Why is the DLC a dirty acronym on DU?

[library_max]

What did the DLC ever to to us, except get the last Democratic President elected and re-elected? Sure, Clinton wasn't everything all of us could have hoped for. Funny thing about politics, a successful national politician has to appeal to more than just one wing of his own party. But he was an enormous improvement on any president since Carter (really better than Carter too, because he was more skillful).

It's great to be passionate about progressive causes, but we need to have some sense of where the country is politically, and what will and won't sell. If you live in a liberal district, great, send a liberal to Congress. We need as many of those as we can get. But nationwide, a doctrinaire liberal is not going to be elected president. No matter who ends up getting the nomination, we're going to see a move toward the center. So why are we demonizing the DLC? They're on our side (our side being the dump-the-chimp side).

[meegbear]

1. Only to the dean supporters ...

the DLC is not blindly throwing their support behind him. On May 19, dean told the deanpers they should "annoy the DLC". They've been doing it ever since.

[wtmusic]

20. That's because the Al From and Bruce Reed

have embarked on a smear campaign against Dean, declaring him 'unelectable' and 'elitist'. Dean is quickly proving them wrong and will make the current DLC irrelevant.

[enki23]

70. where've you been?

some of us (read: most of us) have been opposed to the DLC since DU's inception, if not before.

[HereSince1628]

71. Do you know any Deanees on DU that say annoying DLC is their hobby?

I know someone who comments on a mission to annoy Deanees.

[quinnox]

2. I don't demonize the DLC

I know a lot of DU does, but DU is not representative of mainstream Dems. The DLC is fun to call the boogey-man and so on, because a lot of ultra-liberals disagree with the moderate and conservative Dems, that make up the majority of the party.

Sometimes I think people forget the "big tent" tenet of the Dem party, especially on DU.

[Isome]

115. "DU is not representative of mainstream Dems"

Dismissive remarks about Democrats that are brave enough, and fed up enough, to challenge this administration on it's lies is why few here like the DLC.

You obviously do though, you think just like them. If the DLC had its way, we'd run yet another set of campaigns with Republican-lite platforms. Why bother, it's proven not to work! They're out of touch with their base, and we're it!

[TahitiNut]

142. Didn't you get the memo?

Anyone who speaks out is an 'activist' if Democrat and 'mainstream' if Republican. (That's why they keep the activists in "First Amendment Zones".)

Solution? Attack and demean any Democrat that has the temerity to speak out and be politically active. Marginalize and dismiss them. They're not "real Americans". Tell them to "love it or leave it". (Sounding familiar yet?) Then, when they "leave it" and find a candidate they can vote for in good conscience, call them the "enemy"! They're the evil-doers.

The funny thing is, the only partisan interest served by such postures isn't Democratic. Ya really gotta wonder about the agenda,


Now to share a perspective: We got this big ship of state with a very, very little rudder and a besotted helmsman. To steer it, the passengers must move over to the port side (labeled Democratic) to steer left and the starboard side (labeled Republican) to steer right. (Some people in steerage think the labels say "liberal and "conservative".) Of course, not all the passengers agree, but that's why it's a long voyage. The First Class passengers have decided they want to steer right, but there aren't enough of them, even with their leverage, to steer the ship themselves, especially if even a small majority of passengers are moving more towards the left. So, they conceive of a plan. They weaken the railings on the left and, using paid stooges, occasionally throw someone next to the rail overboard. It's just enough to get some of the passengers near the midline of the ship to assist them in stringing lines fore and aft (with "WARNING!" signs) to keep folks from from moving to the left side. Meanwhile, the besotted helmsman's friends have put blocks on the rudder to keep it from steering to the left.

Moral of this perspective. It's the combined will of the People that moves our ship of state. When those furthest left are thrown overboard and those furthest right are in the embrace of those closest to them, the combined will of the People is corrupted. When the ship gets off course, it won't get on course again and stay there without steering left (further left than the center). Yes, it could tack (tacky), but then what?

[Isome]

156. No I didn't dammit!

I don't know why my name was left off the distribution list, but I expect heads to roll for that oversight.

I need to know in advance that as a Democrat, my convictions, and the courage born of them, should be the consistency of a jellyfish It takes TIME to get into the proper gelatinous form! ;-)

[onehandle]

3. They are the greatest evil ever known to man....

...here at "Liberal" Underground. Eight years of peace and prosperity? I'm not impressed.

[redeye]

5. The DLC didn't cause the propserity of 1993-2000...

...the Internet and the Human Genome Project did. As for peace, you surely don't call Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo "peace," right?

[onehandle]

6. I do now....

Anyway, I way playing both extremes. It's called "joking".

[redeye]

4. Why?

Because they blabber about how activists are "elitists" and about how the Democratic wing of the Republicratic party should, move even closer to the Republican wing. For Hank's sake, their preferred candidate is Lieberman, whose electability is about the same as Kucinich's (too socialistic for the electorate) and Gore's (should've won in a cakewalk against an illiterate running against growth and incumbency) - in other words, near zero.

[wtmusic]

7. They're not on my side

They're on the dump-Dean side.

[meegbear]

11. Neither am I ...

am I EE-VILLE??

[wtmusic]

18. No, not evil

just mistaken! ;-)

[salin]

52. no

but even to folks undecided - the antics are a bit tedious.

[HFishbine]

8. DLC

Democrats Lose Congress -- that DLC?

[Brotherjohn]

9. They were valuable to the left in 1992, but the environment was VERY...

... different then. We had just gotten through 12 years of Reagan/Bush. We had to move somewhat to the center to regain the WH. But what was "center" then is very different from what the DLC now consider to be the "center".

The problem (and the difference) now is how far to the "center" (read "right") the country, and the DLC, have moved.

The political environment turned ugly when Clinton became electable, and then was elected. The Right commenced to attack the man, and the entire political left, relentlessly for 8 years. This was both payback for Iran-Contra / Bork (and for the entire "hippie" generation, as Clinton was its first president), and a political strategy. As payback, it worked in that it fired up their base. As strategy, it worked in that it shifted the country, and the dialogue, to the right, making radical positions seem mainstream.

The problem with the DLC is that they never stood up to this. they just continued (and continue to this day) moving to the right thinking this will be the way to win. They are clueless.

[BurtWorm]

26. Prezackly, Brotherjohn

Well said. Thanks for saying so well what I wanted to say.

:toast:

[library_max]

31. Okay, given that the country has moved to the right,

what's the strategy? Tell the country to go to hell? Or play the political ball where it lies and stick to the progressive-reform issues that can win?

[DrGonzoLives]

37. In other words

Don't try to shake up the status quo, don't try to revers incessant GOP spin, don't try to convince people that progressive ideas are good ones...just go along with the polls, stay a nice jellyfish. Yeah, that sums up the DLC nicely.

[BurtWorm]

55. Where the political ball lies

An illegitimate imperialist administration and its lackey party control three branches of government that are fucking the people of the US. They have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness and enthusiasm for throwing all rules and principles out the window to take what they can get however they can get it, whether that means suppressing vote counts, purging voter rolls, taking it to Federalist Society members in the judicial system.

So you're saying we should play the ball where it lies, on their terms, and hope the shrinking electorate, sqeezed out of the system methodically voter by voter, likes our program enough to give us the 500 or so extra votes needed to win battleground states?

[library_max]

78. What's your proposed alternative?

Curl up and die? Keep butchering each other in the hope that it'll make us "strong"? Charge leftward-ho and win Massachusetts - maybe?

[BurtWorm]

83. Charge Democratic-ward, where the motivated voters want you to be.

Stop calculating how to win the center. The center will not move unless you give it something to move toward. If you accept the situation on the Republicans' terms, so will the center.

By the way, how is running from thread to thread scolding your fellow Democrats for being "negative" being positive? What's your "alternative?"

[library_max]

88. "But that trick never works!"

Remember Rocky & Bullwinkle? I guess I'm dating myself here.

Anyway, "charging Democratic-ward" is a trick that never works. If you dispute this, name a presidential election in which it has worked.

My alternative, which is all over this thread with my name on it, is to pick progressive issues that resonate with middle voters and stop pushing red-meat issues that only appeal to progressives. And particularly to stop bashing groups and candidates because they aren't positioned exactly where you want them to be on those red-meat issues.

[BurtWorm]

93. Name an election in which Democrats had the guts to charge that way.

It's been a long, long time. Although, you might recall that in the late summer of 2000, Al Gore got inspired to use phrases like, "I'll fight for you," and "the people not the powerful." And he charged right ahead of sappy little winger Bush and his "reformer with results" bullshit, which everyone in America can see through. Gore won that election, remember? Do you think he might have prevented it from being stolen if he'd kept that up and actually fought back when he was being maligned in the media as an "exaggerator?" Or if he'd ignored the critics and ripped Bush's throat out of his turkey neck in debate 2 instead of agreeing with half of what Bush said?

The problem with Dems is that they've forgotten how to scare the shit out of the media the way the Repubs do. They screw themselves when they try to please Tim Russert and David Broder.

It's not left, where I want them to go. It's full steam ahead.

[library_max]

100. Gore ran centrist

And he won, as you say. Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale ran left and lost big. It has been tried. It always fails. The fact that you can't name a single election in which it succeeded (go back as far in history as you like, by the way!) proves my point.

Standing up for yourself and running a red-meat campaign to please liberal activists are two different things. Clinton was great at standing up for himself, but he ran to center. That's the kind of candidate we need.

[BurtWorm]

103. A candidate who runs to the center? Yeucch!

Gore won by a wisp because he ran left at the very end when he realized he should have been doing it all along. Roosevelt ran on a relatively left-wing platform and won four terms. Kennedy ran left and beat Nixon. Johnson ran on civil rights and fear of nuclear war and won. And candidates in other races run left all the time.

Historical precedent is not a good predictor of such things, or there would be only one party in the US, and it would never move left or right.

[library_max]

109. Kennedy ran left?

Really? I've seen the Kennedy-Nixon debates and there was very little policy difference between the two of them - less than between Gore and Bush. The word "relatively" is doing quite a lot of work in your sentence about FDR. He played his progressive ideas down, not up, in his campaigns. Johnson won because he was closer to center than Goldwater and got away with playing up Goldwater's extremism - the very last time the Republicans made that mistake.

The point is that the candidate who makes the best claim on the center is the candidate who wins, Republican or Democrat. Whether politics are moving left or right, that continues to be true. It may gall us that Reagan, for example, captured the center, but he did. The thing to keep in mind is that the center is made up of unreflective, nonpolitical people.

Historical precedent is a great predictor of "such things." Right or left, the candidate who gets positioned as an extremist is done in any presidential election.

[BurtWorm]

113. Democratic ideas are not extreme.

Democrats have tended to run on them and have tended to win they do. I want a Democrat running. Not a generic American politician who is trying to fool centrists and swing voters to vote for him.

[sendero]

96. the right...

.... had not so thoroughly discredited itself (Bush I) as Bush II has done. The country is ready to move *some* to the left, as the ones paying attention have seen how unproductive the right can be when given free reign.

[fujiyama]

158. We should try to win this

election on presciption drug plans for seniors, and maybe, just maybe social security (wouldn't that be daring)!

Remember it worked spectacular in the '02 congessional elections! Look how many seats were gained!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. I'm sorry....

but they the leaders of the DLC come out and publically denigrate and dismiss the wing of the party I belong to, they are NOT on "my side". The type of bullshit they have been pulling is inexcusable.

[Terwilliger]

29. *applause*

:hi:

[Zephyrbird]

58. Hear hear!!

That's exactly how I feel!!!! Then they turn around and expect the heart of the party (which is NOT "conservative democrats") to work their asses off for them in an election after they denigrate us in order to smear their fellow Dem candidates.

They borrowed a page from the book of the right-wing conservatives, slandering and using fright techniques of "he's too liberal!" Well, pee on that! For that reason alone I would refuse to support Lieberman.

And frankly, if Lieberman gets the nomination, there's NO WAY I would work my ass off like I did the last election for him when he denigrates those like me. Anyway, at every Dem party meeting I go to, Lieberman is not EVEN brought up as a possible candidate folks would vote for. Kerry's about as middle of the road as my fellow Dems will go.

[library_max]

79. Well,

I don't think Lieberman has much of a chance of winning the nomination, so this doesn't worry me too much. But the principle of "if so-and-so is the nominee, I won't work for him/won't vote for him" is our usual recipe for failure. Republicans at least see the advantages of unity. Surely we're not dumber than Republicans.

[Zephyrbird]

89. What better way to convince a candidate...

that adopting dirty smear tactics used by the right is not going to work within the party?

The method is despicable. What exacerbates the problem is then the pundits tell the general public--and they believe it--that "democrats are so splintered their party is falling apart!" While I don't believe that candidates within the party should agree with each other all the time, I honestly believe that adopting smear tactics this way DOES splinter the party. The base of the party that works their ass off ARE NOT "conservative democrats" or even "middle of the road democrats," it is the liberal, union, lefties that work and work and work. I know from having worked during presidential and mid-terms just who is busting their asses and it wasn't middle of the roaders or "new democrats". A candidate that smears "lefties, liberals and ultra-liberals" does not deserve the kind of ass busting these folks do for them.

What will the candidate tell these workers? He'll give a speech to "motivate the troops" that the left liberal, union loving, green loving members of the party are passe? out of fashion? a "focus group?" Well, pardon my french, but "bise mon queue!"

The DLC and Lieberman are WAY out of touch with the grass-roots and heart of the democratic party. I would have deep trouble working on the campaign of someone who denigrates a large percentage of the grunts working on a campaign, and then turns around and says, "hey, work harder for me so I can get elected!"

I agree that Lieberman has little to no chance of getting the nomination; however, he needs to understand just who the workhorses within the party are--not just his buddies with big money--and the DLC needs to understand that THEY are causing a severe division within the party by alienating that portion that does so much of the work at election time.

[Droopy]

12. You know, I've wondered about this, too

So I went on over to the DLC site to see what all the cussin' and hatin' was about. I saw a lot there that I can agree with, but there were also some areas of concern. Namely defense, foreign policy and free trade. They seem to support the idea of a strong military, which I can't argue with, but I just wonder how far they want to go? Would a DLC candidate be supportive of the missle defense system for instance? On foreign policy they read awfully PNACish to me, but it was vague. This led to more questions about that. Like would they be supportive of several simultaneous military actions like the PNACers? They are clear about where they stand on NAFTA and free trade. They are behind that 100%.

They are liberal on social issues and support a balanced budget.

Go over and check it out for yourself and then decide. I don't think they are deserving of the term Bush-lite, they are definitely more liberal, but I have concerns in the areas that I mentioned.

[Eloriel]

102. PNAC-ish fer shure

Did you know that Will Marshall signed two recent PNAC letters to Bush? It's been a while, but I thought one wasn't so bad. The other was IMO.

There are other ties.

Eloriel

[IkeWarnedUs]

127. more than just PNAC'ish - its a trojan horse filled with PNAC'ers

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and former Policy Director for the DLC is a signer on PNAC's two statements on Iraq. PPI was created to set policy for the DLC and is very closely connected to the DLC. In fact, the DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC).

Tod Lindberg, published by The Blueprint (DLC magazine) also signed both PNAC Iraq statements, as did James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

Marshall Wittman, another Blueprint author, is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute (Richard Perle, trustee) and former aid to Ralph Reed.

Check out these two articles from The Blueprint just after 9/11/01. Sound familiar?

America s New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

<snip>

In addition to quashing terror networks, the United States and its coalition partners must dramatically raise the costs to states that harbor terrorists or that routinely employ terror as an instrument of policy. It's no longer enough to put them on the State Department's blacklist, issue travel warnings, or impose halfhearted sanctions. In extreme cases, such as Afghanistan, we have no choice but to topple a regime that protects a "guest" who openly boasts of his intent to terrorize and kill Americans. Any other outcome would make a mockery of President Bush's solemn vow to wage war not only on terrorists but also on states that support them.

But it's also time to ratchet up the pressure on Syria, Iran, Sudan, and other regimes known to sanction terrorism. Options include withdrawal of aid and diplomatic recognition, economic embargoes, expulsion from the United Nations and other international bodies, political and military support for insurgents, and preemptive strikes to stop terrorism or weapons proliferation.

The United States should also orchestrate a more serious crackdown on rogue states that are hard to deter with conventional means. In Iraq, for example, a ruinous war, sanctions, and a decade of continuous enforcement of the "no-fly" zone have done little to alter Saddam Hussein's sociopathic behavior. Since there's every reason to believe that Iraq is continuing its quest for biological and nuclear weapons, it's time for sterner measures. The United States should step up aid to rebels fighting to create an independent Kurdistan in the north, and explore the possibility of a Shia state in the south as well. The idea of partition is anathema to diplomats who fear creating regional "power vacuums," but its risks must be weighed against the incalculable danger of allowing Saddam to concentrate on acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

link: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

<snip>

Bin Laden's agents were reportedly in contact with the network (of spies and purchasing agents abroad), which could provide them with both the material and expertise to unleash biowar attacks on the West. The bottom line is that, taking into account Saddam's vicious nature, his humiliation over the last 10 years, and his declared intent to avenge his defeat in Desert Storm, he is perhaps the only national leader with both the means and the motive to help Osama bin Laden destroy the United States. The American government should urgently consider ways to push Saddam out of power. If we wait much longer, it may be too late.

link: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926

(Note: The Blueprint describes Khidhir Hamza as the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, but he was actually a mid-level physicist in Iraq. He left Iraq in 1994, but still tries to pass himself off as an expert on the current state of Iraq's WMD programs. Scott Ritter said Hamza is a liar (CNN 7/31/02). Scoop published Hamza's plan for Iraq and then said, "The above statement from Hamza is ominously identical to positions expressed by former CIA Chief Woolsley, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, and other hawks calling for Iraq's regime change.)

[ulysses]

13. because in the face

of a right wing assault on the nation, the DLC response was not to fight back, not to win hearts and minds back to the left, but to go along and try to moderate the worst of the GOP agenda.

[legin]

14. Flame bait

n/t

[ShimokitaJer]

15. Election 2000, Election 2002, Congress caving in to Bush

> What did the DLC ever to to us, except get the last Democratic President elected and re-elected?

Do you honestly think the last action the DLC took was in 1996? Their strategy of trying to pull "swing" voters by out-Republicaning the Republicans cost us the presidency in 2000, control of Congress in 2002, and any chance of meaningful dialogue about the rush to war in 2002-3. And now their response to the activists in the party is to shed their liberal ideals and toe the line the GOP have drawn?

They've so bought in to right-wing rhetoric about Democrats that they'll shoot their best chances at the presidency rather than acknowledge that the party ever had a liberal base.

[library_max]

22. I'll grant you 2002

But what killed us in 2000 was the Green vote and the Scalia USSC majority.

Look, I agree that we can't win by running a "me too" campaign, but we also can't win by hammering red-meat progressive issues for which Joe Sixpack just isn't ready. We need to get back to our roots - real accomplishments for real people who vote. Things we can't pull off and things which help or please only those who don't vote (like wildlife) or those who are going to vote with us anyway are political luxuries at this time.

If we can get another Clinton in the White House, we can show people that government works again. This time, we won't be blindsided by politics-by-prosecution. We know that game now, and we can beat it. Once we get the basic message that government isn't the bad guy across in a way that even nonpolitical people can understand, then we can push the more progressive stuff.

First, we have to get into office. Then we can worry about ideological purity.

[wtmusic]

24. Compare Lieberman's numbers

to Dean's numbers then tell me who can get into office.

[library_max]

27. So the DLC is Lieberman and Lieberman is the DLC?

That's news to me.

[wtmusic]

43. OK, compare Dean's numbers to ANY OTHER candidate's numbers:

1st quarter receipts:

Edwards $7,418,568.16
Kerry $7,010,242.97
Gephardt $3,548,199.90
Lieberman $3,013,842.90
Dean $2,639,209.08

2nd quarter receipts:

Dean $7,601,097.26
Kerry $5,866,126.95
Lieberman $5,137,733.09
Edwards $4,517,709.35
Gephardt $3,836,260.51

K, now based on the trend represented in the above figures, you pick the best adjective for the DLC:
1) Obstinate
2) Out-of-touch
3) Plain stupid
4) All of the above

[library_max]

50. Holy Cow!

"Based on the trend represented in the above figures" Dean would be pulling down more than $43 billion per quarter by the fall election!

Or maybe, just maybe, the "trend" is a temporary blip that doesn't mean anything in the long run. If you add the numbers together, Kerry and Edwards are both still doing better than Dean.

[wtmusic]

53. Continue in denial if you like

but your temporary 'blip' is a 280% increase in campaign support. Shall we get into poll numbers? I know you don't want to go there.

Re: your $43 billion figure--either your sarcasm is very dull, or you need to go back to math class.

[library_max]

80. Okay, my bad

It's only $5.2 billion. I repeated the process too many times. But if you think Dean's campaign contributions are going to increase by 280% (288% to be accurate) each quarter, you need more than math class to help you. Something that happens once isn't a trend.

Look, I'm not anti-Dean. I'm trying to cool down some of the attack rhetoric firing off in all directions on DU. We need to stop declaring eternal vengeance against this or that candidate or faction. We will need every drop of unity we can muster in the general election. We are the base, and we need to work our behinds off to support the eventually nominee, whoever that turns out to be, even though he will probably not be able to campaign on progressive issues as strongly as we would like.

[wtmusic]

87. Well taken

A number of threads lately have been addressing the 'problem' of attacking other candidates, the DLC, etc. and I just don't see it as a problem. As much as I enjoy maligning Lieberman I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bush.

The DLC deserves major credit for getting Clinton elected but it's irresponsible to rule out candidates with as much popular appeal as Dean this early on.

[sendero]

99. yes...

... I don't care for Holy Joe, and a certain senator has annoyed me greatly with ill-chosen words but make no mistake - I will be voting Dem, Dem, Dem, I don't care if Kermit the Frog is our nominee, I don't care if the nominee has DLC tattooed on his forehead - my vote is Dem! :)

[Robb]

57. "trend"?

I remember when my book was on Amazon's ranking list when it was first published at # 2,500,000... two weeks later it was at #2,000,000 or so.

My father-in-law noted that at this rate, it should be #1 in a couple of months. :eyes:

[shatoga]

42. 1st get into office Then worry about ideological purity

I agree we need to quit demanding every candidate agree with us on all isues.
But Democrats will never support any Republican/Nazi type:
"end justifies the means"

Democrats are better than that!

Clinton got it right!
Do the best you can for America, and oppose Republicans on every issue!

[ShimokitaJer]

48. Gore pandering to center = high Green vote in 2000

There's a reason we criticize the DLC for abandoning the Democratic left. Nader would NOT have been a factor in 2000 if Gore had stood up for ANY liberal values during the campaign. I don't buy Nader's claim that the two parties are identical, but Gore and the DLC certainly didn't do anything to show the Greens otherwise.

Yes, we know that the Republicans play the "politics-by-prosecution" game now, but that doesn't seem to help the DLC defend against it. When Democratic Congressmen were attacked as unpatriotic if they failed to give Bush fre reign in dealing with Iraq, the DLC's advice was just not to rock the boat and give in on this issue to maintain electability later. Maybe you think the ends of election in 2004 warrants the means of giving up support of Democratic issues, but all it shows the candidates is that they don't need to pay attention to those issues. I just don't see how you could trust the candidate to represent you once they are elected.

[library_max]

51. This is just blaming the victim

The Green tantrum of 2000 was the Greens' fault. They need to stop blaming Gore for it. If Gore had adopted the Green platform and Nader's stands on the issues, he could have got the - what - 2% of the nationwide vote that Nader got, instead of the about 50% that he did get. And no, he couldn't just have added the two together, because he'd have lost at least two centrist votes for every Green vote he got.

[ShimokitaJer]

62. It's not an either-or issue

It was never necessary for Gore to completely adopt the Green platform and ignore the center. But what he did was to completely ignore that platform, much of which is supposedly shared by the Democrats and ALL of which he was a far stronger candidate than Bush on, and attempt to appeal ONLY to the center. Gore wrote a whole book on the environment and I don't think I heard him mention it twice during the entire campaign. Instead, he let the right acccuse him of lying about his record and let the DLC convince donor corporations that his dedication to corporate responsibility for pollution was weak. Bush's record on education was a joke, and Gore let him pretend to be the education president without pointing out the obvious differences between the Dems ant the GOP on education. He abandoned the left in trying to appeal to the center... and that's what I see the DLC strategy as being.

If you don't want me to "blame the victim," stop painting Gore as a victim. Let him take responsibility for his own campaign instead of blaming the Greens.

[library_max]

91. None so blind as they that will not see

Every time a Democratic presidential candidate talks about the environment, he gains one vote (maybe) and loses two (for sure). To Joe Sixpack, environmentalism isn't about clean air and water, it's about baby seals and snail darters and he doesn't give a damn. Every time we cry about the stolen 2000 election (and it WAS stolen), we gain no votes and lose plenty, because it makes us sound like losers and crybabies to most nonpolitical Americans.

We don't win every election when we charge to the center, but we lose every election when we charge to the left. Every single one. No exceptions (I'm talking about presidential elections here).

The far right votes Republican. Racists vote Republican. They don't expect Bush to go on the air and talk smack about Blacks and Hispanics or say that we've got too much freedom of speech. They know which side their bread is buttered on and vote for him anyway. The left (meaning Greens) needs to figure this out, go thou and do likewise. Again, are we actually dumber than Republicans?

[ShimokitaJer]

116. So we need a candidate who just pretends to be a Republican?

Very clever. While we're at it, let's get one who's just pretending to care about education and health care, too.

I don't know what right wingers you hang out with, but there are a lot more Republican voters out there than the extremist bible belt, trailer park, racist stereotype you're using for your example. This may come as a shock to you, but most people in this country on both sides of the political fence care about environmental protections, education, and health care reform. Why do you think Bush has to pretend to be a "compassionate" conservative, has to call his attacks on the environment deceptive names like "Clean Air Act," and run a campaign based on "No Child Left Behind." People differ on how much emphasis should be given to these issues and how best to go about accomplishing them, but these are issues that most Americans care about.

Now if your praise for appealing to the center meant emphasizing these traditionally Democratic issues as core principles that voters of both parties could get behind, I'd be all for it. However, to the DLC, pursuing the center has meant pandering to the same corporations who give money to the GOP, yelling "me too" to the Republicans on national security, and encouraging Democrats not to attack Bush. You can keep playing your little "swing voter" games, but if the best the Democrats can do is to promote themselves as "more compassionate" conservatives, then they're going to lose again like they did in 2002.

With "friends" like you pushing the tree-hugger, seal-lover image of liberals, it's no wonder it's so easy for the right wingers.

[bpilgrim]

136. exactly. when you alow your ENEMY to FRAME THE DEBATE we LOSE.

they LOVE the STEREOTYPE BROADCASTED to AMERICA via the teeVee and in lala land is the only place it even might make sense.

once you bring add in the REST of america to the equation THEY - the elite - LOSE and THEY KNOW IT.

time to STAND UP and start FRAMING THE DEBATE and DEFENDING OURSELVES.

people want CHANGE, and will vote for almost anyone if they promise the people that... just look at ah-nuld if you need a recent example.

:hi:

peace

[Zhade]

137. No.

The Green vote didn't kill anything - because Gore still won Florida, despite the removal of 90,000+ traditionally Democratic voters.

[eyesroll]

16. Because Bill Clinton's DLC is not the current DLC

Something happened to Al From, Bruce Reed, et. al. between then and now. They have corrupted Bill Clinton's "party of real people" for their own purposes.

They demonize other Democrats now, directly, by name. Not by saying that their policies are better -- that's a campaign, after all -- but by calling them elitist and warning that those of us who are to the left of them are going to drive the party into obsolescence. They pretend they stand for all Democrats, and they call people like me -- a dues-paying Democrat, I should add -- an activist elite and not a "real Democrat." (This is from a May 2003 memo from Al From and Bruce Reed: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690)

What happens if Howard Dean (or Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton or Carol Mosley-Braun, for that matter, although it was Dean they were attacking by name) gets the nomination? Do they cry "uncle" and try to get back on his good side, or do they make the destruction of the Democratic party a self-fulfilling prophesy? They're alienating a lot of people with their rhetoric.

I know the same thing can be said about Howard Dean, et. al., that they alienate the moderate "base", and they don't get the nomination, will they splinter off as an independent? Both have said they won't, so maybe my worry about the DLC driving the party into ruination is also unfounded.

Look, I don't dislike centrists or people who ally with the DLC platform -- heck, Howard Dean is pretty close on that count and I volunteer for his events (disclosure). Most DLCers in Congress and elsewhere are good people, good leaders.

But I resent, very much, being told I'm not "real people" or a "real Democrat."

And that is my beef with the DLC.

[library_max]

25. I hear you

And I get it. I went and read the link you provided. I agree there's more trash-talking than I'd like - but a whole lot less than I read on DU every day between Dean people, Kerry people, anti-DLC people, etc.

But if you'll look at the whole site, you'll see that they are mainly opposing Bush and a wide variety of Republican BS. And they are right that we have to remember how far we are to the left of the average voter.

Henry Clay said he'd rather be right than president, and a lot of historians agree that he was never in much danger of being either one. How about us? Would we rather our candidate be right, or president?

[Terwilliger]

28. thats CRAP!!!!!! The DLC is the same as it was

it's not worse

Lieberman was there in the beginning. They wanted an Al Gore type, so they were very happy with Bill Clinton, because he was able to do things most other Dems can't do well...inspire and lead.

Then, after 8 years of bliss (asi asi) Al Gore, probably THE choice of the DLC faithful, decides that the DLC is anachronistic. Unfortunately, he's in the middle of a presidential campaign, and he can't break away to a populist and progressive message. One stolen, contentious election later...and we're up to 9 people who can't seem to figure out how to unify the party (Sharpton giving the best effort)

Now, good old Joe tells the Democrats "don't go off into the wilderness" left, because no one can help you out on the fringe. Problem is Joey...YOU were the one who accused Bush of stealing the election in 2000...doesn't that make you the wilderness fringe? :shrug: huh Joe? :shrug:

:nuke:

[shance]

17. When you have an organization not willing to confront the reality

that they in fact have become too cozy with special interests and corporate lobbyists, and in fact have lost touch with what is the majority of the people.

You can like it, or you dont have to, but Howard Dean shows how he has mobilized the majority of Americans because he tells the truth.

The DLC ignores such 'minor' issues like potential computer voting fraud, DLC supported the invasion (lets not call it war shall we?)or atleast certainly took no positive action while thousands of Democrats were taking to the streets, and now the DLC is attempting to literally PICK our candidate, because like any four year old who is used to getting their way, they dont appreciate the fact that Democrats actually have a VOTE (which may be why they are so disinterested from the computerized voting issue) and may in fact have a preference over Joe Lieberman, or some other soft milquetoast they have in mind.

In short, they are NOT an honest representation of the Democratic party, Democratic elitist maybe, but there are also plenty of wealthy Democrats who dont like DLC at all.

[library_max]

19. Quick dose of reality

No national politician is going to win who treats corporate lobbyists and "special interests" (now there's a phrase that means whatever you say it means) like lepers. Money talks in American politics today. That's the fact, Jack. We don't have to like it (I don't), but we'd better by god acknowledge it. Until we get real campaign finance reform with real teeth, we're going to have to play the money game just like the Republicans. Or we can be pure and guarantee our defeat. Those are our choices.

[wtmusic]

34. Here's another fact Jack

If DLC-stooge Lieberman can't deliver votes, guess what? They're throwing their money down the drain.

Go ahead and jump on a sinking ship if you like.

[library_max]

40. See post #27

[bpilgrim]

45. lol - the FACTS on the ground...

We not only got the neo-cons at the helm CURRENTLY - by following the new DLC 'way' - they also got the house AND the SENATE... lets not forget the SCOTUS.

your horrific advice...

"we're going to have to play the money game just like the Republicans."

is what has got us on the brink in the first place, hello...

then you have the guts to say...

"Or we can be pure and guarantee our defeat. Those are our choices."

heres ANOTHER CHOICE lets FIGHT BACK and FIX IT.

DEAN looks like he may be starin a WILD FIRE in the good ole USA that may not be put it if it spreads much further ;->

peace

[RobertFrancisK]

21. There's good and bad

There are good democrats that are involved with the DLC, and they make valid points from time to time. What I hate is how some of them have no spine and take more time to bash liberals instead of conservatives.

[Terwilliger]

23. you mean the Democratic Leisure Class?

why would anyone have a problem with them? :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

30. Perpetuation of myth #1...

What did the DLC ever to to us, except get the last Democratic President elected and re-elected?

The DLC did NOT get Bill Clinton elected and re-elected. Bill Clinton was a successful politician because of his charisma and expertise at playing politics. And it could also be argued that it was really Ross Perot who got Clinton initially elected in 1992 by stealing many voters who would have voted for GHW Bush instead.

While I disagree with many DLC strategies and policies, I do not necessarily think they should be purged from the party, either. Most of the visceral dislike of the DLC is really a visceral dislike of Al From, who has gone from advocating certain ideas and policies to resting on past accomplishments and taking potshots at those Democrats to the left of him. From what I read, many within the DLC itself do not care much for him or his antics anymore.

[sangh0]

35. Not a "myth". It's an "exagerration"

The DLC did not "get Clinton elected and re-electd" all by itself, but it certainly did help Clinton. By 1992, Clinton had a long list of allies and connections to other member of the DLC. The money and support they provided to him, particularly early in the campaign, was crucial.

[TahitiNut]

92. Clinton helped the DLC more than vice versa.

If you want to see what happens to a "moderate" Dem, look at California. Perot helped Clinton get elected far more than the DLC.

[sangh0]

94. That is undoubtedly true

In politics, one hand often washes the other. However, that doesn't contradict my claim that the DLC's support was a crucial factor in Clinton's election.

[TahitiNut]

138. Isn't it a pity ...

... that it's necessary to reach so far as to give extra credit to some Democrats because they supported a Democrat? :eyes:

Isn't it sad that such support isn't reciprocated? In other words, in a representative democracy, why would the factional posture of the DLC leave the 'liberal base' feeling unheard and unrespected? Whose duty is it to support whom? Who works for whom? Who's being represented? Why would anyone who feels they're not being represented vote for someone who disses them?

Sometimes I feel a bit alone in a Euclidean space. :silly:

[DrGonzoLives]

32. Because they consistently move the party to the right

They want to turn the Democrats into a muddle centrist party that just goes along with whatever the polls say people want at the moment. They are not interested in being an opposition party, just interested in holding power.

[sangh0]

38. Unlike those southern Democrats

who want to move us to the left? :-)

[DrGonzoLives]

41. ???

What in hell are you talking about? So, because a group of Democrats other than the DLC is moving right, that makes what the DLC does OK? Is this what you're implying? Could you, maybe, just for once, actually expand on what you mean rather than posting some one-liner?

[sangh0]

49. The point is

that "moving the party to the right" is NOT what the DLC is about. The Democratic Party has a long history of centrism, and even conservatism. In light of the party's history, it's simplistic to say that the DLC's positions (free trade, tough on crime, no gun control, and a rejection of pacifism) are a move to the right.

[ulysses]

56. how do you balance that

with the common complaint that the party had gotten too far to the left and needed that corrective of the DLC? If they didn't move the party to the right - intentionally or otherwise - what *did* they do?

[sangh0]

63. "Common complaint"??

I'm not sure who you're talking about. Is this complaint coming from the DLC, or from Dem voters?

If they didn't move the party to the right - intentionally or otherwise - what *did* they do?

They helped promote moderate, mainstream positions on certain issues.

[ulysses]

65. "Is this complaint coming from the DLC, or from Dem voters?"

I should probably have said "rationale" - it's given as one by those who defend the DLC here, such as jiacinto et al, and usually follow up that defense with the Mondale/Dukakis tirade.

They helped promote moderate, mainstream positions on certain issues.

Mmm hmm, like gutting welfare. Popular perhaps, but good governance?

[sangh0]

66. In that case,

I would have to refer you to one of those defenders for an answer.

Mmm hmm, like gutting welfare. Popular perhaps, but good governance?

Yes, like welfare "reform". You may not like it --I don't like it either-- but there's no question that it wasn't more mainstream and moderate than what many others in the party were calling for, while at the same time, less conservative than what the Repukes (and even some Dems) were calling for.

[ulysses]

67. ok

You may not like it --I don't like it either-- but there's no question that it wasn't more mainstream and moderate than what many others in the party were calling for, while at the same time, less conservative than what the Repukes (and even some Dems) were calling for.

And as I said in my earlier post above...
...in the face of a right wing assault on the nation, the DLC response was not to fight back, not to win hearts and minds back to the left, but to go along and try to moderate the worst of the GOP agenda.

Sorry, but that's not enough.

[sangh0]

73. Sorry, but IMO

it's simplistic to describe it as "not to fight back" and "go along", particularly when remembering what the DLC had to say about Republicans. But then again, I'm not big on propoganda phrases like "move to the right", "spineless", "GOP-lite", etc.

[ulysses]

74. well

you know what they say about opinions. ;-)

[TheYellowDog]

33. I'm not sure but I do know this:

The views of Democratic activists DO differ substantially from the average registered Democrat in America. Average Democrats in America are much more conservative on social issues, and to win in 2004, whoever the nominee is must stress fiscal issues like health care and education, instead of social issues. That is the way to win.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

That memo has been referenced in this thread above, but the statistics are true. Registered Democrats in America are substantially more conservative than Democratic activists. Also, since activist Democrats tend to have done more post graduate work than non-activist Democrats, we tend to be seen as an elitist party, and we must work to fix that. I personally think that Gephardt is the most electable candidate, but that's just me. I think he has the right combination of experience and moderation on social issues to make him the most electable.

[IrateCitizen]

44. But... you're describing what most "leftists" want, too!

... whoever the nominee is must stress fiscal issues like health care and education, instead of social issues. That is the way to win.

I can think of one candidate in the current field who has stressed economic issues like health care, education, and jobs probably more aggressively than any other -- and he's what you probably consider to be a "fringe leftist".

That candidate would be Dennis Kucinich.

Most rank-and-file Democrats are probably more upset with their party on the abandonment of core economic issues (especially within the working class) than anything else. Another poster here said once that Democrats focus on social issue because "they don't cost anything" -- and that's probably accurate. The sad fact is that the DLC, with its cozyness with big business and trumpeting of the corporate agenda has probably done as much to turn off rank-and-file Democrats as any of the "leftists" you seem to project toward.

I say this because I am what you would probably consider a "leftist" Democrat. I also recognize that core economic issues are the most important issues out there for most people, and in order to capture their votes, we must be willing to address their problems -- even when it goes against what the corporate world has on their wish list. While I am a proponent of social progress as well, I realize that social progress inevitably comes about as a result of economic progress, and without real economic progress, it is hollow.

[TheYellowDog]

76. Actually

I would say that the candidate I am talking about is Gephardt. Gephardt has never wavered in his support of working families, and is more socially conservative than Kucinich. It is my opinion that Gephardt is electable, and Kucinich is not.

[IrateCitizen]

77. They're a toss-up on working families

As for social conservatism, I would argue that Kucinich actually wins out here, especially considering the flak (both deserved and undeserved) he takes over reproductive choice -- even if he is a bit kooky at times.

The area in which they split drastically is foreign policy. While you are correct that Gephardt's views are more electable in this area, I would also argue that they are based on no firm foundation, but rather a result of a desire for political expediency.

As for who is electable, even though I'm a big fan of DK, I'd have to say that neither of them is.

[ProfessorGAC]

86. Health Care and Education ARE Social Issues

They're not fiscal issues. Fiscal issues are apropos a means of paying for the social programs, like EDUCATION & HEALTH CARE!

And, i'm really sorry for spending too much time in school! Stupid me. Now, i'm an elitist.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

139. That From/Reed "memo" says one thing to me.

Considering the repeated use of the word "activist" in a perjorative sense, it seems to indicate the goal of deactivating the Democratic Party. Good fucking luck. It's working. Sieg Heil.


(And I'm an independent!) :eyes:

[Mari333]

36. But they dance so well!

[shatoga]

39. a right-wing Trojan Horse

a right-wing Trojan Horse
Missing Link: How Right-Wing Neo-Cons
Created 'Democratic Leadership Council'
by Michele Steinberg
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg107015.html

My pick for "best of"

LaRouche Targets the DLC: 'Protection Racket for Cheney'

"This article appears in the July 4, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. LaRouche Targets the DLC: 'Protection Racket for Cheney'. ... "
www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3026dlc_n_cheney.html
LaRouche Takes on Cheney and DLC in Big Campaign Events
"This article appears in the July 11, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. LaRouche Takes on Cheney and DLC in Big Campaign Events. by Paul Gallagher ... "
www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3027l2004_events.html
LaRouche on DLC
" ... DLC hack Joe Sanders stood on the escalator screaming at a young African-American LaRouche supporter that LaRouche was a racist and an anti-Semite. ... "
www.larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2003/030228dlc.htm
Strategic Updates
" ... Americas LaRouche Document. LaRouche calls for the FDR faction in the Democratic Party to break with the Tweedledee DLC. July 29, 2003 ... "
larouchein2004.net/strategic_update_main.htm
How "Right-Wing" Neo-Cons Created The DLC
" ... The DLC's own words prove LaRouche's assertion that the group—financed by right-wing foundations like the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Kansas ... "
www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg107015.html
The LaRouche Campaign to save/restore the Republic and the ...
"NEW YORK CITY, July 29 (EIRNS)--LAROUCHE INTERVENTION DRAWS BLOOD AT THE DEMOCRATIC ... intervened against Joe Lieberman who was speaking at the DLC meeting in New ... "
www.pegmusic.com/q-campaign-starts.html
Lyndon LaRouche telling about the "Children of Satin" who have ...
" ... for mass recruitment to the LaRouche Youth Movement, which is already moving ahead very impressively. The Democratic Party apparatus and the DLC fascists are ... "
www.pegmusic.com/lyn-bush-admin.html
email_L04 LaRouche Addresses Labor Day Conference
" ... LaRouche has issued a statement on the role of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as a right wing Trojan horse in the Democratic Party, intent on ... "
www.nex.net.au/users/reidgck/laborday.htm
What Secretary Powell did not say
" ... LaRouche stated, "The issue behind that series of thuggish actions taken by representatives of the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) faction in the Party ... "
www.nex.net.au/users/reidgck/didnot.htm

[library_max]

46. Wait a minute

You're citing Lyndon LaRouche, nutcase extraordinaire? Check out his site and look around.

www.larouchepub.com

Or if you want the skinny a little quicker, try this site.

www.conspire.com/larouche.html

[IrateCitizen]

47. LaRouche???? You've got to be kidding!!!

Although I'm not a fan of the DLC, you're setting yourself up to be laughed right off the boards if you're citing Lyndon LaRouche as a primary source!

[shatoga]

60. Kill the messenger because truth offends you?

Lies can come from anywhere and so can TRUTH

LaRouche is obsessed with opium trading by americans and Brits, back when it was legal.
So what?

His analysis of the DLC bears consideration.
Truth stands on it's own legs.

Kill the messenger never destroys a truthful message.

I listen to Rush limbaugh too.
Just in case some truth slips past the Heritage Foundation's filters.

what have any of you got against TRUTH, from any source/

[ButterflyBlood]

64. how do you know this is truth?

anything LaRouche says can not be taken as truth, just because we agree with it.

[shatoga]

84. truth is SELF EVIDENT

Lies require an elaborate support mechanism.

How does it 'feel' to you to consider that:
"given a choice between a real Republican and a fake, voters will choose the real thinf over the fake every time.
That is the Neo-con DLC mission,
Bush for 4 more, then Jeb Bush for another four...

by then America will have given up on elections and become instead
a monarchy

[ButterflyBlood]

59. sorry but LaRouche is not a credible source

while I think the DLC is no good, there are far better sources of info on them than him.

[stickdog]

54. Because we like Democrats a lot more than we like Bush.

Unlike the DLC.

[ButterflyBlood]

61. because the DLC sees things as "our way, or the highway"

I don't mind moderate Democrats from places that can't elect a liberal, but the DLC don't want any liberals period. They want thier centrist policies to run the entire party. Evan Bayh has taken shots at the liberal wing of the party very frequently. The DLC wants Democrats from NYC to be just like Democrats from Georgia. They hate liberals as much as the GOP.

[NNN0LHI]

68. Because some are under the illusion that Bush can be beat with ...

...a donation from Ben & Jerry's ice cream company. Wierd thinking.

Don

[wtmusic]

72. See post #43

Didn't realize Ben & Jerry's was doing so well.

[bpilgrim]

132. how bout the INTERNET FACTORY?

DEAN seems to be KICKING BUT with it...

I think folks like myself are PISSED at them because some of the DLC 'leaders' PISSED on them/us

thank gore for the internet ;->

peace

[HereSince1628]

69. Because ELITISM is unDemocratic

Read their website closely...

Only those that get invited can be a DLC'er. That ain't democratic.

True anyone can be a new Dem and send money to the DLC, but cronyism is something to work against if you believe in "democracy."

In addition, their vaunted political pragmatism (they'd rather co-opt an opponent's position than be true to principles...something they call triangulation) has wreaked havoc on the party's ability to express a coherent political philosophy.

Moreover, consistent with their pragmatism, is their interest in dumping the poor and working class in favor of the deeper pockets of skilled technicians, professionals and corporations.

I fear the future of the DLC is to Democrats as freeways are to the inner city, if you look quick you can see the problems of the urban poor, but you can mostly drive right past them.

[buddhamama]

75. they're fine

if you like pork. which i don't.
seriously, the DLC has a bad name for not opposing the Right but holding hands with them and allowing them to set the agenda. the same too, could be said of their relationship with corporations.

there are a few DLC DEMs that i like and support.

they're eventually going to go down in flames though, on this i have no doubt. the citizenry is catching on.

[CentristDemocrat]

81. Because DU is full of extreme liberals.

[ulysses]

82. you just got here

and you've already decided that?

[CentristDemocrat]

90. Well, I'm a longtime reader.

When I see people get slammed and banned over being Christian, and numerous threads bashing religious oreinted candidates like Lieberman--as well as constant DLC bashing--I am led to certain opinions.

[Zephyrbird]

107. All I can say is,...

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

97. because centrism is going the way of the dodo

if you're a centrist, why are you a Democrat?

[CentristDemocrat]

98. There aren't centrist Democrats left?

If you run your campaigns based on this, then have fun losing elections.

[Zephyrbird]

104. Sorry, but from what I see within my area of the state

and in the party at large, "centrist" democrats are in the minority. Centrist democrats were not working elections. They don't attend monthly meetings, are not involved in day-to-day operations of the local parties, don't work on campaigns, don't work on committees.

What I have seen them do is show up at parties or meetings during elections, and talk a big talk about how the party is going "centrist" and the rest of us better wake up. I respectfully submit that it's not US that should wake up.

Those few candidates that ARE elected then come to us during election time and expect us to work our asses off after insulting us and telling us how "out of touch" we are. Well. It's not us in need of a trip to Starbucks for a triple espresso.

You hear a lot of talk on TV about "centrist" this and that and "new democrats" this and that, but evidently no one pays attention to local meetings and state meetings where the rank and file is rumbling like an awakening volcano.

How in the world do you think Dean got so much campaign money last quarter? RANK AND FILE, every day Dems, fed up with the DINOs in the party, are supporting Dean and showing it with their pocketbooks.

[CentristDemocrat]

106. Will the rank and file be enough to win a national election? We'll see.

But, in my opinion, elections are won in the middle. If anyone has any EVIDENCE proving otherwise I'd like to see it.

[Zephyrbird]

111. Without the rank and file working their asses off for you,

you don't win an election my friend.

One shouldn't crap where one expects to eat tomorrow.

There is no proof elections are "won in the middle." If you're not carrying the rank and file of your party, the middle (which, by their very nature, can vote either way) isn't squat. It takes the rank and file of your party, PLUS those of the middle you can sway. Appealing to a smaller fraction of voters at the expense of the larger base of the party--well,--I'm laughing that's so silly.

Sway half or even whole of the middle without your base, and poof! there goes the election.

[library_max]

120. Please see post #91

[CentristDemocrat]

121. I never said the rank and file are irrelevent.

Of course any Democratic presidential nominee needs his "base" so to speak. What I'm suggesting, as were you, is that the candidate needs to appeal to the middle as well. This place is where I believe presidential elections are ultimately won. One would argue that the "base" was full well behind Dukkakis in '88, but where were his middle votes? Where were independent, or "Reagan" Democrats? The same can be argued about McGovern, who was anti-war and had his base firmly behind him. In a national campaign against Nixon however, McGovern was unable to appeal to the middle--and as a result lost in a landslide. That's not to say that that particular example can be used today--with the wealth of information at people's fingertips through the internet and other means--but it does show that no nominated presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat) can effectively win an election soley on his "base". ie Goldwater being a Republican example. I have yet to see proof of ANY candidate winning a national election without appealing to middle voters. I am not convinced, as the poster "Terwilliger" suggested that there are no "centrist" Democrats, and/or that they are irrelevent. I believe just the opposite is the case.

[library_max]

125. Apples and Oranges (or apples and bell-peppers, if you prefer)

You're talking about campaign workers and we're talking about voters. Yeah, the campaing workers in both parties tend to be farther from center than most voters. That's because they're more interested in politics and more ideologically motivated - me included. But we need to appeal to the middle voters, whether they're Democrats or not, if we're going to win the election.

Democratic activists are the source of the money and the work, especially the work. I'm not saying they're not important, but I am saying that if the nominee runs his general election campaign to make the activists happy, he'll alienate the middle and lose big time. That's what always happens, whenever either the Republicans or the Democrats do it.

[Terwilliger]

141. excuse...why are you a Democrat?

if you're a Democrat, you have to be partisan...by definition.

If you want to be a centrist...hmm, I guess that prevents you from being a Democrat, right?

[David Zephyr]

85. DLC = Democrats Leased to Corporations

The acronym isn't "dirty", it's the organization.

My acronym sums up my opposition to them: DLC = Democrats Leased to Corporations

The Democratic Party, never the first choice of corporations, has nevertheless ALWAYS had its DLC types, even back in the 1800's when Grover Cleveland proved that he could betray the public trust to corporate interests as good as any Republican.

It's just that now we actually have an out-of-the-closet organization that has no shame in shaking down corporations to move the Democratic Party more to their way of liking. That organization is the DLC.

It's a lousy and dirty group of people.

[library_max]

95. Reality is reality

whether we like it or not. And the current reality is that corporations have too much political power to ignore. We can't run against them and win.

"Corporations" aren't a monolith anyway. There's a lot of airspace between, say, Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. Do I want Ted Turner running the country? No I don't. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can win on a platform of "all corporations, go to hell." We have to play their game and accomplish what we the more progressive among them are willing to stand for, at least for the time being.

Thought experiment: let's say the rules of boxing allowed body armor and chainsaws in the ring. This is terrible for boxing, right? If you cared about boxing, you'd want to get that changed. But the only people who get a say in the rules are the boxers who win fights. So what are you going to do? Get in the ring unarmed and unarmored as a protest against "dirty" boxing? Or fight by the rules and try to win enough to eventually get the rules changed.

Now substitute corporate money for body armor and chainsaws, and substitute American politics for boxing. Get it?

[Zephyrbird]

117. "Reality"..........

is perception. And perception can be influenced by propaganda.

Dean seems to be doing quite well. And I don't see him pandering to corporations. If your theory was true, he'd be way at the bottom of the pack, and Lieberman would be leading.

It's all perception. And perception is influenced by propaganda.

[library_max]

122. Dean's running in the national election?

Already? It's fall 2004 already? Where has the time gone?

See, I mistakenly thought that Dean was running in the Democratic primaries. That he was "doing well" with Democratic party stalwarts.

Or are you going to tell me that probable Democratic primary voters and probable general election voters are the same people, with the same views and the same expectations of a candidate, so that "doing well" with the one is tantamount to "doing well" with the other?

And I'm not anti-Dean. He might be our best shot. But if and when he does get the nomination, watch him head for the center. That's where the votes are. If the left has a brain, they'll vote for him regardless, if only to vote against Bush.

[David Zephyr]

123. Zephyrbird Did Not Mention the "National Election"

In fact her comment: "Dean seems to be doing quite well. And I don't see him pandering to corporations. If your theory was true, he'd be way at the bottom of the pack, and Lieberman would be leading" clearly is in reference to the Primaries.

Maybe I have misunderstood the intent of your post, but hers is quite clear.

[library_max]

128. For clarification

Look at post #95, the one she was replying to. My point was that we can't run on a platform of "corporations, go to hell" in the general election. Her point was that Dean is doing quite well, even though he is not "pandering to corporations." For that point to be relevant in any way, Dean would have to be "doing quite well" in the general election, as I clarified in the rest of the post to which you replied.

[ShimokitaJer]

124. Dean's already in the center

He doesn't need to run there. His fiscal policies as governor would definitely appeal to those in the center. His only "radical" departure has been attacking Bush on Iraq, and that's looking less radical every day.

So why would the DLC feel the need to attack Dean as too far to the left? Why wouldn't the DLC want to support this man who has proven adept at raising money, at building up his name-recognition, and at firing up the Democratic base? Because the center of the DLC is NOT the center of the American people. Dean is more populist than Democrat, and his fundraising has targeted people rather than corporations.

The DLC goal may be running to the center, but they keep defining it further and further to the right.

[library_max]

129. Liberal Democrats Like You and Me

may not be the most reliable guide on where "center" is. How many conservatives do you talk to about politics on a regular basis? I live in Texas where it's unavoidable.

And I stand by my contention that no one is going to get elected president if corporate America is united against him. That's not something that makes me happy, but that's the way it is. If we want to change it, we need to rehabilitate politics in the American mind, and that means 1) winning a whole lot, and 2) doing good things once we are in office. We also need real campaign finance reform, but we'll never get it until we are solidly in power. Like it or not, power has to come first, or we're just talking to ourselves.

[ShimokitaJer]

131. so we need corporate support to topple corporate influence?

Think about what you're saying. You paint it as a necessary evil, but I think it is far from necessary, particularly in this election.

Public outrage at the lack of corporate oversight that led to Enron, Worldcom, etc. hasn't gone away. Yes, it's off the headlines right now, but it's far from off the national radar. Sure, it's gotten to the point where late night comedians only get lame laughs when they occasionally pull out a lame joke about them, but it hasn't left the nation's memory. Combine that with the regular revelations about Halliburton's contracts and you have one of the issues that most angers the American people, not just the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

The DLC would have us give that up for the sake of corporate campaign contributions, which the corporations would have every expectation of seeing a return on. Make no mistake, that money will go to the candidate who is least willing to make changes once he (I won't say she, I doubt Mosley-Braun falls under this category) takes power. They invite the media to paint Democrats and Republicans with the same brush, at a time when the American public is most willing to consider the real cost of corporate power.

You may think I'm surrendering power by clinging to unpopular ideals, but I think you're surrendering the possibility of real change for the possibility of power.

[bpilgrim]

133. thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the WEB!

:evilgrin:

go DEAN :bounce: and Kucinich :bounce:

peace

[terryg11]

101. better than carter?

depends on what your view of better is. Clinton was a better politician and got things done because of his populist view, if he had any ideals they took a back seat to dealmaking where as it was just the opposite for Carter. He didn't make deals thus was unpopular even with the dems. Carter though had ideas on how to make the world and the US a better place and are still today just realizing what he meant

[library_max]

118. Better President,

not better human being. Carter couldn't get things done in office because he couldn't or wouldn't wheel and deal, which is how government works. I think he's been our best former president ever.

[IndianaGreen]

105. The DLC did not get Clinton elected

Clinton got Clinton elected. With the charismatic and empathic Clinton gone, the DLC has been shown to be nothing more than an echo chamber for the warmongering and Bush collaborationist, Al From.

[Zephyrbird]

108. too right, IndianaGreen

That's the nail on the head. I also think that's why Gore had so much trouble during the last election. I think he was influenced too much by the DLC, who tried to micro-manage his responses, reactions, words. Watching him at times, I seemed to sense that he was torn about what he was saying, how he was acting. I think that's where the "wooden" aspect came from.

Ah well, hindsight is always 20-20. You can't beat a Republican at their own game, and I think that's what the DLC thinks it can do, trotting out one of the most conservative Dems around as their "candidate."

[sangh0]

112. You are both WAY wrong

For one thing, no one gets elected on their own. Everyone gets help, and the help the DLC provided Clinton was an important factor.

WRT Gore's "wooden" aspect, in his 2000 campaign, Gore was much less wooden that he had been in the past. MUCH less. Also, many people connectd to his campaign, including Gore himself, admitted that Gore did very little listening to his campaign advisors.

[Zephyrbird]

114. Sorry, gotta disagree.

Since he hadn't run for president before, there's no comparison as far as his "wooden" aspect. Running as Clinton's VP is different from running as Prez himself.

Second, "didn't listen to his advisors" isn't quite the way it happened. From within the party, it was widely known that Gore was much more liberal than Clinton. This scared what was then the motivating section of the party, the DLC (admittedly during this time the rank and file was more willing to go along without question with what it perceived as the party leadership, and that's what the DLC presented itself as--this IS NOT true today) which then counseled Gore not to appear too "liberal" or to "attack" Bush too harshly. The DLC claimed they got Clinton elected, but I agree with IndianaGreen that it was Clinton's charisma that did the trick, NOT the DLC.

But by claiming they got Clinton elected, their opinions had a strong influence within the party, and put the pressure on Gore to conform.

As I said, hindsight is always 20-20. But for me, working closely with party officials on campaigns opened my eyes as to what happens within the party, the DLC tactics, how much influence they had on Gore, etc. And because of this I say the DLC influenced Gore more than the general public knows.

[salin]

130. The Gore I heard speak numerous times from 1984-87

never came off as wooden. Wonder how/where that first got introduced (for him to look 'more' wooden pre-campaign, and then 'less' wooden during the campaign, in your assessment)?

[bpilgrim]

135. true... but STAY TUNED to the PHENOMINAL HELP al gores WEB gives to

POPULARLY SUPPORTED canidates with the 'RIGHT' message.

thank GORE we got the WEB! :bounce:

peace

[terryg11]

110. YYEEAAHH!!

that would seem to be the case wouldnt it? considering the horrid results of the dlc's efforts lately

[bpilgrim]

134. and if you listen to his speaches he WON on a POPULOUS PLATFORM to boot!

gays in the military, health care, jobs, CHANGE... real CHANGE.

it CAN be done again and THAT is why DEAN and KUCINICH are 'suprisingly' kicking a$$ :bounce:

peace

[Patriot_Spear]

119. The DLC are DINO sell-outs...

The Dem's who are my rep's are DLCers and they have a 90 percent plus voting record in line with the repukes; they work HARD to be identifed with the repubublikkkans.

Don't try and bullshit me- they're vampires on the soul of the party.

[sujan]

126. because centrism is bullshit

[mkregel]

140. The DLC today is a far cry from the DLC that got Clinton elected

The DLC has moved farther to the right every year. If Clinton ran today, I seriously doubt the DLC would support him.

[FlaGranny]

143. I don't believe

I read this whole thread!!! Anyway, if the country is so much more to the right than we are, WHY, OH WHY, did * run on a "liberal" platform. All he talked about was health care and education during his campaign. He did an extremely good job of "stealing" the Democratic agenda. He still does it with domestic issues. He talks the liberal talk and does the extreme conservative action. If no one was paying attention (the centrists) you might think * was a liberal. After all, he's for education, for clean air, health care, prescription drugs, and tax breaks for the little guy. Isn't he??? Isn't he???

Why did/does he campaign like this? Could it be because the right-wing polls showed that most of America was interested in the liberal agenda? Could it?

[Isome]

155. *whoo hooo*

Way to go Granny! THAT was a critical analysis, put in the simplest terms. It takes a truly logical thinker to point out what's been hidden in plain sight!

[jiacinto]

144. I'll tell you why

DU is dominated by left wing extremists and ideologues. And they hate the DLC because it is not far left enough for them.

Myself, I have mixed feelings about the organization. But I don't view them as negatively to the extent of most DUers either.

[Coffee Coyote]

145. spare me please

You damn well know you wouldn't be happy unless ALL of DU was repub-lite - and even then you'd bitch about something. You also know that most of the "far left" on DU (who you hold more venom for than you do the GOP) also thinks the squishy centrist repuke-lites dominate this board. It must be about 50-50.

The only real group that dominates these boards are tinfoiler nutjobs and hysterical paranoids. And assholes like me.

[jiacinto]

146. Only at DU would I be considered Republican-lite

nt

[Forkboy]

152. Is that what your right wing friends tell you?

[Forkboy]

147. 30,000 plus members on DU

and I bet Carlos couldn't name a hundred that fit his description.

[TahitiNut]

149. "C" nettle

This is a jellyfish. Not really a fish at all, this invertebrate is a relative to corals and sea anemones. Composed of over 95 percent water, the jelly has no head, brain, heart, eyes, ears, or bones. But the jelly is not just a glob of gelatinous goo. It has a net of tentacles armed with poisonous stinging cells.

<...>

Without eyes, the jelly relies on its other senses—smell, taste and light perception—to steer it from danger and to food. They also have an amazing sense of balance, steered by special sacs along their rims that alert them when they’re too far left and about to tip over.

[welshTerrier2]

148. why i hate the DLC

i'll tell you why i hate the DLC ...

Al From, i call him schmuck boy but you don't have to, wrote an editorial on the DLC's website just before the invasion of Iraq began (or was it just after it began?), saying that all those baby boomers who were protesting the war were just doing it out of "nostalgia for the 60's protests" ...

yes, i was merely trying to recapture the joyful days of youthful protest ... what a schmuck !!!

and I haven't noticed any subsequent apologies from Al since we old 60's nostalgia types have been right on every damned point about the invasion of Iraq ... all schmuck boy Al offerred us was support for "the President" ... well, Al, where are all the WMD's? how do you like the death-a-day "post-war" strategy? how do you feel now about alienating "old Europe"?

The DLC did absolutely nothing to oppose the invasion ... maybe next time they'll just keep their mouths shut instead of insulting one of the party's most active constituencies ...

[PATRICK]

150. Two issues

The "leaders" of the DLC which is probably a symptom of its philosophical and major political weakness. Governing from a weak position has become a job description prerequisite for the people hiding in the circle of wagons. It produces Dem candidates in weak Dem areas, or GOP areas, whose claim to "newness" and dominance is that very weakness. No way should people from weak districts be called on to lead the debate unless they have the charism to survive honesty and democratic platform action. The bipartisan coalition of the weak RINOS and DINOS have been marked for extinction by the GOP, not us.

They should be asking for our help, even if quietly. Instead they have embraced fantasies and lies that "succeed" without facing up to the consequences or the necessary ruthless methods it would take to compete. Their souls are not enough of a prize to be worth selling to the corporate interests. Bushco and neocons will not vanish in a Utopian dawn of spontaneous sanity.

No, the political successes, the real ones, are the talented fighters and competent Democrats who stick to the ideals of the party and their constituencies, the American people. These stars seem often too busy(being competent according to good DLC philosophy) with real responsibilties to wrest the "L" in the DLC away from those who maintain the locker rooms and towels.(They can't even cheerlead, you know the wistful types.)

The philosophy itself is not bad in intentions but the road to Hell is being paved from the root of all evil pretty naively. Barely harmful to our real party, they are irrelevant to the neocon crisis.

[welshTerrier2]

153. watch out for those towel snappers

it is not at all clear to me that the DLC is "barely harmful" to our real party ...

i would ask only whether it was the DLC who pushed Al Gore out of the 2004 race? did Al just "throw in the towel" all by himself or did someone in the "locker room" give him a little nudge ...

perhaps the party insiders have not been quite as innocuous as we would like ...

[Section_43]

151. When I hear the letters D-L-C

I picture the tallest weed in my yard, swaying back and forth with the wind. I hate that weed. I find myself shutting off the mower, screaming at the top of my lungs, "Choose a fucking side!" I hate that weed.

[shatoga]

154. DLC means "re-elect Bush" 'cause we are 'republican lite'

given a choice between an honest Republican and a fraud.
Voters will choose the real thing every time.

[fujiyama]

157. Now

I think the DLC takes too much damn credit in getting Clinton elected. What we had then was a president that had little concern for ordinary people (poppy) and a texan quack (perot) that also drew a lot of votes from Bush 1 (though my guess is perot drew many traditional dem voters as well). Clinton won the nomination and then the presidency itself largely because of his personal skill, charisma, and a hell of a team. The DLC did little else than raising money from fat cat donors. It seems to have been one of the only things they're good at.

The DLC recently complained of people in the party opposing Bush's tax cuts and opposing the war with iraq. What good is the party otherwise? I understand that they were for the war. I disagree but understand their justification. Fine, but the tax cuts?! There was no excuse for signing on to those, especially by the likes of Dianne Fienstein.

I understand when a southern dem votes in a certain way, as not to alienate many centrist voters. That's fine. That's politics. I personally wouldn't care if all the southern repugs became southern dems with similar voting records. Why? Because, if you have the majority you control the agenda. That's what dems need...but it's evident that even the above logic failed in the congressional races (as evident by the losses of the sens from GA and Missourri. That logic was believed by the DLC.

The DLC has a role in the party. Obviously the party needs some business support, but the failure to realize the dissent and anger in the base oft the party is pathetic. Rather than co opting Dean's methods of raising money from ordinary people they've trashed him! That is very foolish.

[w4rma]

159. Here's my major problem with the DLC

The DLC is pandering to the largest corporations in the country and is not looking at small buisnesses. The effects of this are seen in that it is becoming harder and harder to start up a successful buisness in this country while the huge entrenched buisnesses cannot do anything bad enough to go out of buisness (note Enron is still in buisness).

I do not see the DLC as supporting of buisness in general. I see the DLC as supportive of the specific mega-corps that are donating to the DLC (and also seem to be big donors to the Republican Party).

Also, I think that the DLC has been actively preventing the Democratic Party from taking positions that they need to take to get the small donations that Dean is receiving right now. I don't *think* that it is sabatoge, I think that it is just that they support these specific mega-corps first and the Democratic Party second.

The DLC knows how to fundraise from granting favors to big corporations.

Big corporations want regulations that protect the environment, consumers and their smaller competitors watered down or revoked. The DLC helps do this for campaign funds.

This is their version of moderation. They aren't taking the moderate voters' position, they are moderating between what the voters want and what their big buisness contributors want.

Plus, the DLC leadership called me an "elitist".
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=127&subid=900056

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

160. well, let's see...first they lost congress, then the senate, then the WH

It woul be wrongheaded to say the DLC gave us the White House without noting that they also lost all three houses with their advice. We had held congress for YEARS and had all three houses.

If the DLC does me anymore favors, I'll have to surrender!!!

[TahitiNut]

161. But it's never their fault.

Stealing a page from the Rove playbook, it's always the fault of those with whom they disagree. When they marginalize those 'acivists' who then sometimes support a candidate that actually represents their perspective, they cry "foul!" and spout (project) the "If you're not with us, you're against us" theme song of the PNAC types. The politics of fear; the politics of scarcity; the politics of division and finger-pointing; the politics of entitlement -- none of this serves a pluralistic electorate. Fascism infects both major parties -- the specious notion that ordinary people must subordinate their freedoms for the benefit of the powerful. Sacrificing common (liberal) interests for the sake of narrow (oligarchical) interests is bad politics.