The REAL problem with the DLC, the left and the Democratic Party.

[Meldread]

Aside from the DLC wanting to shut the left wing of the party down (while retaining their vote), and constantly baiting the left the REAL problem with the DLC is that they lack principles. I am not talking about principles in the moral sense; I am talking about principles in the governing sense.

Their primary strategy for victory is triangulation, which works by trying to appeal to everyone all at once on every issue. By the strategies very nature, it makes it impossible to have principles, and as the old saying goes, "he who tries to please everybody, pleases nobody." This is the issue the left has with the DLC.

Ironically, the left has the same problem. The left has moral values, but no principles. We feel and believe certain things, but do not articulate a way to turn that into effective government policy.

The lack of principles is of course also what is wrong with the Democratic Party as a whole, seeing as how the two major factions within the party has none, the party itself has none. How does the Democratic Party wish to govern? When people say the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything, that is what they are saying. They are not talking about what the Democratic Party thinks on the war in Iraq, they are not talking about gay marriage or any of the other hot button topics of the day. Those are issues, and issues do not translate well into public policy.

Principles are defined by how you see society and the worlds relationship with the government. The problem is not the Iraq War, that is just a single issue. The problem is the principles of Imperialism, the belief that the United States has the right to use its military power to further its political and economic goals. Gay marriage is just an issue, the problem is the principle of human rights. Is everyone equal in the eyes of the law, or are there special laws for various groups of people? The same can be said for just about any other topic brought up.

The key to rallying people together for the Democratic Party will be to create principles for which the party stands. Does the party support imperialistic policy? Does the party believe that it is the governments job to ensure the health and wellbeing of its citizens? Does the party believe that it has a personal responsiblilty to stand up for human rights for the citizens? What about citizens of other nations, does the party believe that the United States should act unilaterally to acts of genocide or other immoral actions conducted against people by foreign powers?

If there is ever to be peace within the party, both sides must sit down and articulate their principles. Then both sides can debate over which principles to put into the party platform, and once that is done and both sides are reasonably satisfied, it will provide the Democratic Party as a whole a way to act in a very direct and precise manner. If we have principles for which the party stands, we can then apply them to the issues that arise and be able to speak with a strong unified voice.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. I think the Domcratic party has principles.

They are the princples that cut a great, wide swath through the middle of population. The people with views that range from those held by old time moderate to liberal Republicans, to the right edge of the left fringe of the far left.

[Meldread]

3. Those aren't principles.

Like it or not, when a Democratic Congress person makes a decision or casts a vote, they are coming down on one side or another. There is no "middle ground" when you cast a vote. You are either for or you are against.

Without CLEAR principles the party cannot articulate a vision for the future. Where does the Democratic Party want to take America 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now? This is the problem with issues. One day the Iraq War will be behind us. One day Healthcare issues will be solved. One day gay marriage will no longer be an issue. Yet principles endure the test of time, because they are not about issues - they are about what you stand for - and that is what the party lacks. The party stands for nothing.

"We are going to provide every American with Healthcare." That's great, what American wouldn't support that? However, HOW is the Democratic Party going to accomplish this? More importantly, does this mean that the Democratic Party believes that the governments job is to ensure the health and well being of its citizens? Or does the Democratic Party just believe, in the instance of Healthcare, the government should step in... and if that is the case, then why?

Looking at the individual issues is like missing the forest for the trees. Issues are always hot button and people of the party will NEVER come to an agreement on the issues. Yet, I believe that if everyone sat down and had a discussion about principles, there would be more agreement than disagreement. Things would become more clearer for everyone and the party as a whole will benefit greatly.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Uh ......

.... I think you and I are saying the same thing. You just took more owrds to do it. My post didn't even go near any specific issue. My point was the Democratic party's care values - principles, if you will - are **the** most common values of the common man.

[leftofthedial]

42. oh really?

and those are . . . ?

[blm]

2. Treat Americans like responsible CITIZENS - Open the books

The anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party is growing.

[robcon]

4. I think your analysis is backwards.

Just read the average DU thread on Lieberman. The left wants to cut off the DLC, not the other way around.

[Meldread]

7. Of course it does, and why wouldn't it?

The DLC is, more or less, the ruling class for Democrats in Washington. They, for better or for worse, have considerable influence over the party. They influence decisions that the left feels is important, and often try and influence those decisions in the opposite direction. More or less, it is a power struggle.

You also have to remember that the DLC has not exactly been friendly with the left either. The DLC, while not as vocal, certainly holds just as much contempt for the left as the left holds contempt for the DLC. The feeling is mutual and likely they view the left as having TOO MUCH influence on the party, and thus would like to remove that influence.

The key to solving the power struggle is to find a common ground. It's called diplomacy. Rather than have the party fracture into several different camps under one giant tent, it would be beneficial to the party as a whole to have both sides sit down and come to an agreement on the future and direction of the party. Once we can speak with a unified voice on the things we agree on, and come to compromises on the things we disagree on, I believe we will find that the Democratic Party will become the dominate party in the United States.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. good point, I found this quote from Democratic Party pollster Pat Caddell

He started out as the 23 year-old boy-wonder pollster during McGovern's primary campaigns and went on to work for several Democratic candidates across the Democratic Party philosophic spectrum:

"It should be constantly bourne in mind that a coalition is just that--it is not a consensus. Both the opportunities of Johnson and Nixon--after massive victories--were lost when responsible people came to believe that they could achieve consensus and basically ignore politics. A coalition is composed of many different factions of people who basically don't like each other much and are competing for various rewards and favors that a government can offer. The trick is finding a mixture of rewards and factors that will hold 51 percent of the voters together in a reasonable stable block."

From the Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeiera

[Zodiak]

14. and the DLC wants to take out Akaka

or did you miss that thread?

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. but its not the progressives who started this divisiveness

Al From, Will Marshall, Marshall Whitman and many other leading so-called "centrist" figures have been calling progressives names like "fringe" or "far left" for years; and not just on political blogs. They have been blasting it throughout the mainstream media. And they have dominated the Democratic Party for a long time. They have caused great damage to the entire Democratic Party by echoing right-wing Republican talking points. The GOP gets great help in spreading their propaganda from this ilk.

One leading "centrist" figure, Peter Beinart (I do not know whether he himself is a member of the DLC or not -- but he is certainly one of their philosophic gurus) former Editor of the New Republic even went so far as to call for a purge of virtually the entire progressive/left movement from the Democratic Party.

Having said this, not all "centrist" are the same. Not all DLC members are the same.

In fact two leading "centrist" figures Ruy Teixeira and John Judis, coauthors of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" denounced these tactics.

Oh, What a Lovely Day for a Purge! by Ruy Teixeira - link:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

"Peter Beinart, editor of the The New Republic, proposes in their latest magazine that Democrats stop all this unity nonsense and get down to what's really important: purging the party of all those wrong-headed "softs" who don't have the backbone to stand up (really stand up) to the new totalitarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Their failure to "report for duty" (Beinart specifically mentions only MoveOn and Michael Moore but I think his criteria for softness would also implicate most of the liberal blogosphere, most Dean campaign activists, a good chunk of the leadership of the 527s and countless others within the party) cost the Democrats the White House in 2004 and will do so forever until Democrats decisively remove them from power and influence in the party. Yes, it's purge time in the glorious spirit of the late '40s actions against Communists and those soft on them within the Democratic party."

Then John Judis added:

"Initiating factional warfare with, or even purging, everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman will not create a viable Democratic Party. Okay, that may be an exaggeration of what Peter prescribes, but there are clear echoes in his essay of Ben Wattenberg's Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which tried to do something similar after the 1972 Democratic defeat by creating a party centered around Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The voters didn't buy it, and they won't buy Peter's party either.
Peter also misunderstands MoveOn.org and the various other Internet-based groups that have sprung up in the last five years. They are not an old-fashioned militant left but part of a college-educated post-industrial center-left politics that was developing under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. One of their big issues was the deficit, hardly a left-wing concern. They became identified with "the left" because they were early and prescient opponents of the Iraq war--a position that can no longer simply be identified with the left and that is not a reason to criticize them. Sure, they shouldn't have participated in marches with the Workers World Party, but these new movements are organized by people who don't have long political pedigrees. If anything, they are the best hope for a new moral vision that will animate the Democrats."

link to full article:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

[Selatius]

5. There will likely not be a resolution to this problem, in my opinion.

The two-party system only aggravates things even further. I'd be happier living under a representative form of government where no one political party gains a majority. Rather, I'd have it so that several parties would have to form coalitions in order to form a majority, and those political parties would be free to leave the coalition at will if the coalition moves in a direction it finds disagreeable.

In a two-party system, far leftists and centrists are forced into the same box, and one honestly expects them to get along? You are asking too much.

The Democratic Party has and will continue to be really nothing more than a coalition or confederation of smaller groups with different agendas. It will not be unified party in any sense of the word. If you want a unified party, then move to a country that utilizes proportional representation. At least then people actually join parties because they agree with those principles, not just because "We're not Republicans."

If proportional representation were instituted tomorrow, the Democratic Party would splinter apart. Sure, a good deal will still remain Democrats, but a good deal of people who were Democrats would also leave and become Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, democratic socialists, members of various labor parties, etc.

[Minnesota Libra]

6. The article is interesting and raises valid points but the most telling...

.....I think is the last paragraph.

If present day DU is any indication of the way debates are to be held and conducted I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting for those constructive debates. I've discovered at DU that disagreements over issues are met with name-calling (I save that for the the FR sites), sarcasm (done this one myself) and the ignore button (which I rarely use and definitely not for very long). DU seems to prefer preaching to the choir and we are living the real life nightmare that got us. So I would propose such debates should start with a few obvious guidelines. Basically though I think your ideas are worth exploring further.

[Meldread]

8. Oh, I'm guilty.

I'm guilty of name calling, sarcasm, dramatization and all those not-so-wonderful things as well. However, taking a step back and trying to decide what the BEST course of action is (rather than what action I want to see happen) is key. We are a very diverse group of people. We agree on a great many things, perhaps on most things, and I think one of those things we can agree on is that in order for any of the things we want to see happen come to fruition; the Democratic Party must act in a manor that prevents internal fragmentation.

[itzamirakul]

9. And with all the intelligent things posted upthread, I have to say...

I STILL DISLIKE THE DLC and I think the leaders of that group are really Republicans who have infiltrated the Democratic Party the same way the neocons infiltrated the Republican Party.

[Minnesota Libra]

11. Well, we've already got an issue of contention because this.........

.....is putting the responsibility of our own actions onto someone else. Maybe the Democratic Party does need to change but to say "....the Democratic Party must act in a manor that prevents internal fragmentation." That is just plain wrong!! We, as a party, act the way we do because of CHOICES WE MAKE, our actions/words are no ones responsibility but our own.:eyes: The sooner people start taking responsibility for our own action the better off we'll be as a party. In fact I've heard many a neocon/fundie blaming anyone and everyone else for their actions, especially liberals, for being mean, nasty, sarcastic, on and on. Wow, this liberal party has a very long ways to go.

[sybylla]

10. You misunderstand the role of the DNC, the DLC and the platform

The Democratic Party (DNC) is composed of real people - dues-paying members of the Democratic Party in every state. The party platform is proposed, amended, set and voted on by each state's DNC delegates acting on the people's behalf. This is what you describe as the "left" as the party and its platform have always been far left of the DLC. Remember, these are the people who voted to elect Howard Dean chair in 2005.

The way it's supposed to work is that candidates see our platform, like it, want to support it and so they run as Democrats. In reality, that is not always the case - just as their is no perfect candidate, there is no perfect party. So our candidates end up all over the left side of the map and rarely fall exactly in line with the platform.

The DLC is a completely separate organization from the DNC composed entirely of elected federal representatives whose personal campaign platform was much more likely centrist and supportive of corporations and some degree of globalization. Representatives have no say in the platform beyond any influence they can exert over their state's delegates at convention. But through the DLC, they can act in concert as spoilers to stop or pass any legislation that tickles their corporate donors' fancies.

I say this to show you that while both sides can sit down and articulate their positions, they cannot come together because they are two separate entities. The party dictates the platform. The candidates who call themselves Dems are supposed to support our platform. Candidates/representatives who call themselves Democrats don't have to ask permission to do so. We cannot hold the Democratic label hostage to our platform and force DLCers to vote Dem ever (no matter how much we want to sometimes).

But we are the party of the big tent. We could faction off and start new parties as Greens, Progressives, True Blue Dems, Centrist-DLCers, but where would we be? The DNC will never embrace the centrist DLC positions until the majority of the party membership embraces them. The DLC will not yield their position until they learn that it is disadvantageous to them. So they call the DNC pacifist business-haters and we call them corporate whores and will probably do so until one day when one of us is proven wrong or something better comes along that we can both agree on.

If Bush can't unite the DNC and the DLC to work together, what makes you think anything can.

[wyldwolf]

13. Just a few clarifications

The Democratic Party (DNC) is composed of real people - dues-paying members of the Democratic Party in every state. The party platform is proposed, amended, set and voted on by each state's DNC delegates acting on the people's behalf. This is what you describe as the "left" as the party and its platform have always been far left of the DLC.

The real people - dues-paying members of the Democratic Party in every state - also includes moderate and Centrist Democrats - Democrats that elect DLC candidates. The party's platform has not "always been left" of the DLC. In fact, the platform is usually quite vague but there is seldom anything in it that the DLC would argue with.

The DLC is a completely separate organization from the DNC composed entirely of elected federal representatives.

Nope. You join by paying dues:

https://secure.ga3.org/05/join

Each member who joins gets a subscription to "Blueprint." Now, there are no official membership numbers, but to give you an idea on how many members the DLC actually has, you only need to look at the subscription circulation of Blueprint, which is around 40,000. (Source: Ad Age, June, 2003)

The DNC will never embrace the centrist DLC positions until the majority of the party membership embraces them.

Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. You do not honestly believe this do you?

"Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions"

[wyldwolf]

17. uh... yeah... I was there...

:)

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. Clinton's platform was called "Putting People First."

"I was raised to believe that the American dream was built on rewarding hard work. But we have seen the folks in Washington turn the American ethic on its head. For too long, those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft. And those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded." BC 7/92


That's as clear statement as you'll find of populist persuasion.

[wyldwolf]

19. Sources, including Clinton's own words

"...Consider how Clinton ran his first successful campaign for president. It is true that he espoused a number of New Democrat themes from the very beginning of his campaign. To inoculate himself against Republican attacks, he championed welfare reform, spending on police and public safety, and capital punishment...In the general election campaign, he tacked back to the center. Clinton also emphasized his support for reducing government bureaucracy and for “ending welfare as we know it.” - - Roy Teixeira

Varieties of Progressivism in America by Peter Berkowitz Pg. 13

"Clinton’s campaign focused on domestic issues, particularly the economy. He ran as a “New Democrat,” a term coined by the Democratic Leadership Council to describe a new type of moderate Democrat. Clinton believed that the big-government, high-spending policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party did not appeal to most voters. He thought that the party should find other ways to solve social and economic problems. For example, he proposed reforming the existing welfare system and finding additional ways to aid the poor, such as a special form of tax credits for low-income families. Clinton also wanted to expand trade with the rest of the world through trade agreements and lower tariffs.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/Bill_Clinton.html

Clinton's own words:

"In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense...I thought the DLC was the only group committed to developing the new ideas Democrats needed both to win elections and do right by the country... In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation... I was trying to develop a national message for the Democrats, and the effort fueled speculation that I might enter the presidential race in 1992. I spent the next few months traveling the country for the DLC. Because I was out there making the case for how we could regain "mainstream, middle-class" voters who "have left the party in droves for twenty years," the press continued to speculate that I might run in 1992." From his book "My Life."

[LincolnMcGrath]

20. Bill CLinton called it "PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST"

http://www.clintonmuseumstore.com/istarimages/mp/WG-WJC22!WG-34492.jpg

[wyldwolf]

23. ahhh... so you're say Roy Teixeira, Encarta, and Clinton are all lying?

You must be. Source after source, including Clinton himself, says he ran as a new Democrat on DLC ideas.

But LincolnMcGrath says nooooooo...

Ya know, you sound like a kid when you play your "uh uh" game in light of overwhelming evidence:

That was also the year From recruited Bill Clinton as the DLC's new chairman and found in him an articulate and passionate spokesman for the DLC's platform. - Campaigns & Elections, March, 1994 by Kenneth Booth

A platform of free trade, welfare reform, tough on crime, capital punishment, fiscal discipline...

Four sources so far... want more?

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. The reality of Bill Clinton running as a populist shouldn't cause this

kind of frightened reaction in you. It's sad, and a bit creepy.

LincolnMcGrath didn't write "Putting People First", Bill CLinton wrote it.

His picture is right there on the the cover next the Al.

Be Well Friend!

[wyldwolf]

26. So you think all those sources are lying. OK, now I get it.

Clinton flirted with populism in the primaries to feind off Paul Tsongus.

Again, from Roy Tux: "Clinton did not hesitate to emphasize his populist streak when it became necessary to defeat neoliberal Paul Tsongas, whose views on economics paralleled those of the DLC."

Remember, Clinton's DLC policies produced economic gains that, as the book you're putting forth says, "put people first."

So tell you what. I have my copy of that book right here in front of me. Let's compare passages to make our points (and you can prove that eveyone is lying about this.)

While you go get your copy, I'll show you more sources:

Clinton ... fashioned himself as a "New Democrat" and has frequently been referred to as the "Comeback Kid." Few presidents have both raised more questions about the standing of the presidency and simultaneously presided over a longer period of sustained prosperity.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/

...Never again would anyone seriously accuse him of being soft on crime. Never again would anyone challenge his status as a New Democrat.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/07/nguyen-a-07-14.html

Clinton ran in 1992 by disguising himself as a pro-hunting, pro-death penalty "New Democrat" who wanted to cut taxes, shrink government, and "end welfare as we know it,"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4461

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton ran as a politically moderate "New Democrat" who was pro-business and pro-death penalty, focusing on the nation's economy ("It's the economy, stupid").

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/features/history/

After the Dukakis/Bentsen defeat in 1988, the DLC decided to groom their own hand-picked candidate for the White House. Baer reports that in 1989 Al From flew to Little Rock and told then Governor Bill Clinton: "Have I got a deal for you... If you take the DLC Chairmanship, we will give you a national platform, and I think you will be President of the United States."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0004.pomper.html

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Before, it was cute fun...

Now you're frightening me.

I did get the P-Word to exit your keyboard though, lol. :hug:
http://www.clintonmuseumstore.com/istarimages/mp/WG-WJC22!WG-34678_d.jpg

[wyldwolf]

28. as usual, your arguments lack any substance and have veered off...

..into irrelevancy.

Oh, got your copy of the book in front of you yet?



If you need more time, I'll provide a recap. If you're just joining us, LincolnMcGrath claims Clinton DID NOT run for President as a DLC/New Democrat.

"...Consider how Clinton ran his first successful campaign for president. It is true that he espoused a number of New Democrat themes from the very beginning of his campaign. To inoculate himself against Republican attacks, he championed welfare reform, spending on police and public safety, and capital punishment...In the general election campaign, he tacked back to the center. Clinton also emphasized his support for reducing government bureaucracy and for “ending welfare as we know it.” - - Roy Teixeira

Varieties of Progressivism in America by Peter Berkowitz Pg. 13

"Clinton’s campaign focused on domestic issues, particularly the economy. He ran as a “New Democrat,” a term coined by the Democratic Leadership Council to describe a new type of moderate Democrat. Clinton believed that the big-government, high-spending policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party did not appeal to most voters. He thought that the party should find other ways to solve social and economic problems. For example, he proposed reforming the existing welfare system and finding additional ways to aid the poor, such as a special form of tax credits for low-income families. Clinton also wanted to expand trade with the rest of the world through trade agreements and lower tariffs.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/Bill_Cl...

Clinton's own words:

"In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense...I thought the DLC was the only group committed to developing the new ideas Democrats needed both to win elections and do right by the country... In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation... I was trying to develop a national message for the Democrats, and the effort fueled speculation that I might enter the presidential race in 1992. I spent the next few months traveling the country for the DLC. Because I was out there making the case for how we could regain "mainstream, middle-class" voters who "have left the party in droves for twenty years," the press continued to speculate that I might run in 1992." From his book "My Life."

That was also the year From recruited Bill Clinton as the DLC's new chairman and found in him an articulate and passionate spokesman for the DLC's platform. - Campaigns & Elections, March, 1994 by Kenneth Booth

Clinton ... fashioned himself as a "New Democrat" and has frequently been referred to as the "Comeback Kid." Few presidents have both raised more questions about the standing of the presidency and simultaneously presided over a longer period of sustained prosperity.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton /

...Never again would anyone seriously accuse him of being soft on crime. Never again would anyone challenge his status as a New Democrat.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/07/nguyen-a-07...

Clinton ran in 1992 by disguising himself as a pro-hunting, pro-death penalty "New Democrat" who wanted to cut taxes, shrink government, and "end welfare as we know it,"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton ran as a politically moderate "New Democrat" who was pro-business and pro-death penalty, focusing on the nation's economy ("It's the economy, stupid").

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic... /

After the Dukakis/Bentsen defeat in 1988, the DLC decided to groom their own hand-picked candidate for the White House. Baer reports that in 1989 Al From flew to Little Rock and told then Governor Bill Clinton: "Have I got a deal for you... If you take the DLC Chairmanship, we will give you a national platform, and I think you will be President of the United States."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0004.pomper...

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. You're creepin

You:
Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2643734&mesg_id=2644323

Me:
You do not honestly believe this do you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2643734&mesg_id=2644369

You:
uh... yeah... I was there...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2643734&mesg_id=2644399

Me:
Clinton's platform was called "Putting People First."
That's as clear statement as you'll find of populist persuasion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2643734&mesg_id=2644412


Please show everyone where I stated Bill Clinton DID NOT run for President as a DLC/New Democrat?

I simply showed every Duer here how hard it is for a Pro-DLC Democrat like yourself to acknowledge that Clinton had more populist appeal than you are comfortable with.

[wyldwolf]

30. your dreamin

Since we were discussing his campaign for president, and not a populist streak exhibited in the primaries, your argument is bankrupt and irrelevant to the discussion. Sort of like if I entered into a discussion about computers extolling the virtues of cranberries.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. Except for the tiny fact that the quote I gave was from BC 's

nomination acceptance speech in July of 19 and 92.

So either you are confused, or more likely, you're trying to spin your way out of an admission that you were wrong.

"Clinton '92 is often remembered as a centrist campaign. It wasn't entirely. It was a combination of populist family-values progressivism."
Rhoades Alderson

Rhoades Alderson worked on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. He's now a communications executive in Providence, R.I.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2002/11/alderson-r-11-21.html

[wyldwolf]

33. uh.. so?

Despite the fact I gave numerous sources documenting Clinton's DLC status, "New Democrats" and "progressivism" aren't mutually exclusive. The guy you quoted agrees, at least in the context of 1992. Rounding out the quote you gave, Rhoades Alderson went on to say, "...back when the Democratic Leadership Council and its sister organization, the Progressive Policy Institute, were still salons of ideas."

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. We were discussing your unwillingness to admit that Bill Clinton

ran a populist message throughout his campaign.

We were not discussing whether or not you think the DLC members or the writers over at PPI are progressive.

[wyldwolf]

35. no we weren't

We were discussing whether Bill Clinton ran as a new Democrat.

I said: "Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions."

You first entered into the conversation and said: "You do not honestly believe this do you?
'Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions'"

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Were you lying when you said Clinton ran a Populist Campaign above?

Bill Clinton ran a populist message throughout his campaign. He said it, you said it, his campaign staffers confirm it.

You need to make peace with yourself. (yourselves?)

[wyldwolf]

38. did you divert from the original topic of discussion...

...and then falsely claim your diversion was the topic of the discussion? Yes.

You need to make peace with yourself. (yourselves?)

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. No and No

Next Question?

First you claimed Clinton campaigned DLC
Then I showed everyone that Clinton ran a populist
Then you admitted Clinton campaigned a populist

We were all here when you did it. We all saw it. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

40. yes and yes

First you claimed Clinton campaigned DLC

Which he did, backed by numerous sources

Then I showed everyone that Clinton ran a populist

No you didn't. You mentioned a book and, based on the book's title, you assume it meant a populist campaign. Did you ever quote anything from the book? I have my copy right here.

Then you admitted Clinton campaigned a populist

Nope, we were discussing Clinton's campaign for President. I said he veered populist in the primaries to fiend of Paul Tsongus.

See?

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. The more we go down this road, the more likely fellow DUers will

read it.

Ain't that cool?

DUers here and abroad can read where you breeze over reason and logic, and act as though nobody can see your previous posts.

You try to put words in my mouth. (#28) Then fail to respond when caught bareback in the wind.

You float right on by the facts when presented (#32) Only to pine away on your opinion of DLC staffers

[wyldwolf]

43. that's so true!

you have breezing over reason and logic to an artform!

We're discussing Clinton's '92 campaign for president where numerous sources, even Clinton himself, says he ran as a new democrat.

You claim he ran as a populist based only on the name of a book you obviously don't have because if you have it, you would know it was filled with DLC-inspired policies.

For example: The book gives a mighty thumbs up to incarerating drug offenders and moving people off of welfare into work.

I say, with a source, that Clinton veered populist in the primaries to head of Paul Tsongus's campaign (which is irrelevant anyway, because we were discussing his campaign for President, not for the Democratic nomination.)

But it's all a biiiiiig lie 'cause you know a book title and you just can't stand to admit a president won an election using DLC rhetoric.

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. WJ Clinton himself said he liked the populist slogan he used in 92.

Again, it as if you are willing people to not see your posts in this thread.

Every DUer and lurker gets to see you yet again duck and cover from the words of Bill Clinton and his Campaign Staffers, as if we all can not glean form reading above that your claim of "based only on the name of a book" is yet another total invention on your part.
Didn't you learn anything the last time you ran for cover after getting caught attempting to put words in my mouth?

[wyldwolf]

45. I like it, to!

I also liked, "It's the economy, stupid!"

But we're not discussing slogans. We're discussing policy proposals that got Clinton elected President.

Every DUer and lurker gets to see you yet again duck and cover from the words of Bill Clinton and his Campaign Staffers, as if we all can not glean form reading above that any of your claims is yet another total invention on your part.

[LincolnMcGrath]

46. Why would a DLC candidate need populist slogans?

Can I get a witness?

You go from:: Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions <--------> Too:: ..we're not discussing slogans. We're discussing policy proposals that got Clinton elected


Awesome! Thanks

[wyldwolf]

47. why change the subject... again??

It's a populist slogan to you. It was a title of a book full of DLC policy proposals to everyone who has read it.

Right. I went from "Bill Clinton campainged on, won on, and enacted DLC positions" to "we're not discussing slogans. We're discussing policy proposals that got Clinton elected."

In the general campaign in '92, Bill Clinton campaigned on, won on (the presidency) and then enacted DLC policies.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. That is all that you have done all thread. Oh dear.

I'm getting frightened again wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

50. in a nutshell

Which is considerably more than you have. Amazing you've made so many posts.

[LincolnMcGrath]

51. Aww, that is it! I'm giving you a hug!

:hug:

[wyldwolf]

53. well, thank you

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. Well Said

:yourock:

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. A mission statement

The party platform is loosely used as a mission statement, but at 25,000 words, it doesn't work. A mission statement should briefly describe one's core principles.

The first paragraph in the platform comes close. It says: "The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all."

Last weekend, I helped develop a new mission statement for the local chapter of the organization which promotes the interests of people with developmental disabilities. The main debate in the discussion was whether we "promote quality of life for people with DD" or "people with DD and their families". My strong feeling in the matter is that support for the families are incidental to the support of the individuals.

A similar thing happens in Democrat politics - a lack of focus - exhibit #1, immigration. Is support for non-citizens a core focus or is it incidental to protecting the interests of working americans? In my opinion, they're mutually exclusive.

You're absolutely right. This lack of focus is articulated by the forces of evil as "democrats don't stand for anything".

My advice to every elected democrat is to preface everything you say with; "The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. Therefore,... "

If the resulting statement doesn't make sense, then you probably shouldn't say it.

[IndyOp]

22. The Democratic Vision: Bold New Direction for a Secure America

1. Honest Leadership & Open Government. We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves.

2. Real Security. We will protect Americans at home, and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens, and our allies.

3. Energy Independence. We will create a cleaner and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

4. Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence. We will create jobs that will stay in America by restoring opportunity and driving innovation.

5. A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone. We will join 36 other industrialized nations by making sure everyone has access to affordable health care.

6. Retirement Security. We will ensure that a retirements with dignity is the right and expectation for every single American.

Together, America Can Do Better

--------

Deans talks up these 6 points every chance he gets. I am hearing similar phrases from Dem candidates, too...

:kick:

[IronLionZion]

52. That's exactly it

DUers often ask for the Dems to do something...only to find that they are already doing it!

YEARGH!!!

[killerbush]

24. We didn't leave you, you left us

And America left you a long time ago.

[LynneSin]

49. So you're saying that John Kerry is no longer part of the democratic party

Kerry is actually a member of the DLC. Sure, he's not vocal but he is a member and according to your argument he would then no longer be a member of the democratic party.

nuff said