Thom Hartmann wrong on DLC characterization

[killerbush]

On his radio show this afternoon, Thom Hartmann said the DLC has a major influence on the Democratic party, and that's what caused some of the problems the party is currently going through
Basically, Hartmann said that Bill Clinton started the DLC because union members during the previous two Republican administrations fell, and that Clinton didn't think union support alone could put him over the top, so he strayed away from unions in order to become president.
Union membership fell because of the union heads themselves. They were corrupt, and left the little man without much influence of the political scene. Plus the Republicans made union life hell to begin with, and the union heads couldn't keep themselves relevent.
The DLC had nothing to do with busting unions. The DLC is made up of moderates who think the liberal wing of the party has gone too far. Hartmann suggests some grand conspiracy involving Clinton, and other DLCers to shaft liberals, when that's not the case in the first place.
The DLC, while relevent, is not the 500 pound gorilla Hartmann is making them out to be. Most of the party is still controlled by the left, and will remain so. But in order to win elections, Democrats have to make a concerted effort to woo moderates and some conservatives disatified with their own party. Just counting on liberals in the country, isn't winning you any elections in the near future, witness Al Gore and John Kerry, (and I don't want to hear anyone with the stolen election crap, it's irrelevent). The DLC and the DNC must work together to win, not only in 2006, but 08 as well. George Bush, and the Republicans are the enemy, not each other. The sooner we find that out, the better off we'll be.

[xultar]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[ronnykmarshall]

4. Co-cola?

[leftstreet]

7. Perfect place for my afternoon break

[madfloridian]

2. They did not want to depend on the traditional groups...

in the party for funding. They by their own words moved away from union support to what was best for China, I believe it was at the time.

They did found this group to be corporate friendly. And now they are wedded to the Third Way as well, which was also founded by the Cintons.

Hillary took her stand with the DLC very strongly this year. She is one of their 4 leaders.

Go to
www.ndol.org

Check out the PPI and Third Way formations.

I think Hartmann was pretty fair overall.

[flpoljunkie]

6. DLC's Al From: "Our candidates" are: Clinton Vilsack, Warner and Bayh...

in that order. From said this in an appearance on C-Span in late October, 2005.

[Mythsaje]

3. Thom has a real issue with

corporate whoring, and the giveaways BOTH parties seem to be making that depletes the power of the average citizen and enhances corporate power.

THAT said, I have to say that most of the Democratic ideals ARE those of moderates, and it's only the RW spin machine that convinces us (and them) otherwise. Thom makes this point regularly, and I believe he's right.

What we really need to do is stop catering to the RWers we'll NEVER win over and start trying to figure out how to attract the disinterested and/or disenchanted voter.

edited to add disenchanted for clarity.

[brainshrub]

5. Do Republicans woo the middle?

The answer: No, they don't.

There is a myth in the Democratic party that we somehow have to appeal to the Mushy-Middle to win elections, but the truth is that the Mushy-Middle is useless to both parties.

What wins elections is to motivate the base, and making sure they have access to the ballot.

How do you motivate the base? Focus on values.

Besides, I have yet to meet someone who thinks the party should appeal to the Mushy-Middle explain to me how the hell can the party swing further to the right without becomeing Republican?

Exactly what is so radical about the modern Democratic party?

Access to health-care for all Americans. Is that radical?
Making sure that the next generation will have a livable environment. Is that radical?
Quality education for all Americans. Is that radical?
Accountability for the quagmire in Iraq. Is that radical?

The bottom line is that the Republicans win because they don't waste time appealing to the Mushy-Middle. They know their values, and run with them.

When Dems have the courage to do the same, we can save our country.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Hartmann overstates the power of the DLC in today's political scheme.

and the OP is pretty right-on in depicting what it will take to win - COOPERATION.

And it should be food for thought or least an opportunity to gain some perspective and much needed insight for those that seek to purge the DLC from the Democratic party to understand that the DLC isn't thrilled with those on the far left either and, although not a member of either faction, I certainly can see legitimate complaints on both sides.

It would behoove those here at DU with their scorched earth political philosophy to ease up a bit and understand that we are all in this together, nothing in life is ever that black and white, and that there is power in numbers.

Good manners + respect = cooperation = victory.

Edited to say that both sides have delusions of grandeur if they think they can annihilate the other. There are many more of us not subscribing to either philosophy. Sensible and reasonable Democrats constitute the majority of the Democratic party and are sick and tired of the incessant BS being shot across the bow between the DLC and the far left (mostly from the latter). It's the epitome of ignorance and wasted energy.

[TankLV]

20. The DLC has been trying to marginalize & villify & demonize the

progressive & liberal BASE of the party - that is a sad fact - they have stated their intent is to make a conservative dem party.

I will not stand for repuke lite.

The DLC can go to hell and keep their head up repukes' butt.

They are anethema to the Democratic Party.

[AtomicKitten]

21. and vice versa

Like I said, we not belonging to either camp are fed up, and trust me we are the majority. If we can't get along as a party, then you can fight it out directly with the DLC and leave those of us not involved out of it. Both sides have legitimate complaints, but if the two factions can't iron out their differences, then the Democratic Party is in deep shit and it just gives the rest of us more work to do.
To wail against each other when there is so much material on the other side of the aisle is beyond reason.

[killerbush]

24. It's people like you TankLV thatRepublicans pray on

They call you extreme, and justify it by saying your angry, and upset. You won't even give the DLC a chance. You like the 2000, and 2004 results??

[DrGonzoLives]

25. How many Congressional elections did the DLC win?

n/t

[chancew]

9. My opinion...

I think people want a real opposition party in this country. They don't want a party that will keep moving to the center. That goes to prove that Democrats cannot come up with a real message. The Democrats need to stand for something and not try to be Republican copy-cats.

In my opinion, I think that's why people are independents. They want to choose the party with the best plans but when you have the Democrats moving to the center, they have no other real party choice. I mean what is the purpose of voting for a fake (real conservative Dem) when you can vote for the real thing (Republican)?

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I respect yours but please respect mine also.

[leftstreet]

11. Right on!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[msgadget]

18. I respect it and agree - we need an OPPOSITION party

Welcome to DU, chancew! (Damn, I started typing before you posted, I could've saved my energy!)

[radio4progressives]

10. !

:rofl:

[blm]

12. Didn't Kerry ADD about 14 MILLION votes to what Clinton had?

And the reason Clinton got into office in 93 was because of the constant investigating of Bush1 and IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate.

People lost trust in Bush1, and the newsmedia was more apt to report it fairly back then, unlike today where the corporate media has protected the Bushboy for almost 7yrs now.

[cali]

13. blm, I love that you're so doggedly devoted to Kerry

but c'mon it's simply not true that the reason Clinton got into office because of investigations into buish1, IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate. (shorter blm: Clinton got into office due to Kerry's investigating) They may have been contributing factors, but they're not high up on the list of reasons as to why Clinton got elected.

[blm]

16. Americans don't vote out sitting presidents they still trust.

It absolutely was the fairer media that allowed Clinton to be heard while they still kept track of investigations of the Bush administration.

Could you even imagine what 2004 would have been like with a news media and Senate investigating Bush2 for the whole 4 years?

[Andromeda]

34. I don't think any of the media was fair...

to Clinton at all. It was Monica day and night and never the twain shall meet. They mercilessly bashed the Clintons until they were (rhetorically) black and blue.

There were exceptions with Eric Alterman, et. al, but very few stuck their necks out to defend Bill Clinton. For 8 years Clinton had his spokespeople out there refuting the critics the best they could but even they were drowned out by Bob Barr and all of rest of the "house managers."

There was no support for going after Bush, even though there was reason to do so, because the Republicans have all the power and the media.

[blm]

52. I was talking about in 1992 when Clinton ran - RW takeover of media was

pretty well established by 1997 and hasn't been even minimally fair to Democrats since.

[karynnj]

78. In 1992, they were pretty much in love with Clinton

The NYT did have a long article on White water, but they had many positive articles about Clinton. In 1992, they WERE covering the Walsh hearing on Iran/Contra and there were even indictments. Bush pardoned everyone before leaving office.

[OnionPatch]

14. I didn't listen today

I usually do and I've heard him talk about this before. I've never heard him say the DLC was responsible for the busting of unions but that they arose from the void of power that materialized when the unions were busted.

That said, I really do wish you would tell us what, exactly, is so freaking extreme and "out there" about Democrats. Most of the ones I know have pretty down-to-earth ideas about government. I think the above poster was right, we are more moderate than ever before. It's the right that's gone overboard in the last decade or so.

[killerbush]

22. I didn't say most Democrats are extreme

But a lot of people will not even acknowledge the DLC exists, let alone cooperate with it. Democrats have diverse ideas, and shutting down the more moderate ones, hurts the party in the long run.

[msgadget]

15. So, you think the 'third way' is how the current extremist regime

will be ousted? The DLC is not moderate, imo. A moderate is someone who has a mix of conservative and liberal views. Therefore, most of us are moderates by that definition. The DLC is pro-globalization, pro-growth, pro-free trade, pro-business, pro-war, pro-personal accountability. Unlike the democratic party of old, I guess the liberal one you're referring to, it doesn't promise jobs or to take care of its constituents though it does promise to relieve industry's burden by thinkin' hard about universal healthcare. It says, just like Bill, that we must adjust to this new flat world we are a'livin' in because, yes, the job landscape may be bleak but the American dream is still possible. What's important is that the ECONOMY will be great. Oh yippeee! I regularly read DLC site and I visit the TPM Cafe so, yes, I do know whereof I speak. Some of their theories are positively brilliant but I've had it with being a guinea pig for theorists. Neoconservative theories got us into Iraq, free market theories are ballooning our trade deficit, and on and on.

Voters need clear choices, that's all there is to it. I need to know if a candidate will think I'm as important as industry because what good is strong industry if the PEOPLE are not prospering at the same rate? I want a pro-populist candidate and if that makes me a liberal, so be it. I do not take my cues from former president Clinton just because, in comparison, he was so much better than our current adminstration.

Clinton did, imo, help the GOP slap the unions down by turning away from them after the GOP's continued attacks on 'crooked unions giving money to democrats'. That's why he turned away from the unions and that's why few, if any, democrats mention them these days. Yes, unions needed to be cleaned up and they did not adjust to the changing landscape but Clinton's turning away did aid in their demise. Edit to add: check out response #2 to the original post, which says it's said he turned away to help China. Either way...he helped their slide along.

[killerbush]

23. Wren't there "clear choices" when Clinton won in 92?

Sure there were. That's what I'm saying. There are good ideas in both camps. let's use them and defeat the Republicans this year, and in 08.

[msgadget]

32. Good point,

there were distinct choices in '92 and by '08 there's no way I can project how each candidate will market themselves. But, the very idea of some line-straddling...ah, forget it, I'll save my emotional responses for then. :)

[FormerDittoHead]

17. Thom's the man - listen and learn.

Thom Hartman is the "professor".

>Most of the party is still controlled by the left, and will remain so.

:rofl:

I'm glad you're listening to Thom.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. the REAL center

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[paulk]

53. the problem with these sort of polls

is they measure American sentiment overall, and not on a state by state basis. Our electoral system, unfortunately, works on a state by state basis. I've got some numbers for you - In the last three election cycles, Democratic senatorial candidates have outpolled Republican ones - in the 2004 election by 2.8 million votes alone! And yet, the Democrats went from controlling the Senate to having a nine seat deficit. In our system, it doesn't matter if you win by three million votes in one state when you lose by a thousand in another. The end result is one Democratic Senator and one Republican - both with an equal amount of power.


Also, a lot of this sentiment doesn't necessarily translate into decisions made in a voting booth. If they did, we wouldn't currently have the Republicans controlling all three branches of government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. these polls show that The Democratic Party will not be hurt by moving

more toward the mainstream of opinion -- not away from the mainstream of opinion.

[paulk]

59. the mainstream of opinion where?

Nebraska? Wyoming? Alabama? Utah? Idaho?

You miss (or ignore) my point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. given the lopsided response to these polls -- it is quite clear

that even in socially conservative areas -- most people are progressive on many if not most economic matters.

Not so many years ago there were liberal giants like Frank Church in Utah, Ralph Yarborough in Texas, J.William Fulbright in Arkansas or George McGovern in South Dakota.

There loss was almost completely the result of mobilization by far right groups emphasizing social wedge issues like abortion or gun control; not because people supported right wing economic policies.

[paulk]

65. how do you get them to vote progressively

on economic matters?

I spent most of my life working in places like Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, and the hinterlands of Colorado - and, yes, when you sit people down there you will find that many actually do subscribe to philosophies I would describe as liberal (not that they would), but, come election day they would pull that Republican lever. Year after year after year. Why? Well, the reasons you mention - God, guns, and gays. "Social values" reasons. They seemed unable to see that disconnect and often quite resented my pointing it out to them.

So how do you do it? Are you suggesting we take these social values issues off the table and focus on economic issues? Taking the social values issues off the table (by moving toward the Center?) seems to be what the DLC is suggesting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. actually that is the big question, isn't it?

The DLC actually is not suggesting backing away on these kind of social issues like say gay rights, pro-choice or gun-control. They seem to be more or less neutral on those areas; if anything leaning toward the liberal side. Most prominent well known DLC figures like Clinton, Lieberman or Gore have pretty sound progressive records on those matters.

It seems to me that the DLC emphasizes Neo-liberal economics (so-called "free trade") and increased militarism and military interventionism. These are not the issues that win or necessarily lose elections in rural areas.

I constantly point to Bernie Sanders who is admittedly from a fairly progressive state. But he actually wins staunchly conservative Republican counties by landslide proportions in election after election. How does an unabashed socialist manage to convince rural Bible believing gun owners to vote for him even though he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights even though he calls himself a socialist? He does it by putting the progressive economic issues - meat and potatoes if you will-front and center every time he opens his mouth. He makes every political statement relevant to their day to day struggles. Even when he appears on Fox News he gets inundated with fan mail from otherwise right-wing voters who like what he has to say. This is not because of personal charisma, he doesn't have very much of that or good looks, he doesn't have much of that either.

I think that if Democrats learned from that example and talked about health care, education, jobs and the collapse of the middle class class 24 hours a day/7days a week with concrete proposals that offer REAL change, I think it would help and help a lot.

I could also sight Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer as another example of a very successful progressive who practices a very similar and equally successful strategy.

[benEzra]

80. The DLC is more authoritarian on the gun issue than the party at large

it was communitarians at the DLC that managed to get the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch written into the party platform, as I recall. The DLC is also responsible for the "talk-up-hunting-while-demonizing-owners-of-nonhunting-guns" strategy that bombed so badly in 2000 and 2004 (duh, 4 out of 5 gun owners are nonhunters...)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Thom is spot on as usual.

And for the record, thanks for comfirming to all of us know that you know absolutly zilch about unions. :hi:

[killerbush]

29. Unions are on the decline

That's really all I have to know. If they would stop backing losers, they would be a lot more of a force than they are now. Right now, they are just about irrelevant:thumbsdown: :hi: :crazy:

[LincolnMcGrath]

31. It's worse than I thought.

You know less than nothing about labor, and are OKAY with it.

[killerbush]

38. You know less about winning elections

And are OK with that!!!

[Rainscents]

33. I am a devoted TH listener and been listening to him for almost

three years.

Your post above is total BS! If anyone want to listen TH, they can archive it and find that, your nothing spilling your mouth full BS crap! TH always support Unions, DNC and he is against DLC. He repeat this time and time again, DLC is cause of all the problems with Democratic party because DLC wants to demolish DNC! DLC is nothing but republican in "D" clothing and that's it!

You can never fool DU people who has been here for a while and who had been TH fan.

[killerbush]

36. I never said Hartmann doesn't support unions

Read my post honey!!! I said unions are on the decline because the American people don't support unions like they used too. God, some of you people are such idiots.

[Totally Committed]

35. He's absolutely correct about the DLC...

It is a conspiracy, and it is corporate whoring in the extreme. It is a large influence in this Party (sadly), and it is responsible for the corporate-friendly, bottom line loving, gutless governance we see from our electeds today. We (the people) do not matter, only big money and corporate influence does. The DLC must be stomped out. It does us, our Party, and our country absolutely no good -- and a lot of harm.

Resist the DLC, their candidates (in any order), and their issues at all costs.

TC

[killerbush]

37. Oh yes, stomp out ther DLC, you'll lose more elections

Another country heard from. :puke:

[Totally Committed]

40. Puh-leeeeeeze....

Their policies, stances, issues, methods, affiliations and candidates are one of the maine reasons we lose so many elections. People need to stop listening to them and supporting them, and get back to real Democratic Party values, and let the winning begin.

Puke all you want, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

TC

[killerbush]

41. The winning won't begin until you change your outlook

Name me the last liberal president to win the White House?? That answer alone will give you cause to change your stragety. Oh by the way, the answer is Harry Truman.:puke:

[DrGonzoLives]

44. How many Congressional elections have the DLC won?

Hmmmm?

Particularly over Republican incumbants, since that's supposedly what the DLC is good at.

[Totally Committed]

45. "Name me the last liberal president to win the White House??"

And, we see where THAT has gotten us. For the record, I feel JFK was a good president. He had the balls and the brains to stand up to his adversaries, and probably died for it.

I'm old now. I haven't got time to wait for all this bullsh*t to sort itself out. And, I certainly will not stand for it NOT to sort itself out. So, where I was once a Liberal (and proud of it), I am now an UBER Liberal (as opposed to ULTRA Liberal or Green, which I am not), and unwilling to compromise my priciples any longer.

We must agree to disagree on this, I'm afraid. I will not change my view.

TC

[Pithy Cherub]

46. Bush had strategery and you have stragety. My

preference is for a strategy that allows the values that work for the common good of all the people.

A strong case for liberalism as it relates to LBJ's domestic programs could be made. But it really is just trying to make the past equivalent to current circumstances. The DLC values top earners, corporations and third way ephemeral politics that don't inspire, or cause the greatest good to be done on behalf of the people. The need for change is apparent. The DLC strict constructionists are not the prescription since the organization proudly enabled the agenda of the bush administration and moderated their viewpoints to hew to the population least engaged. That is not a winning strategy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. the answer is LBJ

The simple fact is the Democratic Party has run a centrist campaign in every single national election for more than the past 30 years without any exceptions whatsoever.

Can you name one single solid liberal who was the Presidential nominee in the last thirty years who ran on a liberal/progressive agenda??

What not even one?? Not even one??

Perhaps Walter Mondale who pledged to keep ALL of Reagan's military budget and most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts?
______________________________________

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[killerbush]

57. LBJ was no liberal

the guy was a worthless warmonger, conservative Southern Democrat

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. he brought in the largest sweeping social changes in American

history. He was a warmonger in the same sense that every-post world war II American President was a warmonger; a captive of ideology

On domestic issues he was by far the most liberal/progressive President in American history.

Check the historic record. Facts ARE important.

Sorry if I sound rude.

[The Magistrate]

64. In The Late Fifties And Early Sixties, Sir

You could have gotten quite an argument over the proposition Mr. Johnson was a liberal or progressive. He was certainly considered a "corporatist", to use the modern parlance: people frequently refered to him "the Senator from Brown and Root", and many considered him a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry. He used his position in the Senate to drive out of their appointments in regulatory agencies a number of former New Deal figures, on grounds they were "fellow travelers" or quasi-Communists.

Leftist were extremely critical of his "Great Society" program at the time he put it forward, on grounds ranging from its not going nearly far enough to charges it favored establishment organizatoions above grass-roots activists, and that in many cases the administration of its anti-poverty funds amounted to little more than subsidizing various local political machines.

President Johnson is certainly one of those figures who improves with the passage of time, and my own view is that he was indeed at heart a good man, and displayed commendable moral courage in many of his domestic actions. But many of those who praise him now would have been bitter opponents of him, and from the left, at the time he was in power, it seems to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. well yes a saint he was not

I suppose I look at him a bit like I might look at some of the big city bosses or labor leaders from that era.

But when all is done and said, I feel one must look at the results. And I see the extension of health care, nutrition, education, voting rights, civil rights and many other things advanced during his administration that exceeded any other administration in American history. Things that made a real difference in the lives of millions and millions of ordinary Americans.

I tend to be forgiving regarding Viet Nam because that was the ideology of the time and I doubt that anyone else who would have been President at the time would have done things fundamentally different.

People are products of their time and circumstances. Once could make the case that Abraham Lincoln was a corporatist, a racist, a dictator and the greatest war criminal in American history. But he was also a product of his time and place.

How else does one judge those who hold so much power? I don't think there is a simple answer.

[The Magistrate]

76. My View Of the Gentleman Is About The Same As Yours, Sir

At least from this remove of years. My comments were simply aimed at supplying a little historical context, and the view of the time now past. It is obvious to me that many here who now praise him would have ranged themsleves as his foes in those days, even without the matter of Viet Nam in the equation.

[killerbush]

69. Your not rude, wrong, but not rude

Harry Truman was the last liberal president. Kennedy was a moderate, Johnson a southern Democrat, Carter, a moderate, and Clinton, a moderate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. what is your basis for considering him a conservative?

I agree that Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were moderates.

Kennedy and Truman would have been little different than LBJ in foreign policy at least in the big picture.

On social domestic issues neither Kennedy or Truman pushed through through anything as sweeping as the Great Society; medicare, medicaid, civil rights, food stamps, massive extention of student grants and student loans, CITA, job core and the list just goes on and on.

So I am quite curious to hear why you would not consider him a liberal, whether you personally liked him or not. And specifically why would you consider President Truman a liberal; but not LBJ. I really don't think many political historians would agree with you on this.

[Totally Committed]

60. Whether or not he was a Liberal, LBJ was not ELECTED...

I think that is an important distinction to be acknowledged.

TC

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. he won by the greatest Democratic landslide in American history

in 1964 on a promise for the Great Society

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1964

[mdmc]

63. thats my map!

[Totally Committed]

71. You're right, of course....

I wasn't clear. I should have said that e;ection was not how he originally took the Presidency.

My faux pas.

TC

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. that's cool. I was confused by your response

[wisteria]

30. I agree, an equal or near equal partnership.The DLC has to realize though,

that they can't have it all their way or pick our Presidential candidates for us. Oh, and Kerry was not and is not a true DLC're they seem to exclude him from everything, Kerry seems to have thrown most of his support behind the grassroots efforts.

[Vidar]

39. Though I like Clinton, I'm with Hartman on this.

[rman]

42. DLC is made up of representatives from the corporate world

All they want is ever more profit (busting unions is obviously a means to that end), and a president who will help them obtain that goal. There's nothing moderate about them.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[killerbush]

49. Big words mrgorth

Must have taken you all morning to come up with the words suck it!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. . Most of the party is still controlled by the left ???????????

What positions on broad economic, foreign policy or military matters in the last thirty years are by ANY wild stretch of the imagination left-wing????

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. The DLC was/is about corporate $$$$

'nuff said.

[SOS]

50. The DLC is DEAD.

There's no longer any need to be upset over this organization.
In 2000 they claimed 70 House members. Last count was 39 and then they pulled the members page from their web site. (Error 404!)
They had 20 Senators in 2000. While they now hide their membership list, the number is now probably around 6.
What organization goes to such lengths to hide it's membership, other than one that is embarrassed by it's decline?
Not one 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate would attend their 2004 annual meeting.
Their active membership has plummeted. No hard numbers available, but estimates (per the Nation) are around 5,000 active. (DU has 80,000 registered users! 16x the DLC.)
Terry McAuliffe is gone and Howard Dean has no use for the DLC.
Some of their founders like Simon Rosenberg and Elaine Kamarck quit a long time ago.
Their leaders are not elected. From and Marshall are unelected wonks and will be largely ignored in 2006 and 2008.
Those who oppose the DLC can write to the few remaining DLC politicians and suggest they too resign.
The DLC had some cachet in 1992. That was 14 years ago. It's over for them.
Nothing more than an office on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Prediction: In Spring 2009, the DLC will close it's offices permanently.

[killerbush]

56. you wish!!!

[iconoclastNYC]

54. THE DLC is the corporatist wing of the party

And all thier talk of being "centrist" just disguises that thier definition of "moderate" means towing the Corporate line.

DLC Democrats - Corporate selected, Corporate Approved. Shouldn't your Democrat be owned by the Fortune 500?

[Capn Sunshine]

73. NOT That Theres anything wrong with that

It's the absolute height of naivete and narcissism to pretend that corporate money is not a force, or that we can win without it, under the current system. The DLC was originally formed to be a force for responsible political exploitation of large influential pools of capital. They devolved into a lobbyist money with strings type organization.

We still need money, just not strings.

I think the influence on the party the DLC has extends about as far as the beltway, but that's where political journalists get their info from, not DU.

I asked Howard Dean about the DLC last year and he said he felt they aren't a huge influence on the party outside of DC. He said "no one who votes in mainstream America knows who these guys are".

What Howard did recognize, and what many on DU do not, is that there ARE "right wing" Democrats who hold to all the core values of the party, and want their voices heard.

We can't win without them, we've always been a big tent, and they might be perceived as "republican lite " by a lot of us, but they aren't neocons - the REAL enemy of America- they're Democrats.

Yeah, they are DEAD WRONG about what it takes to win in 21st century America, but we need to show them the error of their ways.

Until we change the election system we still need Corporate money. probably 80% of you get your paychecks from corporations, so the money you give individually has its roots in the corporation anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

74. your analysis is impeccable

thanks for speaking truthfully about an issue that some here don't really understand.

[iconoclastNYC]

75. Feingold and Dean both proved that you can run a viable campaign

Without large amounts of corporate cash. I think Dean did take a little but the majority was from individual donors under $100.

This notion that we need the DLC or we need corporate cash is just bunk.

It might be harder to raise money from the grassroots but Feingold and Dean and others showed that it is possible.

And don't forget there are always strings attached to corporate cash.

[Capn Sunshine]

81. Agreed; but why start off in a hole

Let's just say at this point, the DLC and the progressive wing of the party need each other.

I raised plenty of money for Howard Dean, and not all of that dough was netroots you know.

My point is/was, until the election system changes we still need corporate money. Where Howard is different in this approach is he tells them up front "no strings'" or we can do without it.

Believe me ,corporate donations are made with a view towards staying on the good side of the executive branch and that means hedging your bets.

[ktlyon]

68. I think you are miss characterizing what Thom said

I heard him today repeat what he has said many times. Hartmann did not say that Clinton was involved in a grand conspiracy. He said due to the drop in union membership for a Dem to win they needed to find a new source of campaign money. Since then DLC and Dems have raised a lot more money and so have been able to compete with the Repugs on fund raising. Dems have created their own sources of corporate backing, some call this being Republican lite. I am not sure how much support from union leaders Clinton got but the rank and file member turned out and voted Dem. This strategy of fund raising worked, Clinton won twice without cheating. Whether you want to believe it or not Bush did not win either election and it is important to remember that the will of the people was fulfilled.

[guidod]

77. Clinton was not for the working class.

Has everyone forgot how to spell NAFTA? :banghead:

[Greyhound]

79. Seems to me that the DLC is the Democratic wing of the Corporate Party.n/t