If the DLC broke away from the Democratic Party...

[Perky]

I am convinced that the remaining elements of the Big Tent would lack the cohesion to stay together, and even if they did.. they would most assuredly never win the White House again. Many many moderate republicans are looking for an alternative to the religious right and neo-con domination of the GOP. I am not convinced that it would not be able to gain more than a 35% share in a three way race.

Lets face it.

We may not like each other's politics; we may hold our noses when we see each other across the room; but in order to defeat the republicans in 2006 and 2008 we need the biggest tent possible.

As muddled as it sounds, the liberals may pull the Mods to the left and the mods may pull the liberal to the right, but we need each other.

WHat we lack is the leadership to pull both camps into the tent and put us all in our place.

The question I have is who out there has that ability? Figure that out and you have have found the next occupant at 1600.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Be prepared for an onslaught of things like...

..."no they wouldn't!" and "I'm sick of the DLC..." ad nauseum with no plans or strategy (or even outright disdain of plans or strategy).

[Perky]

3. (wink) n/t

[eleny]

4. Please don't use the Republican talking points here

"no plans for strategy" - hrmph!

[LoZoccolo]

6. That's a superficial comparison.

What I said has nothing to do with the Republican talking point.

[eleny]

9. It's exactly the Republican talking point

They say that the Dems have no strategy and they say it all the time.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I know that they say that.

I'm not saying that.

[xultar]

15. Again. We don't. We aren't organized. WE don't lock step.

[xultar]

7. Whaddaya talking about. We do lack strategy. We admit that

hearding Dems behind an issue is like hearding cats.

That is what makes us who we are.

To lie and say we do have strategy is silly.

[eleny]

16. You didn't hear Feingold present a strategy for Iraq?

[LoZoccolo]

21. This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats.

That's not the issue. You would benefit from not replying until you figure out what we're talking about, or at least ask us.

[xultar]

64. We have no COLLECTIVE strategy agreed upon by all a Singular

strategy.

Yes, everyone has something to say but as a party what is our strategy?

[Oerdin]

19. That garbage is one thing I can't stand about DU.

I'm a proud DLC backer and Bill Clinton was absolutely correct to use the DLC to drag the extreme left wing of our party back to the center. Sure, they kicked and screamed and cried a river but that was also the best thing to happen to the party since the late 1970's.

To do other wise is to become a niche player who can't win in a national election.

[LoZoccolo]

26. I don't really have an inherent dislike for the further left.

But what I'd want to see is:

- What ideas they have.
- How they would work.
- How they are better than current ideas.
- What evidence suggests that they are better.
- How they can be presented to people in ways they'll understand.
- How these ideas will make it to being implemented in reality (which includes getting politicians elected).

This would be intelligent, thought-provoking discussion. But if people just want to crab and assert, I actually don't feel completely good about giving them my time, and as such, I have a huge ignore list.

[burythehatchet]

65. Would you? would you really like to see those ideas?

You will soon dear friend. Now that We the people are on the verge of wrestling the party away from the corrupt corporatist DLCers, we may actually have a chance to debate real progressive ideals like fair trade, living wage, unversal health care and so on.

So hang in there. Once the members of the Corporatist party with a "D" after their name are renedered irrelevant, a true democratic/liberal/progressive party will emerge. I hope it isn't too late by then.

The only difference between a DLCer and a Neo-nazi republican is the rate at which they burn the constitution. Want proof? Show me all the actions the DLC has taken in response to torture and the abrogation of the Geneva convention...in your own words,trying to avoid talking points.

[lastknowngood]

46. As long as extreme left wing means womens rights civil rights

gay rights and human rights and believing that humans and their children are more important that corps. then call me wild eyed lefty. I'm damn tired of the reich wing of both the repug and Dem party denigrating everything good in world and promoting the greatness of corp power.

[Eloriel]

78. AMEN!! That ought to be framed and

put on a needlepoint pillow to boot. AND tatood across the fevered brow of all those corporatist DLCers.

[eleny]

224. Add getting out of Iraq now and I'm with *you*

I'll also add labor unions to the list. You just can't take big corporate money and be able to pass legislation that means something for the working people.

[FreedomAngel82]

91. Uh no

People are tired of republicans. Look at all the polls. Clinton was a great president but he was no Kennedy or FDR. Those two are TRUE BLUE democrats. Not light blue. I don't want any more rightwing shit whether it's from a republican or a "democrat".

[Zhade]

190. I'm going to ask you to define the policies of "the extreme left"...

...and I'll say right up front that I doubt you will, or can, do so.

Note that I said POLICIES. So, what policies do you think the alleged 'extreme left' of DU favor? How many Maoists and Stalinists are here? How many support collectivization and forced redistribution of wealth?

I'll wait - but not with bated breath - for your answer (though I doubt you will rise to the challenge of backing up your use of the term).

[madfloridian]

23. Wink.

.

[Clark2008]

2. How 'bout we just find a candidate who is perceived as a moderate,

but is actually a liberal?

I think I have JUST the candidate in mind.

:hi:

[Perky]

13. Wes CLark

We clark has never impressed me as someone who has the balls to take on the party leadership. Or the CHarisma to rally the grass roots to his isde in the absnce of getting anyone inleadership to coalexce around him. It certainly was not the case in 2004. He was wishy washy to long on his entry into the race, and he lacked enough of a groundsweel when he finally took the plunge to be taken seriously after a couple of weeks.

You need charisma, money backing and an ability to tell the pointigficators to shut up and sit down.

[xultar]

18. Buhwawawa!

[Clark2008]

49. And I'm guessing you didn't see his speech at the Dem Convention.

Because, you would dismiss this media-driven idea that he has no charisma, outright.

And, as far as grassroots support, I suggest you take a look at all the Dem blogs. Wes Clark wins every single 2008 nominee poll, hands down. He's certainly got the grassroots support to get him the votes he needs.

Now, we just have to get the Dem Party to get their fucking heads out of Hillary's ass (because she will not turn one red state) and get our boy Wes some funding. He could beat any Republican and turn, maybe, four red states blue in 2008.

[Perky]

55. I don't need to repeat myself.

But given that I was sitting in the fourth row at the DNC and saw him speak three times in NH... I guess that counts for nada

[Clark2008]

68. Then I simply don't agree with you.

When someone can get a room of thousands to go dead quiet and then lift them up into thunderous cheer in one minute, the lack of charsma isn't something that jumps into my mind.

So sorry you simply don't see it.

[FreedomAngel82]

93. I did see the speech

and was bored. Clark isn't presidential material. What else does he have? Nothing. I want someone with experience in the government. I would never vote for someone unless they had enough experience to show their record and how they were. Here in my town earlier this year we had a mayoral race and one of the canidates never was involved in politics before. I had nothing to judge her on, but voted for the guy who had more experience (an indie Jimmy Carter type who's been involved in local and national politics since 1975). Same with any democrat.

[Clark2008]

156. Whatever.

I guess a person who's spent their life in leadership, has a master's degree in economics, is intelligent, is solid in his professional and personal life and has a smile to melt butter (yes, that's important) isn't presidential, in your opinion?

Besides, I don't want a politician. I want a leader. I think Wes Clark's 34 years of leadership, his five years of running NATO, which is the size of a small state, his willingness to speak out when he sees a wrong being committed and the fact that he's busted his ass for a number of Dem candidates (even BEFORE the 2004 election) is proof enough to me that he knows what he's doing.

By the way, did you REALLY think Kerry could have EVER carried our state. :eyes: Or flip ANY red state? I certainly didn't - and we HAVE to do that in 2008.

[Telly Savalas]

140. You thinking of Russ Feingold, too?

[drfresh]

239. Either Feingold or Clark would be great

Those are my top 2 picks for 08.

[cascadiance]

242. At the risk of sounding like a Limbaugh freak, "DITTO!"

I challenge anyone to find someone in congress with a greater voting record in two of the most important areas facing us today, campaign finance reform and civil liberties! Russ has lead the way in both of these areas and has been solid in being a lone opponent in some cases on the right side (or should I say "correct" side!).

In addition to the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform act, which if it hadn't gotten watered down so much perhaps would be a lot more meaningful today, he's lead the way against the Patriot Act, and also one of a handful of senators against the completely flawed Telecommunications act of 1992 which Clinton should have vetoed for it's unconstitutional Communications Decency Act as well as all of those deregulation gifts to the likes of Sinclair and Clear Channel.

Feingold is the man and would help us win a lot of midwestern states! Teaming up with Clark would be an awesome combination I think! From some people's perspectives though (not mine), to help solidify this, we need to help him find a wife soon! :) Any takers DU women?

[JanMichael]

173. That shows the disgusting nature of this system. Lying to be liked.

Oh well...I'm not certain where to go with this.

[lastknowngood]

5. If there is no difference between the parties then why should I bother

to vote? And there is no difference between the DLC and the repugs.

[LoZoccolo]

10. IF there is no difference between the parties.

Credibility, please.

People who say that there is no difference are anti-choice and anti-gay rights.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

32. Joe Lieberman is pro-choice.

So to say there's no difference is basically to say that the issue is irrelevant to you and be anti-choice.

[lastknowngood]

36. No he is not just listen to him. And you can't find a more bush loving

"Dem."

[LoZoccolo]

40. Here's a link to his speech at the NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/lieb012103spt.html

Half of what I'm afraid of about this "let's tear up the Democratic Party" movement, is that it's adherents often don't even do the most rudimentary effort to figure out facts.

[lastknowngood]

63. If you believe Bush's little kissy boy has any principles your crazy

He is a Bush enabler and supporter of this and any future war in the middle east or anywhere the corps. dictate.

[LoZoccolo]

79. Oh, and NARAL gives his voting record a 100% score.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/publications/cong_04_ct.cfm

[MattSWin]

87. hey if Lieberman even said...

"I agree with President Bush that humans must breath oxygen" many DUers would be calling him Democratic lite.

They just expect everyone to agree with them 100%. They're stuck in their own little worlds. Meanwhile the right-wing is taking over.

[LoZoccolo]

97. People who sit on a message board and whine and do little else...

...don't have much recourse other than exaggerating, I guess.

[FreedomAngel82]

94. This is why you have to research the canidate

Research the people who are involved. Find out if they truly are a democrat or not. If not try to find someone else to run instead and push for them.

[murdoch]

103. Exactly

Democratic Underground tends to ban and erase posts which go too far in this direction, which sort of confirms for me that I am correct. I stopped voting for the Democrats a few years ago, now I vote for candidates from the Green Party and so forth.

As far as "winning", I don't feel I've ever won - Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter and Clinton do not feel like me "winning". The US has never had democratic voting anyhow - until the 1960s blacks could not vote. Nowadays one out of five voting-age workers in California can't vote (they're Mexican or whatever), with the number being one out of ten in many other states. So right off the bat it's a contest among the wealthier elements of the population.

Considering Western Europe's communist parties after World War II - in the 1950s, the French communist party was still the largest political party in France, the Italian communist party almost won the election in 1976 (and did win in 1948, but was cheated out of it), and of course West Germany had a slate of candidates similar to East Germany, and people were not able to vote communist in West Germany since the party was banned. Despite the communist parties never coming to power in Western Europe by an election, they had a hell of a lot more effect on those countries than some weak, not-even-liberal "third way" compromise.

Things are becoming more polarized, not less, and I have no use for third way, not even liberal anymore junk and the like. To a large extent, I see the Democratic Party and AFL-CIO as just shills run by the same people who run the Republican Party and Chamber of Commerce. The AFL-CIO is imploding and hopefully the Democratic Party will follow suit.

[ElectroPrincess]

8. We are from different planets politically (Democrats vs. DLC)

I would LOVE-IT if they would break off! Lock, stock and barrel. :P

Good Riddance DLC! They don't even begin to speak for WORKING and MIDDLE class people. The DLC represents those of the Upper-Upper Middle Class to the Filthy Rich.

If you do NOT have over 3 million dollars of accumulated wealth at your disposal AND are NOT heavily invested in the stock market (to include the corporations that are part of the Military-Industrial Machine), then you are NOT a DLC Democrat.

Please break off DLC!?! That would be the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in our recent past. We could then work to be the party of PEOPLE and, as such, PRO-labor.

I hope and pray what you suggest (split between Democrats and DLC) does indeed happen. ;)

[FightinNewDem]

161. Got news for you, EP

Most of us DLCers have been Democrats a hell of a lot longer than the nouveau left of the blogosphere.

We've pounded the pavement in our wards, precincts, cities and states.

We've donated to Democratic candidates. We've worked the phone banks, wrote the postcards, and put up the signs.

We've been with Democratic candidates through thick and thin, and we haven't threatened to bolt to the other side. It's not the DLC that gave Nader its votes.

This is our party too, damn it, and if you want to throw us out of it, then you are going to have a hell of a fight on your hands. We are the Democratic Party of FDR and Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, and Bill Clinton. The world didn't begin in Burlington in 2003.

[Zhade]

170. Interesting.

"Most of us DLCers have been Democrats a hell of a lot longer than the nouveau left of the blogosphere."

So you claim.


"We've pounded the pavement in our wards, precincts, cities and states."

As have quite a number of non-DLCers. You have no special claim on that.


"We've donated to Democratic candidates. We've worked the phone banks, wrote the postcards, and put up the signs."

As have quite a number of non-DLCers. You have no special claim on that.


"We've been with Democratic candidates through thick and thin, and we haven't threatened to bolt to the other side."

So you claim.


"It's not the DLC that gave Nader its votes."

Hard to argue with that one!


"This is our party too, damn it,"

Nice of a DLCer to admit that they're part of the party, not the majority of it.


"and if you want to throw us out of it, then you are going to have a hell of a fight on your hands."

I welcome the fight, but am more interested in seeing DLCers reform their views in accordance with things like equal rights rather than purging them.


"We are the Democratic Party of FDR and Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, and Bill Clinton. The world didn't begin in Burlington in 2003."

No, you are PART of the party - and the MINORITY, according to the DLC's own words.

[bpilgrim]

"the nouveau left of the blogosphere" is taking this party BACK

http://news.globalfreepress.com

fyi

peace

[FightinNewDem]

215. And the blogosphere...

...isn't the exclusive province of McGovernism version 2.0 Dems, either:

http://www.newdonkey.com
http://www.gregsopinion.com
http://www.kydem.blogspot.com
http://www.bullmooseblog.com
http://www.eduwonk.com
http://www.kausfiles.com

[LincolnMcGrath]

218. McGovernism

[bpilgrim]

227. never heard of'm

welcome to DU :evilgrin:

peace

[LincolnMcGrath]

226. Actually, It is precisely the DLC that gave us Nader votes.

[niallmac]

11. No they wouldn't!

I'm sick of the DLC. I also am pretty darn disdainful of any plans or strategy so don't get me started.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Thank you for letting me know you are disdainful of plans or strategy.

This will help me manage my time at DU.

[ElectroPrincess]

29. Newsflash Zoccolo, niallmac is FAR from alone in his sentiments ...

And if you are going to use this as a reason to knock DU as a whole, no one is buying such a glaring generalization.

What the DLC is frightened to admit is that the average Democrat is "catching on" to their Military-Industrial Corporation loving ties to perpetual war. The DLC is no longer able to spin war as "a good thing." The significant number of Representative and Senators who are invested in the War Machine are running scared. They are not able to scare the sheeple enough to plug all the *leaks* from honorable unnamed sources.

In other words: The jig is up and they're behaving pathetically. If they don't wake up and actually take the pulse of the "average working American Democrat" the DLC will get their political asses handed to them while trashing our Democratic Party in the short term. If that's what it takes to wash out these corrupt corporate loving politicians, then so be it.

However, what you suggest would be grand: Please let them go their own way before the run up to the 2006 elections? No such luck - they're drunk with PERCEIVED vice REAL power over those who call themselves "Democrat."

[FreedomAngel82]

98. I think so too

All the latest polls are showing that to me. It always amazes me. I don't think we can ever get rid of the DLC personally. Two DLCers are running for Bill Frist's seat here. It's tough shit but I gotta go with the one I think is best. Right now that person is Ford. He voted against NAFTA and is for investigating the DSM and signed Conyers letter the first time around (one of the original) while the other canidate has yet to address the DSM and thinks it would be a waste of time and make the troops look bad. :eyes: So it really depends on the person.

[Zhade]

172. "...the DLC will get their political asses handed to them..."

You mean, once again?

Shit, if Perot hadn't run, Clinton wouldn't have won.

[niallmac]

48. nobody likes to be pidgeon holed though I do it all the time.

Perhaps a better way to start a dialogue is to be prepared for yet another discussion. My feelings toward the DLC do not equate with fatalism. A lot of folks here have been burned more than once with republican lite approaches. My plan, my strategy is define ourselves. Are we proud to be liberals and do we actively support universal health care or not? (for example). I am confident that voters will respond more to a message that is
full of conviction than a half hearted voice that is a result of bending your own true beliefs.
When we compromise our inherent values we look wimpy and we sound wimpy and the public responds likewise. We can't win by following the path of the republicans. We have to blaze again that grown over path that so many times before led to victory.
We are wedded to a two party system so that's pretty much a given. Now it's time for the
minority party to define itself, stand up for itself and stick to it. Just like the RW we need to state our values over and over again until liberal means what WE say it means and not what the MSM says it means.
In the end we will have to come together I agree. But not without core values that we all agree on and agree to support even when it doesn't seem popular at the outset. I call it leadership.

[blm]

14. Actually, I think Dean could do it just fine given his history as a

centrist governor, and his recent realizations that the liberals in the Dem party have made proposals and stand on principles that make sense even to a centrist.

I do think he needs some of the further left to give him the room to make things happen and for some of those further right to stop allowing the media to define Dean as a far left crazy.

[Zhade]

175. Dean is a good example of a centrist...

...who doesn't have to be a corporate whore and isn't against equal rights for all Americans and for illegal wars.

Dean puts a lot of DLCers to shame.

[derby378]

20. If the DLC bolted, I probably wouldn't shed a tear

They still have time to remember why they became Democrats before they took the Zell Miller route.

[madfloridian]

22. Not true. I think the DNC could rebuild now.

In a way that is better for the people of the party.

Fundraising does not equal the DLC kind, but it is up over DNC fundraising by 50% from 2003. Can't compare last year.

It will take a while, no one expects it to happen soon. However, I want to see all the DLC apologists go and sign up for the upcoming wars of empire.

That IS the Third Way. No more hanging around here and pontificating.

[ElectroPrincess]

34. Sincerely, I wish THE THIRD WAY would go THEIR OWN WAY. /eom

[vi5]

24. Here's the thing about the DLC...most people don't give a damn..

..honestly the only people who even know what the hell the DLC is are people who are pretty heavily involved in politics or reading up on or knowing about politics. And most of thos people lean liberal anyway and don't like the DLC. Most people who call themselves moderates probably don't even know who the hell the DLC is or who their members are.

I agree we need moderates, and we need people who reach out to and appeal to moderats as long as they are not moderates who want to eat the party from within. I think it's safe to say that on his own voting record Harry Reid is a moderate. But he's a moderate who don't speak ill of his own party or the people on the far left like the DLC does. He isn't taking every opportunity in front of a camera to bash the very people he'll need the votes of to win elections like the DLC does. So do we need moderates? Yeah, we need moderates like Reid. Not moderates like Leiberman (the poster boy of the DLC).

People on here don't bash the DLC because of one or even 2 issues or even specific issues in general. They bash them for 2 reasons: 1)Their leadership has proven totally ineffectual, and 2)They take every opportunity possible to bash the people who constitute well over half of the democratic pary. Their one and only sucess story in their entire history has been Bill Clinton and I would submit his success and nothing to do with the DLC.

I say our candidates should try to appeal to moderates. But I don't think we need the DLC to do that. In fact I think in many ways they get in the way of us doing that.

[Perky]

27. Umm excuse me but when the %@#%^@%# was the last DNC

Success story???????????????????????

1960?

[cascadiance]

How about Howard Dean helping a lot of local candidates winning!

Democrats gained a lot of ground in state legislatures and other local races on the Rethugs in the last election in case you didn't notice it (and the mainstream media tries to make sure that most of us DIDN'T notice it!). It was a lot through help from Howard Dean's Democracy for America's help with the Dean Dozen and other activiities that helped these candidates get elected. Local races was one place where Diebold-style election fraud couldn't affect as many races without getting noticed like they could with the senatorial or presidential races. Everything below the Senate went the Dems way. You can say that the Rethugs gained in the House, but they did so only because of the Texas redistricting schemes. Had they not done that, the Dems likely would have picked up a seat instead or it would have been a wash.

The DNC (without DLC control) hasn't really been in place since before Clinton's been in office, so how can you really effectively measure it without the DLC. It IS obvious though that the DLC in charge of the Dems has lead to continual failure in the big races over the last decade or so!

[vi5]

89. Uh....I don't think my post mentioned anything about the DNC...

I don't think I mentioned any DNC vs. DLC. My point was that if you're saying we need moderates to win, I was agreeing. If you were saying that we need moderates who feel compelled to pander to republicans to make us like them and insult other members of our own party (both of which the DLC leaders seem to do at every turn), then I would disagree.

How many senators or congressmen currently serving are DLC members though?

[stray cat]

25. It might pave the way for a moderate third party candidate

to beat the right and the left.

[Fridays Child]

30. I'm sure they stand ready to welcome moderate republicans.

Too bad they refuse to do the same for members of their own party.

And, as to the question of who can pull us together, IMHO, it was Al Gore, the guy who actually won in 2000. We'd better figure out how to stop vote fraud or we won't have a chance, no matter how charismatic our party leaders may be.

[LoZoccolo]

37. Al Gore was DLC. n/t

[Fridays Child]

41. That didn't disqualify him from being a unifying force.

[LoZoccolo]

44. OK then, we shouldn't get rid of the DLC.

Thanks.

[Fridays Child]

61. I don't think I've ever argued in favor of that.

But that doesn't mean I appreciate it, when it seems that they'd like to get rid of me.

[rman]

245. Gore, DLC; not the same thing.

[ElectroPrincess]

51. I now feel comfortable to "rest my case" /eom

[Eloriel]

102. And Al Gore didn't DO too well until he adopted populist rhetoric

GORE'S POPULISM
During the last months of the 2000 presidential election, however, it must have seemed to the DLC that Gore and Lieberman, ur–New Democrats both, had crossed back to the other shore. Abandoning the DLC's message almost entirely, they scrambled to look like plain, old-fashioned Democrats in an awkward, faux-populist "people versus the powerful" campaign that sought to energize the party's working-class and lower-middle-class base. The DLC's elation at the selection of its chairman as the running mate for one of its founders turned to dismay during the Democratic convention last August, as Gore lurched left.

"I listened to Gore's speech at the convention with incredulity," says William Galston, a longtime DLCer who served as domestic policy adviser to President Clinton and who is currently a special consultant for Blueprint. Galston was the Gore campaign's representative to the Democratic platform committee, working alongside From and Elaine Kamarck, another veteran DLC strategist, who chaired the committee. Galston had heard rumors on the eve of Gore's speech that it would represent a shift but hadn't been otherwise warned. "From the convention on, I had essentially no input into the campaign," he says.

Also left with sharply reduced influence was From, who recalls with resignation his inability to bring the Gore-Lieberman ticket home to its New Democrat roots. "Once Joe got on the ticket, I worked mostly through him," says From, ticking off the names of campaign staffers through whom he tried to reach Gore. "I talked to Shrum, Greenberg, Eskew, and Tad Devine," he says. "I did a memo to Gore. I actually gave him a game plan to try to contain the populism in a way that would do the least damage."

After his populist turn, Gore surged in the polls in August and early September, and many analysts credited his fiery attacks on pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and health insurers, Big Oil, and George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "When I came on in July, Gore was already beginning to move in a populist direction," says Stan Greenberg, Gore's pollster for the last few months of the campaign. Brought in to replace Mark Penn, the chief pollster for both Clinton and the DLC, Greenberg helped move Gore to the left, targeting the candidate's message to recapture white working-class voters in the $30,000-to-$50,000 income range. On the ground, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and other components of the Old Democrats' traditional voter base--organized labor, African Americans, Hispanics, abortion rights activists--conducted intensive voter education and the get-out-the-vote drives, and these groups now take credit for delivering Gore's popular vote victory.

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html



Democratic Leadership Council members such as From can barely contain their glee at the prospect of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman winning the White House and Democrats taking charge of the House with a majority that depends on the New Democrats.

But rhetorically, Al Gore is not singing from the DLC prayer book. Like Clinton before him, he has cranked up the populism. At campaign stops in blue collar cities along the Mississippi River, the Democratic nominee was bashing "big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, HMOs," and a host of other corporate targets. These "which-side-are-you-on" speeches were decidedly un-DLC in tone and represented an implicit admission of something most Democrats know all too well: The DLC message has very little appeal beyond the beltway. (Ed. note: and the corporate boardroom, of course.)

But even as Gore hit the campaign trail with a "give 'em hell" stump speech that borrowed the old Roosevelt, Truman, and Ralph Nader critique of economic royalism, Lieberman was busily assuring a Wall Street Journal reporter that Gore's attacks on corporations were just "rhetorical flourishes." The ticket is "pro-business," he declared, adding, "Political rallies tend not to be places for extremely thoughtful argument."
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print

[Zhade]

184. Why look - facts that the DLCers can't deny.

Proof that turning away from the DLC increased votes for the Democratic ticket. Imagine that!

Spin, DLCers, spin - it's fun to watch, like trained monkeys jumping through hoops.

I find this interesting, and quite indicative of the DLC mindset: contain the populism in a way that would do the least damage.

Says it all, doesn't it? Well, that and the DLC support for the illegal war in Iraq, and its aversion to universal health care, and its approval of vouchers, and at least one of its state founders cozying up to Diebold, and its publicly-stated opposition to liberals and liberalism, and its support of NAFTA/CAFTA, and...

[Eloriel]

209. Can't deny, so they don't even try -- I'm sure you noticed. n/t

[Zhade]

214. I notice it every time it happens, which is more and more these days.

NT!

[Writer]

45. Sooo... getting Republicans to vote Democrat is a BAD THING?

I'm sorry, but I thought that the idea was to increase the number of votes for Democrats!

[Fridays Child]

53. Of course it's not. My statement was in response to the DLC's...

...campaign to gain distance from the far left wing of the party. An effective leader could pull the far left and the near right, who are becoming alienated from their own party, together.

[jonnyblitz]

54. yeah...fuck the base...lets cater to republicans

VERY GOOD!! :crazy:

[MattSWin]

92. no one said screw the base...

What we're saying is that Democrats can't win unless we appeal to more than just people like me who'll never vote for a Republican.

The base by itself isn't enough to get back the govt. Unless you like just being the opposition party that doesn't control any branch of govt.

[Eloriel]

133. The DLC has said that,

in so many words:

JETTISONING THE BASE
Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

snip

Over the course of its 16-year history, the DLC has been consistent on its core principles: support for fiscal discipline, free trade, reinventing government along more free-market lines, a strong military, welfare reform, a tough-on-crime approach, and a generally pro-business outlook. The organization has tended to bounce around some on social issues, such as abortion and gay rights, which went almost unmentioned in DLC policy statements in the 1980s, and on race.

At its founding, the DLC's chief emphasis was on reconnecting the Democratic Party to white working- and middle-class class voters, who, the DLCers feared, had been increasingly attracted by the Republican Party's social conservatism, especially among northern ethnics and southern Protestants. To the DLC of the 1980s, that meant a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues--in other words, less liberal generally. The DLC thundered against the "liberal fundamentalism" of the party's base--unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally.

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html



Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

snip

It's not surprising that (Jesse) Jackson, (Paul) Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print



And, with virtually no debate, the convention endorsed a platform that, on the vast majority of issues, deviated radically from the views of most party members. According to a New York Times survey of convention delegates, Traditional liberalism remained the most popular ideological stance. Trade union members made up a quarter of the delegates, and people of color were better represented than at any major party gathering in the nation's history.

"We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on them we lose," said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois. "But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

snip

The Progressive Policy Institute is head cheerleader for the World Trade Organization (WTO). The institute issues papers with such titles as "The Progressive Case for a New WTO Round." And it was in the forefront of efforts to discredit critics of corporate-designed trade liberalization. An institute briefing paper penned by Jenny Bates condemned the rhetoric employed by WTO critics, arguing that "the approach being adopted by many of these groups goes beyond reasoned criticism and enters the realm of vitriolic hyperbole, not employed with such passion since the activism of the 1960s."

Now, the DLC and its allied groups, particularly the New Democrat Network, have stepped up efforts to assure that future trade votes will favor Wall Street over Main Street.

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print



Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

How the DLC Does It Robert Dreyfuss
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

And of course, that "difficult for Democrats to win" is the particular Big Lie the DLC wants Democrats to believe. It has no basis in truth, not even vis a vis Clinton who many have called the most talented and charismatic politician of their lifetimes. Nowadays, we don't know WHO's winning or losing (let alone why) because of electronic voting, vote suppression and intentional vote spoilage. (You can't get the right answers if you're not asking the right questions.) But one thing for sure: DLC has a pile of goods it wants to sell you, having already sold the corporations, but good.

[FightinNewDem]

176. No, it didn't

"So, in the future, the challenge is, once again, to mobilize the base and in the next two or four years to grow the base at the same time. In the short run, this means we have to reach beyond the base."

UMass Professor Ralph Whitehead. speaking at the 2005 DLC National Conversation
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253491&kaid=114&subid=144

"To be successful, we in the labor movement must broaden our appeal beyond our traditional base of union members. But to expand our base, we must change the theme and delivery of our message."

IAFF President (and longtime DLC supporter) Harold Schaitbarger, in the DLC's magazine Blueprint.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=253214

"The DLC was, in fact, formed to regain the Democratic Party's identification with "the economic aspirations and mainstream values of the middle class." The group has never, ever, suggested that Democrats "forget" blue-collar voters and has encouraged Democrats to pursue opportunities up the income scale to expand, not change, the party base, at a time when the base simply does not add up to a majority."

DLC Policy Director Ed Kilgore
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252926&kaid=127&subid=177

"Because Kerry and Bush are likely to win more than 90 percent of their own hardcore partisans, swing voters will be the decisive factor in the election. Some argue the opposite -- that a spirited campaign will enlarge the base enough to win without swing voters. They're wrong. To win, Democrats need to inspire both."

DLC Founder and CEO Al From
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252818&kaid=85&subid=65

"(I)n the struggle for the hearts and minds of the middle, the DLC should be considered not a suspect group of crypto-Republicans but as wise and savvy allies who long ago proved both worth and wisdom."

Scot Lehigh, The Boston Globe

[Zhade]

187. The words of people who cozy up to founders of rightwing think tanks...

...and endorse PNAC are hardly credible, I think.

[FightinNewDem]

207. Read before bloviating

The poster presumed to put words in the DLC's mouth. The links are to statements from the DLC that show that the previous poster's assertion is, in fact, incorrect.

But don't let that get in the way of another silly, uninformed rant about the Great DLC Conspiracy...

[Zhade]

213. I did read. I find the leadership of the DLC to be untrustworthy.

All the assurances in the world from people who work to fuck over the working class that they are not, in fact, fucking over the working class via policies like NAFTA/CAFTA are worth less than nothing to me.

Despite your insistence that I am uninformed, I feel comfortable with the knowledge that I am, indeed, quite informed. That we part ways due to that knowledge is just how it works out. Believe me, I won't be sobbing into my pillow tonight over your attempted insult.

[Eloriel]

216. No, no. The DLC has put plenty of its own words -- and actions --

where it counts: right out there for all to see.

I stand by what I posted above and find most of your "quotes" to fall into one of the following categories:

* nonsensical if not deliberately misleading/duplicitous, and/or
* wishful thinking or
* purposeful camouflage in the rightwing tradition of saying one thing and doing another).

And you can TRY to insist that the DLC is out for the base, the working men and women, etc., but the facts of their founding, their original and ongoing FUNDING (all corporate except for a few $50 "memberships" around the country), and most of all their anti-worker, anti-average American positions and actions, already well-covered, all simply make your argument a pile of steaming nonsense. Put another way: don't try to piss on our leg and tell us it's raining. It makes you look ridiculous, if somewhat overheated with your rhetoric (as if verbal bullying will do the trick that logic and facts will not).

LOL - and what's that "Great DLC Conspiracy" lanaguage? Do you REALLY think that sly little attempt to malign will weriously undercut any of what we're pointing out: that the DLC is no friend of the average Democrat or working person? That dog just won't hunt. Sorry. Nice try, tho. Amusing as all get out, too.

[Zhade]

230. See post #211 - the DLC has ADMITTED they are NOT the base.

The DLC isn't for the base, because they have admitted THEY ARE NOT THE BASE. They want to REPLACE the base.

I quote, from the post cited, which itself cites the DLC's own words:

Lacking this base within the party itself, New Democrats -- or a faction in either party attempting to change their party's philosophy -- require a sustained period of political success in order to truly remake their party and wed new groups to their coalition.

[LincolnMcGrath]

136. The base that the DLC lost are the working folks.

Union workers left out in the cold by the pro business agenda of the DLC.

They would pick up a lot of the disenfranchised if they could put forth any message besides "we'll try harder to be more like the gop."

[LoZoccolo]

57. I already know the answer to this one!

They'll say that they don't want votes from the Republicans, that the 50% of people who don't vote will all of a sudden get up and do so if some further-left candidate that they didn't bother to vote for in the primary makes it to the general election.

[Zhade]

189. It has nothing to do with "further left".

It has to do with having a party to vote for that won't fuck them over financially and civil liberties-wise.

Since things like NAFTA/CAFTA and the Patriot Act, I don't think they're seeing much of one.

YMMV, of course.

[madfloridian]

31. They already have broken away.

I have a thread going in GDP about this very thing.

[fujiyama]

33. The DLC has pursued a failed strategy

of who to cater to as potential voters. It set its sight on the successful white collar upper middle class voters, screwing everyone with a lower income in the process. At the same time, its pandering has failed not only to get the votes of the former group, but the latter as well, losing many working class people in the process.

This isn't to say every DLC senator is bad (Kerry is decent), but the rest roll over all to often on issues of corporate power - take the bankruptcy bill for example. I'm sorry, no DLC apologist can convince me that Mary Landrui's constituents will benefit from that God awful bill. Louisiana is among the poorest states in the union, along with Arkanasas - another state where both DLC senators voted for it.

The same goes with the war, and the tax cuts, and most other major pieces of the Bush agenda. It may be easier to simply lie down and go along with Bush's agenda, but in the end it doesn't help the constituents. What's the point of winning if your not going to be an alternative?

At the same time, we have the likes of Feinstein catering to defense contractors, voting for the tax cuts and the war, yet pushing inane regulations on guns - a policy that KILL the party in the south, the midwest, and the mountain states. Can someone explain this strategy? Maybe, I'm a little slow, but I just don't get it.

[Perky]

39. Yeah and the DNC strategey has just been magnificentlly effective.

OMG.

A liberal has not won the WHite house since 1960.

[Perky]

43. T/F? DNC's are more happy protesting then leading.

true or false?

[fujiyama]

50. You never explained

how pandering to Bush's pro corporate and pro rich policies help democrats.

I have no interest in purging moderates or the DLC (though they should no longer have any leadership positions), but I think there should be some common ground among party members, especially on issues that affect working people like CAFTA, bankruptcy "reform", the war.

This is the problem. We always have some 10-20 turncoats that go along with the Bush agenda, usually it's the "blue dog Dems" in the House or DLC senators in the senate. I'm basically saying what Pelosi herself was saying after the CAFTA vote. She was visibly pissed and I am too.

[Perky]

58. I will be happy to explain

As soon as you tell me me again how effective running furthewr and further to the left has been for the party.

[cascadiance]

62. How is limiting the DLC's influence over the Dems "running to the left"?

That is what you and others are saying here, and I and others take issue with that. This isn't a "left" vs. "right' vs. "moderate" issue, it is about "following the money", and the influence that money brings. It is about taking away this influence from the elites that control this money, and putting it back into the hands of the people, whether they be liberal, moderate, or conservative! An individual can get adversely affected by the results of this bankruptcy bill whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative! Those that voted in favor of it weren't voting in favor of "citizen's" interests, they were in favor of CORPORATE interests (even if they are lying and saying they are representing "moderates").

[fujiyama]

69. Thank you

This isn't just an ideaological argument.

[Zhade]

195. Very, very good point.

If the DLC is all about attracting votes (I doubt it is, but that's the purpose claimed), why does its members lie to and fuck over the working class, which is comprised of citizens of all political stripe?

After all, people won't vote for someone who voted their job away via NAFTA/CAFTA, regardless of their political affiliation!

[Zhade]

193. One, he asked you first, so the onus is on YOU to answer first.

Secondly, can you explain this "further and further to the left" thing? I'd love to see where you're coming from, since I don't think it's an accurate statement (and, as you made the claim, the onus is once again on you, this time to back it up).

Thanks in advance for what will no doubt be an illuminating answer.

[Eloriel]

221. I keep seeing that and all I see is one of those DLC myths or

Big Lies that means NOTHING, literally NOTHING.

The Dem Party hasn't run to the left for a very, very long while. And when it last did, the people with whom it did so (at the presidential level we're talking) were pretty unattractive anyway. IOW: You can CLAIM it was their far-left (so-called) position on things, but that doesn't make you right. Besides, we all know America votes for personality and something they perceive as "leadership") as much if not more than positions and ideology.

Clinton MAY have done a good thing (good in that it got him elected, which was better than a 2nd Bush term), in his "triangulation" tactics, but he taught it to the right, and for that I'll never forgive him because we keep getting our asses handed to us by them using the same tactic. And I for one am tired of it. But I digress.

Further, it seems to me there were a few races elsewhere last election where we ran left and WON. Western state(s), too. DFA candidates did rather nicely, too, btw.

In short, there's no PROOF of this DLC claim, but they keep repeating it, in the same way all good propagandists repeat the same lie over and over and over. Eventually people beleive it (you may even believe it, for example). But THEN, eventually some of them wake the hell UP and start thinking things through....

[Zhade]

192. An imminently reasonable, informed post.

I find myself in full agreement.

[cascadiance]

35. If the DLC were to leave, then moderate viewpoints WOULD be heard...

... instead of corporate viewpoints. I want us to get back to being a party that represents PEOPLE, not corporations. I think when you get right down to it, the PEOPLE (whether they be left wing, moderate, or even in some instances right wing) will want to at some point throw away the corporate personhood rights, that some judicial activism in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific gave to them in the 1800's and the Rethugs and the DLC portion of the Democratic Party have tried to defend and keep in place ever since to serve the masters that pay them... The DLC represents the moderates in the Democratic Party like a fox represents "moderate" chickens in a hen house. They DON'T!

Once the DLC has been expelled, I'm all for reaching out to what moderate CITIZENS want in the middle for viewpoints and to have a big tent then, but I don't want us to continue to be servants of corporations and other well-heeled special interests who have hijacked our government for so long. This isn't about moving the Democratic Party to the "left" wing, it is about moving it back in control of the PEOPLE. Howard Dean understands that, and that's why some folks like me who were independent registered as a Dem to show that we want to see his vision become reality!

[ElectroPrincess]

47. Very well put calipendence!

My favorite excerpt = "Once the DLC has been expelled, I'm all for reaching out to what moderate CITIZENS want in the middle for viewpoints and to have a big tent then, but I don't want us to continue to be servants of corporations and other well-heeled special interests who have hijacked our government for so long. This isn't about moving the Democratic Party to the "left" wing, it is about moving it back in control of the PEOPLE."

You expressed my viewpoint (and I hope, many others) in clear and concise language. Calling people and groups "leftists" or <shriek> liberals still frightens the DLC. They are too invested (in more ways than one) to be considerate "moderate" in any way.

Thanks for wording the above so well (better than my best effort on a good day). :hi:

[cascadiance]

96. Thanks...

Once again folks. This isn't about an issue of being "left" vs. "right". It is about who controls our politicians (whether it be through corporate donations or other non-democratic means).

I still think it's difficult to determine who's "left wing" and who's "right wing" anyway. It's a convenient label that serves the Rush Limbaughs of the world to try and demonize us and "bless" themselves by using "liberal" as an epithet without really thinking about what it means.

Now some folks want affirmative action in its current form to remain untouched and hallowed as a religious institution. I'm not one of them. I DO think it serves a purpose and helps in many ways that not having it all wouldn't. But it's far from perfect and could be reformed to be more truely in the spirit of preventing discrimination. However, some folks on the right just want to tear it down without replacing it with anything constructive, and those on the left don't want to touch it. Does that make me a "moderate"? Many call me an extreme "lefty" on many other issues.

I do think that campaign finance reform isn't a "left" vs. "right" issue, and that many "thinking" moderates and conservatives could support constructive reform and not that which just serves corporations if they are really made to think about it. I think where we stand on that issue is at the core of what makes our collective agendas (whether they be liberal, conservative, or moderate) different than what the DLC is trying to lead us towards.

I want a pluralistic society, where we have a lot of people speaking about different ideas, and us all trying to get together to *genuinely* try to reach a consensus on what works best. I might not win some of the time when I want to, but if I'm confident that everyone's had an equal voice and has been well-informed in making their decision, I can accept that as being a part of the Democracy. What I don't like is other folks trying to masquerade certain "constructed entities" as being part of the citizenry, and trying to manipulate more control of the voting/speaking process to one elite group of people. That isn't Democratic, and make it impossible for us to participate fairly in a government governed by corruption. That is what I'm adamantly against, not having a pluralistic society where we win some and we lose some in "fair fights"...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

196. It' not Right vs. Left; it's Up vs. Down!

The Republicans and to a lesser extent the DLC appeal to the Downs on the basis of lifestyle issues and he-man macho war-mongering while happily enriching the Ups.

The Downs need a party of their own, one that works exclusively for them. The Ups are quite well served by the Republicanites.

[Zhade]

197. To be more accurate, "clerk of the court activism".

:D

Great post, btw.

[Copperred]

38. DLC AND ELECTION REFORM?

Simple Question


Does the DLC>...Support FULL PRACTICAL REAL FULL BLOWN ELECTION REFORM????

DO THEY?

IF THEY DONT>>>>SCREW IT...LETS GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE REPUBLICANS BE THE BEST THING FOR THIS COUNTRY IN THE LONG RUN.

[Writer]

42. Bravo!

Yes we NEED EACH OTHER!

Conservatives love galvanizing the divisiveness in our party.

Don't listen to them.

[Zhade]

200. "Conservatives love galvanizing the divisiveness in our party."

So you admit that the DLC loves divisiveness?

After all, in your own words:

"Can you force liberal values on groups of conservatives?

The DLC doesn't support "liberalism?" Surprise!"

(Man - first the uncovered DLC admission that centrists are not the majority of the party, now this! Your own words are coming back to bite you guys.)

[Sir Derek]

52. As soon as the DLC is willing to apologize for destroying the

party I'd welcome them into the tent.

[MattSWin]

56. I'm always confused by this DU obsession with the DLC.

They act like the DLC is some cohesive conspiracy to shift the Democratic party to the right. There are actually DLC members who don't hold the exact same view on every issue.

The only real platform of DLCers that is written in stone is to not just adhere to the old liberal stances on issues.

You could even accuse Howard Dean of being a DLCer since he's so adamant about balancing the budget.

I like the DLC because they don't think we should fight the right-wing by becoming radicalized ourselves.

We need to become the party of reason, fiscal discipline, and sensible foreign policy.

I am also a fan of the Center for American Progress. I think even MoveOn contributes to the party.

[LoZoccolo]

60. It's probably because, as I say, DUers are seldom doers.

Doing includes reading and thinking about why things happen in the Democratic Party and the world.

Some of the leadership of the DLC made a pretty bad mistake in the summer of 2003 in the tactless way they tried to handle Howard Dean's supporters, and ever since their entrance into the widespread vocabulary of DU, have served as a convenient boogeyman to explain everything they don't like about the Democratic Party, for people who sit around on message boards and whine. It's like people don't venture out enough, and the DLC gets batted around enough in here that people see that as the excuse for all they think is wrong.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[MattSWin]

75. Now I'm a Freeper?

Man, you sure don't approach debates with reason.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

90. Ha ha ha ha!

No, we have moderators that don't want you running around telling people to go away.

It's funny when the abrasive contingent breaks the rules, and then blames their enforcement on a conspiracy against them.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

106. Probably not.

I think that's a "following the rules vs. not following the rules" thing as well.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

112. You can't tell people to go away.

You also can't call people assholes.

You also can't call someone a Republican either.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

116. Nope.

You're welcome to read them here, as I'm sure you did when you signed up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[MattSWin]

117. there you go again...

You just broke a rule by accusing another member of being a Republican disruptor.

[MattSWin]

118. there you go again...

You just broke a rule by accusing another member of being a Republican disruptor.

[MattSWin]

115. You seem to have broke these rules:

2. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
3. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.


Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. In particular, please avoid posting topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

121. Nope.

You did, however, in other remarks. But I can't prove it, seeing as how they've been deleted.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

127. Not my call.

Can't answer that one for ya'.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

132. That's cuz you haven't been around much.

I used to get more of them deleted than I do now, but I've basically learned it's better not to break the rules, and that I can make points without doing so.

Really, I think I get in trouble more in the Lounge than I do here.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[ElectroPrincess]

72. My father used to express the EXACT same sentiment ...

"DUers are seldom doers." Well, except insert *Democrats* instead of *DUers*. My Father was a Right Wing Secular Republican.

Why are you extolling Republican talking points to trash the very message board (DU) that you are presently a member?

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Please explain?

[LoZoccolo]

82. I'd be happy to explain.

My explanation: you read too much into my remarks, and should go back and read it with more of a sense of nuance.

[ElectroPrincess]

111. Right ... that must be all there is to it then ...

/sarcasm off

[LoZoccolo]

114. Well, I'm sure that the people I work with in Illinois Dem Net are doers.

You know, the organization that I advertise in every message I post by placing them in my signature, and who's website contains a picture of me (even though I won't tell you which one it is), and whose number contains very few DUers despite the fact that I advertise some of their functions here.

So yeah, that must be all there is to it then.

[ElectroPrincess]

130. Albeit you are well versed in the art of verbal banter ...

Disrespecting an entire entity (DU) that doesn't begin to have a UNIFORM voice is NOT a way to influence people. You must have slept through that part of the corporate "Dunn and Bradstreet" seminar ... I can only surmise.

You are NOT a Democrat to me ... you are not a member of a TEAM that I would want to join when you are cornered, you lash out at a 60,000 plus heterogeneous entity.

I might be wrong and you will be lauded on a number of Right Wing boards that monitor DU, but you don't come across as anything close to a team builder.

If you continue to believe all of DU is filled with "lazy slugs" aka "do nothings" I promise not to cry and blow snot if you depart the AO.

Of course you're welcome to stay as any thoughtful member here. Just emphasizing that whatever is your true cause (rightward push of Democratic party?), you are not winning allies here ATT.

[LoZoccolo]

142. I never said DU was uniform.

There are a lot of active people here. Nor do I disrespect DU itself - I think this medium is good for spreading something quickly all across the nation. I've said several times in other posts that when DU is good, it's real good, and that's one of the reasons I keep coming here.

I am trying to provoke people, true, but what I'm trying to provoke them to do is good for the Democratic Party (what I consider to be the team), and good for winning elections and getting things done, and also for thinking practically as well. I think people here would have a different mentality on a lot of things if they had to do real political work, or even just deal with people face to face according to real conventions of civil interaction, where you're more likely to seek to understand each other rather than assert your own viewpoint and "fight" those of others.

To say that someone is not a team-builder because they criticize is a little like saying that someone is unpatriotic because they protest. I'm not saying you have right-wing tendencies; I'm just relating it to something I'm sure you think is wrong.

[ElectroPrincess]

144. You did not only criticize, you disrespected - and provocation is

a classic right wing tactic. It is not thought of highly in a heterogeneous community. I believe the term used on message boards is "flame baiting." No, I do not want to work with people who even indirectly insult my person. That tactic is a non-starter.

Please accept my regrets but even if you are a big wig in YOUR state political Democratic party, I would not wish to associate with your person in any way. Why? Because provocation and boasting (your Illinois Democrats on the contrary to DU are real doers) are very unappealing to my person.

Again, because of your tactics above I would not ever consider you an Democratic ally. I doubt if that will upset you but perhaps, just perhaps other people may hold the same sentiments as myself.

IMO, in general, the DLC big-wigs are in for a big heartbreak in the 2006 election cycle if they continue to verbally bully and intimidate the base of the Democratic Party.

Good day.

[LoZoccolo]

146. Is accusing someone of being disloyal also a right-wing tactic?

I didn't mean to come off as bragging, but you pretty much asked for my credentials when you compared me to a Republican, and implied that there was more to what I was saying than what was said.

[ElectroPrincess]

149. No, you are loyal to the DLC ...

Further, continuing to brow beat each other, seemingly into oblivion, does not reflect well for either of our characters.

Time for a wrap up ... go ahead bring it on home?

[cascadiance]

147. You know, I do think perhaps that you believe you are doing a good thing..

defending the DLC and trying to persuade us that they are not "bad guys", and that they are the ones that are trying to reach out to the middle of America and not be too "lefty" like the rest of us here are.

But the resistance here isn't so much towards you making them out to being a good guy, it is the characterization of this whole issue being a "left" vs. "right" thing, and that we just don't like the DLC because we disagree with their stances.

I think many here find that is where we take exception to you and others' arguments here mostly. I think many of us are wanting to hear many viewpoints of PEOPLE. Wanting to be for PEOPLE doesn't make us lefty or communist, even if the common mantra of "the people's party" was the slogan of the Chinese, the Soviets, and other comunists. They in fact were trying to masquerade their attempt to have elites control their own societies too, by making it sound like they were the party of "the people", when they weren't.

What the DLC'ers need to understand is that the rejection of them isn't a rejection by many of us Dems of moderate or even conservative voices, but a rejection of the way they do business, that even Republicans like John McCain reject. Many of us feel that the fundamental problem facing to us isn't ideological in nature, but the threat towards our system of government by non-Democratic (and some would call "fascist") influences. We see the DLC as facilitating that, and THAT IS the reason why we reject the DLC. We feel it is tearing down the system of government that our government has been successful for for over two centuries with. That IS the big nerve that the DLC touches us with, not on issues like gun control, health care, etc. where many of us have healthy disagreements on. Our democratic system represents a core value difference that we are willing to fight like hell over, whether it be with the Rethugs, or with people truely trying to dismantle representative government with the actions of the DLC.

I think some DLC'ers don't even understand the corporate influence over the group they espouse, and if they did, might think otherwise. If they truely want just a moderating influence over Democratic Party agenda, and want to work within a Democratic context to get their voices heard, I welcome them completely. Just recognize a cancer when it's there and know which piece needs to get fixed.

Many of us recognize that this system won't be changed overnight, and that some will have to live with the campaign finance system we have now for a while, but I want to see us try to fight it where we can and to fight for us to change it and take back control for the average American citizen. Playing games on voting for things like bankruptcy bills or CAFTA doesn't help at all, and arguably shows where their priorities are. There maybe plenty of former DLC-supported politicians that at some point will "see the light" and move away from the dark side, but those that have the courage to do so now, and want to lead us on the right directions (like Howard Dean is), even if there is risk, are the ones I want as our leaders.

[Zhade]

Please see post #205.

Most of us, I think, have reasons unrelated to Dean for opposing the DLC.

I'm not, never was, a Deaniac. I have plenty of reasons to distrust and despise the DLC.

I don't blame the DLC for things it's not responsible for, but I damned sure will hold them accountable for what they ARE responsible for - and I sure as hell won't VOTE for people who have the opposite principles that I have.

And lastly, I think it's disingenuous of you to assume people who dislike the DLC aren't active. Frankly, it's a bit insulting, and kind of ironic, considering how much time you spend saying it (some could say YOU never do anything, but I personally don't know and wouldn't be arrogant enough to assume anything about your offline life).

[cascadiance]

66. Once again they aren't shifting the party to "the right"...

nor are the rest of us trying to shift it to "the left"... The problem with the DLC is it's shifting us towards corporate interestes, not people's interests. You guys continue to swallow Corporate America's talking points, designed to keep the Rethugs in control (which they feel they can control better than the Democrats).

[ElectroPrincess]

67. What's this "they" when referring to DU ... it's a MESSAGE BOARD ...

Not a coffee clutch. A HUGE message board filled with diverse members. Hell, there's no one coherent voice in such an entity!?!

I have often discovered that the *only time* posters tend to bash THIS message board (DU) is when they are getting their butts handed to them within an ongoing argument. Not saying that is the case here, but the correlation is a HIGH one. ;)

[Q]

74. That there is a 'radical left wing' in the Democratic party...

...is pure bullshit. It's not radical to support the traditional Democratic values that made our party great. The DLCers would love for you to believe that there's some 'radical left wing' ready to take over the party and turn your sons and daughters into commies. But the left they love to demonize only wants a return to traditional values...like supporting the working class, equality and civil rights.

The left wants government/corporate accountability. Unions and collective bargaining. Free and fair elections. Universal Health Care. Social safety net. Women able to determine their own futures.

THIS is what the DLCers call 'radical'?

And remember this: it's the DLC that wants to rid the party of liberals. Liberals and progressives are the only remaining obstacle in the way of the DLC's desire to have two GOP's in a one party state.

[MattSWin]

81. someone is a conspiracy theorists...

I've never seen the DLC say liberals want to turn the Democratic party into communists.

Nor do they say we need no corporate responsibility.

As far as the DLC embracing the Republican principles, Clinton was a major DLCer and the GOP hated him.

I don't think you oppose the DLC because they want to get rid of liberals, you just can't tolerate the Democratic party taking positions you don't like.

Progressivism doesn't have to look the same. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and even Al Sharpton are all progressives.

[ElectroPrincess]

145. Many of us are liberals, not progressives per se

to me progressive in a Third Way stance means Pro- Multi National Corporations and Anti-Labor. That I am NOT going to support.

Liberal = Yes

Progressive (Corporate Enabler) = No

[Zhade]

223. No, they just call people who disagree with them "far left".

We all know the implication of that, I think.


"As far as the DLC embracing the Republican principles, Clinton was a major DLCer and the GOP hated him."

And Clinton called himself a Republican recently.


"I don't think you oppose the DLC because they want to get rid of liberals, you just can't tolerate the Democratic party taking positions you don't like."

I can't speak for Q, but for myself it's both. I am a progressive, and a liberal. I believe in the things Q listed. Leaders in the DLC have publicly stated that they oppose liberals and do not want the traditional interests (e.g., labor) to have as much influence in the party as they used to. At the same time, the DLC favors policies that harm working-class Americans and limit or deny equal rights for all. Those are both, I feel, things to hold against the DLC.

[madfloridian]

76. They themselves say they are changing the party without us.

I have a post in GDP...read it and then argue. They are changing the party policy with the majority in agreement. Or trying.

[MattSWin]

99. I hate to tell you this...

They are changing the party policy with the majority in agreement.

That's called democracy. We aren't the Republicans with Rove being the President's hitman for people who disagree where the GOP should stand on issues.

[madfloridian]

211. "Without"....here is the quote you failed to read.

From my post:

"The DLC and the New Democrats are vulnerable to such a defeat, since they are attempting to change a public philosophy without the benefit of a realigning event and without a mass or activist base. From the makeup of the delegates to the nominating conventions to the main sources of campaign volunteers and funds, it is clear that the liberal faction and its constituent groups continue to predominate within the party. The liberals are still an important, if not vital, component in winning the party's nomination for office from congressman to president. And with their dominance of the congressional party, they are also critical actors in constructing a governing coalition. Lacking this base within the party itself, New Democrats -- or a faction in either party attempting to change their party's philosophy -- require a sustained period of political success in order to truly remake their party and wed new groups to their coalition. No matter how successful their philosophy may be, the party still matters. In the end, the New Democrats must embark on a "long march through the institutions."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

This is from the DLC website. They are in effect saying they are planning to change the party the way they want it to be although the "liberals" are the majority. They started using this term pejoratively that far back. They are admitting they are taking the party away from its base.

[Eloriel]

229. Right. They know very WELL they're not in the majority -- that's why

they hated Dean so much. And feared him more than anything else they could think of. And HAD to do what they could to destroy him.

(Of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, madfloridian. This is just a stream of consciousness post.)

Dean woke up the grassroots and that great populist tradition that the Dem party USED to stand for. He was GALVANIZING a whole new crop of populist grassroots workers AND would-be politicians. Galvanizing is a very good word, too, isn't it? Descriptive.

This threatened to put them out of business, to take away their power. And that could NOT be allowed to continue. Here's a really good article on the subject (tho I can't get it to open for me tonight for some reason -- if I could there's an exerpt I'd post about political groups hanging onto power as their FIRST order of business -- not even getting people elected is as important):
Gagging Dr. Dean by Steve Parry
http://citypages.com/databank/26/1281/article13433.asp

[Zhade]

205. You just reinforced a rightwing talking point.

Hopefully, you didn't mean to, but you did nonetheless:

"The only real platform of DLCers that is written in stone is to not just adhere to the old liberal stances on issues.

You could even accuse Howard Dean of being a DLCer since he's so adamant about balancing the budget."

This sequence reinforces the flawed meme that liberals don't like balanced budgets. It's the old "tax-and-spend librul" stereotype, and I think you're smart enough to realize that it's bullshit.

"We need to become the party of reason, fiscal discipline, and sensible foreign policy."

I cannot argue with that ideal - and cannot agree with you that the DLC represents that ideal, not when the organization support things like b*s*'s tax cuts (fiscally irresponsible) and illegal wars against countries that did not attack or even threaten to attack us (Iraq).

THAT is my problem with the DLC - its leadership pushes those things and others (like the destruction of American jobs and our manufacturing base via policies like NAFTA/CAFTA and the removal of civil liberties via the PATRIOT Act) while taking funding from founders of rightwing think tanks bent on destroying the Democratic party and endorsing PNAC. At the same time, it convinces good, intelligent people like yourself that it is looking out for your best interests.

Based on the information I have learned, I emphatically believe they do NOT care about your best interests, but instead the interests of their corporate backers.

Can you - can ANY fan of the DLC - really tell me that the b*s* tax cuts were a good thing? That supporting the war, even after things like the DSM show the outright lies used to get us into the war, is a good thing? That ENDORSING PNAC, for fuck's sake, is a GOOD THING?

Do you see why some of us really, really despise the DLC, and that it has fuck-all to do with our "extreme far loony fringe left" (snort) beliefs?

[mmonk]

59. If they are for current policy

then nothing will pull me together with them. The Iraq war from a truth perspective is not a real moderate position.

[yurbud]

73. the DLC represents businesses, not people

nothing is wrong with being "moderate" or even business-friendly, but these guys are obviously business owned.

[MattSWin]

95. how so?

How do they favor business over people?

[cascadiance]

101. Well, explain to me how the bankruptcy bill, which DLC supported

was going to help the people more than it helped credit card companies. Those same credit card companies that the DLC helped solicit a lot of campaign donations from to their candidates.

[MattSWin]

110. that one vague issue of a single bankruptcy bill...

Proves that someone puts corporations above people? Yeah right.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. NAFTA CAFTA FTAA BK BILL TORT REFORM

This and the fact that there plans usually amount to agreeing to 'try harder to be better' at whatever the GOP has accused them of doing.

[MattSWin]

123. yawn...

Democrats can disagree on those issues. You just expect 100% agreement with you.

[cascadiance]

126. Can you be more specific on how you feel supporting these bills

help American citizens (be they liberal or conservative) over the goals of companies? You're not being constructive here.

[Zhade]

232. I'd like to see an answer to that one myself.

NT!

[LincolnMcGrath]

129. yawn this

Get a clue and read my post below. The DLC supports corporation over family. I do not expect 100% percent agreement on any issue. You, on the other hand seem unwilling to address my concerns with a pithy brush off and little else.

[fujiyama]

238. None of us are expecting lockstep opposition

to every single thing Bush lays out (though I have no idea why that shouldn't be the case).

We do however expect our party members opposing the most extreme parts of his agenda.

Instead we are getting neither by many in our own party. Hey, I'm not the only one pissed about the fact that we have 10-20 congresspeople consistantly siding with DeLay on major pieces of legislation. Pelosi was angry too. Go and tell her that we shouldn't expect agreement on issues like CAFTA. Yeah, that's the way to be an opposition party.

[cascadiance]

122. I gave you a specific example which I haven't heard refuted yet...

If I'd spoken more in general terms, you'd have been pleading for specifics. There are other examples too, but I've not the time or energy to spell them out in detail over and over again. Please point out to me though how DLC candidates support for this bill is justified if they want to claim to represent "people" instead of "corporations".

[fujiyama]

237. That "vague issue"

will keep many in perpetual debt.

This is the main problem with many in power. It's their dismissive tone toward the working class. Maybe you won't have to declare bankruptcy for medical costs, but many have had to and won't be able to thanks to the likes of Joe Biden.

[yurbud]

137. read their statements on healthcare.

they seem to avoid placing the blame for the current crisis on insurance companies profit gouging and withholding service that people already paid for.

I'm not sure, but I think they similarly avoid the price gouging issue on drugs.

Guys like Clinton were commendable for doing some pro-labor, pro-environment things, but if you take these DLC guys at their word, they are deathly silent when business screws the little guy and it would be more than a mild inconvenience to business to stop.

The DLC is not the FDR faction of the party, they are more like the part that left in 1964.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Zhade]

225. NAFTA.

CAFTA.

The bankruptcy bill.

The b*s* tax cuts.

Keeping health care in the private sector, versus universal health care.

Seriously, you like the DLC and don't even know these things? Is it common for DLC fans to not even know the policies supported by the organization they defend?

Or do you support these policies?

[cascadiance]

80. "Clean Elections" legislation would be favored by the people, not the DLC!

It would make the DLC useless... All of the influence peddling, etc. that they would "bring to the party" wouldn't be necessary any more.

And "Clean Elections" reform is something that is working in Arizona and Maine for BOTH Republicans and Democrats and FOR their citizens at the expense of corporations, etc. that are no longer able to buy their politicians to the extent that they bought them before.

If the DLCers really want to have me supporting them, I'd like to see them push for a national law passed for "clean elections". That would then contradict many's well held viewpoints that they are corporate servants. I just don't see that happening, despite MANY moderates we could bring into the Democratic party if we were to push for that nationally.

[MattSWin]

105. This proves you wrong...

The DLC does want clean elections:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=169&contentid=3181

[cascadiance]

143. So far this is just talk...

I'll give them credit when I actually see them help various states push through this legislation more.

If we truely take corporate money off the table, as universal "clean elections" reform would do, I fail to see how that would help them be a big factor right now in the Democratic Party. Their fundraising wouldn't be needed then. Right now, the legislation their people have voted on, etc. (aka what they've actually been DOING as opposed to talking about) has been more pro-corporate and reflecting their being beholden to those that are contributing to them.

If at some point we can get to a point where we have universal clean elections legislation in place, and corporations wield little or no power in the political process, and the DLC then gets back to truely being just a lobby for moderate CITIZENS' viewpoints rather than those claimed to be moderate and actually for corporations, then I'll look at the more as a valuable part of the party. Right now though, I don't see proof of them being a voice for moderates. I see a group representing corporate interests masquerading as moderates. We don't need any more means for corporations to gain any more power than they already have now, which is already way too much to avoid moving towards fascism.

[Zhade]

234. That's one of the things that infuriates me about the DLC...

...they USE reasonable moderates to their own ends.

Sadly, like many decent people fooled into voting Republican, many decent moderates fall for the DLC line, and that angers me greatly.

[Eloriel]

83. Your post demonstrates extreme ignorance of the DLC

There's no chance of it "breaking away" from the Democratic Party, because its mission and in fact raison d'etre has always been to neuter if not destroy it by moving it so far to the right that corporations get what they want no matter who's in power. They don't give a damn about the base, and in fact are eager to discourage them from even being involved in the Party.

Enormous important information about the DLC, how it came to be, its rightwing financial beneficiaries, etc., in these two articles:

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

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print

[LoZoccolo]

88. Lenin was not alive when the DLC was formed.

He looks pretty good for someone who's dead, but I'm sure he wasn't still around in the mid-eighties.

[Eloriel]

107. Did someone say he was?

Seems to me the point, no matter who made it when, stands on its own and really goes a long way in explaining what is going on with the DLC, esp. given its corporate and rightwing funders.

But whatever floats your boat.

[LoZoccolo]

109. I'm sorry, I misread your post.

I thought you were saying there were important resources below, and that would be like saying that Lenin saying that thing was one of the resources. I missed where you said that it was the articles that were the resources.

[punpirate]

84. I do enjoy these defenses of the DLC on...

... what appear to be rational grounds (on close examination, though, they're a lot less rational than on first sight).

For over twenty years, the Democrats have been dragged rightward by influences such as the DLC and the neverending drone from the right-wing media machine. The reason for that is corporate money. The DLC wants to facilitate big business' access to power in every way possible, and yet, they talk of such as if it's a very benign and natural thing, as if the traditional Democrats are crazy for not embracing them and their beliefs.

It's not. By definition, it's fascism. Why should I let the fascists into that "Big Tent" (a term which, by the way, the Republicans have adopted for themselves as a further co-optation of Democrats)?

Is it any wonder that the rise of the DLC in the party has been accompanied by increasing influence of big business in government and a continuing decrease in their taxation, more and more tax breaks for the wealthy, a decrease in jobs and union activity, and a laissez faire attitude about essentials such as the Sherman Act?

Let's be very plain about this. The platform that the DLC supports is the one FDR ran against in 1932. The people the DLC supports are the ones FDR called "the malefactors of great wealth."

It seems you are fixated on Democrats winning elections (which they've not done well when listening to the DLC and Al From). Point one: it doesn't matter if Democrats win if they espouse and carry out the same policies as the Republicans. The effect is the same.

Point two: the DLCers' programs are antithetical to principles long held by the Democratic Party--they are not part of the "big tent"; they are interlopers seeking to change the character of the party on behalf of big business, i.e., the fascists in society. That doesn't bring in the eighty-odd million disenchanted voters out there who feel that neither party is concerned with their interests--in fact, it exacerbates the problem.

Point three: their presence in the party perpetuates and magnifies the single largest problem in politics today--the influence of big money on the political process. That is by their design. They want it that way. They would like a plutocratic oligarchy--that is, in fact, what they are ultimately seeking. The DLC is in part supported by and led by people whose ambition that has been for decades. Their intent is to co-opt the Democratic Party, rather than to uphold its best ideals.

If one believes, as I do, that this emphasis on serving mulitinational corporations promotes war, war spending and denigrates democracy, then one has no choice but to reject them as Democrats. Let them be what they are--Republicans. The single biggest errors the Democrats have made in the last twenty years are their failure to back up their natural constituency with legislation--and to fight the legislation which would ultimately harm their natural constituency. They've not done those things because they thought they could balance the interests of the wealthy/big business and the people, and they were wrong. Big business now owns them--and the DLC is yet another indication of that ownership.

Cheers.

[Eloriel]

141. Very well said. Cheers!!! I've been thinking to myself lately

that we have to do exactly one of the things you're doing in your post: calling out the fascists.

We have to start talking about the problem of American Fascism, fascism here and now. And you make a start, along with saying a lot more aoubt how things really are.

Well done.

[Zhade]

235. FANTASTIC post.

Great insight here. Thanks for posting it.

[mattclearing]

85. General Clark could unify the party.

Hillary is poison to the left and would embolden the right.

Edwards won't have had an elected position in four years.

Kerry will never get the nod again.

Gore is not running.

Dean is not running.

Warner is an unknown quantity, even to his own constituents.

Biden is hated by everybody.

Feingold would be nice, but somehow I don't see it happening.

[LincolnMcGrath]

100. Did you miss when the DLC broke away years ago?

Stop trying to compartmentalize the Democrats into lib and mod. That is what the GOP is for. My #1 issue is my family's well being. Working families are the ideals I go to work for at the City, County and State levels, as well as at work. This DUer is a DOER.

[bpilgrim]

125. Then we could win elections again

after we got VVPB, of course.

the DLC despises our traditional values, they'd be bettor off joining the right.

peace

[LincolnMcGrath]

131. Damn right!

The DLC is an obstacle!

[Copperred]

138. watch ur step...

Here here to that....as an independent looking in.... the DLC is weak achilles heal......

[Individualist]

135. I'd say good riddance!

DLC supports government of, by and for corporations.

[Solly Mack]

139. What happened to the Democratic Party when the Dixiecrats left?

[pinto]

148. Just a note: We work hard to keep this an open forum for discussion....

We work hard to keep this place an open forum for discussion and debate and criticism about progressive Democratic issues. We need your participation, in more ways than one, to accomplish this. As always, thanks for your support.

Sorry if this is a dupe for many of you, but here's a couple of snips from our forum guidelines. Thanks.

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

and

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

[bpilgrim]

152. i think the DLC have EARNED their stripes

on the backsides, of course...

i understand it is difficult discussing politics ANYWHERE and i certainly appreciate the fact that we got DU to bitch & moan - and a lot of other things - but we certainly have earned the right to point out, even derisively, the DLC's, many shortcomings & FAILURES over the years as they ALWAYS dish it out.

anyways, i hope that the DLC is fair game on this peoples forum... cause most of the others, they already got LOCKED UP!

keep up the AWESOME job, mods :toast:

peace

[pinto]

158. imho, they are fair game, as are all poltical entities.

:hi:

[Writer]

169. The NATION has moved to the right in the last 20 years.

The NATION. Society takes precedence over politics. The blame belongs squarely on the American citizenry. We the people comprise the government. We the people vote (and yes not ALL elections are fraudulent!) and make the government what it is.

What influences the American populace? Successes, tragedies, trends, beliefs, and impressions. Anything but REASON.

And THAT is the reason for our current situation in the White House. NOT the DNC, NOT the DLC, NOT ANY political group or party.

US. And if you truly believe that Democratic values are what truly defines this country, get into your communities. Pass out pamplets, attend your churches and synogogues, and COMMUNICATE those feelings to your neighbors!

In other words, spend an hour or more away from the computer and work to change the minds of society, and THAT will be how Democrats will win!

[K-W]

150. Thanks for the patronization and the mythology. EOM

[Cleita]

151. We did fine before the DLC came on board.

I think they have caused us more losses than wins. Liberals need to go back to their roots, taking care of the working class and minorities. The DLC only causes us to lose to the Republicans with Republican Lite.

[bpilgrim]

153. clinton, certainly, WAS a success...

but even HE spoke the POPULOUS LINE in campaigns - shoot, in 91, i thought he was a FLAM'n LIBERAL, even talk'n bout GAYS in are armed services :evilgrin:

:hi:

peace

[K-W]

155. He wants to help, he just cant. Thats essentially the Clinton story. EOM

[Cleita]

157. I never considered Clinton entirely DLC. After all he was

for universal health care. How liberal is that? Others have said that he will be known as one of our best Republican Presidents. I guess history will judge in the end.

[bpilgrim]

160. he IS the DLC

Bill Clinton's 1992 election campaign set the gold standard for New Democrat politics -- and helped him win the presidency twice. In his new book, My Life, the former president explains how his involvement with the Democratic Leadership Council helped him form a winning platform that broke with party orthodoxy. Based on an opportunity agenda of new choices rooted in old values, Clinton's approach attracted swing voters and the middle class back into the Democratic fold. In this BLUEPRINT excerpt, the best-selling author explains the roots of his political philosophy.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

like i said, he talked a very good game... and WON.

i think that reframing the debate is fine but to now say you are against liberal policy 7 liberal PEOPLE in general is a LOSING strat.

they at LEAST gotta TALK a good game cept i think folks are way beyound that now and are pay'n attention to actions, too :shrug:

peace

[FightinNewDem]

167. That's ludicrous

Bill Clinton was one of the founders of the DLC in 1985.

He served as chairman of the group from 1989-1991.

I have spoken to Clinton at no less than three DLC events, two since since he left the White House.

With the exception of Al From, there is no bigger supporter of the DLC than Bill Clinton.

Oh, and by the way, the DLC has long supported a universal health care plan, though it stops short of supporting single-payer. In 2000, the DLC had good things to say about Bill Bradley's ambitious near-universal coverage plan.

[Cleita]

174. Well, now I'm disappointed.

Bye, bye Bill.

[FightinNewDem]

177. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!!!

PURGE THE UNBELIEVER!

[Perky]

162. That sums up the Idiocy of the DNC hardcore position

The DNC has not won an alection snce 1960 LBJ and Cart do not really count because the nation was realing from assasination and resignation)

The DNC was never truly the part of the of southern Democrats and when theticke was headed by Dukakis and Mondale you see the reult.

Face it the DNC has no national base of support to be electorally biable with left-leaning cndidates, The only way to win is to be a party of inclusion not just of the poor and the weak but to be the party of soccermoms and nascar Dads as well.

To think you can win them over swimplky by yelling about the NEO-COns and the fundies is simply moronic.

UNion powere is dwindling, Hispanic power is on the rise although certainly not monolithic ad the thir leg of the coalition was the solid south and the GOP has taken them for the forseeable future,

[Cleita]

179. Hey if you are going to call me a moron at least spell it right.

The DNC is corrupt too. I think we need a big labor movement just about now and the DNC won't be getting my money or my support until they prove they are changing as much as I love Howard Dean. BTW I'm hispanic and once we get them into realizing what real union support can do for them, well...I'm a morAn,(spell it rite, wud yu?) so what would I know.

The DNC/DLC seems to always try to stick us with some kind of New Englander type. I am hoping we change our primary system so that we can choose the candidates we want, not the ones New Hampshire wants. I will be working very hard with like minded individuals to do this.

[FightinNewDem]

163. We did?

Yes, we all have such fond memories of the 1972, 1980 and 1984 debacles. What did we win, something like nine states over the course of three elections?

[Cleita]

183. Yes, and it shows how disorganized we can be, however,

becoming Republicans is not the answer for me anyway.

[FightinNewDem]

203. Nobody is saying "become a Republican"

the '72, '80 and '84 losses (and '88, for that matter) weren't about disorganization. These losses were a stinging indictment against a Democratic Establishment that was perceived as putting hard-left constituency group priorities ahead of a broader national agenda. You can bet your sweet patooie that if the Democrats had nominated someone like Ed Muskie in 1972, the loss wouldn't have been anywhere near as catastrophic. Similarly, someone like John Glenn, Gary Hart or Fritz Hollings would have lost to Reagan, but would have made a respectable showing.

In 1988, Dukakis was seen as too wishy-washy on issues of crime and national defense. Now, the crime accusation was off the wall; Dukakis had a solid anti-crime record as governor. But his language on defense and foreign policy was redolent of stale late 1960s movement liberalism, and that isn't terribly reassuring for a lot of folks.

What the DLC is advocating is a return to the Democratic Party's historic role as the party of smart yet tough internationalism. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, all were willing to use force when needed, but not until diplomatic and economic alternatives proved unworkable. The Democratic Party has never been the party of reflexive pacifism.

[Cleita]

220. I have to register Green. There is no other way. n/t

[fujiyama]

240. The DLC is NOT advocating

a sane foreign policy. I have read the Marshall and From papers that basically call those of us opposing the war unpatriotic or whatever other nonsense. FDR did not back wars based on obvious lies. FDR, Truman and Kennedy would not have been with the president on the rose garden as Joe Lieberman was.

Please don't use RW talking points spewed by the likes of Zell Miller in describing most of us. I find this idea that those of us that never backed this war or favor a pull out, are "soft on defense" to be completely utter fuckingly stupid. Now, I'm not saying you are saying that, but I have seen one poster in particular lash out at those that oppose the war.

[cascadiance]

243. DLC isn't advocating being "smart yet tough internationalism"...

What's being done now is totally stupid corporate crony international policies that are serving nothing but American Empire and the corporation interests that have invested in it. That's not what former Dems would have invested in, nor for that matter would Republican Teddy Roosevelt have supported that either. Today I guess many of these neocons, etc. would have lumped Teddy Roosevelt in with the rest of us "extreme left" commies for his stance on advocating a "living wage".

I was FOR going to Afghanistan to shut down Al Queda and get our hands on the likes of Bin Laden. That effort I would have expected many of us Dems to support too. I would have made damn sure that war was the last resort in that instance, but I would have wanted a Dem president to make no bones about we weren't going to back down unless we had Bin Laden and the rest of Al Queda's heads on a platter to avoid us going in. That's not being namby pamby. It's called only fighting wars that we are justified in fighting. Not playing like we are the second coming of the Roman Empire (complete with its fall later which will likely happen with these bozos staying in charge).

We don't need the DLC to tell us what is smart foreign policy. We need the smart heads at the top of our political leadership to make smart decisions in these situations unfettered by corporate crony corruption that the DLC would get us into with the likes of Haliburton, etc. It is what the current Iraqi war proponents are advocating that would make for some STUPID internationalism that is boistrous but impotent when it wastes itself on wars that aren't needed so that we can't be prepared to fight the wars we may really need to fight if our forces are already maxed out elsewhere like they are now.

[wli]

154. nobody's moving to the left, it's all spinning to the right

It's long past time to stop compromising. Never forgive, never forget, no quarter. Period.

[Douglas Carpenter]

159. We have lost the vote of lots of working people because of the DLC

No wonder some of them have been sucked into voting against their own interest. When the DLC tries to stamp out a party that will vote for their interest.

____________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

[Perky]

164. What does that mean?

How has the DLC caused people to leave the party?

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. Of course it has..It's anti-labor tendency, its pro"free-trade" policies

and its abandonment of basic Democratic values has denied the American people an ability to vote for something fundamentally different that what the Republicans already offer. In such a situation where people cannot vote for real change, many do not vote at all or are sucked in by the culturally conservative wedge issues that appeal to their other concerns,

They have simply made the Democratic Party irrelevant.

[Perky]

178. That is stunningly myopic!

we gave up on the south with nominating mondale and dukakis. we go 8 years in the 90s only because of Bill CLinton being a son of the south and ross perot being a son of a bitch. Between 1967 and 1992 there were four years of Democrat leadership and only because of Watergate and...wait for it...Jimmy carter being a son of the south.

It is lunacy to think the DLC abandonment of democratic principles led to the party's failures in the last 40 years. WHere the hell did they go?


The DLC did not exist in 1984 and 1988 and look at the results.


It was never the DLCs abandonment of Dem values... It was the lunacy that caused to select uber-liberals that disenfranchises us from white SOuthern voters.. The DNC betrayed the south by changing its principles and allowing the Gingrich-led GOP to swoop in.

[Douglas Carpenter]

188. If you check the positions held by either Dukakis or Mondale

You will find that they did NOT run on overall progressive positions and certainly NOT Upber-liberal. They ran on very watered non-visionary positions.

I would be quite happy to see a genuinely progressive southerner lead the ticket in the future.

It is not simply a matter of winning the Presidency. It is a matter of building a broad-based progressive majority. Something that didn't go to well in the 90's. I suppose it took the horror of the Bush Administration to rekindle that.

[Larkspur]

206. Read Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and he'll

explain it to you.

[FightinNewDem]

165. Let's see some proof!

And no, "Because I/Sirota/Kos said so" doesn't count.

[Douglas Carpenter]

182. Once the Democratic Party could count on the support of working people

I don't have the figures--at my finger tip--that will take a little time to look them up--What is clear is that since the late 70's when the Democratic Party started turning away from its working class roots and relying on corporate support (with the DLC leading the way) it has lost much of its working class base. Much has been said about this before. It is up to you if you wish to believe it.

I am not actually supporting the idea that the DLC be purged. I don't think that will do much good. I am suggesting that through grassroots-democratic action mainstream Democrats take back control of their own party and transform the party into a truly progressive party.

[Perky]

201. You need to be cooled in causation

Have you everr considered that the drift to the right was the reult od the hokum being sold by the GOP rather than the DLC rahter meager attempt to move the part away from nominating anymore Dukasises and Mondales who we abysmal candidates with no hope of gaining elecoral votes in the South,

[Douglas Carpenter]

212. I agree with you that the hokum sold by the GOP is the main cause

However, it does not help when we have belt wave Democrats voting like like Republicans on key issues (ie:CAFTA, Patriot Act and Bankruptcy) and some essentially supporting a neocon foreign policy. I suppose the DLC is seen by many as the very incarnation of that tendency within the Democratic Party establishment. When all is done and said; I have supported a straight Democratic ticket in every general election for more than the past 22 years--even when it meant cringing and supporting a DLC type..
My problem with the Democratic Party establishment, epitomized by the DLC is that they allow the right to set the agenda--clearly this is not a winning strategy even when we occasionally win.
When Barry Goldwater lost by a landslide in 1964--the conservative movement didn't quit. They built the necessary infrastructure to eventually win. And I will say this for them, they made the GOP stand for something other than a reaction to the Democratic Party.
When that great and much-maligned man, Senator George McGovern lost in a humiliating landslide in 1972 (almost the same popular vote as Goldwater)--it was if progressives gave up.
This has to change if we want a genuinely progressive majority in the future.

[reprehensor]

166. "...the Republican Party would get a little bigger."

With all due respect, the DLC must change, especially in its stance to the continued bloodbath in Iraq.

When the DLC stops smearing everybody left of center, maybe everyone else will stop pickin' on the poor lil' DLC.

You're right about the leadership thing.

The Democrats desperately need a leader to fight Election Fraud.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4369575&mesg_id=4369575

I am convinced that everything else is meaningless.

[OzarkDem]

171. Overestimating yourself

There are many moderate Dems in the DNC - DLC doesn't represent them.

[evilqueen]

180. good thread so far

Out of all of the responses in this thread up to this point, calipendence expresses most closely how I feel about the Democratic Party and the DLC. If we have no political party representing labor and workers (aka families), then it's all corporately controlled, whether you call the candidates Democrats or Republicans.

[Q]

181. The DLC isn't PART of the Democratic party...

...so they can't 'break away' from it. They have absolutely no grassroots or rank and file support or membership. They are nothing more than a 'think tank', lobbyist group that wants to control the party for the benefit of Big Business. They want liberals out of the party for just this reason. Big Business hates liberals and their 'social' contracts. They want all that taxpayer money going towards social welfare to go into their pockets in the form of corporate welfare. Trickle-down be thy name.

The three or four posters on DU that defend the DLC is proportional to their overall numbers in the party. The DLC no more represents the Democratic party or their values than the Neocons represent true conservatism in the old GOP. They are NOT moderates or centrists. They are collaborators with the Bushie GOP.

The Democratic party did quite well for FORTY YEARS...in control of both the house and senate. They must have been doing something right to hold onto the People's Houses for so long. It wasn't until Clinton's DLC came along that the trend reversed itself and the Dems became the MINORITY PARTY. Coincidence? The DLC doesn't want to talk about it.

The DLC doesn't give a shit about the working class or the poor. This is reflected in their policies of 'supply-side' economics. The rank and file CAN'T allow the DLC to gain any more influence in the party. They already have too much.

From their rhetoric...it looks at if the DLC wants to replace the DNC. Don't let it happen.

[Perky]

185. Get your fact straight

The DLC was not aroun in 1984 or in 1988. That Gingrich was succesful in using broad national themes to wrest control of the Hose in 1994 has little to do with DLC influence.

[bpilgrim]

186. then why does clinton talk about them in 85?

Going to the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

fyi

peace

[LincolnMcGrath]

219. Wrong. The DLC lost us the house.

[Astarho]

228. and the Senate

and the majority of governors.

[LincolnMcGrath]

231. And the Unions

Yeah I know, Raygun bent us over real hard. But the voter apathy among my union brothers is rampant. They were ripped, raped and gun shy after 12 years of trickle down. They looked to the New Dem Prez to have their back and were sorely disappointed, leaving them to ripe for the picking from the gop on wedge issues.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

222. Hey Brother Q

Long time no see. As always, your posts cut to the quick. :yourock:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

191. If only they would. Or, if the left would break away.

Right now we have the Republican Party and their moderate wing called the Democratic Party.

It would be nice to live in a country with an alternative to the oligarchy now controlling the government.

[Perky]

194. FOR GOD"S SAKE PEOPLE GO BACK AND READ THE ORIGINAL POST!!!!

I am gonna ask it again,, because no on essems to get the underlying theme:

I am right you are worng yeah whatever... who the hell is going to bring the two sides tofther to win in 2008?

THat is the idea ya know...

I swears so many of you are som much more confortable in the the underdog/protest mode than you are abount WINNING elections.

Liberals can not win without genuflecting towards Graceland and DLCs can't when without genuflecting towards Bunker Hill. It is that simple.

Liberal need to underestnd that the party of minority, union households and Wooodstock holdovers s not powerful enough to win elecotrally. It was not in 1968 or 1972 or 1976 or 1980 or 1984 or 1988 or 1992 or 1996 or 2000 or 2004.

You guy are waxing nostalgic for a time that has never existed.

[bpilgrim]

198. the DLC are losers

not much love for them here.

peace

[Perky]

199. And the DNC ought to change it symbol to an Ostrich,

[ElectroPrincess]

202. It may work on the uninformed American ...

But these bully tactics which sometimes overtly translate into insulting LIBERALS, are less than tasteful if not openly resented.

Is it any wonder why many of us "proud to be LIBERAL" do not take well to the strong-arm intimidation that the DLC has seemingly borrowed from the right wing of the republican party?
-------------------------------
Examples from this thread:

Words to the effect that DUers are Not Doers?!?

"I swears so many of you are some much more comfortable in the the underdog/protest mode than you are about WINNING elections."

"Liberals can not win without genuflecting toward Graceland and DLCs can't when without genuflecting toward Bunker Hill. It is that simple."

"That garbage is one thing I can't stand about DU. I'm a proud DLC backer and Bill Clinton was absolutely correct to use the DLC to drag the extreme left wing of our party back to the center. "

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

I'm sorry to inform you that significant numbers of people who hold Democratic values will NOT vote for any DLCer in 2006. Why? Because we mostly represent those from the WORKING and MIDDLE Classes, not the INVESTOR Class.

If the DLC does not embrace us ONCE moderate, now wild-eyed leftists, they will LOSE and LOSE BIG. Bank on it DLC. No amount of bulling or Right Wing tactics will put lipstick on THIS pig.

[Perky]

204. Hey I was fair when I said

"Liberals can not win without genuflecting toward Graceland and DLCs can't win without genuflecting toward Bunker Hill. It is that simple."

Wher is the bullying in that.


I have never said word one against abject liberalism WHat I have said repeatedly is that abject liberalism does not win the WHite House.

Walter Mondale, MIcheal Dukakis and Bill Clinton all prove the point.



ANd in cae you don't recall... most americans are uniformed. That is why we have the prssident we have.

[ElectroPrincess]

208. Wow, you just can't stop insulting, now it's "most Americans"?!?

The DLC candidates may lose even bigger than I thought.

I don't know who's more snide and dismissive of the Average American Voter, You or "Writer"?

No, I will not take the blame for the fraud in the White House. I voted and worked within my local democratic party ... I worked the polls! Neither should anyone who voted against The Chimperor.

Damn the DLC for always turning on it's own! It breaks my heart (honestly) to have the Republicans stay in control of OUR Congress. However, if that's what it takes to expel this pro-corporate CANCER known as the DLC from our ranks, then it will be, in the long term, worth the suffering that our country will endure. Enough people will suffer to throw out all the corporate hacks and right wing fundy loonies out on their ear. And yes, as a part of the purge, the DLC will accordingly, be liquidated into irrelevant.

I have much more respect for true moderate republicans than the vast majority of those proudly affiliated with the DLC. Why? Because I KNOW where they stand ... I can see the knives coming and they won't be in my back.

[Q]

217. We have the 'president' we have because they CHEATED in 2000...

...and the SC made an illegal, partisan decision.

Oh, that's right. The DLC doesn't like to talk about election fraud or anything else that might incriminate their 'partner' GWB.

[PassingFair]

233. Could you please define "abject liberalism"?

One of the WORST offenses of the DLC is its propaganda against the base of the democratic party. In the primaries, they managed to turn CENTRISTS into "wild-eyed" liberals.
By demonizing any real populist (and by extension anyone who works towards their election) the DLC is responsible for splitting the party and rendering it less effective.
I consider myself a centrist. I believe in the fight for national health care, civil rights, women's control over their own bodies, balancing the budget and in not fighting wars of imperial aggression.
Which of those positions makes me a "wild-eyed" liberal?
I'm tired of the myopic views of upper-middle-class white guys. The DLC will pander to them, while losing the union member, because they don't want to offend the corporation. They have made a HUGE mistake.

[Perky]

244. I will say it again and perhaps I should speak very slowly and enunciate ev

I have never disseed liberalism, All I am saying that if you want to win you have to be want to attract moderates into the big tent. Again I am not saying you need to kowtow to them on every issues. It is simply that the political spectrum that runs from Rockefeller Republicans to DLC Democrats need a home where they feel included and valued.


Many of you think that is accomplished by taking the party as far to the left as the Neo-cons and fundies have take the GOP to the right.

A party that says it is focused on minority ascension and on worker rights seems to me to be out of step with millions upon millions of suburban and exurban voters who want really thoughtful leadership that is going to make lives better for those if us who through good fortune and hard work have wound a part of the investor class. I am far from rich,,but I do own my own business,

I happen to think there is something noble in that, but to hear some DUers talk..all of the investor/entrepreneurial class is part of a vast right wing conspiracy to disenfranchise any bleeding heart that we can find.


Once again I am not asking liberals to change their stripes. I am simply saying that your notion of "a big tent" should be a whole lot larger if you want to win national elections.

That could start quite simply by not always pissing on the foot of those who would like to win an election now and then.

SOme of you honestly think that the uninformed masses would vote for liberal candidate if there was clear distinction between the parties. But the overwhelming evidence is that Democrats for the last sixty years have always lost spectacularly when they run strong left candidate and they draw even with the GOP with more moderate candidates. The only exception to this fact was 1964 LBJ-Goldwater and that was a complete anomaly,

It is impossible to win with out moderate candidates and listening to moderate voices.

[cascadiance]

236. And you are still not listening that this is NOT a left vs. right issue!

I thought it was just the Rush Limbaughs of the world that I have to deal with when trying to deal with the "liberal labeling game". Now it's the desperate DLCers trying to rationalize their value to the Democratic Party and in so doing, taking a page out of that bum's book!

I and many here have valued being independent in our votes. I've been a registered independent for MANY years, though not voting for Republicans for the last 10 or so, I've voted for the Greens, Libertarians, and for John Anderson in my first presidential election.

If you are asking us to get brain transplants to become part of this "move to the center" which in fact is really a move towards accepting fascism, count me out of that game.

You can rant all you want about us needing to accept other people in the party, and I say you are exactly right! But the DLC is about accepting corporate influence over our party. How is that accepting more PEOPLE in our party? I'd rather be able to champion that we are a party that isn't "bought" and truely THE party that is out to represent PEOPLE's interests and not corporate interests.

As I noted above, if you need proof that Howard Dean's NEWER approach than you "new" democrats is working better, then look at last election where he helped local and state elections give Dems far more power through his and Democracy for America's actions to get Dems active at that level where they helped more than the DLC did. What we need to do now is to clean up the election fraud so that we can show that this works also in the presidential and senate races too. A Dean-lead DNC hasn't had a chance to do that yet.

I think in addition to supporting labor and the working man, the Democrats need to find better ways to unify all of the various labor forces together too. Traditional labor unions weren't really pursued by the high tech work force, who instead have gone to professional organizations like ACM, etc. to further their marketability as decent workers. Traditional labor unions could borrow some of the strategies that these professional organizations have used to build skills of their workers in a fashion more like guilds than just "unions" more focused on just exercising worker "power". At the same time, these professional organizations could also learn a lot from traditional labor unions on how and when to build power up for their members to help them fight back against things like outsourcing to India, and the influx of cheap H1B visa'd workers from overseas too. The sooner they come together and build a strategy where they can feel comfortable supporting each other constructively, and have as a result service, manufacturing, high tech workers all coming together to support each other, that will be when the Dems (and the people/working man) get more power too.

[radio4progressives]

241. What we need is Election Reform - Proportional Represenation

so that we have actual representation reflected in the candidates and the elections results - at least for the House and the Senate.

That's where the laws get made. And the one that occupies the white house - would then have to be more of an honest represenative of the country at large.

I don't need no stinking DLC pulling power plays, and determining what a PARTY is going to stand for - that should be completely up to the RANK AND FILE not policy elites in washington.

The DLC should form another party, imo. Then they can start off with a clean honest slate.

The dems make determinations based on the rank and file's expressed wishes - let the chips fall where they will in honest, fair and clean elections.

Only then can would it be possible to determine what the majority of the people really want.

[rman]

246. The tent has been getting bigger since we started

to take a stance against corporatists and the Bush administration - both against the advice of the DLC.

[Moderator]

247. Locking...

This thread is inflammatory and
has run its course.