medicaid are great ideas. Also, If you make more than a million a year - plan for a tax cut! :rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

60. The surest way to crap out in the long haul is to consistently play not to lose.

I also think in a two party system it is suicide of principle to seek an endless majority by becoming like water changing to meet the shape of each form it is poured into on a daily basis.

Representing principles and ideals means taking a loss sometimes because they fall out of vogue because of short memories, the passage of time, and good marketing. That also means the electorate has a clear choice when the fruit tastes bitter and is rejected.

The message can only become so muddled before it seems empty, disingenuous, lacking credibility, or just a pandering lie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. I'm doing my bit. I don't vote for DLC type candidates..of either party.

[librechik]

64. In my opinion, there is no difference between a DLCer and a Republican

except that the republican is more honest. If we had honesty, then we would know who we were actually voting for, and we wouldn't vote for the DLCer under the mistaken impression they are Dems. I believe representation is hugely skewed in this country; all polls indicate we are far more liberal as a population than our Congress. Money and power gets people into Congress since Diebold, not votes.

[WeDidIt]

65. If I wanted party purges, I'd be a Republican. n/t