Why do some people here hate the DLC?

[Bread and Circus]

This is a real question. Please, no flames.
I want cogent arguments. I do not want links
unless they are part of a real sound logical
statement.

I used to think I hated the DLC until I realized
I didn't even know who they were or what they stood for
so I then went to their sight and read some position
pieces and thought "hey, these guys have some good
points". I am not saying I am pro-DLC. Rather I
just want to know why people dislike them so much.
I mean, the DLC gets almost as bad press here as
the fascist right. It seems strange to me because
despite all their faults, Clinton and Gore did some
great stuff -- weren't they DLC?

Maybe I am just too moderate for DU? Although, that's
hard to believe because I support legalizing all drugs and
ending the phony war on drugs. I am pro choice. I believe
in equal access to health care for all people. I abhor
corporatism and crony capitalism. I root for the underdog
in almost all cases. I want us to kick the oil addiction and live
on alternative energy, I am pro environment and pro regulation
to protect it, I grew up on welfare and was homeless
as a child (for a very brief time -- we lived in a tent for a summer),
made my way with loans and the public school
system, I want to kick Lieberman in the teeth everytime
he speaks, and the list goes on.

But yet, I feel such a disconnect from so many DU'ers
here because I think that we need some middle of the road
dialogue. It seem like so many here are
ideologues who think compromise = death of the left.

I would sure like more discussion about the DLC is about.
Pro and Con. I might just be missing something.

P.S. This is not about Clark but in fairness, so many
are stating Clark=DLC it peaked my interest.

[Gman]

1. What a concept!

Reading about something before you bash! That's contrary to a lot of the DLC bashers around here.

Some of the answers ought to be pretty good. Personally, I think that were it not for the DLC, Jimmy Carter would have been the only Democratic president since LBJ left office 35 years ago. And were it not for the DLC, we wouldn't even have a fighting chance of winning next year rather than what's looking like a really great chance. (So, now come the replies saying, "well... prove the DLC has done anything for Deanie... blah, blah, blah"...

[jiacinto]

6. This is what I think

A lot of DUers come from the very far left of the Party and thus that is why they resent the DLC. That is probably why the DLC gets so much hatred here.

As for the DLC itself I think the organization served a useful purpose 15 years ago. After losing five out of six presidential elections, four of which being 40+ state landslide losses, two of those being 49 state landslides, the party needed to change. It was obvious that there was a problem when even "traditional Democratic constituencies" like Catholics and organized labor were voting Republican for president.

However, in year 2003, we live in a different environment. While I do think the DLC has good points in focusing on the needs of the middle class I think that they are too afraid to stand up to Bush and the Republicans. My issue is their lack of aggresiveness.

But like you and the original poster I don't see the DLC as being evil. And I don't believe in the crazy conpsiracy theories that get posted here daily about them.

[Ardee]

89. 3what on earth are you saying?

Perhaps you might read something yourself , :
http://www.ralphnader.com/interest/080103.html

The Corporatist Democratic Leadership Council
August 1, 2003

Al From, the founder and soul of the soulless Democratic Leadership Council(DLC), assembled his flock in Philadelphia recently and warned his comrades about a takeover of the Democratic Party by "the far left." Launched in 1985, the "far right" DLC grew to have a controlling interest in the Party through the efforts of then-Governor Bill Clinton, Senator John Breaux, Senator Al Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman.

If there were a superlative to the word "hubris," it would come close to describing Al From and his DLC cohorts. With unseemly regularity, they take credit for all Democratic victories as having been rooted in their philosophy of turn-your-back-on-organized labor and open-your-pockets-to-corporations (who fund the DLC, incidentally). All Democratic defeats are explained as owing to losing candidates being too "left" or too "populist."

----snip------
So what is the explanation when two of their very own, Gore and Lieberman, lost what should have been a landslide election in 2000? Soon after the election was stolen by the Bushites and the Supreme Court, From's group gathered to post-mortem the reasons why Gore lost (though he won) and concluded it was because he chanted populism ("I will represent the people, not the powerful"). A few months later, Lieberman agreed with From, saying he would not have campaigned with words that criticized industries like the oil, insurance, drug and HMO barons. (To his credit, From has not blamed the Greens.)

But Gore won the election-- both the popular and, as subsequent reviews documented, the electoral vote in Florida as well. (See Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close to Call.") Instead of going after the still-operating perpetrators of this theft in Florida and pushing for national electoral reform that not only accurately counts all the votes but eliminates the disenfranchisement of citizens from the voting rolls, the DLC continues its ideological tautologies.

Observers are still waiting for the DLC to explain how, with Democratic candidates espousing its protective imitation of Republicanism, the Party could lose more governorships, more state legislatures and both the U.S. House and Senate. Overall, it has been downhill since the DLC drove the Party into groveling haplessness beneath corporate lobbies and their corrupting campaign contributions.

As the New Republic, a fan of the DLC, reported, the Party deliberately chose conservative Democratic challengers to win back the House in 1998 and 2000 only to have them go down in defeat. DLC-type Democratic Senate incumbents went down to defeat in 2002, plaintively expressing their support for George W. Bush's war mongering and pro-super wealthy tax policies.

------snip----but lots more juicy stuff.....
Just because someone disagrees with your opinions you decide, without any knowledge whatsoever that they ,not you, are mistaken, or ignorant, or unaware. Ill bet that most of those who bash the DLC leadership are more aware of its history than are you apparently.....

[Zhade]

93. Nevermind. I misread something.

NT!

[Democrats unite]

2. I am a Gay man & I have no problem with the DLC

I view my opinions as, social liberal & fiscal conservative. Thats also how I view the DLC.

[JackSwift]

3. Because they are fundamentally un-Democratic

Having a think tank and policy position thinkers in the middle is great, but what the DLC is trying to do is be a leverage vehicle and control the rest of the party by having what in the corporate world is a voting trust: their hand picked candidates come in early with a lot of support and endorsements and short circuit the voters. It's the same problem that I have with the Green Party, which does the same thing by coming into the election late. In a system where a plurality takes the day, all the various elements with any chance of success are going to coalesce into two groups to avoid splitting the vote. The DLC gets a head start and cuts off the grass roots from participating, at least that is the tendency. It's a return to back room politics. And because only elected officials have any real voice, it's self-perpetuating and cut off from the individual voters.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Thank You

Can we get some more dialogue on this?

Pro and Con. :thumbsup:

[no name no slogan]

4. Because they want to make the Democratic Party the GOP

The reasons I don't like the DLC are numerous, but they can be summed up in one phrase: they are trying to remake the Democratic Party as the moderate wing of the Republican Party.

The DLC thinks that abandoning their core constituencies and trying to look like "Republican Lite" is somehow going to make the majority of Americans vote for them. They want to make the party less worker-friendly and beholden to the whims of big corporations.

Their tactics are not working, either. Look at what's happened to the Democrats since the DLC took over in 1992-- not ONE presidential candidate has won an election with a majority of the popular vote, they have lost the US House after 38 years of continuous control, and they have lost the US Senate not just once, but TWICE in the span of 10 years.

I still think that there's room in the Big Tent for moderates AND conservatives. I don't think it's wrong to cooperate with big money on some issues. However, I don't see the point in big money taking over this party, when they already own the Republicans.


If the DLC continues controlling the Democratic party, the party will become as relevant as the Whigs.

[library_max]

67. A little history to go with that revisionism.

Since the DLC "took over" in 1992, we won the presidency twice. Before that, Carter was the only Democratic President since LBJ, and Carter got in only because of Watergate and proto-DLC activity. We didn't get a clear majority of the popular vote? So what? First, the popular vote is irrelevant, it's the electoral college that puts a president in office. Second, with visible third party candidates running nobody ever gets a clear majority of the popular vote.

The DLC lost Congress? No, Dixiecrats switched to the Republican Party. They're the same bunch of guys, only the label changed. If you really think Democrats as we presently understand the term controlled Congress for 38 years, you need to look at the legislative record of that period.

The formula for irrelevancy is to refuse to work with the political pros and the people who know what does and doesn't work in politics.

[Clete]

7. The DLC stands for the same principles that

my Republican parents did. It goes to show how much to the right each party has gone. Also, DLC seems to be predominantly for white democrats. There is no reaching out to minorities.

Although there has been much discussion about the DLC infiltrating the Democratic party, I think what has really happened is that the Republican Party has been taken over by the extreme right wing fascists now in control under the PNAC. So the moderate white Republicans (let's face it 99% of Republicans are white) who became Democrats didn't exactly feel comfortable under the big tent so they splintered off into their little centrist DLC faction. I may be wrong, but that's what it appears to me to be.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. I agree with this view

This country would be ten times better off if the DLC had kicked the Religious Right out of the GOP instead of kicking the liberals out of the Democrats.

[library_max]

68. Yeah,

but how could that possibly have happened? There's something to be said for thinking about politics in real-world terms, not wishcraft.

[otohara]

8. I Don't Want Them Picking Our Candidate

I also don't like reading columns like this one:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=85&subid=65

[legin]

13. Thanks otohara

i havn't read that patronising garbage in ages.

Got a nice rush of agression from it.

You do owe me a new monitor though. :evilgrin:

[Rich Hunt]

79. Indeed

There is NOTHING "socially liberal" about the DLC. They are fiscally conservative and socially middle-of-the-road.

Abortion - "safe, legal and rare". Give me a break.
Criminal justice - not at all "socially liberal" on this one.
War on drugs - same thing.

Socially liberal means much more (or should mean much more) than not being a raging patriarchal bigot.

[Bread and Circus]

17. Otohara,

I thought this was going to be "link free"
thread so we can do our own thinking.

:shrug:

[otohara]

31. Oops!

I take their attacks towards liberals personally
O8)

[ShimokitaJer]

22. Disgusting

My automatic gag reflex at the letters DLC is renewed. Thanks for the link.

[jiacinto]

30. They don't endorse candidates

nt

[ShimokitaJer]

32. They just attack the ones they don't like?

[blm]

65. I don't want the corporate media picking our candidate, either.

.

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. There are many, (including myself),

who believe that they represent the more conservative wing of the democratic party. Their leadership is on record as not wanting "elitist liberal" candidates (their quote, not mine). As a result, they were cautioning against coming out too strongly against the war and against Bush. Does anyone have the link to their memo against Dean? That's a good example of why I don't like them.

The Clark DLC connection is therefore a little bit confusing to me, becuase so far, from what I've read about him, his views are very liberal. Perhaps only Kucinich is more liberal.

[legin]

10. Mmmmm....

Because they are pro-war, or at least they were until they saw which way the wind was blowing.

Because they have taken the oppotunity to gratuitously sneer at us left-wingers on quite a number of occasions.

Because they got no brains, the candidate they didn't want was Dean so they slagged him on numerous occasions and made him inadvertantly the front-runner.

Because they have connections to PNAC, one of their guys is a signer of a couple of their letters.

Because they may have had a good idea 10 or 15 years ago, but now the world has moved on but they havn't.

And because they are wrong too often.

[Vikingking66]

11. they take our votes and then bitchslap us

My problem with the DLC is that they expect liberals, women, and blacks to vote for the Democratic Party, and then they tell them to go to hell when they ask for important legislation, like campaign finance reform,
ending the drug war, or fixing the horribly unfair justice system.

Politically speaking, they told Gore to tone down his campaign slogan of fighting for the people and to emphasize the lockbox instead - this prevented any junction with the Greens and helped Bush turn what should have been a landslide into a squeaker by making Gore sound passionless and ideologically indentical to Bush.

Since then, they've bashed Democrats who opposed the war for being liberal peaceniks, almost in the exact words as GOP oppo press releases.
They've told liberals that they can't have a real choice in their presidential nominee, but will have to settle for someone sufficiently moderate to please the DLC.

In general, I don't feel that that the liberal wing of the party, which turns itself out to vote in every election, doles out hard earned money, mans the volunteer armies, and mans the phones and faxes for the cause, is given the same respect that the DLC gives its rich doners.

[lcordero]

53. I bash them by calling them criminals for backing the Iraq War

and having the gall to refer to the undermining of foreign governments and the waging of aggressive looting and marauding wars as "internationalization".

[WillyBrandt]

12. Style over substance

When you read DLC policy papers, and their magazine, Blueprints, there's really little that a moderate or liberal Democrat would disagree with (excepting, perhaps, free trade).

It's style more than substance. We all hate the Bushies here, and we are totally alarmed at what the Republican party has become: at the national level, it is _nothing_ but the crazy faction. And we think our Party should be a vehicle of our anger.

The DLC, outside of its tiny publications, embodies this mealy-mouthed opposition to the Bushies.

Ask yourself: Why is there so much hatred here for Lieberman while Edwards is pretty well liked? With a few exceptions, they are both moderate Democrats. The difference is that Lieberman is a sanctimonious, cowardly bum whose "courage" is reserved for bashing fellow Democrats. Edwards, at least, gives em fighting words. He stands up for the Democratic party.

Another thing: the DLC embodies cool, brainly intellectualism. There's nothing wrong with that. There are a LOT of stupid goddamn morons on DU who don't realize that small reforms and little changes can improve the lives of lots of people, and will reject any Democrat who does things that way as apostate. Idiots.

Anyway, those idiots do have a point: the DLC embodies the Democratic Party's shift away from being the party not of blacks or workers--but it's shift away from being the party of Big Ideas. To the left there's a photo of FDR whose New Deal symbolizes what we love both in our party and our country: big ideas, sustained experimentalism, good-old-American pragmatism, the courage to bring some decency and opportunity into people's lives.

That is not the DLC. We need big ideas and big visions. We need think tanks like the DLC to aid in strategy and the implementation of ideas. But they can't BE the party, and their presumption that THEY should steer the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy is what rankles. They have their part, but they are far from the whole.

[legin]

21. Great post WillyBrandt

n/t

[John_H]

14. Easiest question of the day

It's been proven time and time again here that the DLC's clout is moderate at best--far less than Labor, pro-choice, african-american, hispanics, and other blocks.

So why is the DLC made out to be the Bella Legosi "pull the stringers" of the Democratic Party? Easy. In order for the far, far left fringe and the Greens to portray themselves as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party, they have to make a ri center/conservative block of Democrats look like the controlling force of the party. Trouble is it's just ain't so.

Actually, the black DLC helicopter bit is pretty good politics considering how laughably inept one-percenters usually are (hence their status as one-percenters), but ultimately it won't work because the overwhelming majority of progressive blocks see right through it and feel perfectly comfortable at home in the warm and loving bosom of our beutiful, mainstream liberal party.

[Terwilliger]

18. ugh!

and people think *I* worship false prophets! :eyes:

[John_H]

49. I put that in just for you, pardner.

Glad you liked it.

[ShimokitaJer]

29. It's only easy if you don't think too hard

Putting aside the question of whether or not African-Americans and Hispanics should be considered uniform "voting blocks," you only have to look at the issues focused on in the 2000 and 2002 elections to see what kind of campaign strategy the Dems have been using. Even candidates with wonderful pro-labor, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action records did not make those the issues at the forefront. Instead they bought into the GOP strategy and talked about national security and support of Bush in his endless war on terror.

Forgive me for not feeling warm in their bosom.

[John_H]

47. My good natured tweaking aside, you can't have it both ways

First of all, the groups I mentioned certainly can be called unified democratic blocks--check out the statistics. I'd call 85 percent plus a pretty good indication of blockness. Funny things also happen when people fly planes into large buildings and the president is a t 75 percent approval. I tend to think of 2002 as a clusterfuck of fear, not ideology.

I guess we have to rehash the basic flaws in the DLC bashing premise yet again. When you ask a DLC conspiracy theorist how they have so much juice, seeing as they don't have an effective way to mobilize "their" voters (what, convoys of limos taking middle managers to the pols on election day?) you always hear a varient of "follow the money." OK, lets follow the money. Anyone can see the DLC's donors are at multiple sources including their website. Next, go to the FEC site and add up those donations. Now add corporate donors (even though they may not be DLCers), corporate packs, right of center interst groups. Ad em all up. Hey, go ahead and cheat--why not add 20 percent to the total.

Now add up the donations blocks I mentioned in my post above. If money means influence the DLC has some work to do, eh? Now add the intangible power of the ability to turn out large groups of voters. "Ouch," says the DLC conspiracy theory.

The DLC does have some juice to be sure. Wanna know why? Cigar filled rooms? Shady dealmaking dinners at the Palm? Nope. The DLC has juice because moderates and even conservatives make up a sizable number of our party's voters in the suburbs, on farms, and in the south. Politicians may follow the money--but they can also smell a vote a mile away.

I undertand how dificult is is for the authoritarian mindset so prevelant on political fringes to grasp--but political parties who get their candidates elected above the Bridge Commissioner level are made made up of people who share some but never all of the same goals.

Greens are all very pure and on the same pure page--that's why they won't be around after January of 2004. They do supply my favorite irony of the DLC rag though--they're so gripped by groupthink, they can only think of the Democrats as one big lump of unified ideology. Like them.

[ShimokitaJer]

55. Let me see if I have your argument straight

--The perceived power of the DLC is a myth perpetuated by the Greens so that liberal Democrats will distrust them as Republicans in disguise

--Labor, blacks, Hispanics, pro-choicers, etc. collectively have a lot more pull than the DLC, because...

--Collectively, the above groups give far more money and supply far more voters to the Democratic party than do the DLC's donors

--What little power the DLC does have comes from suburban, rural, and southern moderates and conservatives

--The reason many Democrats stopped talking about the concerns of labor, blacks, Hispanics, pro-choicers, etc. and chose instead to focus on the concerns of suburban, rural, and southern moderates and conservatives while supporting "free trade" is NOT because they were interested in the corporate money the DLC had collected but because they understand that they should try to be inclusive and appeal to ALL their supporters -- not just the groups that supply the most money and voters

--Greens don't understand this "big tent" philosophy and thus can't see why the labor, black, Hispanic, pro-choice, etc. voting blocks are willing to sacrifice their issues for the sake of party unity, instead suspecting that SOMEHOW the DLC exerts undue influence over the direction of the party despite their obvious powerlessness

I think I get it. Thanks. But what a tragedy it would be if some unscrupulous candidate started to take the labor, black, Hispanic, pro-choice, etc. vote for granted, given that they would never ever in a million years vote Republican, and somehow imagined that the DLC votes could go either way, given the resemblence of the DLC voter base to that of the Republicans? That candidate just might move the center of the party further to the right, perhaps even throwing support behind inane policy decisions of the opposite party! But no, that would never happen. The Democrats must realize that doing so would erode the support of labor, black, Hispanic, pro-choice, etc. voters and that they would start to lose elections... perhaps even lose control of Congress. Thank god this Bizarro reality could never happen.

[sangh0]

61. Nope

The perceived power of the DLC is a myth perpetuated by the Greens so that liberal Democrats will distrust them as Republicans in disguise

You left out liberals within the Democratic Party who resent the misperceived power of the DLC. You also left out the DLC itself, which promotes the myth of it's own power.

Labor, blacks, Hispanics, pro-choicers, etc. collectively have a lot more pull than the DLC, because...Collectively, the above groups give far more money and supply far more voters to the Democratic party than do the DLC's donors

Right


What little power the DLC does have comes from suburban, rural, and southern moderates and conservatives

No. It comes from moderate and conservative mainstream Dems. The Dem sub-groups you list are just some examples of these moderate and conservative Dems. There are more

The reason many Democrats stopped talking about the concerns of labor, blacks, Hispanics, pro-choicers, etc. and chose instead to focus on the concerns of suburban, rural, and southern moderates and conservatives while supporting "free trade" is NOT because they were interested in the corporate money the DLC had collected but because they understand that they should try to be inclusive and appeal to ALL their supporters -- not just the groups that supply the most money and voters

I don't know where you got that from. The Dems have never stopped talking about the concerns of labor, Hispanics, pro-choicers, etc. Where did you get that from?

Greens don't understand this "big tent" philosophy and thus can't see why the labor, black, Hispanic, pro-choice, etc. voting blocks are willing to sacrifice their issues for the sake of party unity, instead suspecting that SOMEHOW the DLC exerts undue influence over the direction of the party despite their obvious powerlessness

Right

[John_H]

83. You're getting there, pardner.

Yesiree, you got the drill, Pardner. Except for the premise problem and a couple of words put in my mouth.

The Premise Problem.
Only in the reality-lite world of the far, far left could the initiatives of Democrats be confused with those of Republicans. Like the Crawfordian's say, when you're way out on the edge of the field, a cow looks a lot like a horse. Come on in with the rest of us and you'll see plenty of differences, just like all those taken for granted people who don't feel all that taken for granted.

Thirty seven races after I started slugfesting with republicans, I've noticed neither "many" democrats abandoning the concerns of the base, nor an erosion of support of the mainstram left. I see what I've always seen: Everybody gripes always. Everybody wants, and wants, and wants. This is the nature of the game. Nobody that I know's leaving save a few folks down at the college who, as long as they keep publishing in double-digit circulation journals, can support whomever they want since their lives tend not to change a lick no matter who's in power.

The Power of the DLC
Politicians love money, but they quake in the night with longing for votes. The way our electoral system works, moderates have the vote advantage in the party. What is it, sixteen percent of voters elect half the senators? And they're mostly in red states. Always been that way, always caused bigtime heartburn in the left.

I'm surprised the DLC doesn't have more power than it does. And would your hypothetical Nader-in-reverse candidate get succeed in her dastardly plans? Sure, in states and districts where they don't need much support on the left and plenty from the right. Could someone do it in a place where labor is important? Not on your life.

To the extent that the party is moving "right" the reason is math, not money. And that number problem is built into the system.

Vis a vis the Greens: If I were having trouble cracking the magic 2 percent barrier, I might recast my critical eye on my own wackily authoritarian non-progressive agenda instead of moderately powerful fundraiser boogeymen. Seems like considering all those dienfranchised Dems, the greens'd be raking 'em in. Why aren't they succeeding like their wingnut counterparts in the GOP? Here's a tip: the wingnuts on the right get their extreme agenda heard via Jesus. The Greens will have to earn support through mortal means.

Could it be a)all those poor ignored dems you're gnashing theeth over ain't all that ignored and b) even if they were income capping and centralized control of small businesses just aint their bag?

[Terwilliger]

15. Can you tell me why the Dem party didn't figt the 2000 election results?

I believe that the DLC was somewhere near the heart of that decision. They have my contempt.

[Bread and Circus]

24. Terwillinger.

It is okay to write a paragraph or two.

This is not a Clark thread and I would really like
to know what you think but details about what you
think are more fun.

[Terwilliger]

27. that's nice

was my position unclear?

[Terwilliger]

35. oh doctor!?

Who stopped the recount and who stopped the fight for the VOTE...you know, that guarantee we all are supposed to have?

[Pepperbelly]

25. you BELIEVE that ...

they were SOMEWHERE NEAR the decision not to fight the 2K election results?

Very persuasive, T.

Totally, utterly untrue though.

The only EVIDENCE on the table regarding that decision is what Al Gore had to say on the subject and what he said was that further contesting had the potential to tear the country apart. As a patriot, he demured from further controversy, something Bonehead would never have done because he, unlike Gore, didn't give and still doesn't give a drizzly shit about the good of the nation.

[Terwilliger]

26. I see...so Democrats in general are traitorous to their oath?

or just the DLC?

[Pepperbelly]

37. that didn't even make sense ...

you post paranoid fantasy as though it means something and then, when called on it, reply with a non-sequitur?

[Terwilliger]

41. compreshension problems?

The DLC is at the heart and soul of the neoliberal party revamp. If you don't think that's a problem, there's nothing I can do for you.

[Pepperbelly]

43. I think that the only ...

comprehension problems belong to you.

Perhaps a class or two in classical logic would help you differentiate between belief and fact, no?

[Terwilliger]

50. Is there a class about having your head in the sand?

:shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

52. if so, perhaps you could teach it, no?

:D

[Terwilliger]

60. sure

just explain to the students that Democrats are trying to have it all ways (AGAIN) trying to be all things to all people, and when George Bush and his media friends have dutifully marginalized all the Democratic candidates, your love of centrism is not going to save you

[Code_Name_D]

62. So we wern't told to "just get over it?"

nt

[Ardee]

90. The dreaded Ralph Nader speaks.....hide everyone!!

"The DLC brags about one of their own-- Bill Clinton-- developing the message that brought the Democrats the White House in 1992, after the disastrous failed and supposedly ultra-liberal candidacies of Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. Clinton insiders will tell you that Ross Perot (and his 19 million voters) was more responsible for beating President George H. W. Bush than the DLC strategy.

So what is the explanation when two of their very own, Gore and Lieberman, lost what should have been a landslide election in 2000? Soon after the election was stolen by the Bushites and the Supreme Court, From's group gathered to post-mortem the reasons why Gore lost (though he won) and concluded it was because he chanted populism ("I will represent the people, not the powerful"). A few months later, Lieberman agreed with From, saying he would not have campaigned with words that criticized industries like the oil, insurance, drug and HMO barons. (To his credit, From has not blamed the Greens.)

But Gore won the election-- both the popular and, as subsequent reviews documented, the electoral vote in Florida as well. (See Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close to Call.") Instead of going after the still-operating perpetrators of this theft in Florida and pushing for national electoral reform that not only accurately counts all the votes but eliminates the disenfranchisement of citizens from the voting rolls, the DLC continues its ideological tautologies. "

[Terwilliger]

94. link?

that's a great comeback for these twits

[Ardee]

97. sorry T........

http://www.ralphnader.com/interest/080103.html

You know, the more I read Ralph the less I respect his detractors.....

[otohara]

33. I Think They Pushed Gore Out

of running again.

[Terwilliger]

36. if that's true...

should I support them if their choice of candidate comes to power?

[otohara]

39. ABB

except Lieberman.

[Terwilliger]

40. what if they choose Dean?

or Clark?

[otohara]

45. They Hate Dean

my guess is they are behind Clark, and possibly helped him with his decission to run.

[Bucky]

58. "except Lieberman"?

Otohara wrote:
"ABB... except Lieberman."

Exsqueeze me? If the Democrats nominated Lieberman, then you would vote for Shrub? That makes no sense at all. I'm no fan of Fair-Weather Joe, but surely he'd be a better, fairer president than the Current Executive Occupant.

[otohara]

63. It's A Joke!

I would choke doing it, but I would vote for holy Joe.

[jiacinto]

44. What proof do you have of that?

nt

[otohara]

48. Well Since I'm Forbidden To Post A Link

but, the DLC dissed Gore shortly after Supreme Ct. decission 1/24/01. Bad mouthed him up and down - said he was a "outdated populist" and his platform was "too liberal"

I'd post the link to their nasty critique of Al Gore's loss and how to win the Dems need to move further to the right. Go to DLC & read


"Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back,"

It's an eye opener

[Forkboy]

66. I hope carlos gets a chance to respond to this

and I'm not saying that as a dig against him.

[jiacinto]

96. Email me the link

nt

[library_max]

70. Because the Dem party DID fight the 2000 election results

all the way to the Supreme Court.

See, doctor, you have to give Terwilliger one-liners back. He's not going to read longer messages anyway.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

82. They fought to make sure that all the votes were counted.

Not just certain counties - all the votes in Florida. Were you asleep during Bush v. Gore? The "certain counties" nonsense is a Republican smokescreen. Yes, because of the way Florida state law read at the time, recount requests during the protest phase had to come from the individual county election boards, with no mechanism for demanding a statewide recount. But during the contest phase, the Gore team did just that, and got it from the Florida Supreme Court, only to have it taken away by the Scalia junta.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Supports Bush all the time

Spreads Rove talking points. Demonizes liberal positions and moderate ones in favor of right wing position. Just look at what Pelosi, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman did with Dean's evenhandedness on Israel and the Palestinians comments. That doesn't push the debate toward the center. It pushes the debate to the far right. They lied and said our policy has always supported the settlements, and as Carter pointed out today that is not true.

[ShimokitaJer]

19. Follow the money

Many have answered here more completely than I could on undue DLC control over the Democratic party agenda. If that was all it was, then we could chalk it up to the need for a unified front and even those on the left side of the party could see the need for compromise and offer support.

For me, it's always been about the money. I believe the influence of special interests through campaign donations means that we can never have a true democracy without complete public funding for elections. The DLC has done an amazing job of altering the imbalance in corporate donations given to the Republican party vs. the Democratic party, but they did so by appealing to many of the same corporate interests that the Republicans target. And, of course, that makes them beholden to the same corporate interests the Republicans are. The imbalance is still there, and that makes Democrats more likely to work for campaign finance reform, etc., but the closer the party moves toward DLC ideals, the less likely it is that real reform will take place from within the party.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. It's several things

Perhaps you've noticed, but most people at DU aren't moderates. DU serves a broader spectrum than the Deomocratic Party. Ideologically, DU ranges from centrist Democrats who are much like Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman to some people a few degrees left of Noam Chomsky. Not everybody here is a Democrat. Until recently, I was a registered Green. As long as everybody keeps in mind that this is a discussion board and that we don't have to agree on a platform or a candidate by next summer, it works.

DU's center of gravity is left of where the Democratic Party center of gravity lies. The moderates are a minority here. Also, everybody at DU, moderates and progressives alike, tend to be doctrinaire. Think of this as an electronic personality clash. This dispute may be further heightened by flame threads I like to think of as "Green/Loyalist" wars. Personally, I keep away from these threads nowadays. These threads leave some bad feelings.

The DLC itself has grown more arrogant over the years. Who are the Al Froms and Bruce Reeds of the world to try to define what a good Democrat is and try to tell progressives that they should sit down and shut up and just vote for the candidates they choose? And who is Will Marshall to laud the "Blair Democrats" for siding with Bush in his colonial war in Iraq? That war is both a moral and a pragmatic catastrophe for America. Dissing Dr. Dean, Mr. Kucinich and most of the base of the Democratic Party for opposing it is wrong on two counts. First, as already noted, the war is a disaster; things have turned out very much as we who marched against the war last winter said they would. Second, since the war was predicated on lies, how can anybody charge that to oppose it by itself demonstrates a weakness in affairs of national security? Yet the DLC continues to beat the same drum, even though events have refuted that position. If anything, a better argument can be made that support for the war demonstrates gullibility, which is not a good quality in a President.

This is not to say that the progressives are blameless in these clashes. They should refrain from attempting to read the moderates out of the Democratic Party with terms like DINO. The truth is that we're going to have to stick together and work together if we are to have any hope of reversing the coup of 2000 by the ballot box.

[Vikingking66]

51. allright, what are the numbers?

I've heard that 30% or so of Democrats consider themselves as liberals, so how many are moderates and how many are conservatives?

Is it a 30-30-30 split? If it is, liberals aren't a minority.

If so, I'd like to know what exactly conservative Democrats stand for that's different from conservative Republicans. I've always been confused by people like Zell Miller who run as Democrats and vote as Republicans. What is their ideal Democratic platform?

[Jack Rabbit]

54. The reference is to DU, not the Democratic Party as a whole

What makes Zell Miller a Democrat? He is a registered Democrat and he votes with the Democrats on the continuing resolution for the organization of the Senate.

Otherwise, your point is well taken.

[lcordero]

28. too much corporate money

I do not feel that I am getting represented at all when it comes to big issues. They are continually trying to sell out, hinder, betray and impede the people who are usually the base of the Democratic Party for corporate money.

On edit: Like the saying goes, "No man can serve two Masters"...without pissing one of them off.

[stickdog]

34. Because the DLC has been co-opted by 'neoliberal' Bush lickers. (NT)

[Pepperbelly]

38. Bush lickers ...

that could be taken several ways.

:D

[Forkboy]

42. Cut that out!!

:spank:

:)

[roughsatori]

46. You made me laugh, thanks

I thought you were going to give an erudite response, and was taken off guard, and my tea was spit on the keyboard. I don't know why I think that is so funny.

[sugarcookie]

56. My thoughts about DLC

I’ve been a member since May and I don’t even have 300 posts yet. I ‘m trying very very hard to be proactive instead of reactive. I’m going to make an exception for this. Well here goes…

To be honest, I never had any negative thoughts about the DLC until Iraq. When Bush was trying to sell his war with Iraq…I wasn’t buying. Masses of people were not buying. We sent a message (loud and clear) to our leaders and only a few were listening. I actually cried when I saw our Dem leaders in the Rose Garden standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush. Yes, a few tried to speak out but they quickly caved at the first sign of criticism. I ask you, how can you stand up to your RW neighbor if your own leadership won’t do it. I truly believe that if each and every one had shown the courage exhibited by a few…this whole mess might have been resolved in another manner.

Enter “the election process”. The reasons above are a part of what motivated me to support an “outsider”. Like it or not there is a lot of chatter out there about maneuvering and posturing from within the DLC. I am trying to keep an open mind, but as things are unfolding it appears that some of it might be true. Pelosi’s shitty/sweet letter set my alarms off. It reminds me too much of “high school homecoming queen” shenanigans. I’m just waiting to see how this all plays out.

I have been a loyal Democrat all my life and I will vote for whoever wins the nomination. I do not hate the DLC, but I don’t mind telling you I feel dismissed and disregarded.

[IkeWarnedUs]

57. Because the DLC is a Trojan Horse for the neo-cons

So many of the arguments in this thread talk about what the effect the DLC has had on the Democratic party - becoming "Republican lite", ignoring the traditional Democratic base for special interests, etc. None really talk about the cause.

The neo-cons have been putting their cabal together for many, many years and they have covered a lot of bases. They developed unholy alliances in the media, military, foreign governments, corporate world and have taken the Republican party to a place many traditional Republicans find uncomfortable. And, through the DLC, have infiltrated the Democratic party as well. As evidence I offer:

PNAC has issued a number of official statements, including their Statement of Purpose (6/3/97), Letter to Clinton encouraging him to attack Iraq (1/26/98), Statement on Post War Iraq (3/19/03) and their Second Statement on Post War Iraq (3/23/03).

Each of these statements were signed by 20-30 people. Among the signers are:

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.

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.

There is another group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) that was formed in the fall of 2002. Its Mission Statement says:

"The regime of Saddam Hussein has attacked its neighbors, acquired weapons of mass destruction, and directed those weapons against innocent men, women, and children. It has supported international terrorism and has savagely murdered and repressed the Iraqi people. The current government of Iraq poses a clear and present danger to its neighbors, to the United States, and to free peoples throughout the world."

Where have we heard that before?

It says they "will engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people.

Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda.

Who are The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

CLI Officers

Chairman of the Board Bruce P. Jackson

Executive Director Randy Scheunemann

Treasurer Julie Finley

Secretary Gary Schmitt

(Jackson, Scheunemann and Schmitt all signed the PNAC Statements on Iraq. Schmitt is also a founder of PNAC.)

Advisors include PNAC'ers Dr. Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Peter Galbraith, William Kristol, Will Marshall, Josh Muravchik, Richard Perle, Danielle Pletka and James Woolsey. All were part of the select few who put their names to one or more of the PNAC statements above.

Note, Will Marshall, policy director of the DLC, is an advisor to CLI.

(Link to CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml)

Finally, take a look at what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11.

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

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

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


And this one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Perle's lips move.

I'm sure many of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called) joined on for funding support and without really understanding what the DLC's agenda really is. Most of the DLC's message is spun to sound like it challenges Bush, but look at the core messages and you find them more closely alligned with the neo-cons than it appears on the surface.

When you realize this, Congressional Democratic support for the Bush administration's policies (out of control military budget, tax cuts and war, war, war) makes more sense.

That's why I hate (and fear) the DLC's influence.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

69. Couldn't have said it better!

eom

[DrFunkenstein]

59. Kerry Has Never Accepted PAC or Soft Money

He has never had to compromise himself to PACs or to the DLC. I find that his ability as one of the most liberal Senators in Congress to build bridges to the moderates is fantastic news.

[Terwilliger]

71. because he's so rich

which will definitely enamor him amongst the communities that couldn't imagine that kind of money :eyes:

[hedda_foil]

80. Maybe not, but he accepts a TON of bundled corporate money.

Go to www.opensecrets.org and see for yourself. Check his 2002 campaign for the Senate, where he ran unopposed. A great deal of that money was funnelled into his Presidential campaign fund so it's a good place to start.

[blm]

64. Those who hate DLC the most also love DLC poster boy for 11yrs., Gov. Dean

They say the DLC compromises too much with the GOP, then lavish praise on Dean who had an 11 yr. record of aligning with the GOP in Vermont, often AGAINST the progressive Dems there.

Go figure.

[Terwilliger]

74. not me

I think Dean is more DLC than Kerry is

[blm]

75. I know and trust

the judgement and sincerity of Kucinich supporters.

[Terwilliger]

77. oh shit!

No WONDER you're in trouble! :D :hi:

I'm sincere, but dont trust my judgement.

[gully]

88. Funny the DLC wasn't aware Dean was their poster boy....

when they trashed him on several occasions.

Actually, Dean is no body's poster boy, he think's outside the box. And, being the country is largely made up of simpletons, many people can't comprehend his complex/fair position on the issues.

[ElkHunter]

72. The reason I have no use for the DLC...

...is because they are essentially moderate Republicans. People seem to forget that before 1980 the moderates controlled the Republican party. With the election of Reagan the Republicans made a sharp turn to the right and the moderate wing of the party was shoved to the rear. The Republicans are controlled by the hard conservative right wng of the party and there is no equivalent version of the DLC in the GOP. If you compare the political views of the DLC to those of moderate conservatives 25 or 30 years ago you will quickly see the similarities. Since I didn't vote for moderate Republicans in the 70's I have no desire to vote for them today even if they wear a Democratic coat.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. I have nothing to offer that has not already been said by Sangho

and others who have accurately pointed out the manner in which the DLC can legitimately be blamed for both dividing a base that DID stand together in exchange for splitting what economist Kevin Phillips described as the RADICAL MIDDLE vote..which leads to LESS participation not more.

But I DID want to thank you for the manner in which you started this thread.

The only other thing I would point out was how much MORE powerful the Dems were without the Whitehouse and WITH CONGRESS and the Senate...something that will be further out of reach if we keep going after the voters in the middle who vote based on whather there is cream in ther coffee that day ( sarcasm..I promise...but nonetheless these are the real single issue voters who the SOUNDBITE appeals to)

I highly recommend that you read Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy" which will gve further insight into why it DOES NOT work to have BOTH parties catering to the most powerful among us.

Again...thanks for the thread :toast:

[CWebster]

78. Instructive articles on the DLC

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6012/view/print

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_st26.html




previous DU discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60&archive=

[hedda_foil]

81. What every DUer and every DEM needs to know about the DLC

This is Eloriel's master thread that incorporates all of DU's extensive and detailed research on the DLC. This is serious, folks. VERY serious. Most of this thread (not all) is just off-the-cuff opinion in both directions. The research links from the old DU provide the real information. READ THIS THREAD and the links that it incorporates. Then come back and we'll talk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

[CWebster]

84. thanks hedda

I was hoping you would stop by---have been searching for that link.

[hedda_foil]

85. You're welcome.

I lost my favorites folder when my hard drive died a few weeks back. Luckily someone else posted something from the old DU which got me into my bookmarks. Otherwise I would have posted this last night.

We worked like dogs on these threads when nobody had connected the dots on the DLC. It was as unpleasant to discover what was going on in our own party as anything we've found out about here. And I include BBV, lihop, mihop, and PNAC.

[otohara]

86. Here' More On How DLC Screwed Al Gore

I am unable to post the original aritcle, because it's in the DLC magazine or I have to pay. This is from a Washington Post article.

Dems Say Gore's Presidential Bid Ruined by Populist Message

By Brian Hansen

WASHINGTON, DC, January 24, 2001 (ENS) - Al Gore, the self-styled
environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his
bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated
"populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans,
according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership
Council.

The report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back,"
was unveiled this morning by Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
officials at a news conference at the National Press Club in
Washington. The DLC's 40 page report concludes that the Democratic
Party must move towards the political right - towards the
Republicans - if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and
the White House in 2004.


Democrat Al Gore, who ran on an environmental platform, lost his bid
for the White House because he cast himself as a liberal, concludes
a new report released by the Democratic Leadership Council (Photo
courtesy Office of Vice President Al Gore)
Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened the freewheeling
discussion forum this morning by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made
a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would
"fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first
president of the 21st Century.

"Gore chose a populist rather than a new Democrat message, and as a
result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an
advocate of big government," From said. "By emphasizing class
warfare, seemed to be talking to industrial age rather than
information age America."

http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/200101/msg00169.html


Now from Mr. Gore himself, who then disses the DLC when he spoke at NYU. Saying that Dems must go on the attack regarding G. Dubya

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003730.html

O8) Al From made me post these links

[Rich Hunt]

87. Ack

....no wonder Gore now refers to himself as a "recovering politician".

[Q]

91. Notice something strange about the DLC propaganda?

- First...they always state that 'Gore lost' because of his 'liberal' (populist) campaign. Rarely do they mention that he received more votes than any other Dem in history. And in NONE of their tirades against Gore do they mention anything about election fraud, voter purges or right wing manipulation of the election in general.

- Why don't they mention these things...that Gore won despite everything the right threw at him? Because it would immediately shoot holes through their theory that the party needs to move right in order to 'win'. These types of deceptions are befitting the Neocons...but not the Democratic party.

[otohara]

92. Them Along With The Media Always Fail To Mention

the numerous dirty tricks the pukes used in Florida. Even when there's a liberal arguing that Gore won, the planning that took place before, during and after the election never gets mentioned.

WTF is up with that???

[Terwilliger]

95. yes

- I have had Nader and the Greens called traitors to the progressive cause

- The DLC--the THIRD way-- is the THIRD-party and always has been. THEY split the party. THEY threw the election to Bush. THEY kept the Democrats from contesting the recount.

- The DLC is the enemy