Who here LIKES the DLC?

[Armstead]

I promise I'll behave.

But I would like to know who here believes the DLC is a worthwhile faction to be leading the Democratic Party. That it's goals and strategies are good for the average and disadvantaged American. That its' message is a winning one.

(I would assume those who support Hillary are also in favor of the DLC's strategies and goals.)

So I would ask those who support the DLC and Hillary to explain why.

As I said, I'll behave, and not do any sniping. I am simply curious.

[IndianaJones]

1. I like the DLC. nt.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. I appreciate winners n/t

[Warpy]

29. Well, that sure aint the DLC

since they managed to lose all 3 branches of government.

[movonne]

6. What is it you like?...bush light...I guess you are not a progressive..

[IndianaJones]

14. lol. are you a progressive? nt.

[LoZoccolo]

16. lol n/t

[cuke]

2. Still don't believe you

the snipes in the OP gave you away and I bet you can't tell what I'm referring to

[Armstead]

9. If you mean the references to Hillary....

...yes, that is one of the reasons I ask. She is the candidate of the DLC.

Therefore it is a fair question to ask.

[cuke]

15. Like I said

you have no idea

[angstlessk]

4. DLC is 'D oin L ike C onservatives' as far as I am concerned!

in other words I do NOT like the DLC

[Basileus Basileon]

5. If it weren't for the DLC,

what boogeyman could people here invoke to explain why the Democratic party doesn't always do exactly what the netroots want?

[movonne]

10. Is it just the netroots? and so far they haven't done much I do like..

[Basileus Basileon]

34. I find them to be more centrist/moderate than I am. So what?

Doesn't mean I have to hate or fear them.

[Vincardog]

11. So you support the DLC because they provide cover to the Corporate enablers?

[Basileus Basileon]

12. Yes, that's pretty clearly my opinion. I also like them because they rape puppies

with kittens.

[IndianaJones]

17. what a coincidence. me too. nt.

[OKNancy]

7. I don't "like" the DLC, but I think we need them

in the party for "numbers". It's just realistic and practical to do so.
The so-called progressive wing is not strong enough in numbers to ever win or get anything done
by itself.

I'm supporting Hillary, not because I agree with her 100% on every issue, but because I'm one of those horrible people here who want to win the election and I think she will the the strongest candidate. DO NOT discount the first woman President aspect either. It's very important to a lot of people in my all-female extended family ( four sisters, mom, mother-in-law, two daughters.)

[LoZoccolo]

Sure.

I agree with much of this:

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none. We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy.

We believe that government programs should be grounded in the values most Americans share: work, family, personal responsibility, individual liberty, faith, tolerance, and inclusion.

We believe in community; that we can achieve our individual destinies only if we share a commitment to our national destiny. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the commonwealth.

We believe America has a responsibility to lead the world toward greater political and economic freedom.

We believe that as advocates of activist government, we need to reinvent government so that it is both more responsive and more accountable to those it serves and to the taxpayers who pay for it.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

I don't think Al From is as tactful as he should be, though, and I think that's provoked much of the dislike of them.

[Writer]

19. You know a lot of this is more bad image than reality...

I think you're correct that a few negative comments from Al From induced much of this.

Also, I've been all over that site in the past and I cannot conceive of where this image of their not being Democrats comes from.

I think if that site were more home spun looking, contained words such as "hegemony" and "Chomsky" instead of "Jefferson" and "mutual responsibility" that they'd get more mileage.

What we're witnessing here, in my humble estimation, is a difference between philosophy and ideology. There is a place for both within the party because one cannot survive without the other.

Are you a Democratic Philosopher or a Democratic Ideologist? That may determine whether you accept the DLC or not. I have a feeling many of us here on DU are Ideologists. ;)

[musette_sf]

8. not me

i like progressives, not Republican Lite.

[gateley]

13. I'm glad you posted this. It made me realize that my opinion of the DLC is

solely based on the majority view of it on DU. I never even heard of it before DU, and if I did, probably wouldn't have paid any attention.

It alarms me when I realize I've done exactly what I I scathingly accuse others of - just going with the popular feeling and not making up one's own mind.

So I'm off to educate myself. Thanks for the nudge! :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

18. If you want a demonstration of anti-DLC knee-jerking, check this one out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2035218

[jgraz]

31. Lame n/t

[tkmorris]

22. Self-education is a good idea to be sure

But it must be noted that the blurb LoZoccolo posted describing the DLC's goals was written by the DLC themselves. I am quite certain that Haliburton, Exxon, and PNAC also have mission statements that sound equally benign.

Research well, and fairly, and when you are done perhaps you can help me try to understand why any private citizen would ever support such people.

[dflprincess]

27. Very good point

I used to work for a large for profit health insurer - their mission statement would have made you cry it sounded so altruistic. It also had nothing to do with how they actually did business.

[wyldwolf]

30. on the other hand...

...there have been numerous pieces written critical of the DLC that have had factual and historical inaccuracies.

[tkmorris]

33. Yes, I dismiss those out of hand as well

Facts are facts, and I am almost religious in my insistence upon objectivity. The DLC has not benefited greatly from this practice however.

[bunnies]

20. Not I...

But then again... the DLC doesnt care for me either.

[IndianaJones]

21. You're right. It told me. nt.

[bunnies]

28. see, Its always talking behind my back.

:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

23. me.

:)

[FreeState]

24. Im to liberal for them N/T

[IndianaJones]

25. lol. nt.

[cali]

26. I'm glad you asked.

I don't give a shit about the DLC. Their positions are more moderate than mine. So what? I don't think they have near the influence DUers think they do. Furthermore, the dem party is a big tent.

Some people need boogymen. You do apparently. So do lots of other folks. The DLC seems to fill that niche neatly. Have fun with it.

[Armstead]

35. I'd rather just have the GOP as the boogeyman

Despite what you seem to think, I would much prefer to be able to focus on the GOP as the opposition.

IMO it's not a matter of whether they are "moderate" or not. Moderates are fine. My view is that moderate liberals and the progressives who are more to the left are all rowing in the same basic direction. The only differences are the speed and extent they favor.

But the DLC types are using corporate money and slick pr to steer the boat in a different direction. They are undermining the basic principles and goals of liberalism, by favoring corporations, Wall St. and the interests of the elites over those of the majority. They advocate policies that are Milton Friedman lite. And they deliberately alienate and try to marginalize true liberals and progressive populists,rather than trying to forge a big tent coalition.

So, yes, I do see them as antagonists. But rather than want that, i see it as a counterproductive distraction in the larger effort to get the country back on a saner track.

[cuke]

36. Nothing is stopping you from focusing on the GOP

It's your choice. Please don't blame that (along with everything else) on the DLC

[cali]

43. everybody uses corporate money. it sucks, but it's a fact.

the DLC tries to influence the direction of the party. So do other groups and organizations. I don't like their economic philosophy, so I'll fight against it. If I ever have common ground with them, that's OK too. I think people get waaay to wound up about the DLC.

[mdmc]

32. I like the DLC

better then the GOP.

But they both suck.

Liberals, progressives, and leftist are where it is at.

[LSdemocrat]

37. I don't hate the DLC and recognize them as being part of the Democratic party

[madfloridian]

38. I just love them to pieces.

:grouphug: :loveya:

[WCGreen]

39. I have to admit that I was a member back in the early 90's...

Only because I am an accountant and was sick and tired of the borrow and spend policies of the GOP being portrayed as somehow pro-business...

I left them behind in 1995...

[Capn Sunshine]

41. You and me both

I ran a hedge fund , a banking operation , and other corporate finance vehicles. The DLC actually stood for fiscal sanity at one time, together with advancing the notion that business , especially entrepreneurship, was an answer to many third world conditions.

Also, there was a lot of talk about a "Third Way" which essentially meant removing the left-right , red-blue polarization so harmful to the national debate.

That's all gone by the wayside.

In it's place we have an entrenched bunch of sleazy power brokers who want to act as middlemen for the big corporations trying to take over the world, and expend a great deal of energy attacking anyone who questions their right to be completely correct.

I signed up in 92, left in 98.

[WCGreen]

42. That's pretty much it...

I remember attending a national meeting in Columbus, Ohio in 1995 where they said we shouldn't be concerning our selfs with regulation and environmental issues...

That's when I really started to feel like I walked into the wrong place...

[ecstatic]

40. The definition of what's DLC constantly changes around here

But, I have no problem with the Clintons or Al Gore, except when it comes to warmongering.