In PRAISE of the DLC

[WyoBlueDog]

There’s been a lot of badmouthing of the DLC recently, so please consider this:

-- In the last 26 years, the only Democrat elected President, Bill Clinton, was a founding member of the DLC, as well as DLC Chairman (Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was also a founding member).

-- In the last 38 years, only Clinton and centrist southerner Jimmy Carter have been elected president on the Democratic side. In 1972, the liberal George McGovern carried only one state; in 1984, the liberal Walter Mondale carried only one state; and in 1988, the liberal Michael Dukakis carried only ten states.

-- In 2004, five of the six legitimate candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were affiliated with the DLC, and two of them, Gephardt and Lieberman were former DLC Chairmen. Wes Clark identified himself as a “New Democrat” and was publicly praised by DLC Founder & CEO Alvin From, and endorsed by two former DLC Chairmen, former Sen. John Breaux and former Sen. Sam Nunn.

-- The 2004 Democratic ticket of Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards were both self-identified DLC New Democrats.

-- The House Congressional Progressive Caucus has 38 members. The House Blue Dog Coalition of Conservative Democrats has 35 members. The House’s centrist New Democrat Coalition has the most with 40 members.

-- The Senate’s liberal Democratic Study Group has 12 members. The Senate’s centrist New Democrat Coalition has 20 members.

-- The DLC’s think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute is the ONLY Democratic Party-affiliated think tank to come out with new ideas (whether you agree or disagree with them) EVERY WEEK.

-- In 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council named “100 New Democrats to Watch.” The list includes the following names: Ben Chandler (then AG of KY, now a US Rep), Gavin Newsom (then Board of Supervisors for SF, now Mayor), Barack Obama (then State Senator in IL, now US Senator), Ken Salazar (then AG of CO, now US Senator), and Allyson Schwartz (then State Senator in PA, now US Rep).
And consider these names on the 2003 list, all looking for a significant political promotion in November: Phil Angelides, Ethan Berkowitz, Kathy Cox, Dan Malloy, Eliot Spitzer, Peter Sullivan, and Mark Taylor.

-- As of April 2006, a SurveyUSA poll had Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, as the most popular senator in the country with a 73% approval rating. He is the most conservative Democrat in the US Senate, and a member of the DLC.

-- A May 2005 Harris Interactive poll found that the majority of Americans look positively on moderate candidates at 79%. Next, 48% of Americans look positively on conservative candidates, and only 41% of Americans look positively on liberal candidates.

-- A November 2004 Zogby poll (a poll the same month of the last presidential election) found that 48% of DEMOCRATS consider themselves “MODERATE.” Only 28% of Democrats consider themselves “liberal,” and 21% consider themselves “conservative.”

-- A stunning 20 of the 22 current Democratic governors are associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The only 2 that are not, are Ted Kulongoski of OR and Ruth Ann Minner of DE.

Knowledge is power, so I suggest to some of you DLC-haters, ACTUALLY check out their website once, and see that we have much more in common, than not:

www.dlc.org

Consider the facts. And by no means does this apply to all of my liberal Democratic friends, but for those of you vehement in your hatred of the Democratic Leadership Council, it is time to accept that you are not even in the majority of your OWN party.

We centrists are.

The primary focus should be on beating REPUBLICANS.

The House is as good as ours.

In the Senate, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Linc Chafee, Mike DeWine, Jon Kyl, and whoever the GOP nominees are for MN, MD, and TN, should all be defeated.

As far as governorships, we Democrats have a solid chance of keeping every single current Democratic governor, while having a very strong chance at gaining OH, NY, CO, AR, AK, MD, and MA. We also have decent shots in NV, CA, MN, AL, FL, and RI.

“Big Tent.”
Liberal, conservative, centrist, and everything in between; it doesn’t matter, all should be welcome.
Any ideological fundamentalists should go join the other party, thanks.

[draft]

1. the DLC have sold the dems out to the highest bidder

won't get much love from the average jane & joe

[mazzarro]

2. The regular crap from the dlc'ers again -- n/t

[alvarezadams]

3. So ultimately

you're in favour of the DLC because it can win.

Well, I won't abide by folks tied to PNAC, AEI and the Bradley Foundation/Scaife. And unfortunately, that's the DLC.

[democrank]

4. When your lovefest with the DLC subsides

take a few minutes and read some of Al From`s DLC memos, especially the ones about Democrats who opposed Bush`s invasion of Iraq.

[alvarezadams]

5. This might be of interest:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463 , http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Chimichurri]

7. Time for change is long overdue. The DLCers do just as much

damage as the republicans and the health of our democracy depends on replacing them. Period.

[LoZoccolo]

17. A little too late for that, don't you think?

The primaries are almost over everywhere. Now where were you in the run-up to those?

[Chimichurri]

135. this movement is just beginning.

"Now where were you in the run-up to those?"
I'm not sure what you mean here but I get the sense this is an attempt at defending the DLCers. If it is then tell me what have they done for you lately? Why do you support them? what democratic ideals have they preserved in the last 6 years? I'm just curious. As far as the record goes, they've time and time again voted against all of our best interest:

CAFTA
Bankruptcy Bill
PATRIOT Act
9/11 Commission
Round 2 of Iraq Investigation
John Roberts
Scalito
Abu Gonzalez
Hayden

and so on and so on. The republicans cannot and did not achieve these milestones alone. They had a lot of help from our beloved DLC crew. Tell me again why you support them.

[ClintonTyree]

8. So, the DLC will throw their support to a RepubliCON before they'll...

support a non-DLC Democrat. They've constantly aligned themselves with Bush's regressive policies in the guise of "non-partisanship" and sell out REAL Liberal Democrats. Yep, it sure makes me want to carry their water for them! :sarcasm:
The DLCers have sold out to Corporate America right along with the RepubliCONS. If they're our friends, who needs enemies?

[Donna Zen]

9. Typical DLC

Tell us to "shut up" and then leave without listening.

Oh...and I like the part about labeling "ideological" and "fundamentalists". Why? Because I disagree with your war? Because I'm sick of watching middle class jobs leave our shores while the DLC makes sure that MBNA gets their goodies. I noticed that Carper is one of your featured stars.

I'm a Democrat. You're DLC, the party that could care less about people like me and my kid. Since when does being a "centrist" mean that corporations come before the people and country? How are all your plans for privatization coming?

So you want me to leave. You know nothing about me, nor do you care. How can I leave the DLC? I don't belong, nor do I ever want to. I'm one of the people who phone banks and goes door-to-door. How many of your CEO buddies will do that for you?

Your DLC post attacking Democrats is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on this forum.

[JNelson6563]

10. You sure you wanna take credit for 2004?

The most poll driven, consultant ridden, lame ass campaign in the history of man? Wow!

Julie

[Donna Zen]

11. Looks like a post and run

I guess the OP is off win all those Senate seats without us. Or maybe s/he is off to poll what names to call us next.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[blm]

338. According to the CORPORATE MEDIA and its editting rooms.

Kerry won all his matchups - it was the DNC and the left and objective media who got their asses handed to them on a daily basis by a RW machine that had unmatched discipline - not that you'd hear the truth from the DNC back then OR the so-called left journalists and spokespeople who showed up on the airwaves then.

Nope - to them, it had to be just Kerry.

Nice way to avoid fixing the infrastructure where both 2000, 2002, and 2004 were REALLY lost.

[ixion]

12. Sorry, but I see nothing positive coming from the DLC

they've been all for both the so-called 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Terror', and for this they cannot be forgiven. These devices have been used by republicans and democrats alike to remove constitutional protections. The DLC has followed the dialog on these subjects for two decades, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders being jailed or beaten or killed, or at the very least having their lives ruined in the name of 'helping' them.

Every word from the DLC in the last five+ years has done nothing more than parrot a subservient line of thought.

This is the opposition NOT providing any opposition at all, IMO.

[acmejack]

13. Any ideological fundamentalists should go join the other party

Really? Perhaps the DLCers, at least their upper mangement need to simply return to the party whence they came.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Should they change their stances on global warming and...

...ending child hunger to the Republican stance while you are "kicking them out"?

[acmejack]

104. I merely point out that Marshall Whitman has history

Once again glove you run about putting words in my mouth! Why do you insist upon distorting other people's words? I said nothing about casting the DLC from them party now did I? Did I say a single word bashing their policies, which in fact, as you know very well, I said just yesterday, the PPI had some very good ideas, so please stop playing your childish games with me.

As for Whitman, I for one, doubt that he is a Democrat! So apparently, do others http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/10/195420/35 He is not the only one in the leadership of the DLC that is suspect either. One might ask themselves about their attack dog advocates that run about this board personally attacking any who dare oppose the corporate agenda put forth by the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

151. That's right, you didn't, I misunderstood.

I apologize.

[skyblue]

15. Only 28% of Dems consider themselves Liberal....

The November 2004 Zogby poll you cited as well as the 2005 Harris poll certainly should be serious considerations. This is how people vote not how we in our fantasy world think people believe and will vote and will help us to WIN AN ELECTION!!!

I know it's exiting to connect with others at events who think alike connecting with the choir and such, but that sure as hell does not mean that's what the rest of the US thinks.

What is it about polls that make them so difficult to understand? Can we get everything we want? Or in our attempt to get everything will we select a candidate that does not connect with voters in the "swing-vote" states.

Can we ignore the results of these 2 polls and select a candidate who is in sync with only the 28%?

So many seem to answer "yes" to this question.

[Mr_Spock]

85. Good post

I am a pragmatist as well and realize that angering the people on your own side is not how we win elections. Anyone who is not for winning at all costs is a Republican in my opinion.

[longship]

163. Labels are meaningless.

The Repugs have thoroughly poisoned the word "liberal" in the public discourse. The result is that people no longer identify themselves as such.

However, if one polls Democrats on liberal issues, one finds that the vast majority of Democrats support them. In spite of what the DLC thinks and says, Democrats are fairly liberal as a whole.

[bvar22]

173. Here are some of the numbers:

http://alternet.org/story/29788/
"It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

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. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sandyd921]

204. Yes bvar, that's the real truth

of the matter, no matter how DLC'ers and so-called "centrist Democrats" try to distort it. If we have to put a label on it most Americans are actually populist progressives. :hi:

[longship]

222. Let the DLCers choke on that for a while.

You see. The US is a very progressive, dare I say liberal, country.

This is precisely why the DLC strategy has led the Democratic Party from one loss to another for the better part of twenty years.

The DLCers love to cite the Clinton presidency as a validation of this losing strategy. However, looking back at the 1992 election, it was the Ragin' Cagin's War Room, which responded instantly to all Repug attacks, that brought the 1992 presidency to the Democratic party. It wasn't centrism, it was instant response with *facts* and *truth* which brought things home for us.

DLCers have some good ideas, and like everybody, they are welcome to present those ideas. However, they do not have the right to claim the Democratic party leadership for themselves.

The DLC's time is past. They have *NO* leadership. They have only failure.

[guruoo]

245. Exactly. The Clinton-Gore era DLC no longer exists.

The neo-DLC boosters want us to believe that
nothing's changed.

[Mr_Spock]

246. lol - neo-DLC

Some of us don't give a crap about DLC history - it surely was more than the DLC influence that lost elections for us - don't forget that.

There is no such thing as neo-DLC - they are either Dems or Republicans to me. I agree with some and disagree with some on certain issues. On the whole, I'm on the Democratic Underground because I am a DEMOCRAT!

neo-DLC!!??!! - what a load of crap - a Dem is a Dem and winning is most important of all.

[guruoo]

266. I meant 'neo' as in 'new'. n/t

[wyldwolf]

341. An editorial from Alternet - FDR was no "tub-thumping Progressive."

[sandyd921]

199. The responses to these polls are meaningless

The label "liberal" has been greatly defamed by the repiglicans and their attack machine and by their media lackeys so if you apply a label of "liberal" and ask people is they would vote for a politician labeled as liberal it's understandable that you will get a negative response from a large portion of the electorate who have been exposed to this misinformation campaign. On the other hand if you ask people about issues like univerisal health care, fair wages, fair trade, being able to join a union, etc., etc., all "liberal" (or progressive) issues you get a very different response.

The arguments of the OP are nothing but labels and fail to discuss the real issues and principles that will get Democrats elected. The DLC corporate shills do not address (and are not paid by the corporations to address) the real issues of the majority of Americans.

[mrgorth]

331. You are 100% right

I'm fine with social moderation. It's the DLC's corperatism I can't take. The little guy is getting raked over the coals. BTW, I see that wyldwolf has managed to post about 200 times in this thread.

[skyblue]

340. "Liberal" label MEANINGLESS?

I'll bet you anything that many politicians have not been elected because of the phrase "Liberal" as well as many other labels. I'm sure that lots of people would say the label is not meaningless in that it has affected their electability greatly. Polls matter and if you ignore them you do so at your own peril. We should all be for Universal Health Care, Fair Wages, Anti-Offshoring of Jobs, and Being Able to Join a Union. I have not read where the DLC was against these items. My guess is that the DLC has given money to MANY Democratic Candidates who favor these items.

I'm sure that the DLC wants to be able to select a candidate who can win, and not one who will lose in the General election because people are told they are in a Blue State when their Governor-Elect a Republican is strongly favored by a large majority of the same demographic.

Unfortunately, the FY I got mine aka You are On Your Own what is an anti-Christian sentiment is alive and well in the Republican Party. They don't care that 40 million plus people don't have health care, that some are getting paid $6/an hour, that your job is going offshore, that your pension is being refinanced in interesting new ways, that you get fired because you're a whistleblower: all they care about is their tax cut which will probably wind up being pretty measley anyway unless they make a shitload of money, basically they feel "if you get screwed it's your own dang fault".

What I don't understand is why the Republicans don't see that they are creating very bad precidents for their own future when they do things like cut Social Security payments. How do they think they will do when they retire when they have less social security?

[NashVegas]

368. That Has More to Do with "Liberal" Being a Dirty Word

than Democratic philosophy, IMO.

In the 1980s, most women didn't want to be called "feminists."

[wyldwolf]

19. yeah, you just about nailed it

Of course, all you get from folks here are the typical one liner insults.

Notice no one is arguing your points, they're just attacking you.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. OK, lesson # 1, never for any reason defend or otherwise speak............

.....favorably about anyone or any group other than Nader and his loyal followers.:sarcasm: If you insist on being fair by pointing out anything favorable about the DLC or any other such group:sarcasm: PLEASE buy a very good flame suit because you will need it.:sarcasm:

:hug: Good luck and Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Totally Committed]

21. Sounds like a piece of propoganda to me...

some of us will NEVER buy the BULLSH*T. Count on that.

I will never support the DLC, a cynical DLC slate, or a DLC candidate. Never again. Like I said above -- count on it.

TC

[wyldwolf]

23. which part of it isn't true?

Wait, I'm sorry, you didn't deny any of it, you just called it propoganda!

[Donna Zen]

25. First up

That being moderate means that one is therefore DLC. Today the DLC is featuring Carper on their home page. Carper who voted for the bankrupcy bill aimed at crushing the middle class citizen who gets into trouble because of medical bills, but protects the uber wealthy. How moderate is that? And how moderate is this war?

[wyldwolf]

26. did the OP state that?

[Donna Zen]

28. What are you talking about?

The OP neglects to mention the reasons that I would never support the DLC. The OP does make it clear that they don't need those of us who don't agree with their ability to roll over and sell out the middle class.

[wyldwolf]

30. did you get distracted?

The OP doesn't state what you are saying she/he does.

[Mr_Spock]

75. This is typical anti-DLC rhetoric.

Pick a specific program or vote of a specific candidate and broad-brush the entire DLC with this ONE single issue.

There may not be another candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of winning in that district, but these anti-DLCers do not have to have any connection to reality - a common malady around here unfortunately. I'm a pragmatic thinker and winning IS everything - unless the Repuke view is preffered? :puke:

[Totally Committed]

29. For propoganda to really work,

it has to have a bit of truth to it... just enough so that an uninformed or poorly-informed person reading it would find it plausible.

I repeat: THIS IS PROPOGANDA.

I will never ever ever ever vote for a DLC candidate and I will resist any of their efforts to take over this Party with vehemence. Period.

Their cynical corporations-above-the-little-guy approach to winning has bred a mutant form of elected Democrats... ones without balls OR hearts.

Never again.

TC

[wyldwolf]

31. I repeat: Which part isn't true?

[draft]

32. the conclusion

that the DLC is good for the party and are simply moderates... where a more apt conclusion would be that they are conservative corporatist who have colluded with the right to bring us to where we are today and away from democratic traditional values.

thats why they get so much grief and no amount a spin is gonna make that go away for people who are pay'n attention.

fyi

peace

[Mr_Spock]

78. Nice statement, please show me that a majority of DLC are like this

I've been buying this line from people on here for a long time but never asked anyone to explain how not just one or two, but the MAJORITY of DLC candidates are corporatist. I dislike many Dems, so a few examples will not sway me as it's easy to find distasteful Dems. Who's spinning and who is actually spewing propaganda anyway?

[draft]

87. look at the voting record for the past two decades

shoot look at it for the past 6 years.

you can't even get in the game if your not a corporatist, with few exceptions.

read up on the third way, it is their idea that you can cozy up to the corporations and make it benefit the little guy. well, the record has proven time and again that that isn't true.

the third way has failed the average worker and has led to the further expansion of the gap between the rich and the poor which is dangerous for everybody.

it's way past time for a populist to take the helm... & the DLC will do whatever they can to block that but the people are tired of their BS and results just look at who's heading up the DNC.

time to take our country back from the DLC hacks and their reTHUGlican counter parts.

:bounce:

[Mr_Spock]

So you back up your statement with even more rhetoric

I'm not interested in more rhetoric. I want to know the candidates who have a snowballs chance in hell of getting in office where a DLCer is currently. I want to know what it means and who is a "corporatist" - I'm NOT going to accept this rhetoric any more. If we attack Dems and we don't win, then we are cowering to the Repukes again. Let's be pragmatic and support the candidate who can win, or cut off our nose to spite our face. I do not want a civil war and I would rather have a few Dems I disagree with in parts of the country I would never live in anyway than have Republican rule for another two horrifying years.

[draft]

105. are you denying that the third way doesn't embrace corporations?

are you denying the past two decades of the growing gap between the rich and the poor?
are you denying that these policies have been disastrous for the average jane and joe?

well, there is no discussion worth having with folks who are in serious denial.

folks who want change wont stand for the status quo any longer and are working to bring that change about.

[Mr_Spock]

I have no idea who's rhetoric you're repeating

Please argue from your own knowledge of the DLC - the topic at hand. Use facts that YOU are aware of and feel. I don't care about these "agreed upon" broad brush attacks of the DLC. I am interested in the published DLC view and their particular candidates and if there is any way a more liberal candidate can win in areas where a DLC is taking on a Repuke in a very conservative area.

Oh, and implying that I am in denial is not a good argumentative technique - unless you just want to argue?

[draft]

120. it is my informed opinion of the historical record

the DLC supports the war, corporate globalization and are anti-liberal therefore i oppose them and pass the word on their real agenda.

these are not attacks just the truth about who they are.

Cards on the Table (Yet Another Anti-DLC Diary)

by catastrophile, Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:00:57 PM EST
http://mydd.com/story/2006/6/2/20057/28994

[smoogatz]

140. A better question might be which DLCers are NOT bought and paid for

with corporate contributions (i.e., bribes). Maybe you could name a few.

[Mr_Spock]

255. Sorry, not buying the false choice arguments here

Many non-DLC Democrat politicians are taking corporate contributions - that makes your argument a "false choice".

Don't try to put the argument back onto me - I'm defending the O/P's right to support the DLC and he has made a good argument - not refuted in any of the bashing posts that I can discern.

[Totally Committed]

34. You're wasting your time with me...

I am unconvertible. Best move along to someone who might be willing to waste a beautiful Sunday morning on this BULLSH*T.

The DLC is a dead issue with me. I'm moving along now, and hope you will too. Have a wonderful Sunday!

TC

[wyldwolf]

36. yes I am. But not for the reasons you've stated.

[Totally Committed]

44. Ouch!

Just another unpleasant my-way-or-the-highway you-Liberals-all-suck DLC moment for my memory bank to absorb. Makes me all warm and fuzzy. :sarcasm:

TC

[wyldwolf]

47. No. Read our posts and try again

Kind of like telling you the world is round, you insisting its flat, but refusing to show any evidence to support your position. There comes a point where you let people be.

[Mr_Spock]

79. Wow, put words in people's mouths often?

That was such a narrow-minded response!

[Clark2008]

43. The part about DLCers being moderate Democrats.

That's not true.

DLCers are corporate ass-kissers and not, necessarily, moderates. Being a moderate means so much more than sucking on Exxon's teat.

[wyldwolf]

45. so Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Spitzer, Warner, etc..

All corporate ass-kissers?

[Clark2008]

54. Which Clinton?

And, yes, I think Warner definitely is... Edwards was when he was a senator, but, as a private citizen, he's doing much better in his fight against poverty. Sen. Clinton is a huge corporate ass-kisser (Rupert Murdock? Hello?).

So, yeah, for the most part, they are.

I'll admit that when the DLC was first formed, it wasn't nearly as co-opted as it is now. Bill Clinton is and was a moderate, but, in-so-far as his winning the election BECAUSE he was DLC, well, that's just bullshit. He won because of his charisma. The DLC has left its moderate roots in favor of big business money - hell, Gore no longer associates himself with them and, other than his environmentalism, Gore is and was a moderate Democrat, as well.

[wyldwolf]

57. both

I guess we kick them all out?

Clinton ran as a DLC democrat. His policy promises were straight out of the DLC's playbook. There is no evidence to support his victory was based on his charisma.

[Clark2008]

64. There is no evidence to support his victory was based on

his charism?

Are you insane? Can you not see what's so blatently obvious? Ask ANYONE why they think Clinton won the election: his policies or his charisma and see what answer you get. I just turned around and asked my husband and he said, without quibble, "his charisma."

But, no, I don't suggest we kick them all out - they need to be PHASED out and replaced with Democrats who actually support the people Democrats are supposed to support: the American worker, the middle class, the average Joe.

I'm actually voting for a DLC candidate for Senate because I want Democrats to take back the House and/or Senate. But it is my hope that once we get plurality in one or both houses that the Feingolds and Boxers and Kennedys pull these DLCers back to the center - as opposed to the right, which is where they currently reside on many issues. Therefore, I'm not voting DLC so much for the candidate as I am to have John Conyers as chairman of House Judiciary Committee or Charles Rangel as chair of the Ways and Means Committee or ... you get the picture.

[wyldwolf]

66. it's true. Show me one poll - ONE - that stated it.

In '92, people didn't know Clinton. All they heard and saw was his commercials that endorsed tough on crime and welfare reform.

[Clark2008]

125. No - what they SAW, what put him over the top, was when

he came out on national television and apologized for having an affair. People responded to that. He seemed human.

Most people couldn't tell you diddly about his "tough on crime and welfare reform" stances, but they sure as hell could tell you that he'd admitted on "60 Minutes" that "he caused pain" in his marriage.

[wyldwolf]

133. ZERO evidence to support you belief

Nada!

You want it to be true so you don't have to admit Clinton ran on a DLC platform and won on it.

[Clark2008]

144. I don't see YOU providing any evidence to the contrary.

My point is that the common opinion and belief is that Clinton won on charisma. Ask anyone. Do your own poll. Ask your neighbors. Most people will say it was the charisma in 1992 and not the policies. Most people also will tell you that Clinton wasn't very well known until the "60 Minutes" interview and the Sister Souljah incident.

Simple, common-sense fact that really doesn't NEED proof because it's so obvious.

[wyldwolf]

145. ah

Since you can't provide a shred of evidence, you want me to DISPROVE your theory.

Simple, common-sense fact that really doesn't NEED proof because it's so obvious.

LOL! Sounds like how freepers argue.

[SOS]

148. In 1992

Clinton got 43% of the vote.
43%, fourteen years ago.
The high point in DLC history.

[wyldwolf]

150. with a third party candidate

In 2000, Al Gore got the most votes of any Democrat ever up to that point, but still lost because "prooogresssives" voted for Nader. One of many low points in "proooogresssssiiiive" history.

[SOS]

155. Sorry, the DLC cost Gore the election, not "proooooogressives"

August 2000:

"Gore resurrected his floundering campaign in August 2000 by invoking the populist theme of the "people versus the powerful" during his convention address. In the tradition of Bryan, Roosevelt and Clinton, Gore's populism had no trace of anticapitalism. He attacked "big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the hmos" for blocking consumer, environmental and health-care legislation. He was not attacking the system of profits and markets. And the results were electric. According to the Newsweek poll, Gore was down 48 percent to 38 percent just before the convention. At the end of August, he was ahead by 49 percent to 38 percent, a 21-point turnaround, the poll showed. Commented Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, "There can be no disputing the polls that showed that Gore's quasi-populist message at the 2000 Democratic convention helped send his numbers soaring past George Bush."

And after the election:

"DLC politicos blamed former Vice President Al Gore's defeat in 2000 on his use of the populist theme of the "people versus the powerful." Gore's vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), said that Gore's "economic populism stuff 'was not the New Democrat approach. It was not the pro-growth approach. It made it more difficult for us to gain the support of middle-class, independent voters who don't see America as...us versus them.'" Echoed Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), "I think the strategy was wrong".

The DLC itself blames Gore's defeat on his "populism". The progressive populism that catapulted him to an 11 point lead over Bush only 12 weeks before the election.
Good work, Mr. From, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bayh!

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/16/judis-j.html

[wyldwolf]

167. nope. What you've written in no way even suggests that.

[SOS]

170. It certainly does

Gore had an 11 point lead in August, winning with a "people vs. the powerful" convention message.
Then, tragically, Gore listened to the professional election losers (aka DLC strategists) who were more concerned with pleasing Wall Street campaign donors than getting votes.
In September and October, Gore abandoned his progressive populist approach in favor of the bland, uninspiring mishmash known as the DLC program.
Result?
His 11 point lead vaporized leading to the debacle of a 50/50 election.
Even with Nader in the race, if Gore had stayed with his convention message, he would have won by 8 points.

[wyldwolf]

175. It certainly does not, and your conclusions are funny

Usually the lefties say Gore was was LOSING BIG and then switched to a populist mode that caused him to pull even.

First time I've heard one say the opposite.

The election was close enough because Gore avoided Clinton's record.

[ThomCat]

68. Cliton and Kerry certainly are.

They gave us NAFTA and all the worst of globalization, moving to the right to try to capture votes, ignoring us (their base), and "welfare reform" while increasing the amount of welfare given to corporations.

[wyldwolf]

82. ok.

:)

[w4rma]

22. The hell with the DLC. I've read essays by the non-politicians who run the

DLC and they are nothing but anti-labor, pro-big buisness, make themselves rich by conning Democrats, scumballs.

[wyldwolf]

24. for example?

[Clark2008]

131. Here's some:

1. At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way.

2. New Democrats joined with conservative Republicans in contributing to the current mess. DLC icon Senator Joe Lieberman and other New Dems joined with Gingrich and Republicans to pass securities "reform," a centerpiece of Gingrich's Contract With America, over President Clinton's veto. The measure, which the DLC touts to this day, made it harder for shareholders to hold executives and accountants liable for misleading reports. Clinton is surely right to now point to this measure as contributing directly to the current scandals.

New Democrats in the House and Senate, led by the ethically challenged former New Dem co-chair Representative Jim Moran, worked with Republicans to frustrate Arthur Levitt, Clinton's chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in Levitt's attempt to ban auditors from doing consulting for the companies they audit. As Clinton notes, this led directly to the Enron scandals, in which auditors had every incentive to ignore shady off-the-books maneuvers.

And Lieberman, the DLC's favored candidate for President, made the fight against honest accounting of executive stock options his personal mission. Honest accounting, urged by such "radicals" like Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffett, would have tempered the abuse of stock options; as things stood, executives had a multimillion-dollar incentive to cook the books in the short term so they could cash out. Lieberman continues to block efforts for this reform to this day, but now claims, in his best Claude Rains imitation, to be shocked that stock options have been abused, and haven't been used to redistribute wealth, as he thought.

3. New Dems joined with Republicans in diluting efforts to clean up the current mess. New Dems in the House offered bipartisan support for the Republican accounting reform bill that was certified as harmless by the accountants' lobby. Before the WorldCom revelations, when it looked like reform was going to be bottled up in the Senate, Lieberman and DLC head Al From launched a PR drive to warn Democrats against being antibusiness and doing too much.

Lieberman, as chair of the Senate Operations Committee, has been notably reluctant to trace Enron's use of political money and clout in the Bush and Clinton Administrations and Congress. Part of the reason may be that, according to Federal Election Commission reports, the New Democrat Network PAC received more than $250,000 in contributions from companies implicated in the Enron scandals, including $25,000 from Enron in 2000 and $20,000 from Arthur Andersen last year.

4. Led by Senator John Breaux, New Democrats have helped to block a real prescription-drug benefit for seniors. The key issue is whether the benefit will use the power of Medicare to negotiate the best price for seniors. For drug companies, this is heresy. They headed a multimillion-dollar fundraiser for Republicans last month, after which President Bush repaid them with a speech opposing efforts to limit drug prices. New Dems are less expensive. According to a study released by Public Citizen, the New Democratic Network pocketed some $475,000 from drug companies over the past twenty-one months, and its single biggest donor was the drug lobby, at $50,000. Breaux is also leading the efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher program, which would increase risk and cost to seniors already struggling to pay soaring health costs on fixed incomes.

5. The DLC champions privatization of Social Security as a centerpiece of its program for the new century. Or in DLC speak, as Will Marshall, one of its founders, puts it, "using choice and competition to advance...the big social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare." The DLC provides bipartisan support for a Bush folly that, as Senator Tom Daschle says, would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble.

6. The DLC trumpets the corporate trade agenda, scorning efforts to build environmental and worker rights protections into trade accords. The DLC campaigns on this cause to this day, even as the US trade deficit has reached levels that Alan Greenspan announces are unsustainable, the dollar is sinking and a harsh readjustment is threatened.

7. The DLC opposes affirmative action. DLC leaders initially criticized Clinton's decision to mend, not end, affirmative action. The Hyde Park Declaration, their last major policy statement, contains a thinly masked call to end affirmative action, saying we should "shift the emphasis of affirmative action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens."

8. The DLC's political advice is often wrongheaded. The most recent DLC insight is that Democrats should target affluent, white, office-park males-one of the most Republican constituencies in the electorate. To appeal to that constituency, the DLC says, Democrats should abandon any populist rhetoric, tone down the drive for corporate accountability, embrace fiscal austerity and free trade, and distance themselves from unions. That may make for good corporate fundraising, but it's hard to imagine a better recipe for defeat.

9. The DLC remains wedded to fiscal austerity, even though we've gone from peace and prosperity to war and recession. Like George W. Bush, the DLC sees no reason to allow fundamentally changed conditions to affect its ideological positions. Its support for investment in education and worker training, innovation and R&D, and its opposition to Bush's tax cuts, have been laudable and helpful. But it remains wedded to a Coolidge Democrat position, arguing that returning the budget to surplus would help generate growth (by lowering long-term interest rates). The DLC has little to offer on policies needed to respond to the current crisis, because interest rates are already low, consumers and companies are tightening their belts, the stock market is tanking and the trade deficit is unsustainable.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/borosage20020726

[wyldwolf]

137. try again

You said you'd read pieces by "non-politicians who run the DLC."

The author of this piece doesn't run the DLC.

[Mr_Spock]

83. I'd like to read these essays

I'm no longer taking anyone's word on anything here. They say the O/P is posting propaganda, yet I have on;y seen emotional or single example broad-brush arguments refuting his claims. I hope people can do better than this - it seems unfair and not very pragmatic.

[skipos]

27. Good luck trying to get some DUers out of the circular firing squad

[chaumont58]

33. I have checked out their web site and I still say they are bat shit crazy

I don't give a fuck how many US Senators they have. They advocate bullshit positions. I am from California, and one Senator is DLC, Feinstein. She sure as hell never ran as DLC, at least that I heard or read. Clinton may be a DLC founder, but he didn't win in '92 and '96 because he was DLC. He won because he is a brilliant campaigner.
My dislike of the DLC is from reading their website. They don't speak for me. If the Democratic Party had only DLCers in leadership positions, I would cease to be a Democrat.
I am a senior citizen voter. I have been voting since 1962. I can remember Harry Truman's victory in 1948, when I was 10 years old. I say this just to show that I have watched a lot of candidates, over the years. My dislike for the DLC is very similar to my dislike for the Republican Party.
The DLC seems to stuck in 1973. Their take on the issues seem very real if there is still a cold war going on.
Life is a choice of the lesser of two evils. If I am faced with a repuke lite and a repuke hardcore, I'll take the lite variety, but I won't like it, and I sure as hell won't contribute time and money to the lite version.
I don't give a fuck what victories their supporters trumpet, they are a cancer on the soul of the Democratic Party. One day, they will be confined the ash heap of history.

[wyldwolf]

41. Clinton ran as a new Democrat and pushed DLC policies in his campaign

yep!

[Zhade]

369. Actually, that's a lie.

For example, he campaigned in part on including worker protections in NAFTA (which was not a DLC plank), then changed his stance once he entered office.

[wyldwolf]

370. Actually, it's the truth

Clinton said so himself in his autobiography.

But even without his own words, one only has to look at his platforms of welfare reform, tough on crime, etc.

His TV ads SAID he was a "new Democrat."

You and I have had this conversation before, and I pulled out source after source.

But I would expect such from you, who once said "(Clinton) referred to himself as a Rockefeller Republican, in fact.

[Zhade]

377. Really? Present the evidence, then.

NT!

[wyldwolf]

382. Bookmark it this time:

Here's were you said "Bill Clinton referred to himself as a Rockefeller Republican, in fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2312757

Here are Clinton's own words about the DLC and his '92 campaign:

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 said the DLC stood for a modern, mainstream agenda: the expansion of opportunity, not bureaucracy; choice in public schools and child care; responsibility and empowerment for poor people; and reinventing government, away from the top-down bureaucracy of the industrial era, to a leaner, more flexible, more innovative model appropriate for the modern global economy... 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... During the 1992 campaign, I told a full house at Macomb County Community College that I would give them a new Democratic Party, with economic and social policies based on opportunity for and responsibility from all citizens...

MY LIFE
by Bill Clinton

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

Here are other references to his '92 "New Democrat" campaign:

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.

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

Clinton successfully capitalized on these weaknesses by running as a centrist New Democrat and won the presidency... Clinton, a Southerner with experience governing a more conservative state, was able to finish the primaries positioned as a centrist New Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

Transcript of 1992 Clinton/Gore TV Ad:

ANNOUNCER: They are a new generation of Democrats—Bill Clinton and Al Gore—and they don't think the way the old Democratic Party did. They've called for an end to welfare as we know it, so welfare can be a second chance, not a way of life. They've sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty and they've rejected the old tax and spend politics. Clinton's balanced 12 budgets and they've proposed a new plan investing in people, detailing $140 billion in spending cuts they'd make right now. Clinton/Gore. For people, for a change.

Also check the one where he lays out his welfare reform plans.

http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?ad_id=963

[Zhade]

383. Bookmark your failure to make your case? Why?

I can get that almost every time I read one of your posts.

For example: the first bit does not address the "Rockefeller Republican" quip he made. At all. So, zero points.

Then the second, which doesn't negate my argument that he campaigned on un-DLC-like worker protections in NAFTA, then dropped them in office.

Zero for two, WW. Try harder.

[Name removed]

384. Deleted message

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

[devinsgram]

35. Perhaps the reason the polls tilt that way

is because the people out their haven't heard anything else accept the drivel from the DLC, but that is beginning to change as more and more are beginning to realize we need real change in this country, not the same old, same old.

I have never in my 60 years heard so much complaining about the democrats in office now and how they are like cowering dogs, willing to go along with anything this idiot does.

There is no praise here for the DLC. Now go bother somebody else.

[wyldwolf]

37. LOL

Perhaps the reason the polls tilt that way is because the people out their haven't heard anything else accept the drivel from the DLC

What else is there? Tell me the policy plans of DFA and PDA on the issues of the day. They have none.

There is no praise here for the DLC. Now go bother somebody else.

Yes there is. Now go bother somebody else. LOL!

[Clark2008]

49. Obviously you haven't gone to the PDA website...

Peace: http://pdamerica.org/policy/peace/

Reproductive Rights: http://pdamerica.org/policy/rr/

Single-payer National Health care: http://pdamerica.org/policy/health/index.php

Education: http://pdamerica.org/policy/edu/

Israel/Palestine: http://pdamerica.org/policy/peace/israel-palestine.php

Media: http://pdamerica.org/policy/media/

Drafts are in progress for:

Environmental policy: http://pdamerica.org/policy/env/biodiversity.php

Now... what were you saying about the PDA not having any policies?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

51. those are stated positions

Some link off site to other people's work. Hell, one even links to a book for sale at Amazon! (If ya want to know our position, buy a book!)

Overall, merely longwinded lectures of how things "should be" with very little explanation of how to enact and fund them. Sort of like a better written DU post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. let's be fair the PDA is a new organization and doesn't have the kind of

funding or think tank resources of the DLC. I'm only a nominal member of the PDA myself so I don't particularly need to defend them. But they do have to be given some time.

The reality is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been pretty much dormant (partly our own fault) and marginalized (not necessarily our fault) for a long time. Things are just getting off the ground again.

There is no progressive equivalent of the DLC operating within the Democratic Party yet in terms of size, funding and resources. Things are just starting.

[wyldwolf]

58. aren't they associated with elected Dems?

Right out of the gate, the DLC had advanced policy papers on a $200,000 a year budget.

[Clark2008]

60. Considering that the PDA isn't very old, I think starting

with a stated position is probably where they need to be at after only two years in existance. You have to write your positions and set them before you can work to enact them.

The DLC has had 20-something years to enact and fund their positions and what has that gotten us? The loss of Congress in 1994, presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 that were much closer than they should have been (barring election fraud or the Supreme Court decision - the point is that it should never have been close enough for either to matter), the loss of the South in the blue column, the bankruptcy bill, a roll-over Congress with little to no opposition to the losses of our civil liberties, absolutely NO movement to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, a step-back in environmental policies and... I could go on and on.

The point is that the DLC has done NOTHING for the average American past its first few years in existance. I completely understand what it started as and understand why it was created, but that's not what is it now. Now, it's nothing more than an off-shoot of the corporate facism so favored by Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

61. the DLC had advanced policy proposals right out of the gate

[Clark2008]

65. And what widow did they put on the street when they did?

:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

67. what a snappy comeback!

void of any substance, and irrelevant to the conversation, but snappy!

[Clark2008]

134. Actually, it was complete substantial.

The DLC's policies hurt the little people (like the average widow with two children, for example), which has been my contention all along.

[wyldwolf]

138. another snappy yet unproven comeback!

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. with a lot more funding..

It's lot harder to raise money from citzens groups and ordinary people than from special interest and corporate lobbyist.

[wyldwolf]

95. too bad. Out of the gate..

there was very little "special interest and corporate lobbyist (LOLOLOLOL)" money. From (and Gore) toured the country doing fundraisers.

[guruoo]

288. Now see where this is going....

Just as I thought. This is about helping DLC marginalize the grassroots.

wyldwolf wrote: 'Tell me the policy plans of DFA and PDA on the issues of the day.
They have none.'

BTW: DFA doesn't issue specific policy edicts to it's local affilate chapters,
instead, it allows each chapter the freedom to address the issues as they see fit.

[Mr_Spock]

90. You have it exactly backwards

Most people have never heard of the DLC, they simply know what they like.

Show me the DLC statements that say they are for cowering like dogs and are for going along with Bushco.

Examples from particular Dems will not due as this is not representative of the DLC view. If another Dem had a snowballs chance in hell of taking the seat from a particular DLC person you hate, then you may have a point. If we are not for a majority of Dems in office, then we are Republicans and will have to live with the Republican ideals. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. setting the historic record straight:

__ Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth – George Orwell from 1984

The reality is that after 72 -- EVERY SINGLE Democratic Party presidential campaign EVERY SINGLE Democratic Party national campaign was based on the so-called "centrist strategy" -EVERY SINGLE one without any exceptions whatsoever.

The reality is that after 72 the Democratic Party has steadily moved rightward except on certain social issues such as abortion or gay right which the DLC also supports.

The Carter Presidency was already practicing fairly conservative economics during his term. We can look at his shift in tax policy and appointment to Chair of the Fed and he did significantly increase military spending. This is what lead to calls from some liberals for Kennedy to enter the race; a big mistake in my opinion.

Mondale did support a raise in taxes. But he also supported keeping most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts and to increase military spending. He certainly did not run on a program of sweeping liberal reforms.

Dukakis would have been very much a fiscal-conservative/socially liberal/ technocrat type politician. I don't know what would have put him over the line to be called a "New Democrat". Although I am sure if he had won that would have done it.

The Democratic controlled Congress during this period did give President Reagan and President H.W. Bush most of what they wanted.

Any review of candidates and their positions and the support the Reagan and Bush I Administration would verify this.

The facts remain:

1. In 1973 Robert Strauss was elected party chair representing a shift to the right. He then purged as many "McGovernites" as he could and pushed the party rightward. link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/borosage

2. Carter and his people solidified "centrist" control over the party starting at the convention of 1976 were they modified the rules and procedures.

3. Carter in 1980 ran a more conservative program in 1980 than he did in 1976 which was already much more conservative than the program of 1972. In 1976 during his debate with Gerald Ford he indicated that he would reduce military spending marginally. In 1980 debating Ronald Reagan he cited his increased military spending.

4. In 1984 the party establishment nominated former Vice President Mondale; a Humphrey type liberal/hawk who supported increasing the military budget 7% beyond Reagan levels and proposed keeping most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts.

5. Michale Dukakis was a fiscal-conservative, pro-business but moderately liberal "New Democrat". I suppose that was the beginning of the "New Democrat" domination of the party. Gov. Dukakis was as most only moderately-liberal in the same sense that John Kerry is only moderately liberal.

some important links:

1972 Democratic Party Platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1972

1976 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1976

1980 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1980

1984 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1984

1988 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1988

[Donna Zen]

63. What the DLC wants us to forget:

When Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights legislation, he commented that we'd lost the South. He was right. When women were granted the right to chose, the wingnutz seized an opportunity to demonize the "liberals." What the DLC blames on liberals as an excuse to take the corporate bucks, is really the result of legislation that I do not want to give up. Do you?

They pull this stuff everytime. Exactly what liberal views are they talking about. Dukakis certainly was a moderate who got burned by not responding to the Willy Horton (race card) ads. McGovern was a war hero who also got slimed by a commercial showing our navy and army being swept away. A lie.

And somehow that adds up to "liberals" are fundamentalist who need to leave the party.

How many members in the DLC party? Can they win without the Democrats?

[CTLawGuy]

69. great post!

I'd shudder to think what LBJ would have done with the civil rights act of 1964 if he was DLC.

We know what they would have done. "If we sign this we lose the majority, we can't do anything without a majority, thus we have to veto it."

Instead LBJ did the right thing and stood up for African Americans, even if it did fracture the Dem coalition.

[Clark2008]

39. I reject your premise.

Being DLC does not mean one is "centrist." Democrats can be moderate or centrist WITHOUT being corporate ass-kissers like the DLC.

Being DLC means you choose big corporations over the little people. It does NOT mean "moderate."

[Zorra]

126. Exactly. Great post. Thanks. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

40. i will NEVER vote for another dlc fuckwad.

and that includes my pos congressfuck- rahm emmanuel.

[wyldwolf]

42. voting third party or just sitting the elections out?

[dysfunctional press]

109. neither.

i'll vote for any non-dlc dems on the ballot. i'll abstain in any races where none are running.

[wyldwolf]

111. it will have to one or the other

If the non-DLC dem loses the primary, you'll either not vote for the DLC winner by either voting third party or not voting at all.

[dysfunctional press]

127. the presidential/congressional races aren't the only ones on the ballot.

i'll vote in all races where i can support non-dlc dems, and abstain in those that i can't.
or- i may just decide to support third party candidates in some of those races.
i just won't vote for a repuke, or a dlc repuke-lite.

[wyldwolf]

129. then you won't be voting

If the presidential candidate is DLC, you'll sit out the race.

[dysfunctional press]

142. i won't be voting in THAT race...

unless i decide to support a third-party candidate.

but again- that's not the only race on the ballot- i live in something called a "city", where we generally have other issues to decide as well.

(dlc-ers seem to be a little slow on the uptake- why is that?)

[wyldwolf]

146. you just made my point. Thanks!

[dysfunctional press]

149. okay...

i have absolutely no idea what that point is...but more power to you me for making it...:hi:

[Zodiak]

172. deliberate obtuseness

Considering that DLC defenders are a small group that are all over every one of these threads, the continuing demand for proof that has been shown over and over again in their presence (on other threads) is a rhetorical technique and nothing more.

We all know Al From has written more than a few DLC memos where he assaults "liberals". We all have seen voting records where just enough DLCers vote against the Democrats to pull the vote in favor of BushCo and corporations. I have even done my own analysis to show that 90% of DLCers are our worst senators that vote against the party when it really counts (and I went into the study blind just trying to understand if we had any DINOs..and many DLCers clustered together at the bottom of the heap).

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/1

We have gone over this evidence time and time again, but here they come into each DLC thread as if no evidence has ever been given.

Deliberately obtuse.

They are losing the war of ideas and they are trying to staunch the bleeding...suckering those that are not involved regularly with DLC threads with continuing demands of proof. Naive DUers are their targeted audience.

[dysfunctional press]

287. regarding dick durbin-

on your linked page, you identify dick durbin as not a member on the main list, but on the list at the lower right, he is identified AS a dlc-er...as far as i know- he isn't in the club for evil.

[Zodiak]

296. made the correction

on the main post, but not the one n the corner....I didnt even know anyone would even pay attention to that list

you have an eye for detail

I also added the DLC tag to Feinstein..anotehr error I did not change on the module

[rman]

307. All Dem candidates are DLC-ers?

I see a lot of grassroots candidates.

[wyldwolf]

335. of course not. Where did you get that?

[rman]

339. then why ask

"voting third party or just sitting the elections out?"

in response to the statement

"i will NEVER vote for another dlc fuckwad."
?

Your response implies the only option if not voting for a DLC candidate is to vote third party or not vote at all - as though voting Dem means voting DLC, as though Dem = DLC.

[wyldwolf]

342. because there is a distinct possibility that a DLCer will be...

... the Dem on the ballot in any given election.

[rman]

357. There's also a distinct possibility that a grassroots Dem candidate

will be on the ballot.

If so, what would you do - Vote 3rd party or not vote at all?

[wyldwolf]

360. why change the subject?

We weren't discussing my future voting pattern. The fact is, ANYONE who says they will never vote for a DLC candidate again must either be sure no DLC candidate will ever win another primary in a qualified race or they must be prepared to vote 3rd party or not at all.

No one has said they would never vote for a "grassroots dem."

[rman]

361. Fine, you went from two options to three options.

that's an improvement.

I don't think your voting pattern can not be discussed while other people's voting pattern can.

[wyldwolf]

363. no I didn't

I don't think your voting pattern can not be discussed while other people's voting pattern can.

Another person announced his/her voting pattern. THAT is why it can be discussed. I, on the other hand, am under no obligation to discuss mine because I never entered it into the discussion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. let's look at polls to find out where the center really is:

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

[wyldwolf]

48. which of these don't the DLC advocate?

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. please tell me

does the DLC advocate everything on this list?

[wyldwolf]

52. please tell me which of these don't the DLC advocate?

[Donna Zen]

71. There is a huge difference between Advocate

and actually stand up to support. Advocate=triangulate=sell us out. That's the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Example: wanting a change in healthcare is only good news if the policy is sound. Heathcare after a triangulation regime, looks like what it is: a corporate give away.

[wyldwolf]

74. please tell me which of these don't the DLC advocate?

There is a huge difference between Advocate and actually stand up to support.

Someone needs a dictionary for christmas.

[ThomCat]

76. They won't touch healthcare

every since Hillary got burned. (That's #1)

Clinton balanced the budget but he cut domestic spending on real people to do it. (That's #4)

Clinton et al aren't known for doing much for the environment. They just pose and posture. Nixon and Carter were the big environmental presidents. (That's #5)

And the DLCers support this war, so obviously they think we're going in the right direction. (That's #8)

There's four right off the top of my head.

[wyldwolf]

84. been by their site?

Healthcare is a oft-wriiten topic there.

Clinton et al aren't known for doing much for the environment.

LOL! You're killin' me!

[ThomCat]

91. What they write is not as important as what they do.

That's why their writing can be called Propaganda. Their lack of real action to support real healthcare reform betrays their real position.

And even looking at their positions and giving them the benefit of the doubt, they still tend to talk about insuring more people, not insuring all people. They want to keep a broken system and tweak it a bit so that that the corporations that are making money now can keep making money.

As a person with a disability and health complications I live or die by my access to healthcare. I'm fortunate to be middle class and have insurance. Many people are not that fortunate. If the DLC was the undisputed voice of Democrats I see no reason to expect any improvement.

[wyldwolf]

96. show me sourced examples of that they do

[OzarkDem]

197. Health savings accounts aren't a solution

They're a tax shelter for wealthy people.

[OzarkDem]

196. DLC doesn't advocate for any of these

They either ignore most of these issues or develop unworkable solutions that have little or no impact on the problem.

[farmbo]

55. The DLC: Woke up on third base ...think they hit a triple.

Without Ross Perot in 1992, their goofy "triangulation" (aka...sell out to the business interests)strategy would have been as big a disaster then as it is now.

[wyldwolf]

59. Ross Perot wasn't a factor

Sorry. Debunked sooo many times.

[ThomCat]

77. Really, show some proof.

You're so busy demanding proof from everyone else that you've neglected to back up anything you've said.

Can you post anything that shows that the DLS is anything more thanjust words? Show uys positions they fought for that were populist. Show us where they stood up to corporations, ever.

[wyldwolf]

93. this topic really should be pinned to the top of the forum forever

The crunched numbers reveal bad news for Republicans (and some on the left) who want to believe Perot cost Bush the election.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

...On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

...by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

and...

Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. The partisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.

Clinton would still have won 315-223. No other state shows evidence of Perot costing Bush victory. Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election--not even close. That is one popular myth that can be put to bed.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

and...

Readers, where does spin come from? “Clinton won because of Perot” provides a good case study.

Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:”

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

We all know exit polls are imperfect. But these are the actual available data about the preferences of Perot voters. Nor was this exit poll kept secret. One day after the election, the AP sent the news far and wide. (Headline: “Perot's Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race”):

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[smoogatz]

62. The DLC invariably support corporate interests over the best interests

of the American people. They do so because they're sucking hind tit of the same corrupt fundraising system as the Republicans. Because they're beholden to corporate interests, they cannot honestly represent you, or me, or anyone who isn't a full-fledged member of the corporate master class. Ultimately, as long as that's the case it doesn't matter which party label they happen to wear (and just watch how fast DLC poster-boy Joe Lieberman jumps ship if his poll numbers get any worse in CT)--they're bought and paid for with corporate bribes. A whore is a whore is a whore.

[Mr_Spock]

70. Thank you for trying to bring a reality check here!

I am really getting tired of some of the rhetorical machinations of a minority of Dems on DU who think that the majority of Dems are liberal on their topic of choice. Yes, many of us are very liberal on some issues, but not so much on others. As far as the DLC goes, it is clear to me that they have a handle on the pulse of the majority of Democrats nationwide. Their platform, unfortunately, does not necessarily actively support some of the pet issues of some of the people here on DU. It's a shame too, because they attack the DLC incessantly and unfairly influence many of the rest of us into disliking the DLC based on their word alone. As you point out, the DLC is not nearly as bad as these folks imply, and it is a bad thing to falsely attack a group that represents a majority of Dems. The only thing worse than having people in your party who disagree with you on some issues (no problem at all for me actually) is losing elections because a core constituency (DLCers) is turned off by the minority of people who scream loudest and are better at the high-end rhetorical techniques than some of us.

I only want all Dem groups to be treated fairly - thanks again for this post. Next time one of these attacks commences, I will get the facts directly and not let the attack pass unchallenged.

[wyldwolf]

72. Excellent post. Thank you!

[alvarezadams]

73. You want facts?

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. but it is the DLC who started this attack

Al From, Will Marshall, Marshall Whitman have all made careers out of attacking Democrats; and they continue it nonstop.

I realize that the DLC is not the Republican Party. But one of their core principles is neoliberal economics--Is this mainstream Democrat? Do rank and file Democrats buy into this? I don't think so.

[wyldwolf]

97. no it isn't

it was Jesse Jackson in 1988.

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. one can hardly accuse Al From, Will Marshall and Marshall Whitman

of working for party unity now or earlier

[wyldwolf]

103. sure they can

... but the fact remains Jackson began the attacks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. my problem with the DLC

First let me say that not all DLC members are the same. There is a range of opinion. It is not absolutely monolithic.

However, the DLC still stands for neoliberal economics and militaristic global hegemony. The are not are not the right-wing of the Republican Party. And their version of these core principles are somewhat more moderate than the Republican Party version. There is no denying that.

Many liberals and progressives make the mistake of thinking that the DLC is "right-wing" the same way the right-wing of the Republican Party is right-wing. This is not correct at all. If you check the voting record of leading DLC members of the House or Senate you will see that their voting records on such matters as pro-choice, gay rights or other social issues are about the same as the voting record of leading liberal/progressive members of Congress.

My main problems with the DLC are:

1. The attempt to marginalize progressive voices within the Democratic Party and to represent mainstream opinion regarding trade issues, single-payer universal health care and matters of war and peace as extreme positions. When the evidence shows that it is they if anyone who is out of the mainstream on some very important core issues. When they repeat GOP talking points--bashing progressive Democrats they hurt the entire party including themselves and drive the range of discussion farther and farther to the right; not into the mainstream.

2. They embrace an albeit modified form of neoliberal economic ideology and believe it should be imposed on the third world who do not want it because of the devastating consequences it has on the third world fueling inflation, dispossessing the peasantry from their land--creating a new commercial class for the benefit of the few at the cost of the vast overwhelming majority. The only place where the Orwellian named "free trade" is less popular than the rust belt of northeastern United States is in the developing world -- the very people who would be the greatest theoretical beneficiaries.

3. On foreign policy they just don't understand that the world does not want and the American people do not an imperial America that is in a never ending series of military conflicts while the social contract and social fabric of American society disintegrates on an over-bloated military budget that as as former President Eisenhower described as "so wasteful it weakens the nation". I am very much afraid that America could be led astray into an even more disastrous imperial war in the Middle East or elsewhere not by a Republican President but by a DLC-type Democrat President.

[alvarezadams]

94. Clarifications

"However, the DLC still stands for neoliberal economics and militaristic global hegemony." yet "Many liberals and progressives make the mistake of thinking that the DLC is "right-wing" the same way the right-wing of the Republican Party is right-wing. This is not correct at all."

For all practical purposes the DLC is indeed right-wing. 'Cos when you get down to it, what is the true measure of ideology if not economic and foreign policies?

The DLC takes some progressive stances on ... what? Abortion and gay marriage? Yet we often complain of the GOP that they pander to some groups in order to capture market share and to put their REAL policies in practice. The DLC, which virtually mirrors the GOP in economics and foreign policy, can be justly attacked for doing the same.

In a two-party system one has a party in power and an opposition party. If the DLC is part of the opposition yet has precisely the same goals as the GOP (sans talkingpoint issues), what's going on?

And what does one call empowering the opposition?

--------

I've gone to the trouble of looking up the DLC web, its "values" and "platforms". Once rhetoric is cut away there isn't much there, and what's left could easily be part of the GOP web.

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. well in terms of congressional voting records

there is still a significant difference between say Joe Lieberman and say John McCain. link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2670815

but on essential points of economics and foreign policy I would agree that they are right-wing although somewhat modified from the Republican version.

[alvarezadams]

107. Yes but

"there is still a significant difference between say Joe Lieberman and say John McCain"

Of course there is. But since "but on essential points of economics and foreign policy I would agree that they are right-wing although somewhat modified from the Republican version", and since the actual funding of the DLC, its thinktank and some of its candidates are the same as the more extreme section of the GOP...

In essence one could say that the funders/backers/stringpullers of the radical neolib economics and hawkish foreign policy are stacking the deck. They don't care about the progressive talkingpoint issues any more than they care about the fundie issues that the GOP bandy about. They have a set of objectives that will be attained either by a GOP or a DLC victory - what does a letter in parenthesis after a name matter?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

375. Actually, the DLC is the yuppie version of the Democratic Party

"Let us have our sexual freedoms, but don't do anything that would lower the value of our stock in military contractors or insurance companies or that would raise our taxes to meet the needs of those people we moved to the suburbs to get away from."

[ThomCat]

81. The DLC is the pro-corporate, pro-wealthy interests arm

of the Democratic Party. They are the anti-populist arm of the party. They have been a lot of talk with no results.

I challenge you to show any progressive results!
I challenge you to show us any progressive policy ideas from their think tank!

The DLC might as well be the liason organization between the Democratic party and the Chamber of Comerce.

[DarleenMB]

89. Way to go folks

And now you can go ahead and bash Wyoming for being one of 3 states with positive poll numbers for bush. Wonder why there aren't many democrats in this state? Attitudes like what you've just displayed.

Man. Is the moon in the wrong phase or something? This new guy (11 posts and already a donating member) gets bashed bloody ... because you disagree with him? Wow. I thought this place was all about discussion not hanging someone because you don't like what they said.

[ThomCat]

92. This is a place for debate and discussion.

And that's what the original poster got. What's the problem? If someone posts foolishness he's going to get called on it.

[wyldwolf]

99. there is very little debate in this thread

Just strawmen attacks.

[DarleenMB]

100. Tarred and feathered is more like it.

This wasn't a discussion. It was a lynching.

[Mr_Spock]

116. I agree - even that poster used the word "FOOLISHNESS"

to describe the O/P's very though-provoking post. Discussion my ass - it's a brutalize the O/P with inflamed & unprovable rhetoric exercise.

I will not let this topic die until all posters who are spewing false rhetoric back up their broad-brush claims with actual facts. This may take a week to accomplish, but I am SICK AND TIRED of this bloodsport rhetoric about a very powerful Democratic group.

There are all types of Democrats and I'll be damned if I let this false rhetoric to pass this time unchallenged - I've been fooled on this topic in the past and I will not be fooled again.

[alvarezadams]

119. Do the walk

since you do the talk: "I will not let this topic die until all posters who are spewing false rhetoric back up their broad-brush claims with actual facts. This may take a week to accomplish, but I am SICK AND TIRED of this bloodsport rhetoric about a very powerful Democratic group."

I've provided some links, others too. Yet none were addressed by the "pragmatic" crowd.

It is patently clear who backs the DLC; corporations, the Bradley Foundation... even AEI forchrissakes.

It is patently clear that even the current president of the DLC was even a signer of at least TWO of the PNAC letters calling for/supporting the invasion of Iraq.

It is patently clear that the DLC's thinktank is just another corporate creature. The "Progressive Policy Institute" is neither progressive nor an institution - it merely translates the GOP's core issues into a form that is palatable to SOME Dems.

[alvarezadams]

123. Follow the money

The DLC and its closely associated Progressive Policy Institute are the recipient of grants from many Fortune 500 firms as well from such right-wing foundations as the Bradley Foundation. Corporate contributors to the Progressive Policy Institute include AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. (3) The Third Way Foundation, which is an umbrella group for the New Democrats of the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. (13) According to a magazine report, the DLC counts on funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

[Mr_Spock]

241. Once again - false choice argument - almost ALL politicians take corp $$$

You can list all the corporations you want & links to opinion pieces that had an agenda in mind when written (you may have written it).

The point is that you are attacking one group and IMPLYING BY FALSE CHOICE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REST!!!

It is NOT TRUE!! I know politicians take money from corporations - TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T ALREADY KNOW FOR A CHANGE!!!

You just hate them and will use any of the popular rhetorical techniques to prove your supposed point.

I'm not buying it and you are starting to sound like a one note poster.

[Mr_Spock]

136. Nothing is clear to me. Do any Dems who are not DLC get corporate money?

Of course they do. Painting with a broad-brush will just get us all messy - stop it.

Nothing you say is clear to me as I refuse to be manipulated by the "it's black or white" crowd. Different districts, different issues - I will NOT see all Dems the same in all parts of the country.

I am going to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" now, I'll be back later to finish this discussion - if it takes a month to do so.

[wyldwolf]

139. yes, and often from the same souces

[alvarezadams]

143. Yet

the DLC supports neoliberal economic policies and PNAC-type foreign policies.

I've posted this a few times already - but you folks don't seem to want to address it. When you take away economic and foreign policies what do you have left? The DLC economic and foreign policies are not only GOP-like, but right-wing GOP.

I've gone to the trouble of looking over the "third way" and Blair's similar "ideal" in the UK (they could have been written by the same Mt. Pellerin corporate whore). Have you?

[wyldwolf]

147. no they don't

Show us how the DLC have rightwing policies and not pre-1968 Democratic policies. All your "PNAC" rhetoric aside, this ought to be good.

[alvarezadams]

153. Yes they do

"Show us how the DLC have rightwing policies and not pre-1968 Democratic policies."

Read the "third way" (http://www.third-way.com/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_(centrism)). Visit the PPI site (and note today's frontpage story: "Immigration Reform: Why Smart ID Cards Matter"). And note who signed the PNAC letters: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php ... and note Will Marshall.

Elsewhere you note that many DNC politicos also receive money from corps - but you won't see the likes of the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation or the Smith Richardson Foundation funding ANYTHING remotely progressive. Yet they all fund the DLC, the PPI or the Third Way. They do it because they recognize that these orgs represent the same values that their other funded orgs do (AEI, Heritage, etc). Follow the money http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Foundation .

"your "PNAC" rhetoric aside, this ought to be good."

And you complain about ad hominem?

I STRONGLY suggest that you read up on critical thinking, semiotics, framing and logical fallacies. Maybe then you'll be able to distinguish between rhetoric and actual policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28communication_theory%29
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic

[wyldwolf]

168. I've read all that

Where does it prove they are rightwing policies?

[alvarezadams]

179. Are you for real?

"Where does it prove they are rightwing policies?"

What in the hell are right-wing policies for you if you're not sure of these?

[wyldwolf]

180. yes, how is it that the economic and foreign policies of Bill Clinton..

... DLC policies... are rightwing?

[alvarezadams]

183. Because they were

Neolib economics, NAFTA, erosion of social programs...

He had a "D" after his name. That's about it.

[wyldwolf]

184. HOW is that rightwing?

It isn't enough to say "because they are." HOW are they?

[alvarezadams]

185. THINK!

Neoliberal economics. Look it up.

[wyldwolf]

187. I do, thank you. You're an expert, so explain it

How were the policies of Bill Clinton, many modeled after (and some outright stolen) from the likes of Truman and Kennedy, rightwing?

[alvarezadams]

189. Guess what

Truman was a conservative dem.

And you're confusing rhetoric and action. What Bubba policy was modelled on JFK? POLICY, not rhetoric.

[wyldwolf]

263. So Truman was PNAC?

[alvarezadams]

298. Truman was...

a hawk. He wasn't far removed from Skip himself.

[wyldwolf]

313. so you think he was the 1940s version of PNAC. I understand...

[alvarezadams]

319. Yep, pretty much

Truman came around with hardly any knowledge of foreign affairs. When FDR died he relied on a series of hawkish dems for virtually all his ofreign policy decisions. Many of these indeed became the preceptors of the PNAC ideology.

[Mr_Spock]

231. The king of rhetorical nonsense is telling us to study your techniques!!

I am sure you are an expert of the manipulative rhetoric that you are throwing at us today.

It's all nonsense - you fail to acknowledge the different politics that exist in different places around the country and that long-time liberal Dems will get the control of all the important posts if we take control of the House &/or Senate. Or we could sit here and whine about how some of the Dems from conservative states have some conservative viewpoints.

EARTH TO DLC HATER - NOT ONLY DLC DEMS BETTER THAN REPUKES, BUT THEY WILL HELP THE PARTY GET CONTROL BACK FROM THE WACKOS!! Winning IS EVERYTHING at this point. Beggars cannot be choosers. If we lose cause of persnickety elitists who only like Dems who could not win in many areas, then we are all ass holes and some folks have some explaining to do.

[alvarezadams]

297. Pot, kettle, black

"I am sure you are an expert of the manipulative rhetoric that you are throwing at us today. "

-------------

"EARTH TO DLC HATER - NOT ONLY DLC DEMS BETTER THAN REPUKES, BUT THEY WILL HELP THE PARTY GET CONTROL BACK FROM THE WACKOS!! "

Earth to DLC lover - the only difference between the DLC and the GOP is rhetoric and supporting them IS supporting the whackos.

In this thread you toss out plenty of rhetoric but never once address the valid questions made to you. Namely - how do you define a platform that supports neolib economics and neocon foreign policy?

NOT ONCE.

I point out the money trail and you give the usual cogdis tu quoue argument. There's a difference between accepting money from corp A and corp B - and there's CERTAINLY a difference when the DLC umbrella accepts cash from Bradley and Olin. These are the funders of the VRWC.

And then your fellow traveller spouts about "fact-challenged" when he too avoids questions.

If it takes surrender to win, why fight at all? If some Dems are so conservative as to embrace GOP policies, seems to me that they should forget about inherited political sympathies and go to a party that represents them. They have one. Libs, on the other hand, will not have a party that represent them if the DLC continues on its course.

Does this mean defeat? Perhaps so - but the pendulum swings as long as there is some differences in the political spectrum. By pandering to the right in order to capture the putative center, you lose the left.

You ask for support for the DLC. Yet the DLC bashes liberalism at every turn. With friends like that, who needs enemas? I'm a lib. The GOP is my enemy - and so are the DLC 5th columnists.

[guruoo]

251. Well done!

[wyldwolf]

121. I've done this before

I've taken all the false rhetoric and broad-brushed claims in one of these types of threads, listed them neatly as bullit points, asked for actual facts to support them, then bumped it up several times. Just got personally attacked for my efforts, but the point was made.

[Jim Sagle]

227. The DLC sucks. End of story.

[Mr_Spock]

247. That's a very sophisticated argument. I'll vote for a Dem to win majority!

You can hate them if you wish, but I'll take a Dem over a Repuke any day of the week, how about you?

[alvarezadams]

98. Bashed?

"Man. Is the moon in the wrong phase or something? This new guy (11 posts and already a donating member) gets bashed bloody ... because you disagree with him?"

I haven't seen any egregious ad hominem, just strenuous disagreement. Maybe I missed some attacks (I haven't seen the whole thread) but it doesn't seem bad at all.

"Wow. I thought this place was all about discussion not hanging someone because you don't like what they said. "

Isn't that what's going on?

[wyldwolf]

106. some posts were deleted

...he accused of spreading propoganda, being a sock puppet, etc.

[Donna Zen]

113. Yes

I think unless we buy into this party within the Democratic party, then we who object will as the OP states, asked to leave.

I reject the idea that liberals somehow lost past elections because they were liberals. Indeed, Nixon and Reagan played the race card which was primarily what lost those elections. If women's reproductive rights have fueled the Christian wingnut movement, then so be it. But coming to the conclusion that this means we should give corporations control over policy is just too much. And then of course we can talk about the Bill of Rights at a later date.

[Mr_Spock]

124. You bash his head in and then play the victim - "asked to leave" - OMFG!

This is the most cynical post I've seen here in a long time!

You act like non-DLC candidates get no corporate donations - c'mon!

[Mr_Spock]

118. LOL - it's the usual bloodsport of "kill the man with the DLC logo" thread

Clearly since you agree with the false rhetoric beeing put forth in this post, you don't see how unfair & unsupported by fact these attacks are.

[draft]

132. lol

yeah, it's just all in everyones collective heads that the DLC are corporate whores :rofl:

[guruoo]

236. Oh, poor baby - n/t

[Mr_Spock]

108. The hatred of the DLC is a bloodsport here

...and most of it is based on the rhetoric of a few that has spread like wildfire. When people actually go to the source (not a '"reviewers opinion) for their information, they find it's nothing like what they were told.

Pragmatic Democrats are roundly criticized here - even though all we want is a majority so we can stop the insanity of the Republicans. I don't care if there are Dems in conservative states who I disagree with on issues, it's the majority that counts - all the liberal Dems get brought into a majority!!! It's hard to explain this to people who feel they must be ideologically pure. :(

[alvarezadams]

115. And rightly so

"When people actually go to the source (not a '"reviewers opinion) for their information, they find it's nothing like what they were told."

Here's the crux. The sites proffered are full of rhetoric that serve to hide the basic truth; the DLC supports neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign policies. This is the very essence of the far right and no amount of symbolic progressive posturing on relatively unimportant issues can hide this.

"Pragmatic Democrats are roundly criticized here - even though all we want is a majority so we can stop the insanity of the Republicans."

Define the insanity first. If you, like most posters, identify corporate-pandering, neolib economics and PNAC-style foreign policies, you will have to admit that you too are against the DLC because they support the very same policies. But without being ant-gay or anti-abortion or pro-bibles-in-class.

It's not ideological purity that is the issue. It is ideological DIVERSITY. If party A and party B are to be any different it is important that they actually stand for different concepts or ideals. The DLC could EASILY be absorbed by the GOP and nobody would notice the difference between an ex-DLC GOPer and an old-school GOPer.

Pragmatism? If one has to sell out their ideals in order to attain power, I'd rather lose. Especially when gaining power means no change in the policies that I abhor.

[Mr_Spock]

128. "..has to sell out their ideals in order to attain power, I'd rather lose"

I'd rather win because the liberal Dems are more powerful and senior and would be brought into power with a Dems majority.

Your viewpoint is that you'd rather cut off your head than have to look at the wart on your face - I'm more pragmatic than that.

[alvarezadams]

141. On pragmatism

If one surrenders their values in order to win, why the hell run? You speak of cutting off one's head because of a wart. I see it more like cutting out a cancer.

[Mr_Spock]

232. Yes, but we cannot have the cancer operation if we are dead

You fail to see the imperative of winning at all costs and that it's hardly a bad thing to have powerful old time Dems in charge of investigating the WH corruption. If you are willing to die rather than do what it takes to survive at all as a party, then you are suicidal and not what the party needs at this time. We need a majority at any cost. The cancer will kill us if we cannot even get in to see the doctor!! Your logic is severely flawed. You do realize that a Dem from, say Wyoming would be likely very conservative, but without a few conservative Dems, we may not even have a viable party any more. I'm not willing to sacrifice my families future in a third party while the Repukes kill us all. Dems are 10000000000000% better than the mindless murdering Repukes damn it.

[alvarezadams]

300. ???

"You fail to see the imperative of winning at all costs and that it's hardly a bad thing to have powerful old time Dems in charge of investigating the WH corruption."

I see that the cost of winning through appeasement is tantamount to defeat. And I also note that the DNC hasn't exactly been sanguine about investigating anything of late.

"You do realize that a Dem from, say Wyoming would be likely very conservative, but without a few conservative Dems, we may not even have a viable party any more. "

Then choose conservative Dems. But never a neolib/neocon Dem, IOW never a DLC'er.

"Dems are 10000000000000% better than the mindless murdering Repukes damn it."

Sure, and 10000000000000% better than the insidious DLC which emulates and supports the GOP's most egregious policies.

[chill_wind]

178. We've had 6 miserable nightmare years of DLC sell-out "pragmatism"

Look at the devastating trainwreck.

And in their incredibly insulting well-paid beltway consultant hack arrogance, they think we should reward them with opportunity to wreak more, with Hillary as their financial guarantor and meal-ticket.

It won't matter that they'll subsequently put another Republican like McCain in the WH in 08. Just as long as they all keep eating well, either way. There's your precious "pragmatism".

[wyldwolf]

314. Caused by Leftist purity - No Nader, no Bush

[alvarezadams]

320. Leftist purity?

If you think that Humphry was a lib.

True progressiveism in the DNC died, IMO, with FDR. The McCarthy period helped to take it down a further notch. The military/industrial complex took it down even further. By McGovern's time it had become just another aspect of market-driven platform making, running against the $1 billion/year con spin machine.

Your argument has no foundation.

[wyldwolf]

324. He says, with faux outrage!

Yes, leftist purity. The whole "no difference between the two parties" BS from Nader that the left bought into.

By the way, we were talking about the last six years in this subthread, no the '68 election.

[alvarezadams]

326. Sorry mate

"The whole "no difference between the two parties" BS from Nader that the left bought into."

I didn't say that there's no difference between the parties. I said that, where it truly matters, there's practically no difference between the DLC and the GOP.

Something you refuse to address, no matter how many times you've been asked, no matter how many times it has been repeated.

The DLC supports neoliberal economics (trickle-down) and neocon foreign policy. In this they are entirely indistinguisible from the GOP. And for anyone with any ideological awareness, these two areas are the areas that are most important.

Not abortion, not school prayer, not gay marriage, not guns. These are all market-driven issues that politicians look to in order to elicit votes. What matters is economy and foreign policy, the areas that will have a major impact on all of our lives.

"By the way, we were talking about the last six years in this subthread, no the '68 election."

YOU might be talking about the last 6 years. I'm not so shortsighted.

[wyldwolf]

327. I didn't say you did. See, thats what happens when you come into the

middle of someone else's conversation.

We were speaking specifically about the last 6 years.

Now, if you want to broaden it, I would suggest a new thread.

[alvarezadams]

329. Non sequitor

The topic is the DLC. If its roots go far beyond the last 6 years limiting it is counterproductive.

And as far as I know, this is an unmoderated discussion as far as subject matter is concerned.

[wyldwolf]

332. Wrong

I was replying to post #178. You do know how threaded conversations and subthreads work, right?

[chill_wind]

272. "Winning at all costs"

just to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic to allow the same murderous GOP economic and foreign policies too many dem elites have already embraced and enabled the last 6 years would seem to be an expression of the greatest "bloodsport appetite" one could possibly boast.

[fishwax]

303. "already a donating member" ... he doesn't appear to have a star n/t

[Zorra]

110. Our primary focus IS on beating the republicans.

First, we beat the republican or republican sympathizing DLC candidates that have infiltrated the Democratic Party in the primaries.

Then, we beat the republican candidate in the general election.

Being ideologically subjugated by your enemies, and then being assimilated into their corporate, anti-democratic culture of corruption, is not a winning proposition for Democrats

A moderate Democrat is not a DLCer. Moderate Democrats are actual democrats. DLCers are corporatists. No matter how socially liberal the DLC might be, they are still a corporatist, anti-democratic political entity. Corporatists support government of, by, and for the corporation, whether they realize it or not.

Democrats support government of, by, and for the People. Every Democrat damn well understands this.

Here is what you DLC'ers either don't understand about Democrats, or else you are being deliberately obtuse because someone is paying you to work at making the Democratic Party more like the republican party in order to render the Democratic Party ineffective:

Democrats don't want to be more like republicans. Democrats generally don't like republicans. Democrats do not want to compromise with republicans and embrace republican corporate ideologies.

So please stop pushing your insidious republican poison on us.

I'm a yellowdog Democrat. I'll vote for a DLC candidate if that is who wins the primary, and work for Democrats in later elections in the hope that we can eventually weed all the DLC corporatists.

If you DLCers get paid to come here and divide the Democratic Party, it just ain't gonna work.

I'll vote for whichever candidate has the (D) by their name. I always have.

How about you? How often have you voted for a republican?

Which would you vote for: a flaming liberal Democrat, or for a "moderate" republican, if these were your choices in an election?

[wyldwolf]

112. Right. Clinton. Gore. Kerry. Edwards. Warner. etc. ALL Republicans.

[dalaigh lllama]

114. I took that Zogby poll

-- A November 2004 Zogby poll (a poll the same month of the last presidential election) found that 48% of DEMOCRATS consider themselves “MODERATE.” Only 28% of Democrats consider themselves “liberal,” and 21% consider themselves “conservative.”

I most likely listed myself as a moderate at that time. Now when I do polls, I list myself as a liberal. Have I moved to the left? No. The folks in charge have moved way to the right. I wouldn't be surprised that most of the voters derided by the neo-cons as wild-eyed liberals were centrists before 2000.

[dysfunctional press]

117. instead of trying to attract repuke voters, we should target NON-voters.

considering the number of people who boycott the polls- THAT'S where we're likely to make more gains. give them a reason to want to vote FOR us...having two sides of the same coin to vote for just increases voter apathy.

after all- the idea is to be an opposition party, not an imitation party.

as the party moves farther to the right, it's going to lose more people on the left, than it will gain from the center. hopefully they'll see the light yet in my liftime.

until then, we'll continue to get exactly the elected officials we deserve.

[Totally Committed]

122. The Arrogance and Audacity of the DLC is astounding...

The Republicans have brought this nation to the edge of ruin. And yet Al From and his minion have the nerve to say that in order to win we need to be MORE like them, NOT LESS. And we, the Liberal base are what's wrong??? -- ask Al, he says it often enough.

I do not agree with the tenets and the cynical politics of triangulation to the Right of the DLC. I do not believe that Corporations will do the right thing and take care of us if we just take care of them. I do not agree that all the poor have do is pick themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder, and the American dream is theirs for the taking. I do not think we should have to be more Republican to win as Democrats. I do not. And I never will. And I will not let threads like this go unanswered no matter how many insults or challenges are thrown at me.

I will resist the DLC and their candidates. And, I don't care how many times I'm told I'm wrong to do so.

TC

[chill_wind]

191. Bravo!

Very well stated.

[quiet.american]

130. What has the DLC done for us lately?

One always has to go all the way back to Clinton/Gore '92, 14 years ago, to point to a DLC success. All rhetoric aside, I can't remember the last time a DLC'er said something that resonated with my position as a Democrat, or that I felt spoke for me as a Democrat.

Instead, I find myself constantly outraged by the DLC's remarks. I do not buy into Bush's propaganda about why he illegally invaded a sovereign nation -- which the DLC apparently does, because their only quibble seems to be they think they could do a better job running this illegal military action. I am not pro-illegal war, pro-religious war, pro-corporatism, pro-imperialism, etc. This doesn't make me a far-leftist. This makes me a concerned citizen who is dismayed at what's going on in this country.

The DLC needs to stop being so contemptuous of Democrats who do not agree with Bush policies. Leave that to the Republicans. Why should I support with my dollars, time and vote DLC candidates who start out holding me in contempt?

[cascadiance]

152. You mention Angelides in your article with a lot of other NUMBERS....

of Democrats who are a part of the DLC.

Yes, BOTH Phil Angelides and Steve Westly were part of the DLC's 100 "top flyers" or whatever that BS means...

But guess which one of those two candidates ask that their name be removed from that list! Phil Angelides!

And guess who won the nomination for governor between these two! Phil Angelides!

It also isn't so coincidental that as Al Gore is distancing himself from the DLC, his popularity is rising too. People are wising up to the DLC. Many here, myself included, weren't even aware of what the DLC was before 2000. As we see the more blatant teardown of the middle class that has occured since Bush has taken over that have highlighted the sellouts of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, etc. from Clinton's time that have started us down this road, the core of the Democratic Party is starting to see through the DLC's manipulations to try and get our vote but to solidify the one party corporatist rule of this state.

With the current "institutionalized bribery" that now functions as our campaign financing rules that are in place, the DLC has set itself up as the "middleman" for people to get elected, since one has to have money and be able to spend 70% of their time doing fundraising to get elected. All of this touting of numbers is masking the fact that many who are a part of the DLC aren't there because they believe in the DLC's mission. They are there because they want to have a chance to get elected in this manipulated system of campaign finance bribery that has been erected. Some embrace that bribery system and champion the DLC banner. Some just live with it as a necessary "evil" and don't talk much about it as being an evil.

What this country sorely needs are decent leaders like Russell Feingold, not so much because they are "liberal", but because it is they who have found ways to work around this DLC control to get elected in more of a populist manner, to force a change in the campaign finance rules to bring on public financing campaigns to take out the corporate bribery that is institutionalized in the system now. That will bring back our government to anwwer to people and not corporations, for ALL political stripes (conservative, moderate, or progresive). This sort of change isn't going to start with the totally corrupt Republican party, nor is it going to start with a DLC championing candidate in the Dems. It is going to start with the Wes Clark's, Al Gores, or Russell Feingold's who are trying to appeal more to getting grass roots control of this party again (and of the political system again). That is why I will at every level vote against DLC ("Democracy" lead by Corporations) at every level I can, or at least against politicians that embrace the DLC as some sort of guide for their policiies instead of the necessary evil that some here and there are a member of it for.

Getting public financing in place will bring back government for the people, and will make organizations like the DLC irrelevant. They know that, and that's why they are fighting both public financing and grass roots efforts.

[Cocoa]

154. welcome to DU

you make some good points. I agree with some of it, but in all I consider the DLC to be a negative force in the dem party. I think they represent interests that are not me.

But welcome, and I hope you're here to discuss politics, and not here soley to push a pro-DLC agenda.

[BootinUp]

156. A Good post, and Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Vickers]

157. OK, I went to their site and poked around...they seem pretty fucked up.

They don't seem very progressive to me. They are almost as rah-rah as the repukes.

[alvarezadams]

158. More on GOP lite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2672139&mesg_id=2672575

[Greyhound]

159. IOW, we should abandon our principles in order for the slightly less

objectionable team to win. Well I say fuck that!

If it takes 6 more years of a criminal re:puke: regime to wake up the sheeple, then so be it. If the concept of America is to survive, we need massive fundamental changes, the slightly less painful, pro-corporate agenda that is imposed by the "centrist" Democrats, will only result in a slight reduction in the pace of our race to fascism.

How many of us remember, or ever knew, that the "American Dream" is a dream of liberty, not consumerism?

[BrklynLiberal]

160. "Debunking Centrism" David Sirota in '04. Still applies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=216525&mesg_id=216525

[alvarezadams]

161. What I don't understand...

...is what seems like cognitive dissonance coming from the defenders of the DLC. They're provided with link after link yet always return with "prove it". And their only supporting argument seems to be "read the DLC page" - as if the DLC is going to be up-front and clear about corporate whoredom or their support of an unpopular war.

One thing that should not be forgotten about the supporters of neolib economics and neocon foreign policy - they are often followers of Leo Strauss. Strauss believed that it was not only licit but necessary to be mendacious and manipulative.

[BrklynLiberal]

164. Guess it is the same "mental block" that keeps some sheeple supporting

Dimson no matter how obvious it is that he is a narcisissitic, sociopath who could not care less if the entire world went up in flames, as long as he got his.

[wyldwolf]

169. "Debunking Debunking Centrism" Matt Yglesias, still applies

http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html

[alvarezadams]

182. Yglesias?

If you want to match op-eds, the "American Prospect" just happens to pay Yglesias' salary. Yet it see's fit to publish: http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html ("Republicans' Favorite Democrats ", the DLC) and >(http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/24/borosage-r.html "The DLC Flunks Politics 101")

Appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy.

[wyldwolf]

186. Sirota?

Why don't we just match the "facts" Sirota puts in his with the sourced debunking Yglesias puts in his?

[alvarezadams]

188. What facts?

All Yglesias does is to echo DLC memes as a defense against an attack which cuts too deep for mere rhetorical responses.

Neoliberal economics are the basis of Reaganomics, of Thatcher, of trickledown. It is closely tied with globalization and indirectly tied with the use of force to push the boundaries of corporatism ever further.

If there is ANY leit motif for the right-wing, following neoliberal economic principles is it. The DLC has embraced them, as did Bubba. Thus I have always considered Bubba a conservative. And mind you - if Bubba had ridden the peak of an economic cycle his memory would not be a positive one for anyone, right or left.

If the DLC does anything well it is in framing issues. They spout almost plausible rhetoric about "progressive" ideals... while they dismiss DNC progressives. The GOP has the neocons, the DNC has the DLC.

And they're the same bloody thing.

So wake up, learn to see through nice-sounding but ultimately empty rhetoric, and then get back to me.

[wyldwolf]

265. I thought that would be too hard for you

[alvarezadams]

304. Believe me

You haven't proposed any difficulty whatsoever.

[wyldwolf]

315. then perhaps you should read the pieces?

I mean, how difficult is it to read what Sirota SAYS and compare it to the actual sourced facts?

[alvarezadams]

321. I did, and that's my point

Rhetoric, logical fallacies... and I'd wager even a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

[wyldwolf]

325. ok, let's take them point by point

I'll start:

Source document: Debunking Centrism by David Sirota

CLAIM: On taxes, self-described "centrists" like Senator Joe Lieberman, a senior DLC leader, attacked proposals to repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay down the deficit.

FACT: Oh, so we want to go there, do we? Yes, challenge the Texas State Convention's Lieberman delegate on MoJoe trivia. Wise move, Dave. Had you done your homework, however, you'd note that Joe, along with every other candidate running for the Democratic nomination, favored repealing or scaling back at least some of the Bush tax cuts. Joe was no different.

Via Issues2000.org ...
Q: What will you do with the Bush tax cuts?
A: Unlike some of my Democratic opponents I would not repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. I would keep the ones that help the middle class and those trying to get into it including the child care tax credit and the reduction in the marital tax penalty. But I would repeal the tax cuts on higher income Americans. I am the only candidate who is proposing tax reform and tax fairness and that means a new tax cut for 98% of income tax payers, which is most of the middle class that really needs help today. Unlike Bush, I would favor these tax cuts by putting a surtax on the highest income Americans. That would be real tax fairness and tax relief for the middle class.

CLAIM: Same thing with prescription drugs. DLCers like Senators John Breaux and Evan Bayh, who both pocket thousands from the pharmaceutical industry, have vehemently opposed bipartisan legislation allowing Americans to import lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada.

FACT: Bald-faced lie! Bayh on cloture:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00200

... passage ... SCOREBOARD!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00201

YOUR turn. :)

[alvarezadams]

328. Fine

"FACT: Oh, so we want to go there, do we? Yes, challenge the Texas State Convention's Lieberman delegate on MoJoe trivia. Wise move, Dave. Had you done your homework, however, you'd note that Joe, along with every other candidate running for the Democratic nomination, favored repealing or scaling back at least some of the Bush tax cuts. Joe was no different."

So we have a matter of degree - without specifying the range of said degree. But I'll help you here:

"Using the key below, indicate what levels you support regarding taxes, deductions, and tax credits in the following categories. Select one number per category.

Income Taxes:
Family Income
Greatly Decrease a) Less than $25,000
Greatly Decrease b) $25,000-$75,000
Slightly Decrease c) $75,000-$150,000
Slightly Increase d) Over $150,000 "
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0141103#4

---------------

Why do you insist on minutia when the problem is a core ideological one?

[wyldwolf]

333. Fine?

Why do you deny a fact because you don't like someone's ideology?

Sirota LIED about Lieberman and Bayh. It is documented. It is sourced. But it's ok because Sirota's means justify it?

[longship]

162. DLC Rubbish.

The definition of stupidity is to repeat the same strategy expecting a different result. I can think of no better illustration of this principle than the DLC in the past twenty years.

The DLC have had their chance and have failed. It's our time now. Progressives will lead the Dems to victory. Of course, we will continue to counsel with the former DLC people. Their ideas are as valuable as any. However, the Democratic Party can no longer afford to cede its leadership to the utterly failed DLC strategy.

DLC is a oxymoron, for they do not lead, except for possibly with their chins.

[BrklynLiberal]

165. VERY well put. Succinct and to the point.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Jim Sagle]

166. Ppppffffbbbbbttttttttt!!!!!!!

[Downtown Hound]

171. The DLC can kiss my butt. n/t

[BootinUp]

174. This thread is a riot.

I'm sure that if some folks from middle America that haven't voted Dem recently were considering a vote for the Dems then came by and read this they would be totally convinced. To not vote for the Dem party.

Every single person who posts in this thread and anyone else who claims to be a Democrat shares responsibility for the how this party is perceived and performs in elections.

[chill_wind]

181. Meaning what?

Just shut up, not debate this, and let the DLC pretend to speak, howoever illegitimately, for us as one voice when it very much and very clearly DOES NOT?

Who should be allowed to speak up and what should they be allowed to say?

[bvar22]

176. The DLC has "co-opted" the label "Centrist".

Here is the REAL Center.

http://alternet.org/story/29788/
"It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

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. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[mdmc]

177. we are all republicans now

two parties, under coprorations...

[WyoBlueDog]

190. The truth hurts, doesn't it?!

There's nothing quite like being in the centrist majority of my Democratic Party. But of course, you liberals are welcome. Even you hate-filled liberals are welcome, as long as you vote Democratic!

So I take it some of you won't be joining me at the DLC National Conversation this year in Denver?

:)

Seriously though it'll be great, the next President of the United States will be there, Tom Vilsack, along with the extraordinary Senator Clinton, the rising star that is Senator Salazar and a cadre of other great New Democratic leaders.

[CTLawGuy]

193. heh

"the next President of the United States will be there, Tom Vilsack,"

have fun :hi:

[alvarezadams]

194. Truth hurts?

I wouldn't know - thus far all you seem to say is that you're proud of supporting Dems that support conservative policies.

[ulysses]

212. question, then.

Can you win elections without liberal help?

[ulysses]

282. why won't DLCers ever answer this question?

[wyldwolf]

316. I've answered that question many times from you.

[ulysses]

337. refresh my memory.

What's the answer?

[wyldwolf]

343. OK

Since I believe every Democrat - from Kucinich to Biden - is a liberal, the answer is no.

Can we win without the leftist "my way or the highway no difference between the two parties I'm going to burn the DNC down" purists? Yes.

[ulysses]

344. we have a difference in terms, then.

Every Democrat a liberal? Really?

[wyldwolf]

345. I believe so

As is pointed out here often, even the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

I don't believe any one strict ideological adherents have a lock on the term "liberal."

Why don't we take this to a new thread instead of bumping this current train wreck to the top?

[ulysses]

346. I'd say that this is arguable

As is pointed out here often, even the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

but even if it is true, that doesn't make that "most conservative Democrat" a liberal.

I don't believe any one strict ideological adherents have a lock on the term "liberal."

Fair enough, but the word *does* mean something.

Why don't we take this to a new thread instead of bumping this current train wreck to the top?

If you think it needs it. Where did your friend Wyo go, anyway?

[wyldwolf]

347. the term "liberal" is arguable

The word means something, but it's still vague. Surely you believe there are degrees of liberalness. I'm sure there are people on DU "more liberal" than you. Does that mean YOU aren't a liberal?

Where did your friend Wyo go, anyway?

First time I ever saw him on DU was in this thread.

[ulysses]

348. indeed I do.

Surely you believe there are degrees of liberalness.

Like many categorizations, it's a sliding scale, sure.

I'm sure there are people on DU "more liberal" than you. Does that mean YOU aren't a liberal?

Yes there are, and no it doesn't. Or not to me, anyway. :) Still, though, there's a point at which one is no longer a liberal - otherwise GWB is just another liberal at the far right end of the spectrum.

[wyldwolf]

349. so, where is that point?

Only if you can answer that definitively will your contention be anything more than your opinion.

Is there a set of issues one must be on a certain side of 100% of the time? Or just 51% of the time? Do some issues carry more weight than others when determing one's liberalness?

[ulysses]

351. what would count as definitive for you?

Didn't we just agree that there's no set rule for what a liberal is? OTOH, at what point does "turquoise" become "green"?

Only if you can answer that definitively will your contention be anything more than your opinion.

Isn't it all opinion then? Semantics plays a large role in this as well.

Do some issues carry more weight than others when determing one's liberalness?

For me, yes, starting with reproductive rights.

[wyldwolf]

352. like I've been saying

There is no set point, which is why I can call both Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich a liberal.

I believe Biden has been consistent in his stance on reproductive rights whereas Kucinich has not. Does that make Biden MORE liberal? If abortion rights is one's sole concern, yes it does. Kucinich was at one time anti-choice.

Opinion? Of course. It is my opinion that Bush isn't a liberal.

[ulysses]

353. heh

It is my opinion that Bush isn't a liberal.

As it is mine. It's also mine that Biden isn't - I'd call him a moderate. I know about DK's views on choice, but I consider him very much a liberal/progressive on the totality of his positions.

Gotta go be dad - back in a while.

[wyldwolf]

354. I've already changed a poopy diaper today

Biden is a moderate liberal.

[alvarezadams]

358. Ridiculous

"As is pointed out here often, even the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican."

This is only true if one looks at shallow talkingpoint issues.

When it comes down to the two most important areas - economics and foreign policy, the most liberal GOPers are far more liberal than DNC'ers.

BTW, did you ever look up neoliberal or Mt. Pellerin? The background of neoconservatism?

If you did, it sure isn't apparent.

[wyldwolf]

359. LOL!

Just damn.

Read your post again. On second thought, don't. You'd probably still think it made sense.

[alvarezadams]

364. You say tomatoe...

You seem obsessed with the minor issues that the GOP and DLC love to use as bait and switch. Not once have you addressed the very real charge on neoliberalism/neoconservatism...

A tool of corporations such as the typical GOP politico... or the typical DLC politico... do you think that they care about abortion or the bible? Their conservative corporate sponsors CERTAINLY don't - which is why they're very happy supporting both.

Until you distinguish the forest from the trees you won't recognize the core issue - the identical cores of the two groups. Packaging is there to fool consumers - caveat emptor.

[wyldwolf]

365. Pendejo the Revolutionary

Interesting character, no?

[alvarezadams]

389. You've shown your colours

You demand debate on minutia on YOUR terms, eschew answering anything on anyone ELSE'S terms. Your POV on "liberal vs. conservative" is limited to shallow talkingpoint "causes" while you ignore the most important issues.

Hey - vote for whomever you think is best. If you think that a neoliberal economic/neocon foreign policy politico is better than a GOPer because he's soft on abortion... more power to you. Bait & switch is as old as democracy (the Athenians and Spartans were avid at it).

Don't expect to convince anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that goes beyond the admittedly shallow domestic American level.

Vote DLC or vote GOP (as if there's any difference only because one supports helmet-laws and the other doesn't). You're cannonfodder.

[tkmorris]

294. Your credibility died right there

Posting those three names as "poster children" for the DLC just kills you.

[WyoBlueDog]

192. wyldwolf,

my friend, you argue well, and it's a pleasure to call you a fellow Democrat!!

They can attack me all they'd like, I'm teflon baby. But they can't ignore the facts.

[alvarezadams]

195. Ignoring facts?

Pray tell which "facts" you people have provided?

[wyldwolf]

269. The OP if full of them. Have you addressed any of them?

[alvarezadams]

299. I looked

but all I find is rhetoric.

[wyldwolf]

317. I'll get you started then... from the OP... these are called "FACTS"

-- In the last 26 years, the only Democrat elected President, Bill Clinton, was a founding member of the DLC, as well as DLC Chairman (Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was also a founding member).

-- In the last 38 years, only Clinton and centrist southerner Jimmy Carter have been elected president on the Democratic side. In 1972, the liberal George McGovern carried only one state; in 1984, the liberal Walter Mondale carried only one state; and in 1988, the liberal Michael Dukakis carried only ten states.

-- In 2004, five of the six legitimate candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were affiliated with the DLC, and two of them, Gephardt and Lieberman were former DLC Chairmen. Wes Clark identified himself as a “New Democrat” and was publicly praised by DLC Founder & CEO Alvin From, and endorsed by two former DLC Chairmen, former Sen. John Breaux and former Sen. Sam Nunn.

-- The 2004 Democratic ticket of Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards were both self-identified DLC New Democrats.


Now, can you deny or debunk them?

[alvarezadams]

322. Deny non sequitors?

I don't deny that the DNC can have success by immitating the GOP. I deny that it is in the best interest of the party or the country.

If you want a conservative party, there's the GOP. 'Cos the DLC's dismissal of all things liberal shows that they certainly don't care about the party or the beliefs of a large number of its members and sympathisers.

[wyldwolf]

323. you just said several posts above that there were no facts in the OP

Now there is, but they're "non sequitors." LOL!

[alvarezadams]

330. Define fact

You seem to harp on the minutia. Thus my "non sequitor" comment.

I must say that we're arguing apples and oranges. You speak "platform" and I speak "ideology". Since the former is market-driven and the latter mark where a given politico will go when the chips come down, surely you see the difference.

[wyldwolf]

334. Something that is true

For example - from the OP:

"In the last 26 years, the only Democrat elected President, Bill Clinton, was a founding member of the DLC, as well as DLC Chairman (Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was also a founding member)."

That is true, and therefore a fact.

[chill_wind]

214. 'Can't ignore the facts?" OTOH

It seems you can, starting with a very big perception problem the DLC has on its hands in terms of vital principles, by virtue of its record of the last 6 years in particular.

Give us a principled defense, as just one small example, of Vilsack's advice to beltway Dems to stay away from the NSA spy controversy. With friends of the American democratic government like this, who needs enemies?

Hmmm?

Ahh,but the righty-tighties do like the cut of his cowardly pragmatic cloth.

"Iowa Gov. and DLC Chair Vilsack Won't Be Led Around by the Nose by the Far Left

It may be dawning on some Democrats that letting the tail wag the dog has consequences. The left-wing blogosphere demanded that Democrats mount a filibuster against Judge Alito's confirmation, and naturally (see here), Sen. John Kerry led the charge. The result was a front-page headline, "Failed Filibuster Bid Worries Democrats," in today's Roll Call newspaper. Now, the Democratic leadership, cheered on by the same group that championed the filibuster, is ready to pounce on the president's NSA surveillance program in the weeks ahead. But, unlike Sen. Kerry, it appears that Gov. Vilsack, a prospective Democratic presidential candidate, is not about to be led around by the nose by the far left.

From today's Des Moines Register:

Vilsack: Opposing wiretapping dangerous for Democrats

the rest: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/01/iowa_gov_and_dlc_chair_vilsack.html

So ironic that concerns for American civil liberties and the Constitution and the rule of law have been relegated to mere kooky preoccupations of the so-called "FAR LEFT"

[wyldwolf]

274. most ant-DLCers are factually challenged

...so it really isn't difficult arguing with them. But thanks!

[BrklynLiberal]

198. Here is a history and explanation of the PNAN/DLC connection

PNAC is a small off-shoot, occupying the 5th floor, of the American Enterprise Institute which has been around since 1943. The AEI has 12 very busy floors where its operative have had plenty of time to send their operatives over to infiltrate the Democratic Party, or leave them in to be more accurate since the PNACers & AEIers are ORIGINALLY DEMOCRATS. To this day Richard Perle, Fieth and Wolfowitz are still Democrats. The day the Republican party, which they hijacked also, no longer suits their needs, they'll follow other PNAC neo-cons like Marshall Wittman back to the Democratic Party where the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council is laying out the welcome mat for them.

The AEI, the PNAC & the DLC were founded by Scoop Jackson democrats who follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss. To this day the DLC is stacked with neo-conservative ideologues, who maintain deep personal ties to the war-mongers in the Bush Administration.

<snip>

The DLC and SDUSA both maintain extremely close links to Tony Blair's British "New Labour" party faction, and in parallel, are out to recreate a new version of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in time for the 2004 elections. The battle cry for this effort is to follow the "strong defense" lead of the original CDM's heroes: the late Dem Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators Jackson and Moynihan. The Cold Warrior and fanatically pro-Israel Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today. Former DLC president Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a
"'Scoop' Jackson Democrat." It was these two Senators' offices that housed the Straussians behind the no-exit Iraq War.
http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-il... -

From Jackson's office:
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Frank Gaffney

From Moynihan's office:
Elliott Abrams
Abram Shulsky
Gary Schmitt

In 1999, Norman Podhoretz, known as the "father" of neo-conservatism, wrote that the CDM was created to destroy the policies of 1972 Dem nominee George McGovern in the Democratic Party, especially because of McGovern's opposition the CDM was a flop that "never got off the ground." But in the mid-80s, the DLC certainly did get off the ground, and controls the Democratic Party today. http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-il... -

"...In the 1970s, under the leadership of Carl Gershman, SD/USA ((Social Democrats-USA)) became a supporter of Sen. Henry Jackson and his contingent of conservative, hawkish "defenders of democracy." As such, they gained a great deal of political experience and savvy, but little political power. It was not until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, that the SD/USA achieved positions of power and influence in both the labor movement and the government. (2)..."

"http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/sd-usa.php "

<snip>
Michael Lind for instance traced their roots back to the right wing Shactmanite faction of the American Trotskyite movement who entered the Democratic Party in the 1960s and then split with the Left over the Vietnam War. Many members of this group continued their rightward itinerary by rallying to Senator Scoop Jackson’s campaign against the New Democrats. Some finished with the Democratic Leadership Council, while others found a home in the Reagan and now the Bush fils administrations. Other critics who promote an “Iran-Contra bis” scenario for the current flap over intelligence trace the group back to the policy cabal that had promoted the Contra war against the Sandinistas and who had lost their power and influence in the second Reagan Administration as a result of the Iran-Contra hearings of the late 1980s.
http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

Let me point out, that another committee spawned from the same hellish cancer was the Balkan Action Committee which brought us step one of the PNAC wars, the one against Yugoslavia, and was staffed by the same neo-Cons. Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abramowitz, Carlucci were all on its executive Committee.

They're pretty much the same. Both the same cancer, coming from the same place & destroying both parties.

If I were a Republican, I'd be pissed as hell at the Democrats from whom this shit spawned. But as such I'm just a Progressive Democrat determined to keep that vermin out and toss out the ones they left behind warming their butts in my party. Lieberman, Feinstein, Kerry- ever wonder why they really went along with the war? It had nothing to do with being fooled! These wars were planned long ago with full complicity of the Democratic Leadership Council which firmly endorsed this war and has endorsed every scheme against the people that the Bush Administration has wanted.

more....
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/shalom/pia/DLC_PNAC.htm

[WyoBlueDog]

200. Conspiracy theories are fun, I suppose...

To some anyway. Me, being a Wyomingite and all, well I like to focus on the reality. Many of you grew so defensive over my initial post! I didn't attack liberalism, I defended centrism.

So anyway, back to reality, how come no one has commented on the political races that I posted that we can win? To busy bashing your fellow party members, with not enough time to focus on what's important? You know.....

WINNING ELECTIONS?!?!?

[chill_wind]

221. The PNAC and neoconservative ideologues

with their 50+ years of political history are a "conspiracy theory"?

That's pretty damn hilarious. Well it would be, if we didn't have its manifest expression in the rivers of blood in Iraq and an economy heading into a subsequent total toilet right here at home.

[alvarezadams]

202. Don't bother

They have their minds set. They refuse to take note of any of the arguments that go against them and rely on DLC-generated rhetoric as their only arguing points.

When THAT fails for them, they don't consider neoliberal economics or neoconservative foreign policy as being conservative.

There's a name for this - cognitive dissonance.

[BrklynLiberal]

211. Oh, like the sheeple who still worship Dimson?

[chill_wind]

284. ie the Vilsack example on the NSA spy matter

to use an extremely simple case in point. Can't get a response from the DLCers here no matter who I put it to.

re: CD
I've often remarked just how riddled the ranks of average GOP foot-soldier is with the cognitive dissonance problem. It's really disturbing to see the degree to which this affliction is fanning out and spilling over among our alleged own. Not good.

[Mass]

201. I would agree with the big tent. It seems that From and Whittman do not!!

They spend their time explaining how those who want to fight against the other party are just "McGovernites"... This is hardly a big tent.

The best thing they can do is get rid of these two (or three).

[WyoBlueDog]

203. And yet...

Your icon is RFK, the very first New Democrat according to scholars, as well as President Clinton, as stated in his autobiography. It was RFK who came up with the idea of a "hand up, not a handout."

Did you actually check out the site? Nah, you just like complaining!

[WyoBlueDog]

205. As quoted from "My Life" by the great Bill Clinton....

“In the 1968 Indiana primary, Bobby Kennedy became the first New Democrat. He believed in civil rights for all and special privileges for none, in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout… …He understood in a visceral way that progressive politics requires the advocacy of both new policies and fundamental values, both far-reaching change and social stability.”

[ulysses]

208. so when does the "hand up" part come in?

Just wondering. We've had the stick. No carrot?

[Mass]

210. Nice for Clinton to coopt Kennedy,\nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

305. Aw come on..Bobby wasn't the first "New Democrat"! Jesus was!

[Mass]

209. What are you talking about? Did you even read what I said.

BTW, a hand up, not a handout, is something I agree totally. But some people think this mean that poor people should be more responsible (implying that somehow they are responsible for their condition), and I cannot agree with that.

I have checked the site often and dont disagree with everything they say (and did not expect to). But I refuse to support DLCers as a whole any more than I will dismiss them as a whole. I judge what somebody does and say, and, by this standard, dont expect me to like From.

[Mass]

216. Just to make myself clear, I find these threads pro and against the DLC

totally counterproductive.

I will judge people on what they did and where they stand, which mean that here are people I respect and admire both in the people you listed and outside the DLC, and they are people I cannot respect in the people you listed and outside.

I dont feel the need to revere or loathe an institution, but this may be my independant streak.

[CTLawGuy]

207. I'll never forget what the said about those who provide the muscle of the

Dem party

"There's one big problem with this strategy: Most of those party activists the candidates are trying so hard to please are wildly out of touch not only with middle America but with the Democratic rank and file. The great myth of the campaign is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of party activists and single-issue groups represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. They don't.

The fact is, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean likes to call it, is an aberration, a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home. That wing lost the party 49 states in two elections and turned a powerful national organization into a much weaker, regional one."

-Al From

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=65&contentid=251866

"weakness abroad" - Is that what opposing this misguided money pit of a war is?

"interest-group liberalism" - Is that what gay rights, women's rights and universal health care are?

It's obvious the DLC has declared war on the activists

[OzarkDem]

213. What do they have to offer?

They haven't had a good policy idea or political strategy in years. What difference does it make if they're in the tent or not? What do they plan to do, other than criticize Democrats?

[WyoBlueDog]

217. What they have to offer.

Well for 2006, Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill, Jim Pederson, Harold Ford, Eliot Spitzer, Ted Strickland, Bill Ritter, Tony Knowles, etc.

For 2008, they offer to you Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, Wes Clark, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, possibly Jan Napolitano, possibly Phil Bredesen, possibly Brian Schweitzer, and several more "possibles."

But I know, they're all.... "DINO's!!!"

lol!

[Mass]

220. Pb is that you include people as DLC without knowing.

What makes you so sure that Gore and Edwards are still DLC. The DLC does not publish lists of its members. It publishes (or used to until last year) lists of people who belonged to the New Dems caucuses and lists of its leadership.

You are assuming here, at least for some people. What makes you believe that Schweitzer is DLC?

[WyoBlueDog]

223. You do know...

that Gore was a founding member right? And you know that Edwards spoke at the DLC National Conversation in 2004 right? Now if they've renounced it, I haven't heard.....because, I'm pretty sure they know if they want to run again, they'll have to appeal to mainstream America, and not just extremists. Brian Schweitzer gave the DLC permission to publish his state of the state address on their website back in January. Again, the only two that didn't were Kulongoski and Minner.

You guys are a riot! You hate the majority wing of your own party than you oppose the Republicans! I've got to go for now, but I'll be back later and we can further debate.

[OzarkDem]

239. So what?

What has DLC done for any of them? Nothing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

310. Brian Schweitzer has no use for the DLC - see article

Brian Schweitzer putting the DLC in its rightful place

link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/23/135747/61

"The governor of Montana, the Democratic governor of The Big Sky State, elected in 2000 despite Montanans preferring George Bush over John Kerry in a landslide, has no use for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). That subject, and other topics, are touched on in the November 18, 2005 Joel Connelly/Seattle Post Intelligencer column."

"Here are some excerpts from Connelly's column:

Big Sky governor has big dreams

By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
November 18, 2005

"...he governor is no fan of the Democratic Leadership Council -- the centrist outfit, once headed by an ambitious Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton, that is populated by Washington, D.C., lobbyists and funded by their corporate overlords.

"Washington, D.C., is a giant cesspool filled with special interests," Schweitzer said. "Unless we change the culture of Washington, D.C., we're not going to change the country." "

[wyldwolf]

362. I noticed there was no direct quote from him on the subject

The COLUMNIST wrote:

"...the governor is no fan of the Democratic Leadership Council -- the centrist outfit, once headed by an ambitious Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton, that is populated by Washington, D.C., lobbyists and funded by their corporate overlords.

But Schweitzer said, "Washington, D.C., is a giant cesspool filled with special interests," Schweitzer said. "Unless we change the culture of Washington, D.C., we're not going to change the country."

That would include EVERYONE in Washington. Ans since the DLC is notoriously anti-special interests, it is apparent the columnist took some liberties with Schweitzer's words.

This take is shored up by his comments on 60 Minutes about Washington politicians (of which everyone from Kucinich and Dean to Biden and Clinton are a part of.)

But beyond that, Schweitzer's politics are quite DLC.

[Douglas Carpenter]

381. I doubt that his senior political advisor during his campaign, Dave Sirota

would agree

[wyldwolf]

390. well, I can only comment on the material provided.. but of course..

...a job is a job. KOS hates the DLC but has no problem being cozy with Mark Warner.

[OzarkDem]

237. DLC doesn't create or elect Dems

Please tell me in specific terms what DLC has done for any of those candidates.

Ted Strickland is not DLC. His campaign is doing well on its own, without any help from DLC. Heck, I've given him ideas, but it doesn't mean I go around calling him an "OzarkDem'er". The only thing he needs to work on is a health care agenda.

Stop taking credit for candidates who are doing their own work to get elected.

[ulysses]

206. ah, yes. the fine folks who brought us NAFTA.

No thanks.

[WyoBlueDog]

215. I actually am against NAFTA.

See, were not all vile human beings.

[ulysses]

219. fine, but I haven't seen the DLC renounce it.

I wasn't making it personally about you anyway.

[Mr_Spock]

229. So if they don't renounce it?

OMFG!! They must be for it. What a rediculous manipulation of people and facts!

[ulysses]

230. Clinton was for it. It was the keystone

of his economic agenda. Look it up. I don't think he was going against the DLC with it either.

[Mr_Spock]

235. I disagreed with Clinton on this issue

One man, one issue, I'd vote for Clinton again in a heartbeat - your point?

Most people would vote for Clinton over Bush - even 5 years later.

[ulysses]

240. my point wasn't about you.

The thread is about the DLC.

One man, one issue, I'd vote for Clinton again in a heartbeat

Good for you.

Most people would vote for Clinton over Bush - even 5 years later.

As well they might. We can do better, though.

[Mr_Spock]

243. We need to win.

We have to win - not winning based on people in the minority party attacking and otherwise sullying the candidate who won the primary is just the same as politicing for the Republican candidate. We must get the majority at all costs. This means were only a DLC candidate can win adn they have won the primary - we MUST NOT DESTROY THEM by tearing away at them and providing fodder for the evel Republican enemy. I want to win more than anything else - the Dem leadership is better than just a few conservative Dems who have to be conservative to win in their districts. Changing people's viewpoints starts with WINNING!! People want to associate with winners.

[ulysses]

250. we need to win meaningfully

not by blindly following polls.

[Mr_Spock]

253. No, we need to win at all cost.

I am so sick of the Repuke criminals not investigating NSA spying, protecting their corrupt cronies & pushing bigoted meaningless bill that I'd vote for any Dem over any Republican, which is easy since I'm never voting for a Republican for the rest of my life.

[ulysses]

259. then we disagree.

A Dem win that simply slows the slide of the country into the pit is not what we need.

[chill_wind]

261. Your DLC darling Vilsack says leave the NSA spy thing alone.

because he's a "pragmatist". (wish I could do a nexus search on how many times you've flung that term out in the impression that it's helping any of your actual empty arguments).

He's a pragmatist who wants to put principled dems like Feingold on a leash, it's OKAY if Bush is violating the law, move along--

because "We Have To WIN AT ALL COSTS".

And I ask you-- if we go along with the corruption, we Win WHAT?
"WIN" WHAT??

How do you reconcile this DLC vomit with the statement you just made yourself about the "repuke criminals who won't investigate the NSA spying"????

Here you are, touting an anti-Iraq-war picture sig, but any pro-war dem in the WH, even one who would let the murder and mayhem quagmire continue for some unspecified further time will be ok with you, just as long as they are a dem--- because We "WON"! We "Won!" We "WON"!

At 'all costs' sounds just about right.

[guruoo]

233. Either they're for, they're against, or they're

laying down on the job -take your pick.

[Mr_Spock]

238. You are the attacker - don't put the choice upon me!!!!

I am not appreciating the childish picture or the putting the argument back onto me - I never made a statement concerning this topic - you brought it up

YOU PROVE IT

I'm sick of these silly arguments - prove your point - no more 1st grade pictures & silly rhetorical techniques.

[guruoo]

248. Oh really?

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks


Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-11-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #219
229. So if they don't renounce it?

OMFG!! They must be for it. What a rediculous manipulation of people and facts!

[Mr_Spock]

254. LOL - I didn't make the rediculous statement that started the exchange

You made the rediculous false choice argument, not me.

So, why won't you answer MY questions? I thought so - hollow faith-based rhetoric :eyes:

[guruoo]

283. Yeah, right. And Paul Hackett is a "demagogic conservative"...

Mr_Spock wrote:
'....Hackett has turned out to be a more demagogic conservative than
the other fellow was, so they may have made the best choice in the end.'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2672139&mesg_id=2673229

[Warren Stupidity]

218. Until we kick the corporations out we are doomed.

This republic is a republic of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. The leadership of both institutionalized political parties are owned by the corporations. We get screwed no matter who wins, it is merely a matter of how badly we get screwed. We had a brief respite from corporate screwage after the last big crackup (1929) and we will have another respite after the impending next big crackup (20??). Or we could throw the corporate asshats out of the leadership of the Democratic Party, and take a shot at government by and for the people BEFORE everything falls apart again.

[WyoBlueDog]

224. Well, Conyers fan,

You do know that our economic system is capitalim right? And it kind of always has been, and will be? And not all corporations are evil? Just so you know...

[Warren Stupidity]

280. " our economic system is capitalim "

well yes it is capitalism, that is not however a political system. Nor does the economic system require that corporations be treated as persons, immortal persons with more rights and fewer responsiblities than us mere mortals, nor does it require that the republic be subservient to the needs of a very few very large corporations and the very small group of elites who are their major beneficiaries, nor does it require the wholesale pillaging of our once great industrial infrastructure and modestly functional social welfare system for the benefit of those same very large corporations and very small group of elites. In fact we could have a capitalist system of production within a popular democracy that regulated that economic system for the benefit of the many rather than regulated us for the benefit of the few.

[rman]

309. It has become predatory capitalism,

where once it was social capitalism.

Just look at the ever continuing privatization, deregulation - both on a national and on a global scale. Those policies are pushed by the same large corporations that benefit from it, and those policies are to the detriment of local populations.

[Solon]

380. You're wrong about corporations....

Or, at least, don't have a full understanding of them. OK, Corporations are NOT evil, the reason is not because of any of their actions, but rather because they aren't PEOPLE. All corporations, especially publically traded ones, are, at best, amoral, rather than immoral. Corporations are a specific type of legal entity, created by the state, owned by the stockholders, whose SOLE purpose in existing is to increase the value of its stock and its profits. Nothing else matters, if a corporation has to kill people to get this done, it will do it, it HAS to do it, or face shareholder lawsuits in response. Corporations follow a cost-benefit analysis, its really simple if you think about it, if following law A costs more than the penalties for violating said law, then the corporation WILL violate law A. The only exception to this is when a corporation isn't publically traded and is still owned by a single or few individuals, like family run or entrepenuer businesses, in that case, the corporation in question is as moral or amoral as the individuals who have greatest influence over it. This is why regulation is important, corporations will follow laws under two conditions, the first is if the penalties for the laws are so high that violating them costs more than following them, and number two is public pressure, and even then they usually just spin a situtation as best as they can, at least amount of cost to them. Think of Exxon's response to the Exxon-Valdez disaster, to this day, even after costing them billions, they STILL don't take responsibility for it, at all. Hell, they even LIE and claim that the ecosystem has had a full recovery, when independent analysis has proven this is not true. They still haven't absorbed the true costs of this disaster, the public has instead.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

225. It's neat that you have "Blue" in your "name."

Makes it easy for folk like me.

[Placebo]

226. DLC is A-OK!

:patriot:

[guruoo]

228. DLC = White flag wing of the Democratic Party

[Mr_Spock]

234. ...and of course, no non DLC Dems have caved on anything?

This is a classic "false choice" argument. Can anybody simply talk like regular people about the DLC without all the inflamed rhtetoric?

[guruoo]

242. Wasn't asking for a choice

just expressing my personal opinion.

I really get a kick out of the way you try to compare the Clinton-Gore era DLC
to the version that exists today. That DLC is long gone, my friend.

[Mr_Spock]

244. I'm not trying to compare anything - I think we need to win Congress!!

NOW!! If we don't win because Dems destroyed DLC candidates in districts where a liberal could never win, I'll be fucking LIVID :mad:

[guruoo]

249. So, exactly how many Democratic ideals are you willing...

to see sacrificed in the name of "victory"?

[Mr_Spock]

252. I am not going to make a list for you

You people bashing the DLC are saying the organization as a whole is horrible.

I will vote for a Dem - maybe they are DLC, maybe not - I don't care. If it's a choice between a Dem and a repuke, since I'm never voting for a Repuke for the rest of my life, the choice is clear.

If we needed one seat for the majority and a DLCer who was a little conservative for my tastes had a chance of beating an incumbant Repuke, I'll send money to the DLCer. That's my logic and I'm sticking to it.

[guruoo]

256. I just want the DLC to....

A. get a backbone (as they once had during the Clinton-Gore-'Ragin Cajun' era)
B. Quit undercutting the grassroots'
(as they did with Paul Hackett in Ohio)

on edit: addnum to B:
And as they did with Rosalind Kurita (v DLC Harold Ford Jr.)
in Tennessee.
Anyone else like to add theirs to this?

[Mr_Spock]

258. I agree that all Dems need a backbone.

And I was pissed at the Hackett episode, though Hackett has turned out to be a more demagogic conservative than the other fellow was, so they may have made the best choice in the end.

[guruoo]

260. So Paul Hacket is a 'demagogic conservative ' ???

Wowsers!

[Zen]

257. Excellent post!

I wish more people would simply look at the facts WRT the DLC instead of simply believing the rhetoric of the few here on DU.

I really think the anti-DLC rhetoric is a "fad" here on DU with little meat on the bones.

[WyoBlueDog]

262. Don't slow down now!

Keep that senseless vitriolic hate, err, I mean "liberal tolerance" coming!

[ulysses]

264. post #212.

Question there you probably missed.

[WyoBlueDog]

268. Here's the deal.

Most of you expressing your outrage at the DLC, you're not liberals. You're not progressives. What you are is exclusivists. You're afraid of ideas outside of your own dogmatic principles. You dwell inside a shell, where you are comforted by the small group of like-minded individuals who share the same idealistic -yet unrealistic- worldview. And you're afraid of change.

A true liberal accepts change as a natural part of life. Anyone that challenges your preconceived notions formed at UC Berkeley, or in Manhattan, or San Francisco or wherever; they are the enemy. And immediately you become defensive. A liberal would listen to the other side. An exclusivist would not.

[wyldwolf]

270. Mostly agree

They're more concerned about ideological heretics than defeating the GOP.

[mod mom]

273. We're not liberal or progressives because we're afraid of change?

:rofl:


We've tried the DLC and what did we get? NAFTA, support for an immoral war? Thanks, but you are not the grand distibutor of the term liberal progressive.

[ulysses]

276. whatever.

I'd like an answer to the question.

[guruoo]

279. So, exactly what kind of 'changes' are Democrats required

to accept under the neo-DLC edict?

[Downtown Hound]

289. I see, so the fact that we oppose illegal war, media conglomeration,

NAFTA, and pro-corporate policies at the expense of working people means we're not liberal? Fine then, I'm not a liberal. I am opposed to all the things that I mention above, and the DLC has been championing them. So I really don't give a fuck what the hell that makes me. I know where I stand, and it isn't with the DLC.

I stand with the innocent Iraqis that have been maimed and killed because the DLC decided to join with a president who illegally invaded their country.

I stand with the families of U.S. soldiers that have lost their loved ones in this bullshit war. I stand with the soldiers themselves that not only had the courage to go and wage this battle, but to also see the truth about its deceptive origins and speak out against it.

I stand with the poor in this country and around the world that have been exploited by the wealthy corporations that give generous amounts of cash to the DLC in return for favors.

I feel that makes me a liberal, but go ahead and call me whatever you want. But you certainly have done nothing to make me want to support the DLC. Here's an idea for you. Instead of criticizing us for not marching in lockstep with you, how about listening to our complaints about the DLC and join us in exerting pressure on them to change their pro-war, pro corporate policies? You say that we're screwing things up for the Democrats? Maybe it's you who's screwing up our chances. Maybe you should join us. Ever think of that? You act like the DLC is automatically owed our support even though they have been championing things we don't believe in. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. They want my support, they have to earn it.

[lastliberalintexas]

336. A shell, huh?

Let me tell you about that supposedly liberal shell in which I live and have lived my entire life- Texas. You think that I live in an area in which I am "comforted by the small group of like-minded individuals who share the same idealistic -yet unrealistic- worldview"? Seriously?

Well let me tell ya what, cowboy. I could give a flying fuck about the Corporatists (NOT centrists) that are the DLC leadership. You keep arguing that the DLC's positions really aren't that bad, and that people are just finding one area of disagreement to support a broadbrush attack. How about numerous issues then?

So, how can you explain the DLC support for
1. NCLB
2. the Medicare Prescription Bill that is crapola
3. the Bankruptcy "Reform" Bill that screws people for having the temerity to get sick and incur substantial medical bills (as that is the verified reason for the vast majority of bk filings in this country)
4. the majority of Bush's tax cuts
5. tort "reform" measures yet to be voted on but for which the DLC has already voiced support, like the Chamber maids they are
6. the Welfare "Reforms" of Clinton
7. NAFTA
8. CAFTA
9. media consolidation bill
10. the cloture votes for Alito and the votes for Roberts and
11. that small little vote that has already cost us more than 2500 soldiers' lives, the IWR ?

Is that a broad enough list for you, Mr. Spock and wyldwlf? I wouldn't want to be accused of cherry picking one single issue in order to bash the DLC. :eyes:

So, how do you explain the actual positions that the DLC leadership has taken with respect to the above-listed issues and votes? Or are you going to actually try to argue with a straight face that those positions of the DLC don't hurt the working poor and middle class of this country?

I'm ready to listen to the other side, but not if it comes straight from Chamber of Commerce press releases.

[mod mom]

267. No Corporatist Dems in this household. No votes for DLCers-EVER again.

[wyldwolf]

271. So yu're either going to vote third party or sit an election out...

...if a DLCer is the nominee?

[mod mom]

275. Third Party if theres a DLCer, and I've been a straight party Dem my whole

life.

[wyldwolf]

278. Ralph Nader could use a few good volunteers.

[mod mom]

281. Everyone deserves to use their vote to vote their conscience. My values

are not supported by the DLC. Democrat is just a label for me, DLCers have betrayed the values of the party. Zell Miller called himself a Dem-would you vote for him over a third party candidate? Not me.

[wyldwolf]

285. agreed. If it comes down to it, tell Ralphie or whatever 3rd party hack..

.. you vote for I said Hello! :)

[mod mom]

286. Hack? Without researching their positions? I recall you saying we are NOT

liberal, but here you show your true colors. End of discussion.

[wyldwolf]

293. OK, 3rd party "gentleman."

:)

[snowbear]

308. Wyldwolf...

I am so proud of you!

You (and others) did an incredible job of trying to explain how many Democrats that we all support are actually affiliated in one way or another with the DLC.

Problem is.. Sometimes it seems that some of them actually don´t read through the entire comments you and others have posted.

And sometimes people on here see the initials "DLC" and they start spitting bullets .. they go into major attack mode.

The funny as Hell thing is... next week you'll see at least some of them praising something that one of the Democrats that they aren't aware may somehow be remotely or even actively associated with the Democratic Leadership Council has said or done.

The way I look at it... HEY- I want a Democratic Majority!

Once we have a Democratic Majority, then maybe we can start being more selective on who might just lean a little too far right for our taste?

And the FUNNIEST thing of all... And you can ask ºººANYONEºººº who has been a member of DU since before the last presidential election is this:

Once our presidential nominee has been selected.. I gauran-friggin-tee all DUers here that regardless of whether that nominee is DLC, DNC, or D-cupped

.......that there won't be a peep --- not a word ---- NOTHING ----- ZILCH, NADA ...about which Democratic Organization they happen to pay membership dues in.


That topic becomes a long forgotten distant memory as we all begin cheering on our nominee in the debates.

Like someone else said.. this has been an entertaining thread for sure.

But the day will come.. like it always does... when we won´t even remember we argued about this!!!

That is... until the next presidential election rolls around!

ººººººº^^^^ Rock on Wyldwolf! ^^^^ººººººº

[wyldwolf]

318. thank you very much. Truth squadding is an irritant to some.

[depakid]

277. Agreed

No Republican enabler will EVER receive my vote again.

[nickshepDEM]

290. Best post of the week.

K&R

[Tom Joad]

291. Praise DLC = praise the war & Republican agenda

[KnaveRupe]

292. What you fail to get, O Original poster,

Is that Bill Clinton, one of the founders of the DLC, and very much a centrist Democrat, was utterly pilloried by the Republican Noise Machine as being to the Left of Karl Marx.

Al Gore, one of the founders of the DLC, was painted by the Right as a tree-hugging eco-terrorist.

Senator John Kerry, who is a "self-identified DLC New Democrat" was portrayed throughout 2004 as having "the most liberal voting record in the Senate".

My god, check out some of those RW festering hellhole blogs - they're talking about how Murtha, ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS OUT THERE is a treasonous liberal traitor!!!

The problem is NOT that the left wing of the party is shunning the center, it's that the center is trying to disavow the left, even as they are being painted by the opposition as leftists themselves.

Every time the Centrist Democrats move a little more to the right to distance themselves from the "radical fringe", they empower those who are their attackers - they hand the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the Coulters another magazine full of ammo.

See, the problem is that 79% of Americans look positively on "moderate" candidates, while only 41% look positively on "liberal" candidates. Unless we can close that gap by taking back the word "liberal" from the abyss, we will continue to watch good candidates lose.

And THAT, IMHO, is why so many people around here are pissed at the DLC. Because the DLC seems to feed into the RW meme that "liberal" is a dirty word. Or, at least, that's the problem *I* have with the DLC. I don't presume to speak for anyone else.

[AtomicKitten]

295. bingo

I vowed to stay out of these DLC wrestling matches from now on, but you hit the nail on the head.

The DLC indeed is continuing the RW meme that "liberal" is a dirty word. That I so agree with and that is precisely the moniker we must embrace.

It's bad enough fighting the Republicans at every turn about every issue, even made-up ones, but the DLC must stop trying to mold the Democratic Party into their image, a conservative (they will allege moderate), kowtowing image, one that shows very little daylight between them and the Republicans.

Bullshit. I say let's give the voters a real choice.

Excellent point, KnaveRupe, and thank jeebus you have interjected something new and of substance into the fray.

And, by the way, welcome to DU!

[Zhade]

376. "The DLC indeed is continuing the RW meme that "liberal" is a dirty word."

Given the long-established fact that a majority of polled Americans support liberal positions (though not when labeled as such, as noted upthread), have you ever wondered WHY the DLC demonizes the term that describes the majority of voters they supposedly want to woo? Or why they fight against policies like, say, universal health care when a majority of Americans want that?

I have. And I can't come up with a logical reason as to why the DLC leadership does this. At best, you'd expect them to remain neutral on the term 'liberal', so as to not further antagonize those (like myself) who proudly claim the label while also not alienating those who have fallen for the demonization by the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter.

In light of that, why does the DLC engage in such behavior? I have my suspicions, but then it's not a hard conclusion to draw when you take into account that the DLC was and is funded by the likes of the rightwing Koch Brothers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

311. that is my most fundamental complaint about them too

Falsely labeling candidates and their supporters "far left" sinks
many campaigns and harms the entire party including DLC Democrats themselves.

It only gives strength to GOP talking points.

When Gov. Dean first got attention in the national media there was no mention of him or his supporters being "left-wing". Suddenly that line was coming out everywhere and frequently, in fact usually quoting prominent Democratic Party insiders.

This has gone on for a long, long time - long before the DLC existed, to be fair. I can remember how almost 34 years ago to the day--the man Time Magazine called the Prairie Populist and "the voice of compassion from the Heartland" morphed into "the candidate of amnesty, acid and abortion". Who said so? Again it was prominent Democrats who picked up this GOP talking point and ran with it no matter how much it harmed the party as a whole.

The GOP is always going to say these things. It harms the entire party as a whole when "prominent" Democrats like Al From, Will Marshall and Marshall Whitman repeat GOP talking points.

[cmkramer]

356. Now there's the pot calling the kettle black

Or am I imagining all those posts calling Joe Lieberman a rightwinger?

[wyldwolf]

367. heh! Someone upthread called Harry Truman a neocon!

[Douglas Carpenter]

379. I have never, never, never, never called Joe Lieberman a right-winger

or DINO or Republican lite or anything of the sort.

I have gone to great lengths on several occasion to point out that on many if not most domestic issues Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record--even to the point of posting his voting record to prove it - on several occaisions.

The DLC and their ilk blast their divisive message throughout the mainstream media at every opportunity.

I have problems with Sen. Lieberman regarding foreign policy, the Iraq war, neoliberal economics and his public attacks on Democrats and defense of Bush policy. But I never called him a right-winger, Republican or DINO; never.

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

Again, I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on many domestic issues along with his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.

His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional. The Democratic constituency of Connecticut needs the chance to express their disapproval in the Democratic Primary; win or lose.

Sen. Lieberman's very public position on the Iraq War and those who oppose it and what appears to be an embrace of a slightly modified form of neoconservative ideology is not some insignificant wedge issue. It goes to the very core of the direction of the country. Someday America will have to decide whether it wants to continue down the path of ultra-militarism or whether it wants to maintain the social fabric of our own society and some degree of moral authority in the world. It appears that Sen. Lieberman is choosing the very wrong side of history.

[mmonk]

301. Sorry,

but I'm one of those out of touch liberals who doesn't want the endless war on "terror", the end of rights of many Americans by any damn gang of 14 and "unitary executive" justices, a 'security" state, or a country by the corporation, for the corporation. My disdain for the DLC has no bottom like their attacks on and thus obvious disdain of fellow democrats

[fishwax]

302. welcome to DU WyoBlueDog!

:hi:

I don't imagine there are many here from Centennial :rofl: I grew up in Sheridan myself. Always good to welcome another Wyomingite :)

You should check out the Wyoming forum as well, perhaps help to give it a jumpstart: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=187 (on edit, I see you've already posted here :toast:)

As for the DLC, I appreciate the defense, and while I agree they were effective at one time, I think they've outlived their usefulness. I know Gore and Clinton were both founding members, but I think Gore (especially) has grown and adapted to new realities in a way that the DLC hasn't. I think what once was seen as the DLC's "appeal to the center" has, in the last few election cycles especially, become an appeal to the corporations ...

[WestSeattle2]

371. Sheridan is beautiful country!.....

I have in-laws in Story, and love visiting there. Not a darn thing wrong with Wyoming!....well except for Casper, that little berg sucks big time.

[fishwax]

378. Story is gorgeous too

Glad you enjoy my old hometown :) I've spent a fair amount of time in story as well. I wish I could visit more often.

Casper ... yeah, hard to argue with you on that one, though I must admit that there are places in wyoming even worse ;)

:hi:

[rman]

306. the framing of "centrism"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2673901
(posted by chill_wind)

DEMOCRATS FIND YOUR TRUE CENTER (Don't Compromise)
By David Sirota
Sunday, June 11, 2006; Page B04

If Democrats ever want to regain their status as a majority party, they must move to the center. But that means moving to the real center -- one very different from Washington's definition of the term.

Inside the Beltway, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) is called a "centrist" because he still supports President Bush's misguided policies in Iraq; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) proved his centrist credentials when he helped gut consumer bankruptcy protections; Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is a centrist because he votes for corporate-written, wage-destroying trade deals. And former senator John Breaux (D-La.), now a corporate lobbyist, was labeled the ultimate centrist after working to stop Congress from cracking down on the drug and health industry profiteers who backed his campaigns.

These are just a few examples of how many high-profile Democrats promote the Beltway's idea of centrism -- focused on perpetuating the status quo and abetting the influence of corporate interests that finance political campaigns. But with a centrism like this, so far outside the real center of public opinion, no wonder the Democratic Party keeps losing congressional elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902000.html

[Totally Committed]

312. I hope everyone who responded to this thread will read this article.

Sirota is correct on this. True "Centrism" is not support for war, or supporting the RW attack on the poor or stupid trade deals. True "Centrism" doesn't have to see the corporate bottom line as the societal bottom line. This is the DC-insider version. We Democrats need to find our own "center" -- one that allows us the degree of pragmatism we are comfortable with, but still leaves us our hearts and souls.

I am more comfortable with things well to the Left of center, and probably always will be. I am now more radical in my Liberalism than when I was in my 20's, if that's possible. And, there should be a legitimate place in the Democratic Party for me and those like me. But, for those seeking a "center", I implore you to find one that doesn't compromise the ideals of equality, justice, and fairness or jeopardize the welfare of the least among us as you do.

As a true chef knows, people eat with their eyes, so food should not only taste wonderful but look beautiful to be truly appreciated. The same should apply to how people vote. People vote with their gut, and when they ONLY vote with their gut, they tend to vote for the "lesser of two evils" -- a/k/a pragmatism made easy. That has gotten us to this point in time and this government we have saddled ourselves with. Vote with your gut, yes, but don't forget your heart. If your heart feels like it will die a little with the vote you are about to cast, perhaps you and your gut should take a deep breath and think about it a bit first.

That's all I ask. A true center for the Democratic Party should be able to work with the Liberal base in a way that does not cause this sort of upheaval. We need to be able to talk to each other, and relate to each other, and I can't relate to the DC-insider version of a "Centrist".

I hope you'll all read this article, and expand upon it in your own minds and hearts before the next pro-DLC thread.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

366. I think you confuse support with tolerance of the DLC here at DU.

I don't support them, in fact, don't much like them at all. And that sentiment has been construed as me being on the DLC payroll or a DLC apologist or simply pro-DLC; I am none of those.

However, I find the almost incessant regurgitation and chewing over of the paranoia regarding the DLC peppered with over-the-top accusations to be probably the biggest waste of space here at DU. I think just believing everyone should have a say within the Democratic Party is enough to send people over the cliff. There are some that are assaultive over the issue.

I guess I just don't understand why people can't live democracy and stand their ground when others disagree without calling for their banishment. I enjoy hearing opposing points of view debated in a respectful manner. It generates thinking. Life would be damn boring if we all thought the same way.

But that's me. :)

[WestSeattle2]

372. OMG! Rational, intelligent discussion of

issues and positions will not be tolerated! If you won't demonize, denigrate, and banish your idealogical opponent, you don't belong here.


Peace

:toast:

[AtomicKitten]

374. sorry, I'll try harder

Oh, by the way, welcome to DU!

[Totally Committed]

385. If the Republican Party had resisted Newt's Neo-Con Revolution

instead of simply "stand(ing) their ground when others disagreed without calling for their banishment", imagine what a different Republican Party there might be today. Ask any truly centrist, conservative non-neocon Republican, and they will tell you they wish they had fought Newt and his boys harder.

I see the DLC as the Neo-Con revolution happening to the Democratic Party. THey may have their say, but they will never have my vote. Never again.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

386. Without Newt, the GOP might look very different today,

but it seems to me the Republicans as a whole, even those that disagreed with Newt, were pleased as punch to take control of Congress at the time, and their solidarity on most issues today in Congress leads me to disagree with your analysis.

The necons seem most chagrined at Bunnypants' poor execution of their PNAC guide to world dominance and the true conservatives at his monster growth of government. But, again, I still think they prefer power to those "inconveniences." The joke's on them really for installing such a knucklehead and his cronies into office.

I don't see the DLC as having that kind of influence nor that kind of power. I see them as saying some really stupid things that infuriate some on the left. Some of their proposals show very little daylight between them and the Republicans, and 95% of the Democratic Party will oppose and resist that.

[Vickers]

350. Wow, as I look at the thread tree for this, I realize how many people

I have on "Ignore"... :patriot:

[Blue_Tires]

355. this thread sucks

[burythehatchet]

373. DLC - Donkeys Loving Corporations

[iconoclastNYC]

387. Gore's polling surged in 2000 when he turned away from the DLC

From "How the DLC Does it" By Robert Dreyfus, published by The American Prospect:

During the last months of the 2000 presidential election, however, it must have seemed to the DLC that Gore and Lieberman, ur–New Democrats both, had crossed back to the other shore. Abandoning the DLC's message almost entirely, they scrambled to look like plain, old-fashioned Democrats in an awkward, faux-populist "people versus the powerful" campaign that sought to energize the party's working-class and lower-middle-class base. The DLC's elation at the selection of its chairman as the running mate for one of its founders turned to dismay during the Democratic convention last August, as Gore lurched left.

"I listened to Gore's speech at the convention with incredulity," says William Galston, a longtime DLCer who served as domestic policy adviser to President Clinton and who is currently a special consultant for Blueprint. Galston was the Gore campaign's representative to the Democratic platform committee, working alongside From and Elaine Kamarck, another veteran DLC strategist, who chaired the committee. Galston had heard rumors on the eve of Gore's speech that it would represent a shift but hadn't been otherwise warned. "From the convention on, I had essentially no input into the campaign," he says.

Also left with sharply reduced influence was From, who recalls with resignation his inability to bring the Gore-Lieberman ticket home to its New Democrat roots. "Once Joe got on the ticket, I worked mostly through him," says From, ticking off the names of campaign staffers through whom he tried to reach Gore. "I talked to Shrum, Greenberg, Eskew, and Tad Devine," he says. "I did a memo to Gore. I actually gave him a game plan to try to contain the populism in a way that would do the least damage."

After his populist turn, Gore surged in the polls in August and early September, and many analysts credited his fiery attacks on pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and health insurers, Big Oil, and George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "When I came on in July, Gore was already beginning to move in a populist direction," says Stan Greenberg, Gore's pollster for the last few months of the campaign. Brought in to replace Mark Penn, the chief pollster for both Clinton and the DLC, Greenberg helped move Gore to the left, targeting the candidate's message to recapture white working-class voters in the $30,000-to-$50,000 income range. On the ground, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and other components of the Old Democrats' traditional voter base--organized labor, African Americans, Hispanics, abortion rights activists--conducted intensive voter education and the get-out-the-vote drives, and these groups now take credit for delivering Gore's popular vote victory.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[iconoclastNYC]

388. If the DLC is so great why isn't Obama a member?

Hmmmm?