Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to Head DLC

[maddezmom]

DES MOINES, Iowa - Gov. Tom Vilsack said he has been chosen as the new head of the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist-leaning group that helped propel former President Clinton to the White House in 1992.

The post significantly increases Vilsack's national profile and gives the potential 2008 presidential candidate an opportunity to travel the country to organize fellow Democrats and craft a message for the party. A formal announcement was expected Friday.

Vilsack told The Associated Press he would use the post to "establish a positive agenda for Democrats" throughout the country.

"It's important for there to be an effort to make Democrats run on this positive agenda," he said. "This is not the time to be fractured, this is the time to be united."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_re_us/vilsack_democrats_1

[acmavm]

1. Just don't know what to think about this one. But this 'positive agenda'

crap always makes me angry. How to be positive when things are in such a mess. We don't need to be positive. We need to be angry and indignant. We all need to be like Howard Dean, fighting mad and not afraid to tell the truth.

[Robbien]

3. Well, it is obvious that the DLC is the one being devisive.

The Democratic party already has a leader, but the DLC decides it has to have a leader all of its own. It does not accept the Democratic Party leader, elects one of its own and then in a two-faced manner shouts we all should be united.

Bah!

[Zenlitened]

10. Absolutely. Well said.

It does not accept the Democratic Party leader, elects one of its own and then in a two-faced manner shouts we all should be united.

:thumbsup:

[blm]

13. Vilsack is a thousand times better than the pig, Al From. Vilsack and Dean

can get along and work together just fine. They actually aren't much different in terms of actual governance.

I don't think Vilsack will let From pop off all the time the way Bayh let him.

[AlGore-08.com]

18. What's Vilsack going to do, ship him to gitmo?

Al From will continue to bash any Dem who he thinks isn't following the Al From method of politics - - including Vilsack if he decides Vilsack's not being moderate enough. From's an egotistical jerk.

[blm]

19. Let him try. Vilsack is no shrinking violet like Bayh. AND, he can work

with Dean.

[AlGore-08.com]

24. But that and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee

Seriously, if Al From wants to stomp around DC, moaning to reporters that Tom Vilsack is losing elections by not being moderate enough, there's no way for Vilsack or anybody to stop him. The Dem party and the DLC are not the Army. Their members all have a choice about agreeing or disagreeing with the leadership. And Al From has a high enough national profile that he can get the press to listen if he wants to throw a hissy fit about Tom Vilsack or anybody else.

I tend to agree that the there are people inside the Dem party and the DLC - - Al From included - - who are waiting for Dean to fail in some meaningful way so they can claim that "moderate", non-grassroots politics work, and populist grassroots politics don't. If we lose ground in the 2006 midterms, they may start backbiting then, and if we lose the 2008 Presidential election, they will definitely go postal. But that's the nature of politics, unfortunately. The modern Republican party's lockstep is a bizarre aberration which we shouldn't try to imitate.

[blm]

27. Let him. Vilsack and Dean aren't without their own powers and voices.

.

[AlGore-08.com]

30. So if Vilsack gets into a big ole public cat fight with Al From - -

- - how exactly does that muzzle Al From? That would just give Al From more reason to go shoot his mouth off to even more reporters, wouldn't it? And two major Dems dissing each other to reporters would just make the morons in the media more likely to focus on the cat fight, wouldn't it?

You're just proving my point.

[blm]

32. You're hypothesizing to prove your own point. Have at it. I'll wait for

the facts to present themselves.

[AlGore-08.com]

34. I'm hypothesizing on your hypothesizing

You hypothesized that Vilsack will somehow be able to keep Al From from shooting his mouth off. How that could be accomplished, you have not said - - instead, you have said that Vilsack would react to From's statements after the fact, which is totally different from stopping him from publicly voicing his opinions in the first place.

We'll never know if your original hypothetical is correct because the lack of Al From shooting his mouth off could be the result of Al From deciding not to shoot his mouth off for reasons of his own.

[IA_Seth]

40. Holy Moly

How bout we all decide that hypothetically it would be better to SHUT THE HELL UP.

Sheesh.

:P

[Debi]

43. Woo Hoo Seth

:woohoo:

You tell 'em.

I'm not thrilled about Vilsack's position with the DLC (I'm not surprised either).

I do believe the two will work together admirably. (And hope that Vilsack can use the time they have to convince Dean that Iowa should retain It's First in the Nation status.)

[blm]

41. I'm predicting he won't be a pushover for From. You're playing "What if _"

.

[iconoclastNYC]

54. So then we should smear FROM

Listen when and if this FROM guys stats up with this shit then we need to smear him and get several high ranking democrats on record admonishing him.....then Vilsack can say issue some sort of distancing memo.

We can ruin FROM'S Credibility to the point that the MSM won't run his dem-bashing garbage.

[Debi]

42. Vilsack and Dean can work together

only because Dean is decent enough to forget the backstabbing he got from Vilsack during the Caucuses.

[blm]

57. No. Because they are both able to focus on the larger good for our country

Vilsack didn't stab Dean in the back just because he didn't think he was right to be the presidential nominee. Only someone with a narrow political belief system would believe that.

At least Dean and Vilsack are mature enough to know that primary battles belong in the primary where differences between same party candidates are often exaggerated by both campaigns in an effort to differentiate themselves further.

btw...if you check into all their areas of governance, Dean governed more business friendly than Vilsack did. Deam governed AS a centrist, while Vilsack governed left of center. If actual records of governance mean anything in these days of media hype.
Now that Dean has moved left more, I think they will work very well together.

[Debi]

62. Thank you for that backhanded slap across my political belief system

I've watched Vilsack work behind the scenes for seven years now (in his primary, in 2000, 2002 and 2004) it gets a little old having the person who is supposed have the highest interity in the state play political games and wage smear campaigns.

But if you only want me to look in the present or future why not ask Vilsack about his behavior with the 2006 Gubenatorial race to date? Or is the backstabbing he's done in the last six months supposed to be considered in the past campaign-wise as well?

[blm]

72. The point is that Dean is not exempt. He pulled his share of boners, too.

He knows it and wouldn't begin to claim that others did him in while he was playing it perfectly straight.

He was trying to win and in one sense he DID stab the backs of Democrats with longer, stronger records advocating liberal causes when he called them Republican- lite. Something, I bet anything, that he regretted doing afterwards.

They all have SOME regrets in the way they handled certain situations. Dean, Kerry, all of them.

[Carolab]

59. Amen to that. Dean is the gentleman. Vilsack is a jerk. n/t

[Zorra]

36. Exactly. Why is there a Democratic Leadership Council Party?

It appears that the DLCP was begun in order to splinter and destroy the Democratic Party. The DLCP even recognizes themselves as a third party, a distinct entity seperate from the Democratic Party. They even have the unmitigated GALL to call themselves "The Third Way"!

More like a third thumb if you ask me, considering the losses sustained by the Democratic Party ever since it was infiltrated and overtaken by the DLCP.

The DLCP is nothing but an elitist corporate splinter group, and an unnecessary and divisive liability to the Democratic Party.

The DLCP should disband, and regroup behind the message and principles of the Democratic Party, and unite with members of the Democratic Party again, or acknowledge that they are a third party and get the hell out.

Who do they think they are anyway?

[gulfcoastliberal]

88. Thank you!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

:yourock:

[1932]

21. We DEFINITELY don't need to be angry. But we also don't need to be neo-

liberals who believe that one-way free markets are going to bring us democracy.

That's what the DLC is about, to me. They're about cloaking neoliberalism as populism.

[Generator]

52. Thank you thank you thank you

If you aren't angry then are you a Democrat? Or an appeasment monkey? Some of us..even middle aged white mothers who own homes and have always voted like I-(crazy leftie..uh huh) have had ENOUGH.

[CTLawGuy]

2. wasn't this guy a big kerry primary supporter?

hmm

[Pirate Smile]

9. He didn't endorse anyone before the caucus but his wife did endorse

John Kerry. He was supposedly on the list for potential VP candidates.

[Eloriel]

60. And the REASON he was on the short list for VP, along with Gephardt

is because they both helped bring Dean down so Kerry would win the Iowa caucus.

I don't trust him one bit as a result. Further, anyone who even HAS something that could be called a "Vilsack machine" is untrustworthy -- and can be bought -- by definition.

I see this as a very bad move for the Democratic Party, because it's evidence to me of a furthering of the goals and agendas outlined in this piece:

Gaggin Dr. Dean http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3938896&mesg_id=3938896
Link: http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1281/article13433.asp

[lynettebro440]

4. Yeah I live in Des Moines

He spent a mass majority of his time during Kerry's run sniffing Kerry's butt. He's a yes man if there ever was one.

[Massacure]

5. Who does Vilsack replace?

Is there a tiny possibility he may nudge the DLC to the left?

[billyoc]

6. Evan Bayh, the article says. n/t

[BiggJawn]

8. Eyeben Baught..Uh, I mean Evan Bayh...

I say let the DINO's have their own little club. Just as long as we tell anyone who cares to listen that they are actually the Republican Lite Club....

[Debi]

44. Not a chance in hell for that!

Vilsack is pure DLC material.

[Talismom]

7. IMHO the DLC is one of the most devisive forces in the democratic party!

I say, support Dean and the democratic party or get out and start your own--judging by the likes of Lieberman and the other corportate funded whores, after a while no one will be able to differentiate you from the repugs!

Dean is no left winger--infact I'd like him more if he move a little left. But he is a proven mover and shaker who is tapping into the anger in the party and that energy is important. He tells it like it is and americans like that!

[dolstein]

71. IMHO, Howard Dean and his ultra left-wing supporters . . .

are THE most divisive force in Democratic Party.

The only thing Howard Dean has proven at this point is that he is just as undisciplined as as party chair as he was a candidate. Tapping into anger doesn't mean squat unless it translates into election victories, which is hasn't. I don't know how many more elections we have to lose until the left-wing realizes that the party needs to expand its appeal beyond the left-wing in order to win elections. Of course, I shouldn't assume that the left-wing actually wants to WIN elections and be in a position to GOVERN the country.

[msongs]

81. umm sorry, there have been NO elections since Dean took over, so far as

I have seen. And it would be convenient to ignore the candidates supported by Democracy for America that won election last year.

BTW none of the Dean supporters I know could fairly be described as ultra left-wing.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[kevsand]

11. So, does this kill his chances in any future DU polls?

Cuz that's what's really important... ;-)

[Tweed]

35. Considering Wesley Clark wins every DU poll.....

It doesn't really matter what other people do.

[kevsand]

38. Well, yeah, but

who's gonna place second? Inquiring minds want to know. That whole moral victory thing...

[Eloriel]

61. And I haven't voted in one of those stupid polls for months and months

I'll bet I'm not alone. And then there's that little problem of the Clark supporters freeping polls -- the Nashua Advocate had to go so far as to disqualify Clark in their recent strawpoll because of the shenanigans.

So I don't quite understand what your point it, but the support you've put out there for said point doesn't work very well.

[bemildred]

12. Vilsack was the DLC's choice for DNC chair (where Dean is now) IIRC.

This is no surprise, and probably done in the hope of setting Vilsack up as Dean's replacement, should the DLC succeed in undermining Dean.

[Eloriel]

64. And Dean's strong antagonist in the meantime

These people make me so mad.

[quiet.american]

14. What has the DLC done for Democrats lately?

The DLC loves to describe itself, and be described, as the organization that brought Clinton into power, but what have they done for us lately?

They rate a zero in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles, where to put it simply, two brilliant Democratic candidates were ultimately left out in the cold because the DLC wanted to essentially "play nice."

Even as Congress slipped into the hands of the most corrupt and bizarre cabal of Republican politicians this country has ever seen, the DLC was intent on eating its own by such actions as putting out political fatwas against Howard Dean and Michael Moore.

Who knows what direction Vilsack will take the DLC, but he's got his hands full to make a large portion of Democrats feel the love again for the DLC.

[Eloriel]

65. The DLC does exactly what it's supposed to, IMO -- and it ain't pretty

Here are my accumulated links on the DLC. BUried in there is the truth about funding from the right (and I mean FAR right), connections with PNAC, etc. The DLC is the enemy of the people and the enemy of the Democratic Party. I continue to see a few people here at DU (not noticed on this thread) who refuse to face the truth about the DLC, and continue to support and promote them here. Don't fall for it.

DLC
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

Democrats for Wolfowitz
(see esp. Tinoire's post #20) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1687818&mesg_id=1688529 )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1687818&mesg_id=1687818&page=

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735&page=

Ask the questions NOW of the DLC and Clinton. Corporate funding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1372759#1373432

New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735


(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2784312
Link: http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

"We've got to repudiate, you know, the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there sometimes on our party's left... We can't have our party identified by Michael Moore and Hollywood as our cultural values."
— Al From, CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

"You know, let's let Hollywood and the Cannes Film Festival fawn all over Michael Moore. We ought to make it pretty clear that he sure doesn't speak for us when it comes to standing up for our country."
— Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think-tank of the DLC

>snip<

In addition to his duties as the president of the PPI, Marshall kept himself busy in the last few years. Among other things, he served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization co-chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain whose aim was 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. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the conservative Social Democrats/USA group on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SD/USA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."

One of just a handful of Marshall's co-signatories on that letter was Bruce Jackson, who also happens to be the head of the PNAC (whose letter Marshall also signed) and the founder of the aforementioned Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Jackson is not only a neo-con of high rank and one of the chief pom-pom wavers for the war effort. He was also a vice president in the weapons division of Lockheed-Martin between 1993 and 2002—meaning that he was one of the implied targets of Bowling for Columbine, which came out in Jackson's last year with the company.

Clearly, Marshall was thinking about the good of the Democratic Party, and not the integrity of his grimy little network of missile-humping cronies, when he and Al From made the curious—and curiously conspicuous—decision to denounce Moore, Hollywood and France at the DLC meeting in early November.


RIGHT WEB: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

Overview of DLC
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

PPI
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php


===================================================
WILL MARSHALL: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.phpAlthough

Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)

DLC candidates lost us a dozen Southern Senate seats in just 2 years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1725190

[leesa]

15. If now is not the time to be fractured, then dissolve your organization.

The corporate leeches LOVE dissension because you can skim alot of money then

[K-W]

16. "Democratic leadership" This bugs the heck out of me,

every time I read it.

If these people were true small d democrats, that phrase would carry a very different meaning.

True democratic leadership comes from one place, the people.

Someone who thinks that the role of the people is simply to select members of a government that will lead them is not a democrat, but a republican(small r).

We need organizers in the Democratic Party, not leaders.

[Brooklyn Michael]

17. Hey, I'm not enthusiastic, but....

...let's give the guy a chance before we hang 'im.

It's been my observation that one of the reasons Dems haven't been as successful as they should be is that, while Republicans have no problem toeing the party line and marching lockstep with each other (fascist mentality), Dems - because of their basic nature of being open to other's opinions - are less cohesive (the REAL "big tent" mentality).

If Vilsack starts positioning himself and the DLC as any kind of "alternative" to Dean and the DNC, then yeah, throw his ass to the wolves. But if he starts working in concert with Dean, and can stay, if not on the same page, at least in the same playbook, and not keep sniping at him a la Biden, then I say give him and the DLC a chance.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I just think we have a better chance of taking back the House, the Senate AND the White House if we start working WITH each other, instead of against each other.

[1932]

20. Anyone know Vilsack's opinion on NAFTA/CAFTA/ free trade, etc?

?

[CoffeeCat]

22. I live in Iowa--a little bit about Vilsack--

I'm sure there are others on DU, who can lay out Vilsack's agenda and stances on issues--much better than I can. I'm not an expert on him.

However, here are a few things that I do know:

--He's a staunch proponent of gay rights. He' signed an Executive Order banning discrimination in state employment based on "race, creed, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, marital status, or physical or mental disability."

--Within the past month, he signed an executive order, automatically giving more than fifty-thousand convicted felons the right to vote once they complete their sentence, probation and parole.

--Both Vilsack and his wife endorsed Kerry in 04.
link: http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/2338...

Vilsack is a huge proponent of children's rights and issues surrounding children's health. He's spoken out against child abuse and has sincerely attempted to fix problems with DHS, as they have arisen.

Vilsack has openly discussed his abusive childhood. He was raised by a chronic alcoholic mother who adpoted him from an orphanage. He has said that it took him a long time to overcome his past and come to the point of forgiveness. He sounds very sincere when he discusses this. I believe that his past, and his pain are being used for good things--to help the underdog, children and those who are often disenfranchised.

I admit, that I am not an expert on Vilsack. Time will tell whether he is a progressive, worthwhile leader--and not a cave-in for the DLC mentality that we've seen so much of in the past years.

However, I'm optimistic--because he's not a centrist when it comes to social issues. Vilsack is no Lieberman. I guess we wait and see.

[1932]

23. DLC's #1 concern is pro-NAFTA/CAFTA style free trade, IMO. What's V's

attitude on that issue?

Does he break with recent DLC opinion, or is he a proponent of policies that destroy US labor and make wealthy corporations wealthier.

[CoffeeCat]

25. I believe he has spoken out against NAFTA....

I will find some sources....but I remember him speaking out about the disastrous repercussions of NAFTA.

I remember him talking about the job losses.

I'll find the info and post it here.

Edited to add:
Vilsack's Center for American Progress speech--
link for more: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34677

Here is my bottom line: This administration has pursued the most shortsighted, breathtakingly misguided economic policy of any in my lifetime. It has faced some difficult economic issues – and it simply failed to deal with them. It has walked away from the job of creating jobs. And all the while, it has mortgaged our future with an astonishingly reckless tax policy.

You can see I’m passionate about this. But everyone here must understand this is a legacy that won’t really be borne by my generation ... but by our children and many of the students here today. I hope the students here today listen closely to what I am saying – because you are going to pay the price for the mistakes others make today.

Let’s begin by understanding the basics of good economic policy. I measure economic success by certain core values. How well does our economy offer families the security they need to raise their kids and live good lives? Does it offer opportunity, so people who work hard can get ahead? Does it value work and responsibility? Is it fair? We can’t advance these values by building walls or issuing dishonest promises to preserve past jobs and past arrangements. And we cannot advance them without strong economic growth. If there is a constant in America’s economic success, it has been our gift for constant change. In the past decade we thrived by seizing the potential of new technologies years before the rest of the world. But our competitors caught on. Now when you need help with your personal computer, the call center is as likely to be in India as in Indiana. During the fight over NAFTA, the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, proponents and opponents alike grappled with the consequence of low cost jobs moving south. Well, those jobs aren’t in Mexico any more: increasingly they have skipped Mexico and headed straight to Asia.

To be sure, government is not the source of economic growth: the private sector is. But government can and must set out the basics of sound economic strategy. It needs to invest in jobs, in people and in their skills. It needs to create a climate of business confidence with low inflation and low interest rates – above all through fiscal discipline. It needs to find a way to engage in the world economy so American workers can be winners from trade.

That is where President Bush has failed – not because we had tough times under his watch ... but because he has chosen policies that are so shortsighted, they took a challenging situation and made it a bad dire situation.

[hfojvt]

47. he may have changed his tune since the Bush election

I left Iowa in the fall of 2001 - because I could not find a non-temp job there which did not involve a one hour commute. Vilsack was elected in 1998, and spent alot of time talking about future worker shortages in Iowa and the need to bring in more immigrants, presumably from Mexico/Latin America. He sounded then, alot more pro-business than he was pro-worker.

[CoffeeCat]

26. Vilsack and CAFTA--appears to be against.

Excerpt from Businessweek, March 7, 2005:

In 2003, U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick won backing for CAFTA from 22 governors, who pledged to adhere to whatever rules he negotiated for state government contracting in that and future deals. But a third of them have since withdrawn their support.

Under CAFTA, states say they wouldn't be able to give preferences to local contractors. And laws under consideration by 30 state legislatures to prohibit tax dollars from going to contractors who offshore their work would be overturned by most trade agreements. "Procurement rules...would constrain our ability , an outcome that is, in my view, unacceptable," wrote Iowa Governor Thomas J. Vilsack, a Democrat, in opting out of future trade deals on procurement.

more at link:
http://www.gregspotts.com/main/2005/02/businessweek_re.html

[MisterP]

45. heh, Vilsack won't fit in there then

maybe the Blue Dog Neocons can bolt, forming a new party: all 80 of them...

[Debi]

46. Vilsack also supports women's reproductive health care rights

And that is a positive.

But he promotes using tax revenues to entice corporations to come to Iowa (Iowa Values Fund).

I don't agree with corporate tax breaks and free land giveaways in exchange for a small amount of jobs with little to no benefits.

[AlGore-08.com]

28. As far as that goes, Lieberman is not Lieberman on social issues

I'm not a Lieberman supporter, based on some of the non-legislative (i.e. political) things he's done. Those don't get discussed so much on DU, instead he gets painted as some kind of Fristian nut case conservative. He isn't. He's on the cusp between being a moderate and a conservative Democrat, which is still miles away from being a Republican.

Lieberman's greatest strength as a Senator is that he works very well Republicans, and is able to get them to compromise even a little - - which is his freaking job. What he does poorly, IMSHO, is he can't tell when an issue is so important that he stand on principal and not work with the Republicans. And also, he seems to sincerely believe that the only way to win elections is to appeal to the "NASCAR Dads" in swing states - - to down play issues that appeal to the Dem base but turn off "NASCAR Dads" and play up issues that appeal to "NASCAR Dads" and turn off the Dem base.

But those weaknesses are shared by almost every Democrat currently in office - - including all of them in Congress who voted for the war and the patriot act - - and almost every Democrat being promoted on DU as the perfect 2008 candidate.

Just for informational purposes, here are some of his latest ratings from interest groups, based on his actual voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103

Abortion:
100% approval from NARAL
100% approval from Planned Parenthood

Animal rights:
100% approval from the Humane Society
100% approval from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Civil Rights:
83% approval from the ACLU
88% approval from the Human Rights Campaign
94% approval from the NAACP
88% approval from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda
100% approval from the American Association of University Women
100% approval from Disabled American Veterans

Conservative groups:
0% approval from the Family Research Council
0% approval from the Christian Coalition
0% approval from the American Conservative Union
0% approval from the American Family Association
0% approval from the League of Private Property Voters

Guns:
90% approval rating from the Brady Campaign

Labor:
100% approval from the SEIU
100% approval from the Communications Workers of America
100% approval from AFSCME
100% approval from the IBEW

[iconoclastNYC]

55. Your post highlights a need for a DEMOCRATIC UNITY Association

Because he'd get at best a 33%.....

Don't forget his PNAC 100% rating

and his

MBNA 50% rating (voted for cloture, against final vote)

And his Fox 80% rating for providing so many anti-DNC quotes.

[Zorra]

29. The DLCP should disband. They are fracturing the Democratic Party.

Now we have the Democratic Party, which maintains a membership comprised of Democrats, and the Democratic Leadership Council Party, comprised of what are essentially hawkish neo-liberal corporatists.

Since the DLCP was founded, it has diluted the Democratic message and made it more similar to the republican message.

This has resulted in the Democratic Party losing the WH, both Houses of Congress, and the Federal Judiciary. Voters want choices. The DLCP has failed to provide clear choices for voters.

Now, because of the DLCP, dangerous, corrupt fascists are in long-term control of the US and our voting system, and will remain in control of the US as long as the Democratic Party allows the Democratic Leadership Council Party to control it. The American Labor movement has been all but destroyed, workers rights and protections are being trashed, bankruptcy protection is all but lost, and our Social Security retirement system is in danger of being privatized.

The DLCP has a terrible track record. I have one thing to say the DLCP:

"YOU'RE FIRED!" And I never signed on to hire you in the first place. you just kind of came along with your corporate cash and took over the Democratic Party while we were trying to recover from a clever RW propaganda blitz that got a demented actor elected President.

DLCP apologists keep telling me that Americans are more conservative, we have to be more conservative, people won't accept candidates that are too different from republican extremists, if we run more Progressive candidates they will get slaughtered.

Well, I let them have their chance, I went along with them, and it turned out to be an enormous, life threatening, even deadly mistake. Now, because of the DLCP, the Democratic Party is in danger of becoming a non-factor in American Politics.

The DLC. That stands for Democratic LEADERSHIP Council. These so called "leaders" have failed. They need to admit their failure, step aside, disband the DLCP, and defer to Progressive Democrats that have the winning message of taking back America for the American People.

I am a lifetime Democrat, a liberal populist. I have, largely out of loyalty to the Party and because I recognize the republican party as a party of dangerous neo-fascists, continued to support and vote for DLCP candidates despite my concern that the DLCP might be destroying the Democratic Party. If I am once again put in a position where I have to support a candidate from the DLCP, and not the Democratic Party, I very well may have to vote Green, and let the Democratic Party die a faster death from the suicide poison administered to it by the DLCP.

The DLCP is the "AIDS" virus of the Democratic Party. The only cure is to rid our Democratic body of this virus, or we will surely die.

I am not a member of the Democratic Leadership Council Party.

I am a Democrat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. I have had no use for the DLC since they played nicey-nice with

Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, endorsing his insane and fiscally irresponsible military buildup and his cruel, cynical war on the peasantry of Central America and the Caribbean.

[VegasWolf]

31. Only one person speaks my language and that is Dean, I could

give a damn what Vilsack thinks personally.

[lojasmo]

33. The DLC is gasping their last, IMO

They pushed themselves into their status as "quaint artifact" by backing who they did in 2004.

[AlGore-08.com]

39. I wouldn't rule them out yet - - they are still locked in the same fight

For control of the party that has been going on since Reagan trounced Mondale.

IMNSHO, the real low point began in the 2000 election cycle, when the DLC and the institutional left both decided that Gore did not have snowball's chance in hell of winning. (And, according to the polls at the beginning of the campaign, Gore was supposed to lose by a landslide.) So they spent the entire campaign trying to paint him as a 100% dyed in the wool member of the other side, so that they could then use Gore's loss to "prove", once and for all, that they should be running the party.

When Gore won, it didn't slow them down for a second. Gore's victory was labeled a defeat (and you have to ignore both actual vote count in Florida and the Supreme Court's role in deciding the election to blame to call it a defeat), and his "defeat" was blamed on the other side. Another two years of bickering ensued where both sides worried more about besting the other than what was going on in DC, and as a result, Bush ran amok without a unified opposition.

Both the 2002 and the 2004 election cycles were used by these same factions to "prove" that they were right about the 2000 election. The 2002 election came uncomfortably close to "proving" that the DLC were wrong, which is why they worked so hard to get one of their own nominated in 2004 - - and after their stalking horses lost to a "compromise" candidate (the left claimed Kerry as their own, just as the DLC did), they worked even harder to control the 2004 message.

Kerry did follow a lot of the DLC's advise, courting the "NASCAR Dad" vote rather than the Dem base. And I lost count of the number of Kerry campaign statements to the press that included the words "We're not going to make the same mistakes that Al Gore did in 2000... " And, even though their polls showed that Clinton was still a vote loser in swing states, the Kerry campaign made Bill Clinton a central figure in their campaign. One of the reasons they did this was because "If Gore had used Clinton more he would have won in a landslide" was one of the DLC talking points used during the 2000 campaign and afterwords.

But since Kerry lost significant ground in comparison to Gore, it became much harder to believe the DLC's line that "if Kerry had only listened to the DLC more, he would have won in a landslide".

Dean's election as head of the party after having almost been tossed out of the party the year before is a sign that the DLC is falling out of favor with significant parts of the party. But if we lose in 2006 and 2008, the DLC will definitely use those losses to "prove" that populism and grassroots based organizing were failed experiments. DLC centrism and big money sponsorships are still the only proven winning strategies.

And the DLC are working very hard to provide us with a 2008 candidate who, if he/she wins, will put them back into power. One of the more bizarre things I've seen in recent days is Bill Clinton taking credit for Al Gore's 2000 victory. It will be interesting to see how many other DLCers will do a similar flip flop and claim credit for Gore's win.

[Eloriel]

66. Please, please, please see my post #65 upthread

and by all means at least skim all those links. You'll find a LOT of unexpected answers to your concerns. You won't LIKE it, but you'll be wiser for it.

[Raiden]

37. Ugh! That man could've been DNC Chair

Thank God that Dean got that position!!!

[anotherdrew]

48. how about we close the DLC, can't the grass-roots end this?

[brentspeak]

49. Why?

Gov.Vilsack might turn out to be really good. And most Democrats are not interested in the party making a hard turn to the left.

[anotherdrew]

53. don't like self-appointed leadership councils. But Vilsack should be OK

[Eloriel]

68. The grassroots has nothing to do with the DLC

It's one of those organizations that was founded by people who were interested in having it, if I'm making any sense. It's not an official part of the party in any way. It's got a "think tank" (Progressive Policy Institute) and members -- Congressional, State and rank and file types. (I think it's also been known to make some people appear to be members who technically are NOT, but maybe that was just oversight, or overzealousness -- ??) So it's self-sustaining, and no one can shut it down except the people who are in it, I suppose.

What you're suggesting is a little like saying "Can't the RNC grassroots or the Christian Coalition shut down the American Enterprise Institute?" Uh, no.

[anotherdrew]

85. understood, but...

I'm not so sure that if Dean and the national Party wanted to they couldn't send a cease and desist letter, saying "stop pretending to speak in our name". Well, on the other hand though, it makes sense to have sub-parties inside the larger party I guess. Are there any other Democratic organizations (Dean's folks?) working within the party similar to the DLC?

[IndianaGreen]

50. Vilsak + DLC + 2004 + Stop Dean

The best thing the DLC can do is to stop pretending that it is Democratic and publicly acknowledge that they all are moderate Republicans, of the Rockefeller variety.

The DLC supports Bush's war in Iraq, that makes them our enemies!

[Eloriel]

69. Right. But I'm not so sure they're "moderate" anything

tho that's just a quibble. I do see them as very, very dangerous to the Dem party and indeed the nation.

[VegasWolf]

80. Right On!! DLC = Lieberman = weak knees = Repuke Lite. (nt)

[Generator]

51. Even the word "postive" smacks of appeasment to me

Am I a little reactionary or not? United behind what exactly? Appeasment to the middle? How about united behind say..impeachment of these liars and criminals that make me want to take a freakin shower it's so dirty and disgusting. Especially this week with Rove..the spin and bullshit and dishonor makes me queasy.

God forbid we be "negative" and tell the truth about the criminals running and ruining this country.

[iconoclastNYC]

56. Yup -- positive means - don't hold Corporations accountable

More Orwellian word games.

[blm]

58. Vilsack was against CAFTA. Learn more about him before the dissing.

.

[liberaliraqvet26]

63. DLC Bashing is so counterproductive

They tend to be a little further to the right than most of us(including myself) are, this is true. The truth is most of the country is where they are. If we are going to be a "big tent" party and win elections we need to stop cannibalizing our own. Bill Clinton was a DLCer and while I didn't agree with EVERY single decision he made, the country was in good shape. I will support Gov Vilsack and the DLC in 2006 & 2008 along with moveon.org. Think about the alternative.

[Eloriel]

70. Yes, that IS the cover story

but as I hope you're learning here at DU (Welcome, btw), things aren't always as they seem. I would strongly encourage you to review some of the links I posted in #65 upthread. Eye-opening. And, you're always free to reject the info, too. But make it available to yourself so you can make an informed decision, at the very least.

[OzarkDem]

73. Agree - Best to just ignore them

They have nothing constructive to offer in terms of policy or leadership, so who needs them?

Ignore them and keep working on the DNC agenda and platform.

[Zorra]

74. But the DLCP is way further right. Like republicans, they represent

corporate interests in government. They call their philosophy the "Third Way". It is not just a matter of them being "a little to the right" on social issues.

In contrast to the DLCP, Democrats represent the people's interests in government. The DLCP seems harmless to many people, because they have a lot of the same beliefs as Democrats. The difference between the DLCP and Democrats is that the DLCP are not democrats (small d, as in believers in or practitioners of democracy). They simply believe, like republicans, that corporations should influence and control the government rather than the people.

That is why the DLCP is called the corporate wing of the Democratic party. While the DLCP are pretty much like Democrats, the main difference is that they will choose to represent corporations rather than thne people when there is a conflict between corporate interests and the people's interests. This is why so many DLCP members often vote with the republicans and sabotage the Democratic agenda. Here is just one of MANY examples of what I am talking about, the recent passage of the pro-corporate bankruptcy bill:

New Democrat Coalition (DLC) in the House aids and abets Bankruptcy Bill

Washington, D.C.--With consumer debt reaching record highs of more than $2 trillion, members of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) sent a letter today to Speaker Dennis Hastert, urging him to schedule House action on the bankruptcy reform legislation as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The letter, signed by twenty NDC members, including the four NDC leaders, reiterates New Democrats' long-standing support for common-sense bankruptcy legislation and states an intention to work across the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.
"I'm pleased to see so many New Democrats band together in calling for a mainstream solution to bankruptcy reform. I hope Speaker Hastert will heed our calls and move promptly to bring this legislation to the floor soon," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/202044/7026

The DLCP is a subversive organization within the Democratic Party, actively working against genuine democracy. As long as they control the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party will continue to lose elections. They are selling us out, and it is time we called them out and made them stop, or we throw them out of the party.

Please understand, they may vote with the Democrats on social issues if it does not conflict with corporate interests. But enough of them will always vote along with the republicans to defeat the Democrats if it means protecting corporate interests and corporate control of our government. That is why the DLCP exists: To insure corporate control of government, no matter what party is in power, and to insure that democracy does not regain a foothold in the US.

[liberaliraqvet26]

75. I agree...

but isn't the FIRST prority to beat repukes, then weed out the Dino's when we have control

[Zorra]

82. I used to believe that. Now I believe that the DLCP may actually be

(deliberately) responsible for the Democratic Party becoming and remaining a minority party, and we may not be able to defeat the republicans until we get rid of the Dinos. Their agenda has not been at all effective, yet they continue to control the party. They even worked right alongside the republicans to paint Howard Dean as an extreme radical commie leftist in order to insure that he did not get the Democratic Presidential nomination, which they only allow for DLCP members.

What percentage of Democratic Party members/voters belongs to the DLCP, or even knows what the DLCP is? 15, maybe 25 percent at the most?

If the DLCP, as an organization, dropped off the face of the earth, most Democrats would not even notice. IMO, if we could get Democrats funded to defeat some of these Dino's like Elaine Tauscher and Mary Landrieu in primaries, it would be a good start toward clearing out that corporate snake pit called the DLC.

What many Dem voters do notice, IMO, is that the Democratic Party does not present a clear alternative to the republican agenda as an opposition party. My 68 year old former conservative republican uncle that has turned into a total Bu*h/republican hater expressed this to me recently. He hates Bu*h, says the republicans are like fascists, yet also says he may not vote anymore because the Democrats don't seem to be much different from the republicans. Although I regard this view as somewhat erroneous, I do see where someone could draw this conclusion based on DLCP policy and legislative voting.

[VegasWolf]

83. Zorra! You have made a very SOLID point! nt

[anotherdrew]

86. campaign costs should go DOWN, we've got to get our whole base online

a free ISP for modem-only folks, why not let people sign up and get free computers? a hundred million dollars can do a lot more than buy TV ads, etc... get everyone online and looking at more info than what mainstream tv and newspapers will ever report. then we can stop wasting our campaign donations on TV networks who refuse to even give our side of any public debate a fair shake. To hell with them, who needs it? We ask, out loud, "who needs this crap?" and stop watching. This is already happening. Next election shouldn't be about who can spend the most money on TV ads, that is just utter BS and if dems want to win, we need to make that clear, 'cause lots of people agree, give them a better alternative. The '06 elections need to be about this, tie every local campaign into a national ideas and info drive (like a mass modern cross stream marketing drive only for votes not sales). Ask people: "What do you think we should do? Give people powerful tools to direct the agenda and provide input.

50% of the population can can their toys away from local news, cable news, paper news, (and if ya look at ratings none-of-the-above are pulling in many people, not even AM radio is reaching all that much of the population. "mainstream media" is increasingly an illusion.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. What Zorra said

The Republicans have a strong, consistent image and offer a (twisted, hypocritical) vision of their ideal society. They keep it simple and stay on message.

The Democrats (especially the DLC) offer position papers and say, "Me too, only not as much" when debating Republicans. Or even, "I wish more of my fellow Democrats agreed with you."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Really, most of the country is where the DLC is?

Most of the country is for NAFTA--NOT.

Most of the country is for the Iraq War--NOT.

Most of the country wanted Joe Lieberman for president--NOT.

Most of the country thinks that business has too few privileges and ordinary people have too many--NOT.

Most of the country thinks that our current system of health care is all right--NOT.

[liberaliraqvet26]

78. they are not all liebermans...

Can't we all just get along?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. When they stop enabling Republicans

By not standing up for ordinary people's economic interests and coddling the corporations in the past twenty years, they have contributed to the decline of this country.

[Canuckistanian]

67. This is how I remember Tom Vilsack

One day at the turn of the millennium, "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" cohost Rick Mercer visited Des Moines, Iowa. As a gag for the popular Canadian show, Mercer interviewed several locals, telling each that, like France, Canada was operating on a 20-hour clock (or, perhaps, a 65-minute hour) and was considering a change to American time. Among those who fell for the ruse? Iowa governor Tom Vilsack: "I'm Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa," he announced. "Congratulations, Canada, on getting your first 24-hour clock!"

* a second area code
* touch-tone dialing, and
* a national igloo]


Vilsack, Tom (1950- ) American politician, governor of Iowa

[VegasWolf]

84. Wut? Why does Canada need two area codes? :) nt

[anotherdrew]

87. "congratulations Canada for finsihing the Chunnel to China!"

[cosmicdot]

90. "to organize fellow Democrats and craft a message for the party"

we already have an organization to do that


I agree with Vilsack's words:

"This is not the time to be fractured, this is the time to be united."

He should call for the DLC's end; and, rally behind Dean, the DNC, and good Democrats nationwide.


new op/ed on the DLC

"...the DLC exists to help Corporate America corrupt the
Democratic Party."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x139869


right-wing seed money from the start

http://www.mediatransparency.org/allinonesearchresultsprint.php?searchString=progressive%20policy%20institute

edit: fixed link