DLC is not part of the Democratic Party

[OzarkDem]

They never have been, nor never will be a part of the institution that is the Democratic Party.

They are a special interest group that represents corporate interests who want to influence the process of electing Democratic candidates to public office and controlling the votes of said Democrats in Congress and in state government. Their issues and positions on public policy are not in line with the Democratic Party Platform.

They control no voters, no grassroots movement of active Democrats. They are not bound by any of the rules or procedures of the Democratic Party. They do not have any loyalty to the Democratic Party, to its members or its voters, nor do they consult with its leaders on their mission.

They don't win elections, they don't turn out voters to get Democrats elected. They are no more a part of the Democratic Party than the GOP. Their only goal is to use money and influence to hijack the votes of Democrats in Congress. They could give a rats ass about what voters want.

Just wanted to make that clear.

On edit: I'm a former member of the DLC, from back in 1992-1994. Its a very different organization today than it was back then. It used to be a grassroots "think tank", not any more. That's why I let my membership lapse.

[redqueen]

1. They seem to vote with Dems around 80% of the time. While Blue Dogs...

more like 50%.

So... perhaps the outrage could be more effectively targeted? :shrug:

[robinlynne]

2. They are one and the same, are they not?

[redqueen]

4. Apparently not. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Blue Dog Democrats Come Primarily From The South

And are more culturally conservative and economically populist...

[Virginia Dare]

172. Agree, and it's better to get somebody that will vote with you...

50% of the time, like the Blue Dogs, or 20% of the time like the right wingers.

[redqueen]

178. Are they?

I thought they were more culturally liberal and more fiscally conservative.

:shrug:

[MADem]

226. Gary Condit was a proud bluedog....fwiw. nt

[...of J.Temperance]

32. The anti-DLCer's don't EVEN know the difference between

Centrist Democrats ie. the DLC and the Blue Dog Democrats....it just gets more hilarious!

[loudsue]

163. I'm more concerned with the SIMILARITIES...they ALL vote with corporations

and the repervlikins on issues that HURT the PEOPLE of this country, and HELP the corporate masters.

Their differences between one another don't mean shit.

They're republicans with a "D" after their name, and they are infilTRAITORS, to the Dem party, put there by big business to vote AGAINST populist issues.

:kick:

[Cleita]

202. What you said!

:thumbsup:

[Virginia Dare]

171. Lots of people don't do nuance very well either...n/t

[natrat]

207. todays centrist democrat is almost literally yesterday's scummy republican

[movonne]

215. Boy! you hit the nail on the hear...thank you...

[station agent]

218. Takes time to shake them off, look at 2008

The majorities held by the Democrats will go up in both houses and that means these margins will eventually move left. This is just part of a long term fix. You can't come back from the political setbacks suffered by Democrats from 1994-2004 overnight.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/10/16/republicans-face-uphill-battle-for-congress/

[OzarkDem]

13. Just to be clear

there's no outrage here, just stating facts about the organization. It helps to keep these lines from being blurred during discussions of Dem public policy.

[redqueen]

18. Thanks...

I just like to point that out whenever I can so that people can take note of which group actually does more to hinder the Democratic agenda.

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

20. ...

:hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

33. Exactly

DLC Democrats will almost ALWAYS vote the Democratic Party line 80% of the time.

The Blue Dogs, 50%....SOME of the Blue Dogs it's ONLY 30% of the time.

So who do the ranters target? The DLC....it's absurd....then again, I'd say that 90% of this anti-DLC crowd probably don't even KNOW the difference between the DLC and the Blue Dogs.

[redqueen]

43. I think the anti-DLC PR is better than the anti-Blue Dog PR.

Give it time. :hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

46. DLCer's are thought of here like

The Third Reich thought about people with the surnames Cohen, Goldstein, Weinberg etc.

:(

[redqueen]

50. It's bandwagony, I think... once the information that Blue Dogs are the real

bush-enablers... the kneejerk-anti-DLCers will move on to the real culprits.

At least, that's what I did. :P

[...of J.Temperance]

52. Well MAYBE this anti-DLC crowd should educate themselves more

Instead of parroting talking points and babbling propaganda and Conspiracy Theory nonsense....much of what they go on about is sheer foolishness, and it's obvious that they don't even have a clue what they're babbling on about.

As I said DLCer's are treated by this crowd, like The Third Reich treated people with surnames like Cohen, Goldstein and Weinberg....and it's an effing disgrace.

Jaysus I think the DLCer's need a medal, despite all of the ugliness directed at us, we remain polite and courteous....it's amazing really.

I'm FULLY expecting that at ANY given moment to see threads titled:

"Would you let a DLCer babysit your child?"

"Would you let your son and/or daughter date or marry a DLCer?"

"Should the DLC be put on trial for causing ALL of the planets problems?"

"Should DLCer's be put in 'Re-Education Camps'?"



:hi:

[cali]

112. I'm glad you're here.

I agree with everything in your post. And i'm sorry you have to deal with this moronic crap. You never lose your cool, and you fight for what you believe.

[...of J.Temperance]

127. I find it effing OFFENSIVE that they TRASH Democrats in this disgusting way

I have to read ALL manner of slurs and crap that gets posted about Senator Hillary Clinton for example....and you know something, yeah, I'd go to the WALL for that woman....and I'd go to the WALL for John Edwards.

And this crowd thats full of hate, says that people like ME aren't real Democrats, and yet the same crowd often cheer on the likes of Cindy Sheehan when she's TRASHING Speaker Nancy Pelosi and they cheerlead Cindy on! WTF?

Fact: There isn't really ONE Democrat that Cindy Sheehan has anything NICE to say about, she bad-mouths them ALL, and she does it publically as well.

Okay so I lost my cool a bit there perhaps, but you know....you can only poke a dog so many times BEFORE the dog's going to turn around and bite you.

They call the DLC "DINO'S", they now even are suggesting that Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank of ALL people are "DINO'S", you know WHO the real DINO'S are?

The ones who say they won't vote for Hillary EVEN if she becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee, the one's who cheerlead Cindy Sheehan when she TRASHES Democratic politicians, and the one's who even after SEVEN YEARS of the W mess, STILL are saying that there's no difference between the two parties so why should they vote for a candidate UNLESS they agree with that candidate on 100% of the issues.

Me, I'll take 60% of the issues, if I can agree on 60% of the issues with a candidate, then that does me just fine and I'm happy.

Oh and I'm glad you're here too :)

The stuff I've just written up there, that's far more moderate and polite than the utter CRAP and VILENESS and VICIOUSNESS that I've read posted about Hillary and posted about the DLC.

Like I said, this crowd think of the DLC, like The Third Reich thought of the Jews....and ISN'T that just totally disgusting and grotesque, that should make anyone sad and feel ashamed.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[sybylla]

145. I'm no fan of DLC philosophy, but I agree with you

There are Dems far more deserving of the term "DINO" than many in the DLC crowd. (I say many because with every group, there's always a few bad players.)

And for the record, I call those who say they won't vote for Hillary even if she becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee, those who cheerlead Cindy Sheehan when she trashes Democratic pols, those who even after seven years of the W mess still are saying that there's no difference between the two parties - Greens. By and large, they're the ones who voted for Nader. They're the ones who tout all his talking points from 2000. They are the ones who want their politicians to vote 100% of the time with them or they'll censure them publicly.

While I welcome Greens and those who fall into that category into the party and encourage them to be part of the mechanism for change within the Democratic Party, I am nothing but saddened and frustrated by their tantrums, their impatience and their inability to work towards common solutions - not just "their" solutions.

In an ideal world, no one would have to compromise when it came to electing a Democrat to dog catcher. But this is the real world. In the real world the only perfect candidate is yourself. Everyone else pales by comparison.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

139. Jaysus, ...of J.Temperance, You're a DLCer who writes like a GOPer

You drag in religion, you act as if your shit don't stink and then you stoop to childishly characterizing your opponents as being feeble minded.

How could you be proud of “going to the wall” for Hillary, Edwards and obviously the DLC?

The DLC is full of political weasels. Here’s a clip from an article posted on the DLC’s website. It pertains to what the DLC wanted its members so say about the surge....

....Fourth, a congressional effort to cut funding would be seen in the country as an attempt to seize control of Iraq policy. If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails.




http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=254171

How pathetic, the DLC knew holding back funding would end the war, yet for political reasons they dance around taking on any responsibility.

Their plan is to “hope for the best” and blame the White House for everything.

[Kajsa]

196. That's not leadership,Kathy.

Their plan is strategic avoidance to further their agenda,
at the expense of over 3,000 US soldiers, thousands of
Iraqis and coalition troops.

btw, who gives a damn what Rovey boy has to say,now?

Isn't he yesterday's news?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

203. The article I linked to was an article that was printed back when Rove did matter.

My point being, the DLC worried more about Rove during the run up for the surge, then they did about taking on leadership.

[Kajsa]

205. Good point.

Rove did run things for quite some time.

[redqueen]

167. Well let's not get carried away...

I hope you don't really think that all DLC-supporters here are polite and courteous. The language you yourself just used... "babbling"... that word has a negative connotation... so, this is the way these discussions get heated up. So... yeah... there is more than enough 'blame' to go around as far as who dishes out vitriol and ugliness and condescension and all that.

In fact, I think we would get a lot farther in discussing these things and working through our differences if both sides could work on not taking such things personally, and continuing to discuss things in a calm and thoughtful manner. Once defensiveness sets in, the argument gets lost and it usually degenerates into a pissing contest. Waste of time, that.

[Virginia Dare]

170. The problem with the southern Blue Dogs..

is that you have a choice usually between them and some rabid right winger.

[redqueen]

175. Yup... it's up to us in the electorate to push more liberal dem

candidates.

Not an easy task, but possible. It'll take time, though. And though there may be more worthwhile tasks, but this ranks right up there with 'em, IMO. :)

[Virginia Dare]

189. Yes, it's easier to pull teeth on a chicken in states like Virginia..

but the good thing is parts of the state are moving left, slowly but surely. I guess that's the silver lining to the Bush disaster.

[Fovea]

73. Gosh, and they are dems too

How did that happen, do you think?

[...of J.Temperance]

78. Not fully understanding your point and comment here

Could you please elaborate on it?

[KaptBunnyPants]

135. You're a fan of the DLC now?

I must admit to being more than a little surprised, I always thought of you as one of the more Left wing posters on DU.

[redqueen]

166. I'm more left wing than most... not as left wing as many.

I'm not claiming to be a fan... it's just that I found out a while back that they actually vote with the Dem agenda more often than not. Like I said above... I think they average about 80% 'purity' as far as voting with the party. Blue Dogs, on the other hand, average about 50%... so if we lefties are going to complain about repub-lite, the Blue Dogs are far more deserving of that title than DLC members. I think it's important to keep in mind the reality behind the rhetoric, that's all.

I would rather have Dems who are more left than the DLC members are, but in the grand scheme of things, even a Blue Dog is better than a repuke... repukes vote for the most evil agenda nearly 100% of the time... and even Blue Dogs manage to get it right at least 30-50% of the time.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

199. I am not sure Blue Dogs are that bad

Here's a previous post of mine from 16 jul 2007

"So I am looking around the WaPo site on Congressional voting records and find that Ron Paul only votes with his party 60% of the time.

But the surprising thing to me is to find Dennis Kucinich down there with only 87.4% in the 108th Congress. That puts him down there with Blue Dogs like Stephanie Herseth at 86.8%, Ike Skelton with 87.6% and Dennis Moore with 91.3%.

So what is the deal? Is he voting against the majority of the party because the majority of the party is voting non-progressive?

I find the same story in the 109th Congress, as Dennis only voted with the majority of Democrats 87.2% of the time. Whereas fellow Progressive Caucus member, Tammy Baldwin, voted with the majority 93.2% of the time.

So what is up with the Blue-Dog numbers there? Is DK voting against the party when the party is wrong whereas Blue Dogs are voting against the party when the party is right?

Here's a link, although I did not check the 110th Congress (which is where the link goes. It would be just my luck if DK was in the mid 90s this year, unlike past years.)

projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/states/oh/

edit: Hopefully fixed the link, and see he is at 91.6% this year. However, that is not far from Boyda's 90.7% and other Ohio Democrats are over 95%, still putting DK more in line with Blue Dog percentages."

Dennis Moore and Nancy Boyda are Blue Dogs. Stephanie Herseth is one of the dreaded "Bush Dogs". They are still voting with the Democratic majority 86% and 87% of the time, at least in that particular year.

Of course, I did not read details on their methodology. Do they include alot of votes on things like "declaring Foster Parent appreciation day" and things like that which would bring the percentages higher since almost everybody votes for those?

Also, as I said, sometimes it may be necessary to vote against the Democratic majority. For example, Democrats, who are primarily urban, sometimes vote against Farm Bills. Sorry, but if you are a Democrat from a farming state like South Dakota, Iowa, or Nebraska, or even a more rural district, like Ron Kind of Wisconsin compared to Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (probably 70% or more of her district is comprised of Madison and Janesville). If you have a farming district, then you had damn well represent your district and screw the party majority. If Tom Harkin votes for the farm bill, then I am figuring it's a pretty good bill even if Ted Kennedy votes against it.

Some votes are kind of empty too. For example, on the Bush tax cuts of 2001, Dennis Moore voted for Democratic amendments, which were defeated on party line votes. After the amendments were defeated, he voted for the final bill - which was going to pass anyway. Voting against it would not have stopped the bill from becoming law, it would just have helped the campaign of One Adam Taff.

[redqueen]

200. You have pulled out a few cases for comparison.

The source for my statistics analyzed the voting records of ALL the Blue Dogs.

As for the nature of the bills, I can't say.

[hfojvt]

204. thing is, the lowest D on this list is at 80.1%

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/

With 950 votes though, they must be counting alot of fluff.

Okay, here in the 103rd Congress there are Democrats from Texas and Mississippi scoring in the 50% and 60% range. 55.4% for Gene Taylor from Mississippi and Ralph Hall and Charles Stenholm of Texas at 62.1 and 62.6% are the three lowest.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/103/house/party-voters/

All I know is from my sources. Do you have your source?

One of the major keys to the DLC, that I am not sure the Blue Dogs have, is the way they talk. They get on TV and use Republican talking points and bash Democrats. Lieberman was infamous for that. The way all Democrats have jumped on the "taxcut bandwagon" (as I said in an OP that was largely ignored) is an example. It undermines a progressive message. Yes, maybe the DLC votes with the party, but since they largely took over the party with the victory of Clinton in 1992 - THE ENTIRE PARTY is now less progressive than it used to be. If you look at the Senate, the majority of the party voted for both the IWR and the Patriot Act, and there probably are other examples.

I like the Buddhist 8-fold path and the first step on that path is "Right view". Putting that into politics, for me one of the primary keys is, first, "right message" and that is where the DLC betrays progressive Democrats, by constantly promoting the wrong messages and marginalizing the right messages.

[redqueen]

206. I can't find the first analysis that I saw...

it was posted on Daily Kos and that place is as easy to search through as an unfamiliar, dense forest on a moonless night. Hate that place. Ugh. Sorry... anyway no, I can't find that source. I did find another analysis online, but it was done 2 years ago.

Good point about the entire party being less progressive. At this point I'd like to reiterate that DLC Dems are not the kinds of Dems I'd like to see in DC. I'm not sure either about whether the Blue Dogs and DLC Dems are equally willing to repeat GOP talking points... but thank you for bringing that up... that is very important and deserves consideration.

[Greyhound]

220. If you get hung up on what percentage of the time somebody votes with The Party,

you just end up playing their game, Feinstein has made her career out of this.

It is often not how often they vote for or against, it is what and when they vote for or against. When there is a progressive bill that has no chance of passing, they will almost always vote in favor to generate a 'with' entry in the record. It is which votes they cast, or don't cast, that matters, take HRC and the Orwellian "Bankruptcy Reform" measure.

This was/is a horrible act, written by the financial industry, for the financial industry, to the great detriment of American citizens. She advocated and worked for it for four years, but once it got through the process ensuring that it would pass, and knowing that it would be a black mark in her upcoming Presidential bid, she didn't vote on it "to be with Bill during his recovery".

"Ignore what they say, watch what they do"

[ShortnFiery]

169. Yes, but it seems that 20% dissent is in favor of "endless war" and "corporate welfare" programs n/t

[redqueen]

177. Yup... they're socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Until we fund challengers in primaries and get them in the seats, though... I don't see that we have much of an alternative. I hardly think ceding the seats to repukes is a good plan, since they'll go along with the socially conservative agenda... so then we'll get endless war, corporate welfare, AND see further restrictions on a woman's right to choose, less funding for family planning, etc. etc. etc.

As this latest generation of voters comes of voting age, and starts paying attention, I think we'll be able to make some big strides toward pushing this country back to the left. It'll take time, though.

[Yael]

3. This should be fun

:popcorn:

[truedelphi]

25. Please feel welcome to join me in my bunker

THese discussion give off a lot of HEAT

[Yael]

30. I'll buy ya a beer

To wash down the popcorn :toast:

:hi:

[bobbolink]

100. Great! A bunker! At least it's not a cardboard box... ^_^

:hi:

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R

[MonkeyFunk]

6. They're a think-tank

not the bogeyman.

And yes, they are Dems.

[AuntPatsy]

8. I'm frustrated by them but I have to agree with you, I just wish couId

understand their reasoning sometimes, it just seems that more and more their explanations become a bit stilted and uncommunitive.

[...of J.Temperance]

56. We don't understand the reasoning of

The Dennis Kucinich crowd....nor the reasoning of those who CHEER Cindy Sheehan on and think it's great when she's bashing Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, amongst others.

We don't get in peoples' faces though and post trashy comments and nasty comments.

[kenfrequed]

164. The feeling is mutual

And we of the progressive left don't get the reasoning of the DLC crowd. Their policies are not progressive economically speaking and economic issues are at the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

Free trade has been a disaster and it is the dirty little secret why most of the developing world dislikes the United States. The Iraq war is just a symbol, the reality is that we are turning most nations into client states to produce junk to supporty our hyper consumerist lifestyle. All the while we are indebting ourselves to the same multi-national corporations, owned by the wealthiest Americans, that export middle class jobs and chase for the bottom possible wage.

The constant pursuit of compromise with the republicans as well as strategic 'third way' voting has put this nation so far to the right that any talk of 'moderation' at this point is laughable at best. We have abandoned reason. We now embrace the insurance company fat cats and predatory bankers that live on human misery.

All the while the DLC has supported such lovely bits of legislation such as 'welfare reform' which garauntees cheap labor for the fast food industry while ensuring that children do not recieve the needed attention during the formulative years. An entire generation of children to be raised by more television and exposure to advertising as well as the needed pharmacopeia needed to yoke their increasingly may-fly attention spans.

DLC, it is you that have spent 20 years castigating the left and pushing aside progressive-populist candidates in favor of safe and moderate (read:pro corporate).

And if you want a real example of a proper modern DLC type why not look at Joe Liberman? A perfect example of the respect the DLC pays to grass roots liberals and progressives.

[frylock]

210. great post!

:yourock:

[kenfrequed]

224. Yeah thanks..

Well I dont like an organization that talks out of both sides of its mouth.

Nor do they give even the slightest bit of credit to the anti-war progressives that were trying as hard as we could to get people to listen about the fictitious evidence during the lead up to the War in Iraq. They instead reinvent history and ignore the honest principaled statements against the war and their own spineless capitulation.

If any good has come from all of this it will be that From and Rahm and company will fade as the DLC's importance wanes. Of course if Fox news ever needs pet "Democrats" to sit in on their manufactured news cycle and bemoan how awful the antiwar movement, the progressives, or the net-roots are then I suppose they will always have a home.

[denem]

228. The developing world wants free trade.

It's EU/US selective protection of all things farm that they hate. The 40% of the world that is China / India / Pakistan rather likes free trade too. The US LOVES free trade providing it can export everything it makes. Its only when those pesky "poor" people want to export back that there's a problem.

[kenfrequed]

233. Oh sure

The factory slaves in China love free trade. They absolutely ADORE decimating their own environment for the boon of western dollars that flow almost exclusively to the party bosses and newly minted state sanctioned robber barons.

Trying to conflate the rulership of China with the people is a big mistake. India is a completely different manner. And then there is the entire southern Hemisphere of the Americas, of course it would be inconvenient to think of those nations that exist as sources of raw resources for the United States and how globalization completely screws them over.

[w4rma]

151. DLC reasoning is easy to understand: They want policies that help Wall Street make more profit. (nt)

[Virginia Dare]

173. I look at it a different way..

and I'm not necessarily defending them, but I see it more as they want to beat the repubs at their own game, or at least level the playing field.

[w4rma]

180. The DLC is a non-partisan group. They are not here to help Democrats win, otherwise they would be

a partisan group.

[Virginia Dare]

188. Right. Wink-wink. Nod-nod...n/t

[w4rma]

190. Exactly. However, the winks and the nods are about tricking people into thinking that their agenda

is to help Democrats win, when it is really to help corporate profits.

[Virginia Dare]

192. No, it's about funneling more corporate dollars to the Democratic Party..

of course nothing in life is free.

[w4rma]

193. And what is given in return for that money? And why do they fight against other funding methods?(nt)

[Virginia Dare]

194. As I said nothing is free..

of course things are expected in return. It's because this particular group of people thinks that this is the way the political game needs to be played, and after all they did have some success at it for a time. And as I said, this is not a defense.

[w4rma]

195. This particular group of people want the political game played this way. There is a difference

between thinking that it needs to be played this way and actively working make sure the game continues to be played this way.

[OzarkDem]

16. No they're not all Dems; some are Republicans n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Which ones?

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Really? Post some proof to back-up your absurd allegations n/t

.

[mondo joe]

41. I wonder why people post crazy shit like that.

:shrug:

[...of J.Temperance]

57. Because they're deeply ignorant that's why n/t

.

[mondo joe]

59. According to the spining figure test, I am left brained which might be why I am applying

logic and facts to the situation. Democratic candidates are nominated by Democrats - they are necessarily Democrats unless they opt to leave the party.

That said, I don't agree with the DLC on just about anything.

[...of J.Temperance]

63. At least you

Come across as being rational though, at least your comments were logical and not some hairbrained and hate-driven rant.

Sure, I'm cool with people who don't agree with DLC things, I don't do Litmus Tests you see, I'm fully able to discuss in a rational fashion things with those who I might differ with on some things....just as long as the people I'm discussing this stuff with don't fly off the handle with a big rant and start babbling nonsense and propaganda and Conspiracy Theory oddities at me.

[mondo joe]

67. I'm not looking to shave the party down to the most pure. I rather like winning

elections. That means coalitions and plurality.

[...of J.Temperance]

89. That's the right attitude!

And the majority of the mainstream agree, I see no demands for purges within the mainstream Democratic Party.

If certain people had their way, then they'd have the Democratic Party reduced to the minority party forevermore.

[OzarkDem]

108. There are many outside organizations who lobby the Dem party

and try to persuade its elected officials to follow their policy agenda. DLC is just one more. They have no more power or support than any of the others. In fact, they have no grassroots organization and the only power of persuasion they exert over Dem candidates is with money and "ideas". If anything, they're a little more invasive with candidates by not just pushing a policy agenda, but also by trying to tell candidates how to run campaigns, what to say, which voters to ignore, etc.

[...of J.Temperance]

128. Post proof of the Republicans you allege are members of the DLC please

You DO know the requirements of being allowed DLC membership I take it?

[cmd]

156. Thank you, mondo joe

I may disagree with them on some issues, but they are a part of us. Geez, I even support my blue dog congressman. He's better than having a republican.

[OzarkDem]

157. By law they're not

they're an independent, non-partisan organization.

Members of DLC don't control it.

[OzarkDem]

106. DLC is an outside organization, a non-profit corporation

Its employees and directors are part of the DLC, not the Democratic Party.

Democratic elected officials can choose to support the DLC agenda, but DLC itself is no more a part of the party than MoveOn or PNAC or the Moral Majority.

[mondo joe]

114. The DLC isn't a formal part of the party. But its members are, in their entirety.

And not just self declared Democrats, but candidates put forth by the party.

[...of J.Temperance]

125. Hey you....you were asked to provide PROOF of your BS allegations and slurs

Remember?

Here:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2052481#2052769

Here:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2052481#2052866

Oh and here, it's not only me that recognizes that you're talking out of where the sun don't shine:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2052481#2053872

So post PROOF to back-up your allegations and slurs....either post proof OR shaddup, you're making a fool of yourself to people who actually know WHAT they're talking about.

You might be cheered on by people who already HATE the DLC, but so what, nobody ELSE cares, only the DLC haters and they themselves are MASSIVELY UNINFORMED about WHAT the DLC is and WHO'S IN the DLC....heck we even had one person here who thought the DLC and the Blue Dogs were one in the same!

[OzarkDem]

158. Look farther down thread

I'm referring to the people who control DLC - its staff, officers and board members.

Will Marshall is a member of PNAC, several of their staffers have worked for GOP officeholders, one who worked for Rudy Giuliani.

They're employees of a corporation - they're not required to be members of any party. The DLC is a not for profit corporation - not a political entity. It is controlled by its board and officers and probably largely influenced by its donors.

Why don't you open up the discussion by providing us a copy of their Form 990, by laws and Articles of Incorporation to make your case. Interestingly enough, none of those items are listed at their web site.

[GMFORD]

140. You said it right.

The DLC candidates are democrats, it's a question of their ideology. I find them much too conservative to suit me -- and not in the Eisenhower version of conservatism, more in the Reagan version. Give me a progressive any day against a DLCer or a Bush Dog.

[MonkeyFunk]

211. Because

the Just Making Shit Up Brigade (JMSUB) had a recruiting drive last week.

[MADem]

227. Succinctly said! nt

[Just-plain-Kathy]

143. It's sad that the DLC are dems.

It's always been the republican party trying to hand our country over to big business for decades. ...Now we have DLC helping them.

[robinlynne]

7. oh yeah, k&r.

[Devlzown]

9. I don't have a problem with the DLC being a part

of the Democratic Party, I just don't want them to be in control of the Democratic Party. I don't want them choosing our nominees and I don't want them as heads of commitees in Congress. And if their votes are too out of line with Progressives, I think we should find Progressives to run against them in the primaries.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Some elected members of Congress aliegn with the DLC, but the DLC is, as

MonkeyFunk stated a think tank.

They are not part of the Democratic Party any more than the Hoover Institute or the Cato Intitute is part of the Repo party.

The DLC push their agenda and attempt to influence Democratic Party policy, Party Politics, elected officials, etc.

They are a special interests group and their interests rarly co-incide with my own.

I'm not terribly impressed with them, but they have every right to do what they do.

[Devlzown]

15. They have every right to do what they do...

and we have every right to counter them.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Amen to that!

[OzarkDem]

22. Very true

and its wrong of those who advocate for the DLC to intimate that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow going against the wishes of Dem Party leadership. Not true at all. They don't control the Dem Party at any level and the Party owes no loyalty to them.

DLC is an independent special interest organization, run by a few Dems, Independents and Republicans and funded primarily with corporate contributions. They've never wanted to solicit funding from the public or from grassroots Dems because they never wanted to be held accountable to them.

They have a reciprocal relationship with corporations and the business world in general. Period.

[...of J.Temperance]

64. Which Independents and Republicans would they be?

"run by a few Dems, Independents and Republicans"

Want to post names? Want to offer PROOF?

[KaptBunnyPants]

133. Joe Lieberman leaps to mind.

Along with his attack dog Christian Right friend Will Marshall. He's a co-founder of the DLC and signatory of the PNAC letter arguing for the invasion of Iraq, and he also campaigned for Lieberman after he was defeated in the Primary. Here's a quote ‘Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require the United States to act, if need be, outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations.'

Of course, we can't name who the less public Republican supporters of the DLC are, as the DLC does not disclose the list of it's contributers. Again, here's a quote "a DLC spokeswoman would later tell me the DLC has a policy of "no public disclosure," although she did say the group is funded in half by corporate donations, in half by individuals". A think tank which is funded mainly by corporations and wealthy right wing financiers and which professes to be anti-worker in ideology is no friend of the Democratic Party.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0804-23.htm

[OzarkDem]

159. Check their web site

There's no evidence any of them are registered Democrats. Will Marshall is a PNAC supporter and many DLC and PPI staffers have worked both sides of the fence in their professional careers.

They don't state their party affiliation because they don't have to - they're employees of a corporation - not part of a political party where membership in that party is a requirement.

[Breeze54]

17. Sen. Feingold's already working on that!

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/suggest-a-candidate/

[sybylla]

146. I think you missed the point

The OP said the DLC is NOT part of the Dem Party. It is a membership organization in which some Dems belong. That's it. They have no official say in Dem party operations. They have no special seating arrangements at the table.

That said, it doesn't mean DLC never tries to exert money and influence on elections or the party leadership but they are totally unaffiliated with the Dem Party organization.

[Zandor]

10. Al Gore thinks so

"Let's look back on the past six years, and on the remarkable leadership of President Clinton. Together with the DLC and the American electorate, we did what we promised -- and that promise was ambitious."

Let's not be so quick to discount the DLC.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Al Gore has long distanced himself quite publicly from the DLC, in a lot of very

important ways.

The DLC is a private non-profit that speaks for itself. It doesn't have any official connection to the Democratic Party.

[Zandor]

76. Show me where he directly disavowed them n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

124. Single payer health insurance, repeated appearences at MoveOn functions,

opposed the Iraq war, and he's not a memeber of the DLC.

Do you need more than that, or does that do it for you?

[Virginia Dare]

179. What does his appearance at Moveon functions have to do with it?

Didn't Moveon originate with a petition against impeaching Bill Clinton?

[John Q. Citizen]

231. The DLC has never been too friendly with the grass roots. They are more attuned to

the cash roots.

[Pastiche423]

23. Quit repeating that lie

It is quite apparent that you know jack shit about Al Gore. Many DUers know that he denounced then long ago.

[Zandor]

71. It's a direct quote n/t

[Pastiche423]

87. It no longer is true

Quit repeating the lie!

[Zandor]

94. Prove it

Show me where he disavowed the DLC

[Pastiche423]

99. YOU are the one that claimed he IS DLC 1st

It is up to you to prove that he is.

[Zandor]

101. I provided a quote, and have many more

And you have what from Gore?

[Pastiche423]

105. What is the quote?

Please include the date.

[Zandor]

110. During his last political campaign

July 15, 2000

"For fifteen years now, the DLC has been dedicated to the idea that the people's best interests have to come before any special interests. That the party of the people has to constantly search for new ways to put its enduring values into action for rapidly-changing times. That people deserve a government that is on their side.

I believe that fundament cause is very much at stake in this election. In fact, I believe that everything the DLC and the Democratic Party stands for is at stake in this election. You remember what it was like more than 15 years ago when we started the DLC. I remember it vividly. Some of you have heard Al From tell the story. It was a cold winter for the Democratic Party. America was in the midst of a supply-side spending spree. Our country was mired in deficits, racked with not only debt, but also doubt. It was unable or unwilling to meet the cares and concerns of hardworking families, because of the leadership in control.

Meanwhile, in a small room on Capitol Hill, two guys named Al sat scribbling out a press release that announced the formation of the DLC. You remember that day, don't you? There's the other Al, right over there. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=1469


Your turn.

Anything more recent?

[Pastiche423]

116. DLC Membership list

Jim Aldinger, Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA
Patrice Arent, State Senator, UT
David Aronberg, State Senator, FL
Toni Atkins, City Councilmember, San Diego CA
Loranne Ausley, State Representative, FL
Som Baccam, School Board Member, Des Moines IA
Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Thurbert Baker, State Attorney General, GA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
Gonzalo Barrientos, State Senator, TX
Viola Baskerville, State Delegate, VA
Alan C. Bates, State Senator, OR
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Barbara Blanchard, County Legislator, Tompkins County NY
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Alice Borodkin, State Representative, CO
Lisa Boscola, State Senator, PA
Betty Boyd, State Representative, CO
David Braddock, State Representative, OK
Daniel Brady, State Senator, OH
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
John Brenner, Mayor, York PA
Bob Brink, Delegate, VA
Matt Brown, Secretary of State, RI
Don Brown, Jr., City Councilman, Louisville, CO
Polly Bukta, State Representative, IA
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Robert Butkin, State Treasurer, OK
Thomas Campbell, State Delegate, WV
Jane Campbell, Mayor, Cleveland OH
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA SCALITO VOTE??? HELLO!!!!
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Twanda Carlisle, Council Member, Pittsburgh PA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Adolfo Carrion, Borough President, Bronx NY
Terrance D. Carroll, State Representative, CO
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Bill Cegelka, City Council Member, Lexington KY
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Paul Clark, Town Supervisor, West Seneca NY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Martha Coakley, District Attorney, Middlesex County MA
Mark Cohen, State Representative, PA
Steve Cohn, City Councilmember, Sacramento CA
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Fran Coleman, State Representative, CO
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Roy A. Cooper III, Attorney General, NC
Lou Correa, Supervisor, Orange County CA
Cathy Cox, Secretary of State, GA
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
J. Joseph Curran, State Attorney General, MD
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Swati Dandekar, State Representative, IA
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Ray Davis, Registrar, Stafford County VA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Sergio De Leon, Constable, Tarrant County TX
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT I didn't know Dodd was DLC!!
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Jim Doyle, Governor, WI
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill SC
W.A. Drew Edmondson, State Attorney General, OK
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL tsk, tsk, tsk...Rahm, Rahm, Rahm...shame, shame, shame!
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Robert Faucheux, State Representative, LA
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA FIGURES, doesn't it?
John Fernandez, Mayor, Bloomington IN
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Joan Fitz-Gerald, State Senator, CO
Michael L. Fitzgerald, State Treasurer, IA
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, Laredo, TX
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Romanie Foege, State Representative, IA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Dan B. Frankel, State Representative, PA
Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta GA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Allen Jay Gerson, Council Member, New York City NY
Glen D. Gilmore, Mayor, Hamilton NJ
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Phil Gordon, Mayor, Phoenix AZ
Ken Gordon, State Senator, CO
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI THIS is too bad, Jen.
Darlene Green, City Comptroller, St. Louis, MO
Ron L. Greenstein, State Representative, FL
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Wendy Greuel, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Peter C. Groff, State Representative, CO
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Bob Hagedorn, State Senator, CO
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
Lee Hammond, State Representative, NH
DeAnna Hanna, State Senator, CO
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA ..... FIGURES!
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Martin J. Heft, First Selectman, Chester CT
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Richard Hildreth, Mayor, Pacific WA
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ ....damn
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Dave Hunt, State Representative, OR
Ross Hunter, State Representative, WA
Geri Huser, State Representative, IA
Daniel W. Hynes, State Comptroller, IL
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA .....what a shame! I liked this guy.
Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of Agriculture, GA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor Prom Tem, Menlo Park, CA
Evan Jenkins, State Senator, WV
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD ....voted for ScAlito.
Robin Johnson, Alderman, Monmouth IL
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lt. Governor, VA
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI .....Judiciary Committee member.
Richard Kriseman, City Council Chairman, St. Petersburg, FL
Annie Kuether, State Representative, KS
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA ......Mary, Mary, Mary.....sad.
Leah Landrum Taylor, Assistant Minority Leader, AZ
Patricia Lantz, State Representative, WA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT ....need I say more?
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR ...........................UGH!!!!
David Lindenmuth, Councilman, Woodstown Borough NJ
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Alice Madden, State Representative, CO
Louis Magazzu, Freeholder, Cumberland County NJ
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Steve Marchand, City Councilman, Portsmouth NH
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, DE
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Rosemary Marshall, State Representative, CO
Barbara Matthews, Assembly Member, Tracy CA
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IA
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IL
Kenneth McClintock, State Senator, PR
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Matt McCoy, State Senator, IA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Dolores Mertz, State Representative, IA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, KY
Tom Miller, Attorney General, IA
Doug Milliken, Treasurer, Centennial CO
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, NC
Richard Moore, State Senator, MA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Karen Morgan, State Representative, UT
John Morrison, State Auditor, MT
Keith Mulvihill, Commissioner, Mt. Lebanon PA
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Pat Murphy, State Representative, IA
Ed Murray, State Representative, WA
Therese Murray, State Senator, MA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ ....What a shame.
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE ...........No surprise here!
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alex Padilla, City Councilman, Los Angeles, CA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Sally Pederson, Lieutenant Governor, IA
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, NC
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Janet Petersen, State Representative, IA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Tom Plant, State Representative, CO
Charles Potter, Council Member, Wilmington DE
Debra Powell, Mayor, East St. Louis, IL
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR.......THIS explains a lot, no?
Brian Quirk, State Representative, IA
David Ragucci, Mayor, Everett, MA
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Ann H. Rest, State Senator, MN
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN
John Richardson, State Representative, ME
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
Steven Riggs, State Representative, KY
Joe Riley, Mayor, Charleston SC
Andrew Romanoff, State Representative,, CO
T.J. Rooney, State Representative, PA
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA ....Loretta????!!!!! Sheesh!
Sharon Sanders Brooks, State Representative, MO
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, Burleson TX
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County, WA
Scott Slifka, Mayor, West Hartford CT
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
James Smith, House Democratic Leader, SC
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, FL
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Carol Spielman, County Board Member, Lake County IL
Eliot Spitzer, State Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI ....crap!
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
Harvey D. Tallackson, State Senator, ND
Abel J. Tapia, State Representative, CO
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Mark Taylor, Lieutenant Governor, GA
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, GA
Lois Tochtrop, State Representative, CO
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
George Van Til, Surveyor, Lake County IN
Juan Vargas, State Assemblymember, CA
Jennifer Veiga, State Representative, CO
Val Vigil, State Representative, CO
Michael Villarreal, State Representative, TX
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA ...... THE reason for this list posting!
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Lewis J. Wallace, State Representative, CT
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Steven Warnstadt, State Representative, IA
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Kenneth Welch, County Commissioner, Pinnellas County FL
Steve Westly, State Controller, CA
Michael J. Wildes, Mayor, Englewood NJ
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Suzanne Williams, State Representative, CO
Constance Williams, State Senator, PA
Sue Windels, State Senator, CO
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR
Barbara Yamrick, Regional Tranportation District Director, Aurora CO
David Yassky, City Councilmember, Brooklyn NY
Caprice Young, President of the Board of LAUSD, Los Angeles CA

[...of J.Temperance]

129. OzarkDem should read that list, and tell us WHERE exactly the Republicans are on it

Funny, I don't see ANY Republicans or ANY Independents even....ALL I see are DEMOCRATS.

[Pastiche423]

132. DUH!

DINOs do not equal Democrats.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

141. Yes, all you see are DEMOCRATS on that list ...DEMOCRATS like Hillary...

....Democrats who feel “some lobbyist are good”. Democrats like Hillary who claim they want finance reform, yet do nothing to bring it on. Democrats like Hillary who tell their corporate funders to only give to their campaign or else it wouldn’t mean anything.

...Hillary is a PNACer, she will allow us to go into Iran while she’s claiming she’ll get us out of Iraq.

[OzarkDem]

152. Difference between being a member

and having control over the organization. A member is just that - a member of the organization. They have no legal control over the governing of the organization or its policies.

My guess is that if you asked each member of the DLC whether they agree with all DLC policy positions you would find they don't. I would also guess many of them aren't happy about the way they're expected to vote in Congress on certain issues.

They join DLC because its a quick, easy and cheap way to raise a lot of money and they think it gives them some power to force issues within the Democratic party. Why do they have to force their POV within the Democratic Party? Because the Party is a democratic organization that, because of its structure, has to allow all of its members from grassroots level up to have a say in the party platform and policies. Today, DLC members in Congress are in power to control public donations in order to elect members to Congress who hew to a private agenda.

When DLC members vote for a policy agenda that is not part of the Democratic Party they're representing the interests of institutions outside the party. Its much different, for example, than internal caucuses.

None of it is illegal, per se. But we have to avoid the DLC spin which attempts to paint itself as being a real part of the Party. They're not and we shouldn't allow the DLC or the news media to represent them as such.

[OzarkDem]

153. I'm referring to those who control DLC & PPI - board and staff

and, of course, financial backers. They're a non-profit corporation - they don't have to be members of any particular party. Members of DLC don't control how it operates or its policies.

Members job is to implement the DLC policy agenda or convince other elected officials to join.

If I'm wrong, please provide some proof by posting a copy of their by-laws or code of regulations.

[Demeter]

155. Thanks for the List!

[Pastiche423]

217. You are most welcome

Copy it if you want it. I can't find it on their site now. (This one is about six months old.)

[me b zola]

142. I'll bet if I asked you mother

She could quote you as saying, "mommy, I pooped myself".

[AuntPatsy]

48. Why do you say things that others on Du refute and then don't back up your allegations?

[Zandor]

77. Show me where Gore disavowed the DLC n/t

[AuntPatsy]

121. Didn't someone provide a list of current members? I didn't see Gore on the list?

[MonkeyFunk]

229. gore is not an elected official

only people in office are "members".

[mod mom]

62. Gore broke with the DLC in 2000 (Published in Boston Globe 8/20/2000):

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip

http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

[Zandor]

74. Got something in Gore's own words?

That was the writer's interpretation.

[mod mom]

80. Here's the traitorous DLC blaming his "loss" on moving away from DLC to become

a populist:

So Gore "lost" because of decision to discard New Dems (ie DLC)?

"A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=128&subsecID=187&contentID=3361

This was written by Will Marshall. Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.
-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

THAT'S RIGHT, THE GUY WHO SAID GORE "LOST" BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION TO ABANDON THE NEW DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT (IE THE DLC) WAS A SIGNER OF PNAC!

Hey DLC-GORE WON IN 2000!

DO YOU THINK PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE DEMS IGNORED ELECTION FRAUD AND ALLOWED THE APPOINTMENT OF bu$h?

Al Gore had seen the light! This is just why our nation needs him to run for president!

[Zandor]

81. The DLC and every wing of the party

will claim a loss is due to their blueprint not being followed.

When has Gore spoken against the DLC?

If not, why not?

[cmkramer]

115. Wikipedia?

That particular article was obviously written with a leftist bias. No sensible person thinks the DLC is rightwing.

[mod mom]

120. You surely forgot the sarcasm button.

[...of J.Temperance]

130. Anyone is allowed to write articles for Wikipedia

So yeah, Wikipedia ISN'T considered a reliable source where political issues, political organizations or politicians are concerned.

[Zandor]

111. LOL! Look what Gore said July 15, 2000

"For fifteen years now, the DLC has been dedicated to the idea that the people's best interests have to come before any special interests. That the party of the people has to constantly search for new ways to put its enduring values into action for rapidly-changing times. That people deserve a government that is on their side.

I believe that fundament cause is very much at stake in this election. In fact, I believe that everything the DLC and the Democratic Party stands for is at stake in this election. You remember what it was like more than 15 years ago when we started the DLC. I remember it vividly. Some of you have heard Al From tell the story. It was a cold winter for the Democratic Party. America was in the midst of a supply-side spending spree. Our country was mired in deficits, racked with not only debt, but also doubt. It was unable or unwilling to meet the cares and concerns of hardworking families, because of the leadership in control.

Meanwhile, in a small room on Capitol Hill, two guys named Al sat scribbling out a press release that announced the formation of the DLC. You remember that day, don't you? There's the other Al, right over there. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=1469

[Zodiak]

11. I agree with the OP

At least for the senate, I've seen their pattern of voting and believe them to be a cancer in the party designed to ensure that the great bulk of Americans get no voice to oppose the will of the corporation.

I refuse to endorse a single one of them, including with my vote. But I don't lose any sleep over it...they are equally as contemptuous of us.

[Individualist]

24. I agree with the OP and you

There's no way I'd support a candidate who is in any way affiliated with this organization that wants to undermine the Democratic party (and seems to be succeeding in doing so). Fortunately more people are beginning to realize what DLC is all about.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[OzarkDem]

28. Good links

They're masters at using "centrist" talking points regarding their public policy, but when you read the details, particularly of some of the legislation they come up with, its more right wing than some of the GOP legislation.

They're masters of deception and the biggest lie they promote is the idea that they are "centrist".

[...of J.Temperance]

60. 5 of your 7 links of course are MASSIVELY biased and HATE the DLC anyway

So you're point was WHAT again exactly?

[stranger81]

216. dude -- if you think sources like OpenLeft, Common Dreams, DailyKos,

Huffington Post etc. are massively biased and too liberal, you should check out the other party. I hear they have some positions you'll agree with.

[mod mom]

65. Thank you-deserves it own thread!

[...of J.Temperance]

66. Not much of it is FACT though

It's nearly ALL the personal opinion - OPINION - of each writer, and of course 5 of the 7 links are coming from places that are very anti-DLC.

So, is THAT how people should get their facts? From VERY biased sources?

Of course, you LIKE the things posted, because they're ALL slash and burn comments and they're telling YOU what YOU want to believe.

[KaptBunnyPants]

136. Do you have anything better than "nu uh!" to add to the debate?

I know one biased source which I won't be getting any facts from, because they don't have any.

[Individualist]

69. You're quite welcome, and thank you.

Incidentally, I see one "ignored" reply to my post and one to yours. Did I forget to mention I put DLCers on ignore?

[loudsue]

174. This entire thread, and possibly this board, has been infiltrated with DLCers.

There are PLENTY of corporations who give PLENTY of money to further their agenda, and the DLC are the bought and paid for infiltrators into the Dem party, and, indeed, government at every level.

Corporations, and their shills, will do anything and everything to discredit populist ideas, so that their fascist agenda can become the law of the land.

It turns my stomach that there are people allowed on this board, or anywhere, who so solidly care about subverting the great country that we once had. Even their arguments are put-downs to liberal, populist causes, and yet they go around calling themselves "Democrats". It's the VERY SAME hypocrisy that right wing religious nuts do about hijacking the Christian religion, or that rightwing religious nuts do while hijacking the Muslim religion. Call yourself "family values" and then go around molesting minors, or spewing bullshit about homosexuality being an abomination, all the while having same-sex (and usually kinky sex) relations. They are every bit as hypocritical as the entire republican party. So if it walks like a duck....

The heavy-handed DLC republicans on this thread trying to support one-another's positions as if there's something worth supporting is a tactic that too many on this board, and around the country, are totally wise to, and TOTALLY appalled by.

They continue to show themselves as they hijack every thread with some of their "conservative" and fascist bullshit.

I hope they burn in hell.

[Individualist]

201. Heavy handed tactics are the only thing they have

That's why I put them on ignore. People who support that subversive organization have nothing to say that would interest me.

As I said in a previous post, fortunately more people are becoming aware of what DLC is all about. Each of us need to shine the light on these vermin that hide behind the "centrist" label and show others that DLC wants to turn the Democratic party into a submissive branch of the republican party.

[MonkeyFunk]

230. Democrats

don't need to "infiltrate" this site. They're allowed here.

[Seabiscuit]

186. I blissfully thought I had them all on "ignore". This thread has proven me wrong.

Looks like my "ignore" button's going to get quite a workout today.

[Seabiscuit]

221. Ahhhh.... that's SO much easier on the eyes.

Now only about half the posts on this thread show up on my screen. What a relief!

[Individualist]

27. K&R

[madfloridian]

29. Dean was asked about them at his John Hopkins speech...

He said they were ok when they were just a think tank, but when they start getting involved in politics and backing candidates is when they get in trouble.

[...of J.Temperance]

31. This sort of crap shouldn't be allowed on a Democratic forum

"DLC is not part of the Democratic Party"? LOL!

Really? Tell that to the TON of Democratic Senators and Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen who are MEMBERS of the DLC....what you saying, that these Democratic Senators and Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are NOT PART of the Democratic Party?

Oh wait....I FORGOT, the ONLY actual Democrats are, Dennis Kucinich and 'um....yeah, Dennis Kucinich....Kucinich, a man so far out of touch with mainstream political reality, that he COULDN'T even win a Presidential Election if he were the ONLY candidate on the ballot.

Jaysus :eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Oh stop it

They are not part of the Party and you know it and the OP is spot on.

Your logic is the same as saying that white people are the Democratic Party because white people hold office. Or Black people. Or Methodists. Or Yale grads.

Geeze ....... a common trait shared by a few (or even more than a few) does not equate to the Democratic Party.

Where is the DLC part of the party? I don't see it in the charter or by laws or secret handshake.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. 99.9% of DLCer's are members of the Democratic Party n/t

.

[cuke]

38. Actually, it's 100%

The DLC only accepts democrats who hold an elective office as members. You can't be a member if you're not a democrat

[...of J.Temperance]

42. And if I'd have said 100%

That would have been another excuse for the anti-DLCer's to come charging in and bashing.

Tell that to the crowd here, that ONLY Democrats can be members of the DLC....because apparently you see, the Republicans control the DLC and most of the DLC is made up of Republicans....then again, what should anyone expect, when you ACTUALLY have people who DON'T know the difference between a Centrist Democrat and a Blue Dog Democrat!

[PassingFair]

197. Could have SWORN I saw Lieberman's name on that list. nt

[EFerrari]

36. There's a TON of Democratic Senators and Congressmen

that are Christians as well. So, is Christianity part of the Democratic Party?

Geezus.

[...of J.Temperance]

39. Your comparison is pretty bizarre

This is just another attempt, this thread, once again, to give the anti-DLC crowd yet ANOTHER opportunity to bash the DLC.

[EFerrari]

40. No, it's not bizarre in the least. Just illustrating your logical fallacy

And,I don't need an opportunity to bash the DLC. They hand them to us daily.

Too bad they don't also provide basic logic seminars to their interns.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. This isn't bashing the DLC, it is showing you the illogic you employed in your statement

Okay, you support the DLC. We get that and that's fodder for another discussion.

But you made the absolute statement that the DLC is the Democratic Party. That simply is NOT true.

All DLC members are Democrats, but not all Democrats (by a long shot) are DLC.

Geeze, indeed.

[Forkboy]

149. I think you need this...

[mondo joe]

45. Some Christians are Democrats. Some Democrats are Christian. All DLCers are

Democrats. Some Democrats are DLCers.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. Don't try and make sense, they just DON'T get SENSE you see

They only understand the Good Ship Lollipop/ Through The Looking Glass sort of stuff.

[EFerrari]

107. The order matters, Joe.

"Tell that to the TON of Democratic Senators and Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen who are MEMBERS of the DLC..."

[mondo joe]

118. Assuming TON wasn't meant literally, I don't know how exacty to measure the

quantity, but there are plenty of elected Democrats in the DLC.

The DLC members are a subset of the elected Democrats. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

119. Elected Democrats are a subset of all Democrats

and of the DLC whose membership includes people who are not elected Democrats.

Let's not give each other a headache. It doesn't matter all that much, does it?

[OzarkDem]

98. By law, they're no more part of the party than MoveOn

or any other tax exempt organization that advocates for their own public policy on the Hill.

Sorry, its the law. No other organization would dream of trying to sell itself to the voting public as being "part of the Democratic Party" as the DLC.

Best be careful, you guys ended up in court over something similar once before.

[...of J.Temperance]

131. You know EXACTLY what I'm meaning

And I know what you're referring to.

You know exactly what I mean when I use the words "part of the Democratic Party"....ALL DLC members are Democrats and members of the Democratic Party....as such DLCer's ARE part of the Democratic Party.

[Tarc]

160. Yes, but that's not what people are saying here

That individuals in the DLC are also members of the Democratic Party does not mean that the DLC itself is a part of the Democratic Party. They are an outside organization. Period.

I am not for or against them personally, I just wish all this in-fighting would stop. The Republican candidates are all tearing each others throat's out, and it is a shame that we cannot take advantage of that by rising about all this pettiness and being a bit more congenial.

[illinoisprogressive]

44. Ozark, what made them change from being grassroots to being like republicans

I am curious as to what their origianl purpose was and why they changed so drastically and why do they want to be republicans?

[OzarkDem]

103. I don't know much about how they originated

but when Clinton was involved, and after he was elected, they really were trying to pursue the "third way" grassroots public policy idea. In our area, there was a group of us who used to meet regularly (WCGreen was one of them) and we came up with some really good stuff. It was a very creative process with a lot of focus on trying to come up with innovative solutions that would benefit everyone and work for the long term.

We would have our meetings and put together papers and send them off to DLC. Then not much happened after. We came up with a really good plan for funding education in Ohio, as well as another excellent plan for working with businesses to clean up polluted sites.

But the DLC folk down at the State Capitol and in DC soon started focusing just on money and fundraising. They didn't really care about policy, but about how much money we could help them raise. Ideas sat on the shelf. It kind of gradually went downhill after 1994. Later, IIRC, they were pressured from the outside over their close affiliation w/ the Dem Party and their tax exempt status. I'm not sure but they may have ended up changing their status, but they soon started accepting lots of corporate money. After that, their focus was entirely on getting their member candidates elected.

Their policy became more and more corporate focused after that. They made a great sales pitch in their policy statements, but when you got down to the details, there was no "third way" to the solutions anymore, just giving in to what businesses wanted, eg health savings accounts, etc.

I recall one idea they came up with to "fix" Affirmative Action was to dismantle the law and give businesses tax credits for hiring minorities and women. They lost me after that one.

[democrank]

47. The DLC is part of the Democratic Party.

The Republican-Lite part. My favorite Democrats are those from what Howard Dean called, "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

[ima_sinnic]

49. they are globalist pig con artist PNACers disguised as "Democrats"

To them, corporations are king. With the DLC in power, we would be serfs, no different than under the repukes. They are greedy scumballs who hold We The People in the greatest disdain. We are merely "consumers" to be manipulated and ripped off, fools who (they think) can't see through their transparent bullshit. They have an AGENDA, and it is not in the average American's best interests.

[Individualist]

55. ...and they want to turn the Democratic party into a submissive branch of the republican party

Unfortunately, they appear to be succeeding.

[mvd]

61. I don't dispute the voting figures redqueen gave above

My biggest problem with the DLC is strategy related. They do not like Dean, and generally think compromise is the best strategy. Many of our principles should NOT be compromised. We know clear lines are there between the Democrats and Repukes, and we should act like it. They even watered down a good liberal like Kerry, when he was running. Many members also are friendlier to corporations than I would like.

[...of J.Temperance]

68. Re. Strategy

Not everyone can agree on strategy, but it's something that needs to be discussed, and discussed in a mature way....at least you appear mature and didn't start screeching.

[mvd]

70. I agree - it can be discussed

As Gore says, everyone should be in on the debate. My opinion, though, is that the DLC strategy would lead us in the wrong direction.

[...of J.Temperance]

75. I agree too

I agree with Al Gore as well, the problem is that the crowd who, let's face it are anti-Centrist Democrats....they don't WANT us IN the debate, they're exclusive rather than inclusive.

What are your main criticisms about the DLC strategy positions?

[mvd]

82. Here are some issues

The DLC tends to say that progressive values of the past no longer win. I disagree. As I said in my above post, we need to keep our core progressive values that are crucial to our identity. Also, some of their members spout the "failure in Iraq would be horrible" idea - we have failed there already to create a Democratic state. Also, bipartisanship and tempered doesn't work so well with the Repukes. You don't have to be like Kucinich (who is my favorite candidate,) but we also need to act like the majority. There's also too much "economic growth" talk in the DLC to the detriment of the middle class and poor.

[...of J.Temperance]

84. Personally

I don't see why we can't have a bit of a mixture....meaning I'd support offering some core progressive values AND some Centrist values, I don't see why that wouldn't be viable.

I think we do need to preach economic and fiscal responsibility and lower taxes and support for business both big business and small business, but at the same time I think we need to preach support for Stem Cell Research including Embryonic Stem Cell Research, gay rights, keeping abortion legal and safe.

Failure in Iraq, well the Iraq situation is a total catastrophe, and I don't think the place will get any better until the troops are withdrawn, the presence of the troops unfortunately is now contributing to the problem....it's like a red rag to a bull, and saying this ISN'T being anti-troops.

In The House we have a bigger majority, so we can ignore the Republicans as much as we so wish....The Senate where the majority is much, much narrower, is a lot more difficult, and if we can work with moderates like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe on some things to hopefully get those two votes voting with our side on some things, then I'm for that sort of Bi-Partisanship.

[mvd]

85. I think this is a matter of some of our views just differing

I support higher taxes on the rich. I do agree with you on Iraq. I support extreme measures even like cutting funding used for the occupation. I do not like bi-partisanship when the Repukes will obstruct anyway. I don't think the DLC realizes what we are dealing with. Snowe has no power in the Republican Party, unfortunately.

[...of J.Temperance]

88. That's what it is

Some of our views just differ....the bottom line though, is that we want the same thing, a Democratic President taking office in January 2009 and to keep hold of Congress and the Senate.

I don't support higher taxes on the rich, because I don't think we should punish success.

Iraq, I think if by February of next year a troop withdrawal hasn't begun, then yes, we're going to have to get hardcore here, and if that means cutting funding for the occupation, then I'd support that measure.

Olympia Snowe doesn't have any power in the Republican Party, but she does have a Senate vote, and if Snowe and Susan Collins can be talked with about, mainly socially liberal initiatives, then I see no harm in doing that.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[mvd]

91. True - we have the same goal!

I think the higher taxes can help pay for more social programs like universal health care. Talking to Snowe can't hurt, but realistically, the extreme Repukes control the party agenda as far as minority strategy is concerned.

[...of J.Temperance]

95. Yeah we do!

Rather than raise taxes, I'd rather look at cutting spending by scrapping something as bloated, wasteful and unneccesary as The Department of Homeland Security for example, which was the BIGGEST expansion of the federal government in 50 plus years.

I wish Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would think about switching parties, I know they won't but, still....why they're in the GOP I don't know, I felt the same about Lincoln Chafee too.

[mvd]

97. Ending the war would save money

But I'm a big social safety net guy and think the rich can help out. Just my view. I agree about Snowe and Collins - Chafee only turned from the party after he was defeated! Not surprisingly, they run a tight ship in that party.

[reggie the dog]

147. punish success?????

So regular working folks can just pay for the social services, won't that just punish failure or bad luck? won't that punish a person's choice to not even try to get rich. How can you be on the left and not support wage redistribution?

[ima_sinnic]

90. The DLC realizes EXACTLY what we are dealing with

they are what we are dealing with--they just pretend to be something somehow different--they are the snake oil salesman who puts his arm around your shoulder while his other hand is picking yr pocket

edited for clarity/typo

[mvd]

93. You might be right

In any case, they don't address the problem of an out of control, law breaking Republican President enough.

[Capn Sunshine]

83. well for one , calling yourself "centrist"

An attempt to change the playing field has been attempted for the last 16 years. Clearly you are the right wing of the party. But to call yourself "centrist" implies that anyone not with you is a "leftist" which you all toss about with abandon and hostility.

The fact of the matter is your position is only "centrist" to an extreme republican right winger.

Also know whereof I speak; ex DLC. Still active investor, and hedge manager. Remember , money has no politics, unless you imbue it with yours.

[...of J.Temperance]

86. I'm a Centrist Democrat

I'm a Centrist Democrat and there's nothing wrong with calling myself that....Centrist Democrats do have to call themselves Centrist Democrats to distinguish ourselves from Liberal Democrats.

Centrist Democrats are economically conservative and socially liberal.

Liberal Democrats are economically liberal and socially liberal.

[OzarkDem]

109. "Centrist" is just spin

The actual ideals DLC advocates for are to the right of most voters.

[reggie the dog]

148. socially liberal???

you said before that you were pro death penalty. how is that socially liberal?

[ima_sinnic]

92. "centrist" is code-speak for unprogressive status-quo lover

someone who has a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are is a "centrist."

[mondo joe]

96. Don't look to politics for revolutionary change or saints. The point of politics

is to win elections, which means working with consensus.

[Virginia Dare]

182. "centrist" is also a relative term..

George Bush ran as a "centrist".

[OzarkDem]

154. DLC policy positions aren't centrist

That's a myth. You'll need to back up your claim with some proof.

[Orsino]

51. Yes, they are.

As much as it pains me, they are indeed. One might as well wish * out of the GOP.

[cboy4]

58. Oh you are so right. They're really quite awful and

undoubtedly to blame for a portion of my migraine condition.

I should bring up the DLC the next time I speak to my neurologist.

[lvx35]

72. The DLC is behind rich, powerful candidates.

The bottom line with the DLC is that they back market driven solutions, they are pro-business. They act to drive things in a pro-business way, and this gives them a huge amount of clout. I don't think of them as a problem in themselves, they are like an organism that thrives in a certain environment, the culture of money driven politics in DC. You can't transplant a group that spurns corporations and expect them to thrive in this environment, they will lose, simply put. If they would not lose, we would not have a DLC candidate in the lead right now, we would have somebody else in the lead. But we don't have the POWER to put somebody in the lead, which also means we don't have the POWER to deliver a general election without generous corporate support. This is sad fact of the world we live in, and changing it requires much more involved action than getting the right person in as president.

[Virginia Dare]

183. Yes, they were essentially the "if you can't beat 'em"..

"join 'em" crowd. What the heck, it got Clinton elected, but I think by the time G.W. Bush had come around, the repubs were back to beating them at the game again. I agree with some other posters, that we need a new direction.

[lvx35]

232. I agree, but the new direction has to come from more than talk.

I had a thought last night, about all the money I give to corporations just to be here, vs to Democrats. It was like those credit card commercials:

Apple Macbook $1099
Internet this year: $500
Power to bills this year (so I can run computer): $400

Total money I gave to Democrats this year: $70
Total money I gave to corporations to be able to post on this site this year: $2000
Using this site to bitch about democrats needing corporate support to win: priceless

The point is my entire life is defined by corporations, and I am endlessly giving them money. Until I get that in check and become more responsible in my spending I can't expect that real change is going to come from just a candidate. We need to make the change by changing our lives.

[Swamp Rat]

79. The DLC was co-founded by a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[Gregorian]

117. Oh man! This needs broadcasting.

Thank you! That just slams it home.

We really need to get this out to the bigger public.

Edited to remove the part about how those who created the DLC are kiddie fiddling, corporate criminals. Oops. Sorry to those above who now think I'm an ignorant bigot. They may be right. Until then, I think the DLC really has screwed this country. If you're conservative, join the Republican party. Don't rip US off. And upon further thinking, I may retract my statement.

[johnfunk]

102. I am CONFUSED...

.... is the DLC the Republican wing of the Democratic Party or the Democratic wing of the Republican Party? It's not as clear-cut as some may think...

[OzarkDem]

104. Legally, they are not part of the party

They are an outside group that formulates public policy and works to get people elected who support their ideas.

[mondo joe]

113. For goodness sakes, the DLC is not part of the party. But the members are Democrats, nominated

by the party.

What a hair splitting.

[EFerrari]

122. Imagine how cranky we can get by next October.

Let's pace ourselves, people!

lol

:hi:

[HughMoran]

123. Thanks for being logical and making sense

Of course, the nitwits will be tossing around the "your a DLCer" insult left and right within minutes of reading this post. The term DLC is a swear to these people and you are not going to steal it from them by showing how illogical their arguments are.

[...of J.Temperance]

126. How is the OP showing the DLC haters how illogical their arguments are?

If you read the OP correctly, you'll see the person who wrote the OP is a DLC hater herself or himself and check the OP posters subsequent posts in this thread, which by the way as well, are full of inaccuracies like the DLC has REPUBLICAN members....which is a flat out false allegation.

And yeah to anyone else who reads this, I see the organization I support being trashed and slurred every day....so I have a RIGHT to hit back and stick up for the DLC.

[EFerrari]

134. Good luck with supporting self appointed leaders in the DEMOCRACTIC party. nt

[earth mom]

138. You've got a right to defend those DINO a$$holes? Well I've got a right to call them DINO a$$holes!

The DLC makes me sick! :puke:

Too bad that you can't handle the truth and too bad the DLC lies their asses off to the American public in order to get their votes!

Because the bottom line-$$$-is that the DLC serves their corporate masters and NOT the people!

And that ain't no "tinfoil"!

[sellitman]

161. Folks who vote like a Republican are not Democrats.

They are Democrats in name only.

My Senator (Barf) Joe LIEberman is an Independent and is actively out supporting all the Republicans he can.

He is a DLCer.

This turd isn't part of the Democratic Party any more than Zell Miller was.





*spell checked!

[mondo joe]

165. There is not a fixed definition of what it is to vote LIKE a Repub or a Dem. Party platforms

evolve over time.

[RufusTFirefly]

219. And coincidentally, Zell Miller was a DLCer too! n/t

[SlingBlade]

137. That's not true

The DLC is not only a part of the democratic party, It pretty much RUNS the democratic party. That's the reality like it or not.
Was the democratic leadership of the party behind those of us who protest the war in Vietnam or any of the “Police Actions” that have come down the pike since ?

We and I mean We democrats who do not support the policies and directions of the
DLC have only one choice when it comes to that elephant in the living room and they know it.

I will NEVER vote for of allow by omission a Republican to take office.
So you tell me, Who do I vote for ?

[OzarkDem]

150. Vote for Dems who represent the party and its platform

Dems who are members of DLC are just that - members. They have no power to vote or shape policies within the organization. They're abdicating their responsibilities as elected members of the Dem party to think for themselves and support policies that represent their constituents best interests.

[Virginia Dare]

184. Not necessarily true..

we had a Governor (Mark Warner) here in Virginia who is DLC, and that was definitely not the case with him.

[FatDave]

144. Ever notice...?

Ever notice that the republican party really only represents a single political ideology and the democratic party represents all the rest? The way I see it, it breaks down like this:

Socically and fiscally conservative: Republican party
Socially conservative, fiscally liberal: Democratic party (blue dog)
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative: Democratic party (DLC)
Socially & fiscally liberal: Democratic party (standard issue)

Yet we still struggle to win elections. Sigh...

[zazzle]

162. The DLC does "win" elections!

The Clintons cultivated Blue Dogs during the 90s - and a Hillary prez will elicit MORE Blue Dogs.
Interesting seeing major bloggers promote "better Democrats" challenging Blue Dogs elected during the 90s - while those same major bloggers remain passive about a Hillary prez.

The DLC and Clintons undermined Howard Dean's prez campaign - and OPPOSED him as DNC chair - because (as you state) Centrism opposes maintaining grassroots organization. The Clintons didn't build the party base during the 90s - even as the Repubs built theirs - because Centrism has no core values!!

Hillary/Murdoch08

[Virginia Dare]

185. Better Blue Dogs than right wing repubs...n/t

[ShortnFiery]

168. You got that right! K & R n/t

[femrap]

176. K and R

Hi, OzarkDem....isn't it great to have a Senator from Ohio that we can be proud of??? I called his office last week and told the staff member how strange it was to call one of my Representatives and have something nice to say.

[yurbud]

181. DU Poll showed how many voters support them: 6 of 285 SCREENSHOT

Every time I post this, the handful of DLC apologists here say how unrepresentative online polls are and that DU is a bunch of extremist nuts, like other people aren't hurt by insurance companies, credit card companies, and oil companies that DLCers want to continue to coddle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5567638&mesg_id=5567638

[onenote]

187. doesn't that poll simply show how many DUers consider themselves "DLC" Democrats?

How does that translate into "voters" generally. I don't think anyone believes that DU is representative of the mainstream. Its a progressive site and most DUers consider themselves progressive.

[yurbud]

191. where is the DLC board with more participants? on issue polls most people are progressive

few are DLC.

[onenote]

198. most people don't care enough to join a discussion group

I'm curious. Can you give me an example of a poll on an issue where there is a clear DLC position and Democrats in general take a different position?

[yurbud]

222. NAFTA, GATT, WTO

[LynneSin]

209. Ooooo - that's great scientific research......NOT

Have you considered that we members of DU are CLEARLY not the majority of democrats out there that vote

[yurbud]

223. what have you got to show broad based support for DLC?

[LynneSin]

208. So you're saying John Kerry and Al Gore aren't part of the Democratic Party

Nuff said

:grr:

[Hidden Stillness]

212. "D"LC, Inc. is a Corporate Lobbying Firm

Yet again, we have this topic flaring up, and yet again, the paid "D"LC staffers, pretending to be separate DU users, launch the most hysterical attacks against any dissent, indicating to me yet again, that they are going to try to destroy us all first, before they will go down, and lose their power. There have been many great threads on DU taking this group apart and exposing what it really is, and one was "DLC--Corporate Moles Destroying Our Party," February, 2006, started by poster iconoclastNYC, and the OP containing an excerpt from a great online article on this corporate lobbying group "D"LC, Inc., "How the DLC Does It" ----- http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html . There were many, many parts detailing--even with the Bush/Cheney-like secrecy of the corporate group--their list of donors, Republican fundraisers who helped start the group, lack of rank and file membership (they actually have almost ne members apart from rich donors--CLUE), and ideological litmus tests administered by "D"LC. Inc. before they can receive campaign funding. A little research on the group easily shows why the pro-corporate policies of the Clinton Administration lost us the Congress and the American people for so long. Quoting the earlier thread, and the article:


"One by one, Fortune 500 corporate backers saw the DLC as a good investment. By 1990 major firms like AT&T and Philip Morris were important donors. Indeed, according to Reinventing Democrats, Kenneth S. Baer's history of the DLC, Al From used the organization's fundraising prowess as blandishment to attract an ambitious young Arkansas governor to replace Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia as DLC chairman. Drawing heavily on internal memos written by From, Bruce Reed, and other DLCers, Baer says that the DLC offered Clinton not only a national platform for his presidential aspirations but "entree into the Washington and New York fundraising communities." Early in the 1992 primaries, writes Baer, "financially, Clinton's key Wall Street support was almost exclusively DLC-based," especially at firms like New York's Goldman, Sachs."

"While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW."

"And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

"In 1996 Lieberman, Breaux, and Simon Rosenberg founded the New Democrat Network political action committee. "Our role is to add political muscle," says Rosenberg. In the 1997-1998 reporting period, its first full cycle, NDN raised $1.4 million directly, and another $1.2 million in so-called "bundled" contributions, gathered at fundraisers for individual candidates and funneled through NDN. In the 1999-2000 period, NDN more than doubled its take, raising $4 million directly and bundling $1.45 million more, plus $450,000 for GoreLieberman. Nearly $2 million of NDN's take in the last cycle came in large, unregulated soft-money chunks from companies such as Aetna, AT&T, and Microsoft and from trade groups such as the Securities Industry Association, who helped sponsor a $1.2-million fundraiser honoring Lieberman on February 13.

"NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria." (From the thread OP, and the article.)

From the online article, print page 8: "To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires that each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, 'Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?' Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDC determines which candidates are viable before providing financial support." These are not "D"LC candidates being elected, as they claim--the candidates are elected, THEN, AFTER they pass their ideological litmus test, they are bought by the lobbying firm of "D"LC, Inc. Note that the main targets of "D"LC, Inc., are not social issues, which they will accept, but tax issues and corporate power. This explains why they propose such bizarre things as "tax credits" and "commercial savings plans" for the poor, unemployed and disabled--(!!)--when that makes no Goddamned sense at all--or the "Clinton Health Plan," which shifted older people from traditional insurance coverage to managed-HMO profit-making corporations, that then denied care. Their main goal here is corporate control, and the death of what they nervously call "populism," (that would be "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," you know.) They have no interests anymore, apart from their cultivated corporate relationships.

This is why, for the past 30 years or so, you can't tell the difference between a Republican economic policy, and a "Democratic" one, because the group that took over during the 1990s deliberately, as a policy, cut Roosevelt, the unions, the poor, women, etc., etc., out of consideration. "New, business-friendly," NAFTA/GATT, deregulation of media and campaign funding, corporate tax policy, defunding of commercial pensions and then an attempt to kill Social Security, subidies for corporations but no help for citizens, "framing" but no direct contact or answers, until now, they are as cut off from the people as Republicans are, and for the same reason. They don't even have any clue as to how angry and anti-corporate people are, and how desperate.

Again near the middle of the article, (page 7 on my print), there is a quote from one of the top "D"LC lobbyist/executives, Arthur Lifson, with Cigna Corp., a health insurer who wants to kill Medicare and commercialize it: " 'The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured,' says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. 'It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head (like) Hillary Care.' Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to 'populists...at the other end of the party.'" Yes, cutting people off from all help and making them pay the heartless capitalist is such a "fresh idea." This is why they all sound like Republicans. (You now recognize their "End of the Welfare State" slogan as just more George-Bush-"D"LC-indebted-to-lobbyists situation.) More to the point is the change of Al Gore, who, the article mentions, made a surge toward the end of the 2000 campaign by dumping the dead-weight "D"LC shit, and speaking directly to the people. Gore won, of course. Near the end of the article, (print pages 11-12), they describe how Gore starts to change, and "D"LC, Inc. becomes enraged over it, "I listened to Gore's speech at the convention with incredulity," blah blah. This, I believe, explains their strange insistence on claiming that Gore lost the 2000 election, which clearly did not happen. They still pretend this learned-routine--"only we ("D"LC) know how to win," "too liberal for America," "you can be a 'Centrist,' (whatever the hell that is, apart from meaningless slogan), or you can be a leftist Chavez-ista, and lose," or if you do get off a really good criticism against them, just like a pre-planned ad campaign, no answer but, "Well, of COURSE you hate us, you are a LIBERAL," and of course all the endless, depressing, coordinated jeering and hate, as exhibited here again. They are SO SUPERIOR!

The Democratic Party will never get back to the mainstream loyalty of the American people, and most of the world, until we get rid of these Goddamned investment bankers and lobbyists, and learn to re-read the thinking of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Deal, the anti-poverty programs of the Johnson Admin., and all the rest that we the people really are, and are crying for.

[mdmc]

213. The DLC has always sucked

welcome aboard!

[CaptJasHook]

214. What arrogance!

Who are you to determine who is and isn't part of the Democratic party. The Democratic party is the Democratic party because it is Democratic. If you disagree with the DLC then work to get your agenda into the Party platform. Once the platform is established, enforce it.

As far as I'm concerned, Jerry Fallwell, Bill O'Leilly and Clarence Thomas could all be in the Democratic Party if they want to. As long as they follow the platform and work within the integrity of the Democratic Party's process.

This argument is as bad as the Fundamentalists who have hijacked the Republican Party.

If the DLC is wrong, time and truth will prove it. But you can't claim that they are not part of the Party. That is pure arrogance.

[onenote]

225. okay, the DLC is not "officially" part of the Democratic Party.But neither is the progressive caucus

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that the DLC was operated by, funded by and in any way officially a part of the Democratic Party organization. But the same could be said about lots of organizations.

Not exactly sure what the point of all of this is.