Somebody asked, so here are a few answers.

[madfloridian]

As to why some of us are very skeptical about the Democratic Leadership Council. They are the ones forming the policies for the Democrats, so it would be wise for us to watch and question.

Here is an article about how they became the business/corporate party...quite openly in fact. They never made a secret of it.

How the DLC Does It

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One.

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational.

A lot of the tension between the DLC and the people of the party who opposed the war started back in May 2003. Howard Dean governed as a centrist governor in VT for 11 years. He was highly respected by the DLC. During his campaign there were words from both sides. He questioned the Democrats support for Bush's unilateral war, and that was it.

Here is a post about a meeting held by the DLC leaders in 2003, May. BTW, that is always who I have had my gripes with...the leaders mostly. They had some things to say about "activists" and Dean.

I knew of Dean memos in 2003, but I did not know they had a meeting.

The 'D' in DLC Doesn't Stand for Dean (David Von Drehle, May 15, 2003, Washington Post)

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

"It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself."

As founder of the DLC, From has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right for nearly 20 years. He was in tall cotton, philosophically speaking, when an early leader of the DLC, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. As Clinton's domestic policy guru, Reed pushed New Democrat ideas -- such as welfare reform -- that were often unpopular with party liberals.

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

I will post more later, as I have been accused of making my posts too long. The DLC in 2003 took it upon themselves to announce to anyone in general that Howard Dean was NOT going to be the president or even nominee. They had no right to do that.

More later. Oh, well, ok. One more link from Liberal Oasis. It is called Kneecapping Dean. It was in reference to the memos the DLC was sending out about him. It is kind of funny, kind of sad.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/051103.htm

The DLC memo is titled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party."

But it should be "Kneecapping Howard Dean." However, it is so ludicrously ham-handed, Dean trumpeted it himself on his campaign web site. (A smart rapid response that bodes well for the future.)

If the memo was a principled argument over what the party should stand for, that would be fine. You can have honorable disagreements within one's party.

But the memo is nothing but a string of half-truths and contradictions designed to ward off insiders from backing Dean, while at the same time undermine Dean's support from the Left.

In fact, before the memo rips Dean as a leader of the "out-of-touch" "activist wing," it goes right at Dean's current base of liberal support"

And Dean himself explains all that in an article he wrote for Common Dreams about that time.

Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong

One of my goals as a Presidential candidate is to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party – a line made popular by the late Paul Wellstone. Some have questioned why I would so closely align myself with a politician whose politics were considerably more liberal than mine. The fact is that I admired Paul Wellstone greatly, not only because of his politics, but because he stood up for his beliefs and fought for them until the day he died. I can only hope that someday people will say the same about me – that I, too, remained true to my core principles no matter what. I believe that the Democratic Party needs to stand for something if we want people to vote for us. And by standing against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and domestic division, we may yet rediscover the soul of our Party.

Someone asked why the tension about the DLC...so I am answering. This is only a small part of the research I have done. More later.

[eleny]

1. K&R

[madfloridian]

2. Why thank you so much for the k & r

I have a lot of the research we did back in 02 and 03. It is important, because it really is about defining our party.

[eleny]

3. And I can use the information

It's so good to have something like this to read and keep.

You're welcome!

[madfloridian]

4. From November 2004, a meeting that shows priorities of the group.

I don't believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Michael Moore ever imposed himself on our party that much. They even criticized him for the Cannes award.

This is what Will Marshall said at the meeting:

No love for film maker Michael Moore
“Let’s let Hollywood and the Cannes Film Festival fawn all over Michael Moore. We ought to make it clear he sure doesn’t speak for us when it comes to standing up for our country,” Marshall said.

“Democrats have to make it very clear to the electorate that we believe that America is essentially a force for good in the world,” he argued.

“Sometimes in our zeal to condemn Bush policy, we can go overboard in ways that really make them wonder whose side we’re on,” he said. “It is one thing to say the war in Iraq was a mistake; that’s a legitimate position held by many thoughtful people. It’s another thing to say it’s an expression of some grasping new American imperialism, some kind of plot to grab Middle East oil or, even more ludicrously, all just about putting more money into Halliburton.”

Marshall added, “We’ve got to make it real clear to folks that while we believe true patriotism means acknowledging our country’s mistakes and being willing to change course when things are going wrong, as they are in Iraq, we’ve got to repudiate the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there, sometimes on our party’s left.”

http://int.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/6453647/

Well, I guess that makes me strident and insulting. :shrug:

[OneBlueSky]

5. bottom line: DLC is the corporate wing of the party . . .

at a time when we desperately need an anti-corporate populist . . .

[The Magistrate]

6. The D.L.C., Ma'am

Has in my view two major flaws in its outlook. One of these is long-standing, the second is new and owes to a failure at prognostication.

The long-standing flaw is its economic outlook. This is pure "free marketeer" orthodoxy. This does not work for the benefit of the majority of working people in our country. Even worse, from even the D.L.C.'s point of view, this undercuts its own stated purpose, which is to appeal to working people who are to this day offended by counter-culture elements associated in the popular mind with the Democratic Party.

The newer flaw is its mis-reading of both the likely outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the popular reaction to the unfolding disaster of Iraq. Conventional analysis at the time did hold the outcome would be a resounding success, and the popular identification of the Democratic Party as "soft on defense" has been a real problem over past decades for our Party, and one the D.L.C. has long concentrated effort on trying to allieviate. Accordingly, its political strategists held the invasion was best supported, and opposition to it, and to the occupation, best kept at a distance from the Party. In the event, not only has the occupation turned into a costly quagmire, but the people of the country have largely realized it is a failure, and turned against it. The mainstream position in the country today is disapproval of the enterprise. This is not quite the same thing as opposition, and does not alter that a great many people still have no patience for the conventional anti-war stance of the Left, but it does mean that political figures who express disapproval of the occupation meet wide agreement, and those who express support for it do not. The popular perception that the venture is a colossal failure also means that the Republicans have largely forfeited their electoral advantage on military and defense issues with the people. Even for the popular perception to be that both parties are incompetent is a gain for us, because on most other matters, the country does prefer policies typically associated with Democrats.

[madfloridian]

7. "A Blast from the Past."...more criticism of anti-war people.

This is a memo from Will Marshall in June 2003. This group uses McGovern as a symbol of all bad things. That is just not fair.

A Blast from the Past

In a recent Washington Post article, I argued that Democrats gradually have been moving away from "McGovernism" and back toward the tough-minded internationalism of John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman. This provoked a spirited riposte from George McGovern himself -- a blast from the past that sheds light on Democrats' present struggles to forge a unified and coherent stance on national security.

The episode also triggered a flashback to 1972, when I watched the Democratic presidential nominating race unfold through the hilariously twisted lens of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. I wound up casting my first presidential ballot, with scant enthusiasm, for McGovern. If impossibly idealistic, he was at least a decent and honorable man, and nothing could have induced me to back Tricky Dick and his crew of close-cropped henchpersons.

Yet there's no denying that McGovern's successful nomination bid signaled the party's takeover by the "New Politics" left, and that Democrats have been paying a stiff political price ever since. The schism over Vietnam was particularly damaging, as principled opposition to the war morphed all too easily into pacifism or worse -- a rancid anti-Americanism that repelled key Democratic constituencies like white Southerners and blue-collar workers.

Please note there is no discussion of right or wrong...just being strong on national security. Please note that the "new politics" left has not been in control of the party...the DLC has. They need to take responsibility for the losses suffered.

This paragraph is most annoying to me. The anti-war folks are on the right side of the issue for sure now, yet even as recently as after the successful election....Al From says not to bend knee to the activists. Will find that tomorrow.

This enraged "peace activists," who passionately and sincerely believe they speak for most Democrats. They are passionately and sincerely wrong: McGovernism is a distinctly minority view in the party, held mainly by left-leaning activists who have disproportionate influence in caucus states like Iowa. Polls show that two-thirds of Democrats (and more than three-fourths of all Americans) approve of the second Persian Gulf War. And lest we forget, McGovern himself suffered the worst landslide defeat in U.S. history, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia and winning only 38 percent of the national vote against Richard Nixon.

No, we are passionately and sincerely correct. The war was an evil thing, and we are losing. And yes, DLC you do need to listen to us.

[tuvor]

8. Huh? You've been accused of making your posts "too long"?

Too long for what?

[Nite Owl]

9. Keep it coming!

Good research. This is stuff that we all need to understand if we are ever to reclaim our party.
Thank you.

[lligrd]

10. Thanks Mad

We need this kind of information if we are ever to take our party back.

[Nightjock]

11. Very informative

Thank you madfloridian. I learned a few things this morning.
K/R

[madfloridian]

12. 2003 "Good Night, Vietnam....time to reassert Democratic internationalism"

The message that started in 2003 still continues. This group's leaders apparently believe that if you make fun of those who are anti-war they will go away.

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

This article totally slammed Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. Dennis K. got the worst of it in this article. It is ruthless.

Good Night, Vietnam

The onset of the war in Iraq has created a dilemma for those Democrats who opposed last year's resolution authorizing military force, and this year's decision to use force when the United Nations could not come up with an alternative means of disarming Saddam Hussein.

Former Gov. Howard Dean, whose antiwar rhetoric has made him the unlikely darling of liberal activists in Iowa and elsewhere, has been visibly struggling to criticize the war without appearing to undermine the troops. He vowed not to "personally" attack the president on the war, but has instead continued to attack his Democratic rivals who voted to authorize force. But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam.

Like rock musicians, antiwar protesters tend to keep going back to the 1960s and early 1970s for role models and inspiration. But few are as fearlessly faithful to the Vietnam War era of protests as presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who made a speech on the first day of the war in Iraq that consciously echoed George McGovern's "Come Home America" acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic Convention.

"Come home, America," said Kucinich to the National Newspaper Association on March 20. "Come home and fix your broken streets and mend your broken dreams.

The memo was making fun of both of them, and Kucinich in particular. It was trying to humiliate war protestors.

It is why I am skeptical that our Democrats will have the courage to do what is necessary to get us out of Iraq.

[madfloridian]

13. They announced a new chairman today.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900145&contentid=254176

[tnlefty]

17. A friend told me about this a couple of weeks ago, but I couldn't find

a confirmation of it anywhere so I didn't even mention it in the TN forum. Thanks for the research you did, I have it bookmarked for later use!

2-3 weeks ago I was out running an errand and I caught Lakoff on Ring of Fire and the discussion related to the progressive/liberal movement post the mid-terms. Lakoff was commenting that the media and certain groups within the democratic party were trying to claim that the results didn't show a movement toward populism, etc. He pretty much stated that was a crock. That while some of the candidates running had some 'conservative' positions on social issues they actually ran on issues of economic fairness (he mentioned Webb, Schuler, and a few others). He then went on to say that the candidate who actually ran as a conservative lost his race, and that was Harold Ford in TN.

I had an urge to bang my head on the steering wheel.

[madfloridian]

18. Lakoff sounds like he nailed it.

I think Ford has been trying so hard to not offend the other side, that he has greatly offended many Democrats.

My view in 08....whoever lets go of the right wing rhetoric and runs on Democratic values will win.

[tnlefty]

19. I hope that you are correct!

Oh, and Lakoff mentioned candidates who opposed Iraq, too.

[madfloridian]

14. Found the one about not "bending knee" to inflexible and noisy party activists

From an op ed by Al From in Sign on San Diego. This was in late November this year, so little has changed in the attitude of this group toward the people in the party.

He appears to be advocating ignoring grassroots who stand up for what they believe.

He also points how Lieberman won over the screaming grassroots in spite of a high-profile effort to take him out. No, that is not true about Joe, Mr. From. He won because of Republican support and support of the conservative Democrats.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/696

"There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. The reality is that, unlike the Republicans who are a much more homogenous party, Democrats can only win with a broad coalition. An expanded party base depends on a spirit of inclusiveness; certainly the House Democratic caucus is more ideologically diverse than it was before Election Day. To remain in the majority, it will need to stay that way."

[Upfront]

15. Thought I knew it all, not now.

Thanks MF. K&R

[madfloridian]

16. Hi upfront...I just posted this as well.

I have an uneasy feeling about watching Ford on TV today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3077951

[k_jerome]

20. thanks for all the resources...

i am a DLC supporter, but I will read it and i appreciate the lack of vitriol.

[madfloridian]

22. I have no vitriol, just looking at reality.

Right now they are the power of the party because they formed to use corporate money and not need the traditional base.

If you do that, you get very powerful. But you no longer stand for what the people need.

I am very much on guard with that group. Some are working to change the power back to the people, but it won't happen right away. Meanwhile our soldiers are dying and civilians are being killed in larger numbers each day while no one stands up and says we have to get out.

[Rebellious Republican]

21. Very informitive MF,

By the way I have seen many posts much longer than yours, some folks just have short attention spans. We live in a society that can no longer read anything bigger than, LOL, ROFL, MSM, PNAC, you get the picture. I would not be to concerned about those that do not wish to read anything over two sentences long. They do not have to read it,post away, you go girl.

RR:hi:

[madfloridian]

23. LOL why thank you so much, RR

That's funny.

[FogerRox]

24. knr Bookmarked, AWESOME, thanks

[FogerRox]

25. knr Bookmarked, AWESOME, thanks

[Hawkowl]

26. Down with the DLC

They are FAILURES. They failed in 2000 and 2004. Dean succeeded in his 50 state strategy in 2006. Fuck the DLC. Fuck the corporations.

[Tatiana]

27. Thank you for such an insightful and illuminating post. n/t

[Apollo11]

28. By endorsing Dean in 2003, Gore cut his ties with the DLC

You should know than Clinton and Gore were both founder members of the DLC back in the 1980s, following Ronald Reagan's 49-state re-election victory in November 1984. You can see why - back then - it made sense to try and broaden the base and popular appeal of the Democratic Party.

But in 2003 Gore proved that he does not follow the DLC so-called "leadership".

From CNN.com -- December 10, 2003

Al Gore endorses Howard Dean

Gore: 'One candidate clearly now stands out'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on Tuesday, substantially deepening Dean's fast-developing drive for dominance in the nine-candidate field of would-be challengers to President Bush.

"I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean to be the next president of the United States of America," Gore said.

The announcement in Manhattan's Harlem, coming on the morning of another debate between the "'04 Dems," as they're called, could cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America," Gore said.

"This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration," he said.

(snip)

Gore said part of the reason he chose to endorse Dean was his ability to appeal to the nation's "grassroots" elements, a reference to Dean's success in organizing and raising funds on the Internet and in small voter gatherings.

Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.

"He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said. "And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important because those judgments -- that basic common sense -- is what you want in a president."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[madfloridian]

29. You are right about that.

He made a statement in many ways by doing that. :hi:

[madfloridian]

30. A WP dialogue with Al From from 2004.

It is interesting in several ways. One is that From specifically states their support for, and continuing belief in the Iraq invasion. Some have questioned me on that. There are other things, but this is pretty clear.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_politics_from072903.htm

"Washington, D.C.: The DLC was openly supportive of the war in Iraq. Now that the tide is turning, do you feel that your organization is facing the same predicament that Richard Gephardt is currently faced with? Can you attack Bush for something that you supported? Likewise, how can you justify the DLC's support of the war as anything other than blatant populism in an effort to make inroads into GOP voting coalition?

Al From: I thought the war was right before we went to war. I'm proud of the way our military conducted it - a military built by Bill Clinton, I might add. I still support the war. America and the world are safer without Saddam Hussein and his two sons. So I have no quarrel with the war. But I'm not so pleased with the way the Administration was unprepared for victory. We also need to win the peace. So as we support the war, we've been critical of the Bush diplomatic and post-war efforts. America is and will be the strongest nation and the greatest force for good in the world. I'd like to be that and have some friends, too."

And I found this article from June 2003 with several things I did not realize.

Democrats won't win by pandering to narrow interest or constituency groups. Resisting the demands of such groups is hard. That's why Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was right to try to put the kibosh on candidate forums sponsored by organized pressure groups before they cause more damage than they already have.

Democrats won't win if they tolerate non-real candidates throughout the nominating process. Although Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley Braun have no chance of winning the nomination, every time they appear on stage with the legitimate candidates, they diminish the stature of the whole field. So far, the damage is negligible, because most voters aren't paying attention. But, as the campaign heats up, the Democrats' chances of defeating Bush will be damaged significantly if these candidates stay in the race.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=251783

First, what organized pressure groups were not allowed to have forums? That's an important question.

Second, having Kucinich and Braun in no way diminished any one. What a shame to say that.

[madfloridian]

31. Right Web has updated their page on this group.

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

The DLC is a nonprofit corporation organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Service code. According to the DLC, the council “is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.” Rather, the DLC “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions.” The DLC publishes the magazine Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century and an online newsletter called New Dem Dispatch. Closely associated and sharing offices with the DLC is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think tank sponsored by the Third Way Foundation that proposes policy agendas for the so-called third way movement of what the DLC designates the “New Democrats.”

This part bothered me...we are seeing those "stiffer sentences" now. Random, nonsensical.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of “Great Society” of the Johnson administration, DLC chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, “While racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it's time to shift the primary focus from racism—the traditional enemy without—to self-defeating patterns of behavior—the enemy within.” This speech signaled the end of the “New Politics” of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb's speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs

Not ok.

[Zhade]

32. For me, their hiring PNACer Marshall Wittman is evidence of their slant.

Not to be trusted.

[madfloridian]

33. Yes, their eventual goal is to privatize Social Security....but they don't say it anymore.

Someone here accused me of spreading stuff that was not true. I posted some stuff from Rubin then, and I found this from 1995. They just changed the way they talk about it. It may just be a hovering part of the agenda, but it makes me nervous.

This is from Time 1995, when the DLC was fearful Clinton might lose in 96. They were wasting no time running the other way, either. Kind of sad. Then Rob Shapiro says oh boy do we have an agenda, and we were working on it long before....and he can go along or not.

From TIME 1995

The centrists don't want to go down with him. Explains Elaine Kamarck, a former PPI fellow currently working for Vice President Gore: "The DLC worries about dying off if the President's defeated. The battle for the party's soul will continue even if he wins. But if he loses, the liberals will claim that the dlc's centrist views were responsible and should be tossed aside entirely. The counterargument will be that just because the messenger proved imperfect, doesn't mean the message itself should be junked."

Fearful that such a distinction would be lost in the blame game following Clinton's forced retirement, those who helped elect him are preparing to distance themselves while they still have the chance. "We're out to push the intellectual envelope," says the ppi's Rob Shapiro, who is working on a "radical" series of issue alternatives that could "unyoke" the centrists from their President. A full-fledged manifesto is due this fall, and if, as currently planned, it includes ideas like privatizing Social Security, it's unlikely that Clinton will have the nerve to sign on. At that point, says Galston, the group's new prescriptions will "be there for anyone to embrace."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,983141,00.html

What a nasty bunch they were and still are in many ways. They were setting up a "just in case" agenda.

[LWolf]

34. Kick and Thanks.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: