The DLC strategy is designed to attract corporate cash not nascar dads

[Classical_Liberal]

or office park dads, or soccer moms or any other republican leaning group they claim as an excuse to abandon the base. I don't buy the spin that nascar dads are a problem and that the nascar dad means we should abandon the progressive base to nader. I know a nascar dad personally and he would like stronger unions and national health insurance. I don't know why anyone falls for it after all this time. It is a meaningless talking point. They use these demographics the way neocons used WMD.

Futhermore Dean's approach proves that Democrats don't need corporate America to fund their campaigns. Why the hell do we let the DLC get away with this spin, when corporate money isn't even necessary.

[Cha]

1. A Yeah!

:kick:

[vi5]

2. It's a little naive to think that Dean's $15million....

Is going to be able to stand up to Bush's* 200 million. It may make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside that he was able to raise that amount from such small donors but put it up against you know who and it means next to nothing.

Keep blaming the DLC/DNC for every single problem and watch the demorcatic party fade into obsolescence.

It's hard to say who is being more stubbornly naive and ignorant. The DLC/DNC people who want the party to lurch totally right without regard for the base, or the people who think that all we need to win is internet savvy, white middle class liberal voters.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. Since Dean has much more than any of the other Dems

What's your point? If his 15 mil won't do than the 7 mil that Wesley Clark raised last quarter will do worse. Furthermore, by the time the election happens if he keeps pulling in 15 million a quarter it will be alot more than 15 mil.

[vi5]

10. That wasn't my point....

It wasn't a "Dean versus the world" post. It was simply stating that what Dean has done may seem great from a primary perspective but if he or anyone else is the nominee, it's going to take a lot more than that to win and beat Bush. The money Dean raised is great and all well and good. But it doesn't prove or show anything with regard to how people in the general electorate are going to vote in 2004.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. I think the most electible willl probably get the most

money.

[Capn Sunshine]

163. Hello? That's just ONE Quarter

We have the capability to return to our original donors for more money. Bushco does not. We have only gotten 82 dollars from them, Bushco is at the maximum 2000.

In theory using this model we have the potential capacity to raise 600 million.

THIS is what the cabal reallyfears.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Are there any polls showing possible Democratic voters?

Has anyone divided the numbers of people, who might possibly vote for a Democrat, but who didn't vote for Gore, into those who thought he was too corporate, and those who didn't because they thought he was too left wing? Only if there are large numbers of potential Democratic voters refusing to vote because of corporate connections can the DLC be said to be abandoning the base.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. There were polls showing Gore polling better when he did populist

speeches, then when he did centrist pro corporate speeches.

[AP]

8. I vaguely remember seeing that a lot of Dems voted for Bush.

Dems outnumber Republicans now, I believe, so Bush could only win if he got some Dem votes, and he got lots (not as many as Reagan, probably).

I would bet there are at least 10 times more votes for the Democrats to find in the center than at the far left, and it's going to cost a lot less per vote to reach those people than reach the far left, and the far left is almost definitely going to be with the Dem nominee, no matter how much hysteria people try to create about the DLC (and, man, look through GD and you can see all the posts where people are trying to contribute to that hysteria and you have to wonder if they really want to win in 2004).

[Classical_Liberal]

9. I am not far left

"The Far Left" label is code for people who piss of corporate contributers in my opinion. The center is not turned off by green issues. If they were Gore wouldn't have polled so well with his populist speech at the Dem convention, which the DLCers said would turn off centrists.

[AP]

14. This whole "Gore was a populist" thing I just don't believe

I think it was post-election RW spin to scare off the Democrats from running as a populist in the future because they knew that was W's weakness.

As for the DLC criticizing the speech, I vaguely remember that, but I think it was also RW spin. Criticism of the DLC just plays into the RW spin that the Dems are divided, and it encourages them to go farther left, when the truth is there are way more voters in the center who SHOULD be voting Dem in their best interests, but don't because they're lied to.

You have any links?

I think the DLC should have disliked Gore simply because he was a bad campaigner.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Aparently you don't read their website

They say very clearly they think Gore's problem was populism. I don't believe they believe that but populism hurts their moneybag members.

[AP]

24. A link please? I'm not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I think

there's more to it than that.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Here's a link

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/6194

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) convened its annual "National Conversation" from July 28 to July 30 in New York City. You'd think that with the Republicans in huge trouble because of the sluggish economy, plunging stock market and, especially, the seemingly endless wave of corporate scandals, a meeting of Democrats should have no trouble finding plenty of juicy targets in elephant suits. Instead, they went donkey-hunting!


The DLC has contributed many useful ideas to Democratic politics. Populism-bashing just doesn't happen to be one of them.



The problem: those naughty populist donkeys who believe big business should be brought to heel and don't understand that themes like "the people versus the powerful" are really "class war," and therefore political poison. This is, of course, dredging up a debate from the aftermath of the 2000 election, which is strange enough since the election to worry about is the one coming up, not the one two years ago. But, it borders on the bizarre in the current context when the entire country is up in arms about corporate malfeasance and the public mood is more critical of business than it has been for decades (see Public Opinion Watch for July 8-12 and July 22-26). Why choose now to bash fellow Democrats, when a reform-minded populism seems both justified by the circumstances and consistent with public opinion?

[AP]

34. That's Texiera's interpretation

of a few facts which aren't fully contextualized. (You said you're going to get me a link to the DLC.) If the DLC is saying that the problem with Gore's "people vs powerful" message is the "vs" part, there may be something to that. Look at the sort of populism that Edwards is articulating. He's bascially saying whe have to the level the playing field and recognize that the middle class is the engine of economic growth, and we can't burden them so much. There's an implicit "vs" in that idea, but it's mostly about fairness and common economic sense.

Again, I don't think Gore ran a populist campaign. And my interpretation is that if, at the last moment, he realized that he should have been doing that, and his way of articulating it was to talk explicitly about "vs", then it might have been really ham-fisted, and confusing to people, and easily spun by the Republicans. Gore's problem wasn't populism. It was his articulation of populism.

But I really can't tell what Texiera is commenting on because he took some statmenets out of couple speeches, and I don't know the full context and the full arguments of the people he's quoting.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. NDOL: exchanging New Democrat principles for populism

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/winter2001_special/marshall.html

[AP]

37. Who the hell is Will Marshall?

I guess he's entitled to his opinion. But who is he? Anyway, most of that article just describes Bush outsmarting Gore. I don't agree that Gore was a populist. I just think he was a bad articulator of what the Democrats are all about.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. President of the Progressive Policy Institute

the DLC's official think tank. A man who obviously writes on the official DLC website ndol, New Democrats Online. The article wouldn't be published there if it wasn't official dlc policy.

[IkeWarnedUs]

153. Who the hell is Will Marshall?!?!?!?!?!?! AP, I hope you see this

Will Marshall is responsible for the opinion of the DLC. That's his job - or at least one of his jobs.

Will Marshall was the policy director for the DLC and is the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which was formed to create policy for the DLC. The DLC and PPI are very intertwined. Al From, DLC founder, is the chairman of PPI. The DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC). The press e-mail for both DLC and PPI is [e-mail]

Will Marshall was one of the select people who actually signed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements on post war Iraq, along with a few frequent Blueprint authors (the DLC magazine). He is also an advisor to the Committee to Liberate Iraq (CLI), who's mission is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people. Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda, which it does very well. CLI is loaded with PNAC'ers, including 3 of the board of directors.

The DLC and DNC are not one and the same. The DLC has had an enormous influence on the DNC, but they are not joined at the hip. I think Al Gore understood what the DLC had become and in fact, I think the emergence of the DLC/neo-con connection is why Gore chose not to run in 2004. He was an early founder of the DLC, and I don't think he felt he could fight them and Bush at the same time and win.

Although Will Marshall (and the rest of the DLC/PPI) has been pushing a slightly sanitized, politically correct neo-con-lite agenda for years, it is just recently that he came out of the closet with his official PNAC/CLI affiliations. The PNAC statements were released in March 2003 and CLI was formed in the fall of 2002. Like many of the neo-cons, he seems to be more brazen and open than ever before.

But the DLC agenda and aliances are not news. I encourage you to read this article from the April 23, 2001 issue of The American Prospect, "How the DLC Does It."

<snip>

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>

Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics. Yet the affiliation of scores of members of Congress has enabled the DLC to establish alliances with Fortune 500 corporate supporters, particularly along the so-called K Street corridor of Washington-based lobbyists and in high-tech enclaves such as California's Silicon Valley.

<snip>

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

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

Much, much more: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

By the way, in the same issue of The American Prospect was this article by Will Marshall:

Liberal Loss or Progressive Mandate?
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/marshall-w.html

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

AP, you and many others sincerely seem to care about the Democratic party and seem to see attacks on the DLC as attacks on Democrats. You mentioned hysteria on DU about the DLC, and I imagine I am one of those posters you see as contributing to that hysteria. I am a registered Democrat and work on local and national campaigns. I want a Democrat in the White House and I agree that the path to the WH is through the center. The DLC may have started out with admirable goals, but it has become a Trojan Horse filled with the neo-con agenda.

Please, don't dismiss my concerns about the DLC as leftist rant.


Links, FYI:

DLC website: http://www.ndol.org/

PPI website: http://www.ppionline.org/

CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml

PNAC Iraq statements: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

[AP]

156. I'll repeat: I like Edwards. The DLC doesn't like Edwards.I don't like DLC

Edwards's economic liberalism seems to be the opposite of the DLC agenda. I look forward to the day when real campaign finance reform means the DLC is irrelevant.

Since Edwards takes no PAC money, I don't see how the DLC could help him anyway.

But I do think Democrats should appeal to the vast middle on issues like economic justice (ie, progressive income tax, strong social safety net which allows people to reach higher, a level playing field, and equality of opportunity). I don't think the Democrats should compromise any of their core principles to appeal to these people. Edwards doesn't do that. I don't think which of the other candidates do.

[IkeWarnedUs]

165. The enemy of my friend is my enemy?

I'm not sure what you are saying (in post #156). Since (you think) the DLC doesn't like Edwards, you don't like the DLC? That does nothing to address what I said in my post that you were responding to.

While Edwards is not the DLC's favorite (Lieberman is), he is one of the Democratic candidates they support, along with Kerry and Gephardt. In fact, the four of them addressed the DLC convention in July 2003 (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251820&kaid=126&subid=166). He was also featured, along with Lieberman and Kerry, in a Blueprint article on June 30, 2003 titled "Ideas We Like" (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251806&kaid=127&subid=177) and is a current member of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called - link to membership list: http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm)

That doesn't make Edwards a bad person or bad candidate. As I have said many times before, I don't think all the members of the New Democrats understand the devils they are making deals with. But if that is your rationale for not liking the DLC, you are mistaken.

This thread and my post are about the damage the DLC has done to the Democratic Party and what it stands for. I was hoping your response would address that.

[AP]

166. I don't know how to expalin any more than to say that I think ...

...Edwards's platform is perfect. I see no holes in it. It seems to contradict the DLC's philosophy, if it can be said that Will Marshall speaks for the DLC.

I don't care about the DLC. I don't know what more I can give you.

The democratic party has 1000 problems. Most them have to do with things that are created by the fascists currently running things. I think it's silly to pick the DNC as the single embodiment of all those prolems.

The reason I got involved in this thread is because of this stupid notion that appealing to working class white southerners is a bad idea and has some kind of pro-corportate angle.

[AP]

5. What are you talking about?

Dean accepts PAC money, and if you read down the professions of his donors, you see lots of investment bankers, people in the pharmaceuticals industry, and people in media. Those people have a lot at stake in terms of the continued viability of their professions.

And, the move for NASCAR dads is probably one of the srtategies that is FARTHEST thing from a corporate-ass-kissing that the Democrats are doing this year.

Those middle and working class white guys have interests that diverge dramatically from the interests of AOL-TW and Pharmacia. The Democrats are right to try to sway this vast middle-of-the-spectrum demographic (you know that NASCAR is, like, the most watched spectator sport in America, and, surprisingly, has more women viewers than other sports, I believe).

Bush is an ass, and the base will probably be witht he Democrats, so long as Democrats don't run someone who isn't a covert Republican (and Lieberman is the only one who risks falling into that category squarley and fully, but Dean's got a problem with his Cato-friendly fiscal policies and his lack of spark on the issue of race, and his NE (social) liberal thang if you ask me...I know...I know...not popular, but I think it's true).

Bottom line: trying to get the middle of the spectrum to lean Democratic is the right thing. They should be voting Democratic anyway. The Republicans aren't looking after their interests.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. Come off it. It is the DLC spinmiesters that are pushing

"the nascar dad" talking point and everyone knows it. He doesn't owe nearly as much money to rich people or corporations as your candidate Edwards. It isn't like your unfriendly to the DLC, or the "Blair Democrats"

[AP]

12. You know you're not making any sense.

Don't you?

If any of the candidates needed to be told by the DLC that the NASCAR dad is a good demographic to go after, he's an idiot.

What do you think the NASCAR dad is? You think he's an investment banker or a pharmaceutical company exec? He's a guy living on 40K per year at age 40 hoping that SS will be there when he's 70 and hoping there's a job for his kid when she gets out of state college in the spring. If that person isn't voting Democratic, it's because the Democrats haven't taken the time to appeal to that voter.

And who's the "he" in your statement? Dean? Edwards made a careeer out of transferring money FROM negligent corporations TO the average Americans injured by their negligence. He doesn't take PAC money, the NC banking industry (which is HUGE) says he doesn't pay enough attention to their interests, and the DLC doesn't like him because he votes against free trade when it hurst NC workers. Dean, on the other hand, went to the Cato Institute and told them that they should really like him.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. No I don't think he is an investment banker

but I think the dlc is lying when they say the give a fuck about him. They just created the nascar dad to cover for the investment bankers they really care about. The Nascar dad would prefer the old democratic agenda of unions and national health insurance. They sure as hell aren't attracted to pronafta, pro-credit card company dems. All the dems that claim to care about them are pronafta though.

[AP]

19. How does appealing to the working class cover for an appeal to corps?

You know what's a cover for appealing to corps? Dean's whole Cato-friendly fiscal conservativism -- the balanced budget on the backs of the middle and working class, the avoidance of a progressive tax code, and talking about the coprorate tax dodge ONLY in terms of whether jobs get exported.

One gets the impression that Dean would think everything's hunky dory if only we stopped exporting a jobs. Well, with the downward pressure on wages, and the decimation of unions, the US will be picking up jobs soon. Your 12 year old will be sewing soccer balls for Europeans in sweat shop in Oklahoma (that's my new favorite phrase, you like?). Will that make Dean happy?

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Cato friendly bullcrap

He did one speech there. The dlc falsely claims their policies are to appeal to the working class, when they really want corporate money. They are phonies. The bankrupcy bill wasn't about nascar dads. The asskissing of Enron wasn't about nascar dads. Nafta wasn't about nascar dads.

[AP]

27. Most real Democrats give NO speeches to the Cato Institute, and if they...

...did, the probably would pander to them with statements like, 'you should like me becasue I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative.'

I'm not sure what you're claiming with the rest of this. The bankruptcy bill? I don't think it has passed yet. DLC asskissing Enron? Clinton was a DLC'er and he DIDN'T have Ken Lay in the white house, and he DID try to cap energy prices in CA. Also, Robert Byrd (who is probably in the DLC?) said that, sure, Enron gave him 1000 bucks once, but he was on the chair of the committee that regulated them -- "that isn't an campaign donation, that's an insult" he joked.

I don't think the DLCs the greates thing. But I do think they perform a valuable service for the Democratic party -- they're willing to play by the crappy rules which get Republicans elected and without them we'd have even fewer Democrats in office.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. Robert Byrd is not DLC though he is conservative

in some respects. Clinton wasn't in office when the Enron scandels broke, so we can't say. We can say that Clinton raised no objections when his dlc pal Lieberman was relaxing the rules that made the Enron scandals possible. The bankrupcy bill passed one house and the DLC whoes who were the margin of victory.

[AP]

36. I wonder if Clinton thought Lieberman was his pal when Lieberman was

criticizing him in the Senate over moral and ethics.

Lieberman's got some problems that go beyond the DLC, and mostly revolve around being the Senator from CT.

Incidentally, I wonder if some DLCers are responsible for holding up the bankruptcy bill in the Senate?

And back to the problem of the DLC. Yes, the rely on moderation and corporate cash. However, that doesn't mean moderation isn't wise in a winner-takes-all, de facto two party system in which there's a bell-curve distribution of political sentiment and most voters amass somewhere near the center of the political spectrum.

Throw on top of that the fact that it doesn't make an logical sense for anyone out side the top .5% of wealthy Americans, or anyone who gets most of their wealth from earned income (or the labor of others) to vote Republican, and you have a situation where it makes sense for Democrats not only to present their message to Nascar dads, but to 99.5% of Americans outside that top tier.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. I don't believe the dlc are just moderate

I think they are corporate, which can is a type of moderation. Socially Conservative Economically Liberal people are also moderates. Here are the 36 Dems who voted for it. The Electoral College, winner take all creates two parties. It doesn't dictate that both parties be in league with Big Busines. That has to do with the lack of public financing, and it doesnt' take a constitutional amendment to change the condition .

http://members.tripod.com/progressive_2001/id37.htm

Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) [e-mail]
Max Baucus (Montana) http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/EmailMax.htm
Evan Bayh (Indiana) http://bayh.senate.gov/webmail.html
Joe Biden (Delaware) [e-mail]
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) [e-mail]
John Breaux (Louisiana) [e-mail]
Robert Byrd (West Virginia) [e-mail]
Maria Cantwell (Washington) http://cantwell.senate.gov/mailform.html
Jean Carnahan (Missouri) [e-mail]
Thomas Carper (Delaware) http://carper.senate.gov/
Max Cleland (Georgia) http://www.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html
Hillary Clinton (New York) [e-mail]
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) [e-mail]
Tom Daschle (Sorth Dakota) http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.htm
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) [e-mail]
John Edwards (North Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/contact.html
Dianne Feinstein (California) [e-mail]
Bob Graham (Florida) [e-mail]
Fritz Hollings (South Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/webform.html
Tim Johnson (South Dakota) [e-mail]
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) [e-mail]
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) http://landrieu.senate.gov/webform.html
Patrick Leahy (Vermont) [e-mail]
Carl Levin (Michigan) [e-mail]
Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) [e-mail]
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) [e-mail]
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) [e-mail]
Zell Miller (Georgia) http://miller.senate.gov/email.htm
Patty Murray (Washington) [e-mail]
Ben Nelson (Nebraska) http://www.senate.gov/senators/ben_nelson.html
Harry Reid (Nevada) [e-mail]
Chuck Schumer (New York) [e-mail]
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) [e-mail]
Robert Torricelli (New Jersey) [e-mail]
Ron Wyden (Oregon) http://wyden.senate.gov/mail.htm

[AP]

49. I don't like the DLC. But I like the idea of appealing to Nascar dads.

I can't believe I let this turn into a debate about DLC. Yes, I wish campaign finance laws were better so the Dems could raise enough money to campaign without having to rely on PAC money. I wish the system allowed more Wellstones, than moderates.

Nonetheless, telling Nascar dads that their interests align with the Democratic party rather than the Republican parties is not only smart, I think Democrats have an ethical obligation to do so.

Also, I don't think that the DLC constitutes the entire persona of very many Democrats.

[Classical_Liberal]

55. It was a debate about the DLC from the beginning

Note the title of my post. I don't believe that DLC's position is about nascar dads, I also don't think we have been telling nascar dads that their interest don't align with the Democratic party.

[AP]

61. Yeah, I already dismissed the alleged connection between pro-middle class

appeals to Nascar dads, and the pro-corporate leanings of the DLC.

You have to admit, you were going out on a limb trying to connect those two.

The DLC is too easy of a target of course. And it's fun to taint any strategy that is less likely to result in the nomination of someon who can win in 2004 with the DLC. But you still have to be accountable to reason and logic.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. Actually it is the DLC that are connecting the two

I am going out on a limb to seperate their interests. You are obviously debating with someone who is not me.

[AP]

69. Edwards is not liked by the DLC, Edwards talks about progressive taxation

and Edwards is trying to appeal to Nascar dads.

It's a smart move.

I don't pay attention to the DLC, so I don't know what their arguments about NASCAR dads are. If you have some evidence of their theories, I'd love to read it and debunk it.

[Classical_Liberal]

81. When the DLC savages Edwards like Dean maybe

I'll believe it.

[AP]

86. The DLC's savaging of Dean was followed by Clinton pointing out that Dean

was as conservative, fiscally, as the DLC, so that whole dust-up left me very confused.

And the fact is, Dean is more conservative fiscally than the DLC.

If the DLC was pissed about anything it was probably that they can tell that Dean probably isn't going to win thanks to demographics and the ease with which his social liberalsim will be turned against him in the south.

But I'm not goingt to pretend to know what the DLC thinks, becuase I barely pay attention to them.

[Classical_Liberal]

94. Social Liberalism will hurt Edwards too

He is for domestic partner rights. I don't think Dean is MORE fiscally conservative, but I agree he followed their playbook as governer. I also think he has made a conscious break from them in this elections and it will make his presidency look different. I think the DLC opposes him because he proves corporate money is not essential. That means they are not essential.

[AP]

98. Nothing Edwards says would make the Cato Institute happy, so I don't

know how you could think that he is remotely fiscally conservative.

Also, if I remember correctly, people here at DU criticicized Edwards as having a milquetoasty response to the civil union issue. In any event, it's definitely not at the core of his identity, the way it is with Dean, and that's what southern voters are going to be confronted with, thanks to Republicans.

Think about it: if the Republicans run around the south saying Edwards is too socially liberal because he's not completely opposed to civil unions, southerners are going to scratch their heads and say, huh? Isn't he the milworkers so who's going to reward work with wealth and not wealth with wealth? What does that have to do with civil unions?

Now, if they run around the south saying tha Dean wants to let people get married, the response is going to be, "yeah, I heard about that guy."

[Classical_Liberal]

102. Domestic partnerships are miquetoasty since the true

left position is gay marriage. That would be a criticism of them both. Dean didn't sign a gay marriage bill. He signed a civil unions bill. Edwards is also in favor of civil unions. I hardly see how the position is more central to Dean's identity than Edwards. You are either for it or against. To say it is more central because Dean is northern is just bigotry. It is bigoted against Dean and a bigotry against nascar dads, because you are saying they are stupid bigots, and won't vote for good candidates just because they are from the north. As for your Cato obsession. Well anyone who has positions Cato likes would probably be ok with cato on those issues. Certainly Cato would like Edward's position on Nafta even better than Dean, because Edwards wouldn't require labor and envirnmental stipulations.

[AP]

106. You're deceiving yourself if you really don't think civil unions are...

...central to Dean's persona.

It's not bigotry for me to repeat a point that was made by some elected dem down in Alabama (I believe) in that article about a potential southern strategy. In that article, the dem guy said that if a democrat comes down to the south and talks about social liberalism, but doesn't talk about economics (equal opportunity on a level playing field) the average southern voter is going to think that the dem is so out of touch with the reality of being working class in the south that the dems will lose every southern state.

It's not bigotry to acknowledg this. But it is narrow-minded, selfish self-interest that makes a lot of liberals think that it's OK to cloak deep fiscal conservativism with a superficial social liberalism that does nothing to improve the lives of people who are really suffering in a world in which the Republican party keeps channelling more and more poltiical power and wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and are often able to do that by exploiting those very socially liberal positions which some Democrats think are adequate substitutes for real liberalism.

[Classical_Liberal]

109. "Civil Unions are central to Dean's persona"?

and you think I am deceiving myself? Look by following the money, I predict Dean will serve the economically disadvanteged people better than Edwards. If you want to spin that Civil unions are the most important issue to Howard Dean, I guess that is your problem.

[AP]

112. Ok, that's my first audible chuckle of the morning. You really really...

...don't think that a significant part of dean's publica person is not made up by his position on civil unions?

Isn't he only one of two governors who signed civil union bills into a law? Isn't it, like, one of the very few non-health related things that he did that could be contrued as liberal during a tenure in office as a very business-friendly, tax-lowering, IBM concession-granting governor?

The perception of him as a liberal created by civil uinions (probably 15% of his persona, along with being anti-Bush/anti-war, about 70% of his persona) is the thing that is cloaking his Cato-friendly fiscal conservaitivism.

Not only is this part of his persona, but it's a vital part of the person which keeps his key demographic so hyped up.

[Classical_Liberal]

113. He signed a bill the legislature passed

He didn't introduce the bill. Edwards would have signed it, unless you are saying Edwards is a liar. You sound like Saddam declaring victory after gulf war one.

[AP]

115. Hey, don't spoil my rhetorical victory by characterizing me as Saddam!

Let me enjoy the moment:)

Hey, by the way, does this mean you're arguing that Dean never did anything liberal as governor?

[Classical_Liberal]

117. no

Why would I argue he never did anything liberal as governer? Is liberalism a bad thing?

[AP]

120. That's what I wonder when I listen to

dean talk about fiscal matters, and when I read his Cato Instiute comments.

I asked myself, 'what's wrong with liberalism? Why doesn't he like it."

Look, I'm not saying that civil unions legislation is bad. But it'd be nice if this wasn't the only thing Dean had to prove his liberal bona fides.

Think of it like this: if Cuomo had been governor of VT, and had done all the liberal things he had done AND signed a civil unions bill, Cuomo could go all over the south with a message which would be harder for Republicans to corrupt, and Cuomo could probably ariticulately explain what he was doing on civil unions which would keep it from becoming a wedge issue.

[Classical_Liberal]

123. I follow the money. I think somones funders are a good

indication of where they will be, and I believe that Dean has broke from the dlc mold, with his effort to fund his campaign on small donations instead of large ones. Indeed I believe that is why he is savaged by the dlc. I think they view him as a traitor. I don't see Edward's breaking the mold though I admit to being impressed with his comments on progressive taxation and his recent comments on war profiteers.

[AP]

125. Have you looked at Deans FEC statemetns?

Lots of investment bankers, media people, pharmaceuticals execs, lawyers, etc.

He may get the teachers and the students. But he's doing pretty well in teh over $75k income bracket, and his filings show it.

[Classical_Liberal]

128. Sorry it isn't the same as corporate donations

He certainly would still have 95% of the money he has presently even if it weren't for atypical liberals in those profession. He isn't bashing the liberal base and they are giving him money so they are probably people who approve of not bashing the liberal base even if they are in those professions.

[AP]

135. There are no corporate donations anyway. It's either PAC money (which

Dean accepts) or it's individual donations from people. And, you're going to have to assume that people making more than 75K have some interests that are tied tightly with the success of the their corporations.

[Classical_Liberal]

139. I don't see a very high percentage of them

so I dismiss their influence yes.

[AP]

143. Hit your "buck" button, and cut and past the link to Dean's FEC filings

and we'll take a look. M'kay.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Actually, the way the DLC wants to appeal to NASCAR dads

is to act all militaristic and talk about cutting taxes. You get the DLC types on this board talkinga about how the Dems can't advocate cuts in the military budget or guaranteed health coverage because white men love the military and hate taxes.

[JohnKleeb]

15. On PACs last I saw at open secrets, DK had more pac money than Edwards

DK with 1K and Edwards with 0. I am a well known Kucinich supporter AP but I think Edwards is very much anti corporation.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Not all pacs are corporate so it doesn't mean anything

Edwards get's alot from trail lawyers.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I am just saying Edwards isnt your typical DLC

DLC= pretty liberal on social issues but more conservative on economic issues.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Edward is pretty liberal on social issues

conservative in economic ones. so are all the candidates except Kucinich, Mosley Braun and Sharpton. I like who Dean pisses off. He pisses off the people I think have too much power in Washington.

[AP]

23. Edwards is actually pretty PROGRESSIVE on economic issues

I think you're mixing up Dean and Edwards. And Dean didn't seem like he wanted to piss the Cato Institute off, and they're one of the groups that has power in DC right now.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Then how come the corporate Press doesn't hate him as

much as Dean. Maybe it is because Dean doesn't owe as much to their bosses?

[AP]

29. Do you live in a cave?

The press IGNORES Edwards. The press has placed Dean at the center of the campaign and makes sure, shamelessly, that everything revolves around him.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. they ignore Edwards yes

it maybe because Edwards isn't popular. The press is hardly friendly to Dean and they fought Dean's popularity all the way.

[AP]

42. You know, the first time I heard Dean covered in the press,

it was a long segment by Mara Liasson on NPR. The story went to great pains to set him up as the anti-war candidate. Voila, the anti-war people flocked to him. I really feel that the media set him up in a way that they knew would appeal to a lot of people on an issue that they suspected Bush would be able to turn to his advantage. Bush desperately wanted the Democrats to obstruct him so that he could label them unpatriotic and weak on national secutity (two issues that, when exploited, have historically cost Dems elections).

Also, the media knows that when Dean is attacked, he gets more money and more support. (And they know it makes the other candidates look bad.) So they go out of their way to make him the cetner of all the controversies. And there is one particular manifestation of thiis that is getting boring. In the last couple debates they have made sure that anyone who has attacked Dean gets plenty of coverage. So, they've created either this bargain or this Pavlovian thing: are you a Democrat who needs air time on the debates? Then attack Dean and we'll give you time. All the while, they know that this is building up Dean among the people who are motivated by a hatred of Bush -- and the RW media is hoping there are enough of those people to win the primary, because they know that their kind of candidate is the kind of candidate the Republicans will have the easiest time defeating (because that kind of Democratic stength is the easiest to turn into a weakness).

[Classical_Liberal]

45. That was back when antiwar was being marginalized as old hippies

particularly by Mara Liasson, who though the congress people that went on a fact finding mission to bagdad were antiamerican. Furthermore, he is against the Iraq War, and that isn't spin. That is just a fact. I am opposed to the Iraq war, so ofcoarse, I don't want Edwards.

[AP]

47. It was when there were millions protesting and feeling like the Republicas

were ignoring them.

And Rove figured out how to harness that anger directed at him and use it agains the Democrats...so he called Mara and suggested...

It's like Kung Fu. You take your opponents strength and turn it into a weakness.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. More likely it was the fact that the dems with the exception

of Dean were ignoring these people too. Since the common wisdom at the time was that the million of antiwar protesters were extremist 10%ers, this certainly wasn't good publicity for Dean. Dean didn't care about the way he looked though. He cared about being right, and history proved he was.

[JohnKleeb]

56. with the exception of Dean............

CL did you forget Kucinich, who btw spoke at an anti war rally in Feburary in New York.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. Yes, I forgot Kucinich sorry

.

[JohnKleeb]

72. np remember the tree falls in the forest if no one hears

[AP]

63. If the media boosted Kucinich, there would have been a risk that something

would have been said which actually hurt Bush. Kinda like, don't give Wellstone a platform HE ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE!

[Classical_Liberal]

73. I'm not sure I'm following?

? They were more hostile to Kucinich than Dean, but I don't see how Kucinich hurts Bush more. Why are you not for Kucinich.

[AP]

79. I am for Kucinich -- I'm for the idea of Kucinich.

When you say that the media is hostile to Dean, do you mean, they don't let him talk, and they don't let him devolop his political persona, and they don't give him a chance to do the things that result in him raising money?

[Classical_Liberal]

82. No, it means their editorials are negative against him

and they marginalize his positions and his supporters, by claiming he can't win, or by claiming Dean supporters are far left or hippies. They also nitpick at him. Look at Russert's interview. The question about how many people in the military was a gotcha question. Russert obviously didn't apply those standards to President D student.

[AP]

88. David Brooks in the NYTimes wrote a very fawning piece about how Episcopal

-ians like Dean and Bush are born to lead.

I rarely see an editorial about Dean that's negative. And he gets a tone of coverage.

After Russert attacked Dean, Dean's popularity and donations spiked. I think that's what motivated the treatment during the Fox and CNN debates, subesequently.

I think you need to look no further than the Dean's poll numbers to realize that the media plays him to his advantage.

[JohnKleeb]

91. Espicoal?

I read that Dean was Congressionalist and I have no idea what that is :D being a Catholic boy and I read Bush was Methodist. Whatever the connation, publicity is publicity, just my opinion.

[AP]

95. Dean's boarding school, St George's, I believe, is Episcopalian.

I don't know what religion Bush was when he was growing up.

[JohnKleeb]

96. I understand

All I can say is I prefer economic liberals and people with humble beginnigs like Edwards and Kucinich.

[Classical_Liberal]

107. I don't see where Edward's is an economic liberal

Clinton had a humble beginning and certainly wasn't. I think one has to follow the money, to determine how a candidate will be in practice.Dean doesn't owe nearly as much to the powers that be as him. Kucinich no doubt would be liberal, but hasn't earned any at all.

[AP]

127. Scratching my head.

The only thing I'm wondering right now is, would you recognize a liberal economic policy if it bit you on the ass?

As for Dean, he IS the powers that be. He brought in his Wall St buds to help run VT. He was very friendly to the sort of publicly listed corporations for whom his father probably did investment banking business. (Psst, that's why Cato likes him.)

[Classical_Liberal]

151. I think Dean has clearly turned his back on the DLC

He is not using their strategy for this one, and that is the best reason to vote for him that I can think of. I like him mostly because they don't like him. This makes me think he will have a pleasant surprise.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. Kennedy's boarding school Choate was episcopalian too

. I don't know what Bush's religion was growing up, but he is a stark raving fundy today. Certianly not episcipalian.

[Classical_Liberal]

97. Dean is a congregationalist

David Brooks is anecdotal anyway. I have seen mostly negative things about him and I read dem pundits. Salon, and American Prospect.

[AP]

22. What's a trial lawyer?

Even a trial lawyer who represents corporations understands that his interest is in a justice system that works.

It's the corporate and tax lawyers you have to worry about, because they just want to make money for their clients, whether if it means less regulation, finding loopholes on the cusp of illegality, etc.

And you know what kind of person becomes a trial lawyer? More often than not, just a regular guy who realized that the only way he was going to get ahead in the world was by studying hard and working hard. It's not an easy job.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. I don't think that it follows that a corporate lawyer wants the

justice system to work. He wants it to work in his favor. Justice, and issues of right and wrong aren't part of the equation. Lawyers are amoral individuals for the most part.

[AP]

31. Why did you state the opposite of what I wrote as if it's what I said?

Corporate (not trial) lawyers don't want the system to work. They want to get around the system to make money for their clients. (These are the guys who write contracts and try to guide their clients throught government regulations and who do mergers and acquisitions).

Sure the trial lawyers want to win at all costs to make their clients happy. But when the trial lawyer gets the case, the trouble has already occured. Even defense trial lawyers know that they only have a job because someone had the right to sue somebody else. They know that if the Republicans have their way, nobody will have the right to sue any corporation for any bad acts.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. They also want laws passed that make things better for

thier clients, and that make their clients richer.

[AP]

44. I doubt those are the kinds of trial lawyers supporting Edwards, since...

...he has made a career of helping people GET money from negligent corporations rather than give money to negligent corporations.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. I am not sure I believe that

but you persist. What about the fact that Edward was for the Iraq War. In light of what a disaster it was, don't we want someone with better judgement. Dean certainly displayed better judgement on this than Edwards. I'll bet the nascar dad will appreciate the man who keeps his son out of stupid wars like Iraq.

[AP]

52. What don't you believe? The truth.

What corporate interest in Edwards whoring for?

As for Iraq, there's a sick poltical reality about support for that piece of shit, and even Dean's recongizing that now that he thinks he has a chance of getting the nomination. Notice how he's been all over every side of that issue? Why do you think that is?

[Classical_Liberal]

54. No I don't notice Dean has been all over on that issue

He was against it all the way through from what I can see. Edwards on the other hand has never apologized for voting for the resolution or admitted it was a mistake.

[AP]

65. Edwards has said that the intelligence they received was...

..convincing. If it was wrong, there needs to be an investigation. He also says that he doesn't think we know the full story about what's going on in Iraq. I agree. I think SH and OBL and rogue elements of the Bush administration are all working together. I doubt that's what Edwards thinks, however. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. He says that. I don't believe it

I don't believe it because even then I was reading articles from CIA people debunking Bush. Tenent certainly was dragging his heals. That is why I opposed it. He could have read that stuff too. I also saw the PNAC website and it was clear the adminstration was following their agenda.

[AP]

76. Believe what you want.

I don't know what's going on, but I suspect there was a lot more evidence then we've seen in the media. I bet there were other lies which we don't know about. And I bet there were some things which were true which we don't know about.

I think the stuff they've chosed to release was stuff they knew would make, for example, Blair look bad, and the Democrats who supported the war look bad. I bet they're hoping that results in the Democrats with the best chances of beating Bush won't get nominated as a result. I bet the Repbulicans are pleased as punch all we talk about is Iraq, whether it's good or bad, because they're in total control of Iraq. I bet, once we get that PERCEIVED anti-war candidate (who is actually for just about every other act of American militarism, and doesn't have qualms about the 87 Bil), the Republicans will pull a Nixon vs McGovern on him.

I'm just guessing. But that would be one way I'd play this if I were the Republicans.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. As somone who could see the war was phony I don't

respect the position of those who didn't. There were many who saw the score, and those that did should survive this round of jeopardy. I think he did but for political reasons he chose to go along with it.

[AP]

92. The war, as presented by Bush, was phony. However, you listen to Clinton

(who notes that Gore was the person in his administration most adamant about taking measures against Iraq) and you wonder what the hell the truth is.

As far as Iraq goes, I suspect that we only know about 10% of the truth.

[Classical_Liberal]

116. Gore said he wouldn't have gone to war against Iraq

. Gore has said Bush was wrong. Saying he wanted to take "measures' is pretty vague in my opinion. The measures could be any number of things besides what Bush did.

[AP]

119. And three days later, Clinton gave a lecture at the University of Arkansas

in which he said that he should be very careful of the way he phrased the matter, and that he hadn't read the full text of Gores statement, but that Gore was one of the people in his adminsitration who was the most eager to depose SH.

So, like I said, I don't trust that the media and the Bush administration aren't tying to control the way even liberals percieve Iraq. As I said, I think we only know about 10% of the truth.

[Terwilliger]

78. what about Wellstone?

What about all the other Democrats that voted no?

[AP]

80. Wellstone vote Yes on the resolution,

I believe.

[JohnKleeb]

84. Youre wrong about that AP

I dont have a link but he voted NO still I dont depise Edwards for it, I like the guy.

[Classical_Liberal]

89. I don't despise him either, but it was wrong and I won't

vote for someone who was so drastically wrong in the primary phase. I don't know why anyone would.

[JohnKleeb]

93. Yes I agree

but I do know also that Bush has fucked the nation in other ways and I think we need to think beyond the war as a way that Bush fucked things up. I dunno.

[Classical_Liberal]

105. Why mess with something that works so well?

?

[Terwilliger]

85. Wrong

and you didn't answer about the REST of the Democrats who voted NO

[AP]

90. Am I confusing the patriot act with the iraq war resolution?

All I can say about the rest of the Democrats is that I'm wiling to bet a lot of money that the person the Americans electe president next November will NOT be someone who voted no on that resolution.

[JohnKleeb]

100. Wellstone did vote IWR sadly AP yes

Thats unfortunate honestly. BTW there was a man in the senate who said NO, it was Feingold.

[Terwilliger]

104. EVASION!

Nice work, AP...do you do that often?

[AP]

108. 10,000,000 posts, and you say "evasion" once and you think it's a pattern?

?

There was a little more to my, uh, "evasive" post. If you want to take up the rest of it, go ahead.

Or are you evading that part of the post.

[AP]

110. Also, the real debate over this issue is down below in post 59

but, it seems like some people would prefer to evade it and discuss a lot of other shit instead.

[Terwilliger]

118. what happened to you AP?

You evaded the point (still are evading) that other Democrats in both the House and Senate vote NO on IWR...what is it about your befuddled pink tutu's voting YES?Do you not understand how they're actions were and are inexcusable?

No, because you want to apologize for them...especially Edwards.

[AP]

124. Why do I have to repeat myself?

What about those other Democrats? Not a single one of them could probably get elected president of the united states in 2004.

And, like I said, the person who gets elected in 2004 will, most likely, be someone who didn't vote no on that resolution.

You want to talk about why that is?

Because democrats bigger problem then not standing up to bush (which they've done on every other issue, practically) is that most Americans perceive them as weak on national security. A no vote would have been a nail in the coffin. I don't know how much of a factor that consideration was, but if your goal was to get Bush out of office, and you knew that he'd invade Iraq no matter what, and it was in a post 9-11 world, nad Wellstone ends up dead...well I don't know.

There are lots of things I hate about Americann politics and American voters thought processes,, but a decent progressive democrat beating bush isn't one of those things.

[Classical_Liberal]

131. The public perceives Bush as weak on National Security

so how will agreeing with Bush improve that perception> Remember the public now thinks the war was a bad idea and the trend is that more of them will think so by the election. Frankly any democrat that doesn't use this disaster to illustrate how stupid republicans are on foriegn policy is really missing the boat.

[AP]

134. They perceive Republicans as being stronger than Democrats

I don't see that changing much. Not even with the Iraq mess. I believe Clarks in this thing to crack that facade, but he can only weaken it. He'll never bring it all the way down before 2004.

[Classical_Liberal]

140. Not true, the majority now consider the republicans weaker

Maybe you are the one living in a cave.

[Terwilliger]

132. Yes, but STILL haven't answered my question

and I spoke to your other points under #59 below

[AP]

137. Repeat your question.

Is it "what about these people" ? Do you want a poem? An essay?

They are people. They exist. What more do you want. I will make an argument, if I can. But you're going to have to narrow the quesiton.

[Terwilliger]

149. I'll repeat, though I think you're being dishonest

What about the Democrats that voted NO on IWR? You make the case that Edwards, Kerry, et al had limited information (limited by Bush) and had to make their decisions on the belief that what they were being told by the administration (not necessarily the CIA, btw) was valid and worth supporting a pre-emptive attack and a snub of the UN.

Why did all the other Democrats vote NO? Now I didn't ask you whether or not the American people would vote for those who wouldn't vote for the war...I asked why the other Dems felt compelled to vote NO, while Edwards and those others voted YES, who now claim that they weren't given proper information.

[AP]

155. Edwards is on the Senate Frgn Relations cmmtee (isn't Kerry too)?

Edwards said that he had access to classified information which wasn't given to everyone. Clinton said as much at UofA talk. He said that he hadn't seen any classified information since Jan 01, but the stuff he saw then, he thought, created enough that warranted action.

Now, Clinton could be full of shit too. And so might Blumenthal (who makes a very clear argument that there was a threat to national security coming from the ME). I don't know.

But I really don't know how you could take in all these facts (including reading between the lines in Greg Pallast -- who says of course Iraq had a nuclear program, the Saudis gave him millions to develop it) and including, perhaps (haven't read it yet) The Age of Sacred Terror, written by Clinton Administration officials, and not conclude that there is a bigger thing going on about which we probably only know about 10%, and its probably being played out largely (but not entirely) to a plan that is meant to get REpublicans elected in an America in which they don't have a demographic advantage.

I do think we're being played a little bit over Iraq (and I think getting a Dean nomination is part of the plan -- which is like '72 all over, and I think encouraging violent protests at the RN Convention is part of the plan, like '68).

So, I don't know why the others voted no. Maybe if we saw a list, an saw when their next elections were going to be, and we looked at the demographic break down of their states, and we figured out whether there were any REpublicans who could pose realistica challenges, maybe then we'd know why they voted no. I think that very few were free to vote their conscience. And we all know that that's a super-crappy part of American politics. But ruling out candidates because of the reality of politics is, basically, the Republican full-employment plan.

The notion that a smaller, poorer more liberal party is going to be able to stand up against republicans when the democratic party can't is slightly delusional at this moment in history. Everything is trendign toward fascsims, and greater control by richer and richer people. The countery strategy is going to require more than casting every politician except Dennis Kucinich to the wind.

[ShaneGR]

39. Read 'The Emerging Democratic Majority'

Then get back to me on that approach. The DLC's approach has more to do with vote-getting then you think.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. I read it. What's the point.

? Texiera left the DLC, because it was too conservative.

[AP]

46. This isn't a debate about the DLC. It's a debate about whether Dems should

go after NASCAR dads.

And there's one answer to that question; YES.

Texiera probably agrees with that.

[Classical_Liberal]

58. Yes it is a debate about the DLC, or I wouldn't have

put them in the title of my post. I don't think traditional dems are not appealing to nascar dads. I think the DLC are using nascar dads to justify polices that aren't good for nascar dads. They are mistating what nascar dads want. Basically claiming nascar dads only want low taxes and that they don't care about strong unions and good health care. They are putting nascar jackets on ceos.

[AP]

66. The debate was about whether NASCAR dads should be appealed to.

You said they shouldn't becuase it's just a DLC strategy to get the party away from the base.

I totally disagree.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. No I am not saying they shouldn't because it is a dlc strategy

I am saying the DLC are lying about that being their strategy.

[AP]

83. So, if the Democrats were going after Nascar dads with the message

that progressive taxation is good, and the Republcans are shifting all the wealth you create for America to the very top of the social and economic ladder, you wouldn't have a problem with that, right?

By the way, where is your evidence of the DLC take on the Nacar strategy?

Also, I don't have the one post open in which you outlined what you think it is the DLC wants to say to NASCAR dads, but it was something about progressive taxation and what else?

The only candidate I know of who isn't interested in more progressive taxation is Dean. So it looks like nobody's even listening to the DLC about this. And Dean certainly isn't avoiding progressive taxation because he's afraid of southerners thinking that raising taxes on the rich is rasing taxes, period.

[Classical_Liberal]

121. No I am not saying the progressive taxation is bad

. The politicians that are really jazzed about it are people like Zell Miller. Zell is no proponant of progressive taxation. The nascar strategy as proposed by the dlc is basically exploiting resentment of minorities and poor people, to justify tax cuts on the rich. That is my evidence.

[AP]

129. Who cares what's 'jazzing' Zel Miller? If it's smart to appeal to Nascar

dads, then its smart.

And if the DLC is exploiting resentment to justify tax cuts for the rich, obvioulsy NOBODY running is listening to them.

[Classical_Liberal]

136. Both you and Kerry are claiming that the because dean

wants to repeal the tax cut he is opposed to progressive taxation. You are acting like Bush's tax cut was actually progressive taxation. I hope that your candidate Edwards doesnt' apply such orwellian logic to his idea of progressive taxation. The traditional democratic agenda already appealed to the nascar dad and every other working class person. What is the point of bringing them up?

[AP]

141. Turn around. I think something's biting you on the ass. You probably don't

know what that is though.

Krugman has said that not repealing the middle class tax cuts results in a more progressive tax code. You see, progressivism is determined by the relationship between the rates on different brackets (and on their relationship to the actual distribution of wealth). If you cut the top rate a lot and the middle a little (the Bush tax code), that's not progressive. But if you raise or keep the top the same, and lower the middle, you have a progressive rates (which is what Kerry is talking about).

Dean wants to go back to the Clinton rates, but the wealthy are even more wealthy than they were 4 years ago, so not only is that foregoing the possibiltiy of a little bit of prorgressivity, but it's less progressive than the code was three years ago. Furtherore, the middle class are getting screwed this year worse than they were last year or three years ago, so raising taxes on them without asking the rich to get taxed more than they were three years ago to match their INCREASING wealth, increases further the regressivity of the code.

Ideally, if the middle class are worse off, and the rich are getting richer, the allocation of the tax burden should reflect that -- ie, Kerry and Edwards are right, keep the tax breaks for the middle, give them a few more to help them produce wealth (eg, vis education, health, savings), and ask the rich to pull a little more of the weight in exchange for the benefis they are reaping even in a bad economy (ie, as Edwards proposes, a second tier for capital gains tax, so that cap gains tax has a little bit of progressivity, rather than being completely flat).

I can't believe you call that Orwellian!

Are you picking your candidate with the same brain that didn't understand tax policy?

And I can't believe your last sentence. "They already appealed to them"??? You are just so confused. I'm only responding to you to give the passers by something to think about. I can't keep going in circles with you. And I'm still asking, where in the world did you get the facts upon which you've formed your opinon about the DLC's alleged strategy towards NASCAR dads? And, furthermore, since your interpretation seems to be something NONE of the candidates are doing, why do even give it so much of your time?

[Classical_Liberal]

148. Dean has said he will give the middle class a better tax

cut then Bush's shitty little one. Why give Bush a boost?

[AP]

157. It doesn't give Bush a boost to give the middle class a little progress-

ivity in the tax code.

That's just the crazy logic Dean has created. "Everything Bush does is bad. Bush gave the midddle class a pittance -- a bribe -- as part of a huge gift to the wealthy. Therefore taking back the gift to the wealthy, and leaving the bribe is bad."

That is faulty logic.

Also, Dean said at a Philadelphia fund raiser that he can't give the middle class a tax break because he didn't want to be accused of giving concessions to the upper middle class. He talks about helping the poor instead (the poor get an EIC now, so I presume he wants to raise that?). And he talked about tax simplification (which, I beleive, is code language meant to appeal to Cato-types).

So, I don't think Dean is all that interested in helping the middle class. In fact, he seems to be interested in balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. Remember, the middle class are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, but he wants to go back to the Clinton tax code, which means, he wants more regressivity than we had 2.5 years ago.

[Classical_Liberal]

167. In light of the fact that Dean would give them bigger progress

why not tell them everything Bush has done is bad. Bush is a scumsucker, I want him gone. Why the hell defend him on anything? Davis has said he believes in a progressive tax code, and you have nothing but your suspicion to back up the idea that he doesn't.

[LoneStarLiberal]

51. The Middle Versus The Left

Futhermore Dean's approach proves that Democrats don't need corporate America to fund their campaigns. Why the hell do we let the DLC get away with this spin, when corporate money isn't even necessary.

Has Dean won anything with this financing model yet? Nope. I certainly hope that his model will stick and be vindicated by a national victory if not in this election then in another.

But right now we have no proof that this financing model will win an election which means we can't unequivocally say that Democrats don't need corporate America to fund their campaigns.

The Party as an institution has a historic choice before it: Either seize back a considerable patch of middle ground from the Republicans, something that has been theirs since Ronald Reagan, or abandon the middle and move left to seize a smaller patch of ground from the independents and Greens.

If you or I or anyone else could convince the DNC and groups like the DLC that there were more votes to be had out left rather than in the middle, if we could prove this, show them evidence, then you'd have the entire party out promoting Departments of Peace, alternative power sources, and criminal fines for polluters.

The reason that they are enfatuated with the middle is because that's where their research, where their voting models, and where their strategists are telling them the most votes are to be found. Hell, they are only politicians! Politicians want to get elected. They go where the votes are.

When there are more on the left than in the middle then they will move left. Until then, they are going to root around in the middle and try to reclaim the many Reagan Democrats that Bush has alienated.

[AP]

59. Strategically, you have to think moving to the center has got to be the...

...right move. The Republicans have totally abandoned the interests of all those people in the middle in exchange for their BIG business whoring. They are ripe for the picking. Furthermore, wedge issues like the racism and sexism of the middle are rapidly falling by the wayside (America is much less racist than it was 10 years ago, but probably more anti-feminist than it was 3 years ago).

Those were the reasons the Dems couldn't go hunting in the middle before. To do so would cost them too many votes among their core constituencies. You can see the Republicans struggling to revive racism and anti-feminism as a wedge issue (look at Arnold's anti-immigrant, anti-women, pro-hitler campaign, and listen to Rush on ESPN). I don't think they can revive it enough to hurt Dems efforts to get the middle American vote.

So, right now, the Democrats have a unique opportunity at a unique moment (which Bill Clinton created, I believe) -- the democrats can speak to middle America on one issue only: economics. There's no reason the NASCAR dad shouldn't be swayed by this argument (of course, the Republicans are desperately trying to build up ecoterrorists, Peta, and gay-rights advocates as issues which are tied with the Democratic party, but a little cleverness and the right candidate will be able to fend this off as well as the anti-feminism and racism/anti-immigration bull shit too).

[LoneStarLiberal]

71. I Agree

The Bush administration has really dropped the ball with the middle of America's political spectrum. I can't remember a time when we had such an opportunity to regain this vital ground that Reagan took from the Democratic Party in the 1980s. It's exciting as all hell!

[AP]

101. And I want to repeat for emphasis that this is possible now because

unlike in the past, the racism and sexism of the middle class has dissipated enough that there is no incompatibility betwen the message that the middle wants to hear and the message that Democrats can deliver, which is that equal opportunity for all on a level playing field is the road to wealth, health and happiness for all.

[Terwilliger]

122. You're forgetting that Americans are easily spooked

and economic realities (outside some great depression) will not sway people who see Osama bin Saddam creeping around every corner.

Dems, as much as they might RULE in economic issues, will never displace the idea in a LOT of people's minds that Democrats don't have the overall whatever that's needed to effectively govern the country and keep us all protected.

Is that assesment accurate? No, but we haven't exactly reworked the media yet, have we?

[AP]

130. Clinton's "It's the ecnomy, stupid" came hot on the heals of the Gulf War

and that worked.

[Terwilliger]

146. BARELY

and I still say that Perot did more to help Clinton than you folks want to admit to.

AND!!! Bill Clinton (as noted in my post with the John Nichols article) had to RUN AWAY from the ranker notions of DLC conservatism in order to do better than he did.

SO, we have you telling us that everything is AOK, and all we have to do is stick to the economy and people will vote against Bush. That's mere speculation.

I think Dems better come up with something more solid...whether party-wide or candidate-specific...to get the Americans WHO AGREE WITH THEM out to the polls to guarantee a liberal win.

If you play to placate the same idiots that would vote for Bush except for one or two things, you IGNORE all the people who would rather vote and vote FOR someone with real alternatives.

Just to jump on the economy bandwagon and hope that the same sorts of catastrophes hit Bush Jr. like they hit Poppy, you're playing Russian roulette with 5 of the 6 chambers filled.

[AP]

150. Describe to me the voter who isn't going to be energized to vote against..

...Bush in 2004. Pick a candidate and tell me who wont show up to vote for him or her.

Will it be the black voter?

The PETA/HRC/Sierra Club member?

Will it be the NASCAR dad?

It think the biggest risk is the vast middle who might fall for the Bush bs. I think a candidate who looks good to them and who talks about issues important to them is the safest bet.

Incidentally, Clinton would have won without Perot. He beat Perot and Bush in head to head match ups according to exit polling. The tone of the campaign changed because Perot was involved, but Clinton was the best candidtate for that moment in American history, with or without Perot.

[Classical_Liberal]

154. If the nascar dads lose more sons, which is pretty par

for the coarse, they'll wake up the bullshit. If you have been paying attention they majority of the public already has.

[AP]

158. I think Bush is going to be in total control of America's perception of...

...Iraq by Nov 2004. (In fact, I think they're kicking this into gear a little ahead of schedule). One thing we've learned from CA recall is that media can tell you how to think.

If I had to chose between fighting bush and the media over the perception of how things are going in Iraq, I'd chose to focus on the economy, and not Iraq, and I'd want to do with a candidate other than Dean.

In fact, I feel the one chance to change perception of Iraq will come through a focus on the economy. People will not be as outraged by whether WMDs are found as they will be if they realize they're paying, through regressive taxation, for no-show contracts that are making Bush cronies rich (and I hope they use Mafia analogies).

[Terwilliger]

161. well, exit polling suggested Nader's effect on 2000 was minimal to

non-existent. So, as long as you remember that, I'll give deference to the idea that Clinton won on his own in 92.

The vast middle think the Democrats are a bunch of pandering pussies. Now, just what is part of your strategy that will somehow alter that perception. Edwards can't even break-out amongst the party, why will he appeal to that magic middle?

[Classical_Liberal]

62. No he hasnt' won yet but he probably will

furthermore getting that much money in and of itself debunks the excuse people use for the DLC. It is an achievement in and of itself even if the doesn't win.

[LoneStarLiberal]

67. I Hope The Model Works

Because it really could be one of the single greatest changes induced from the bottom up in our political system.

But I want to see a win in a national-level campaign first before I tell the traditional Democratic and corporate donors to take a flying leap.

[CWebster]

53. The DLC power grab for the reins of the Democratic party

Is one of the most damaging events in contemporary political history. Their advocation of corporate pandering has diminished the party's fundamental purpose and ability to function and by extention has weakened Democracy.

[AP]

68. Although I don' t like the DLC, they are playing by rules designed to

give control of America to corporations, and if the Dems completely refused to play by those rules, there would have been no Clinton.

If there were no DLC, how many Democrats do you think would be in Congress today?

[Terwilliger]

74. more?

You seem to act as if the DLC had the right idea....maybe their entire vision was incorrect.

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Those dems won by those rules, but I think Dean is proving

they could have done it differently.

[AP]

103. The only thing that Dean has really proven in his life...

...is that a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, DLCer can get elected governor of VT a couple times in a row, especially if hes willing to play hardball with the liberal wing of his party.

In terms of the presidential campaign, I think he has proven that it's possible to grab the ball the media has handed him and run with it, which has attracted the attention of a very narrow, but very vociferous demographic. Time will tell if he has proven anything more than that.

[Classical_Liberal]

111. It is clear that he is breaking with the DLC strategy

this time and is having a lot of success doing so. He certainly didn't earn all of his money in this round by playing hardball with the liberal wing. I don't see his demographic as being as narrow as the dlc demographic.

[AP]

114. The DLC demographic is narrow: big business which wants Democrats in

office.

However, that's not the Nascar dad demographic. The nascar dad demographic -- which dean is not going to appeal well to -- is the one I described above -- 40k per year, probably uninionized, with a kid in state college, hoping for better opportunities. That's a huge demographic.

[Classical_Liberal]

126. I think Dean will appeal to them well by appealing to their

anti-establishment sensibilities. I believe the nascar dad business is just a cover for the the ceo in a nascar jacket. I don't believe that progressive taxation is the exclusive interest of the nascar dad. It would also appeal to the middle and working classes in general provided you can make them understand progressive taxation will be less of a tax burdon on them, and you don't appeal to white male resentment and welfare mothers and minorities.

[AP]

133. I guess we're finished here, 'cause you're just repeating stuff

that you posted up above somewhere. Actually that last sentence seems to be new, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Why do you think the Nascar message precludes the general appeal to middle and working class? I think the general appeal came first, and now they're trying to show NASCAR that they're included in that. They're not tailoring a new, different message for NASCAR, I presume, but you're not citing anything to prove the facts you seem to assume. Isn't this all just specualtion on your part?

I just want to wrap this up by saying, I have no idea where you're getting all these ideas about the DLC Nascar strateg. Even if they're true, they seems so at odds with what every one of the candidates is doing and therefore completely irrelevant.

[Eloriel]

160. Dean's very narrow demographic you fantasize

is actually amazingly wide, and again -- you know it. It includes liberals, moderate Dems, Greens, Independents, Republicans, people who have never voted before and people who haven't been involved or even interested in politics for years if ever. It includes old, young, minorities, disabled, and a goodly number of other groups.

Time you stopped spouting lies and making yourself look foolish, don't you think??

Eloriel

[AP]

164. I think you wouldn't try to characterize what I'm saying as a lie if you..

really didn't suspect that it could be true.

I guess we'll see how broad his demographic appeal is soon enough.

[CWebster]

138. Well, I haven't been following this thread, but

it is most likely the same arguments furthered by those who are essentially clueless as to the history and agenda of the DLC. Most likely they are under the illusion that they are just another sub-group under the Democratic banner, when they are in the driver's seat and going in circles.
DU has compiled a thread of DLC info, I am not at work, so I don't have access to the link, but if anyone else bookmarked it or if Hedda stops around and posts it, please make it a point to review it.

[AP]

142. If this thread is about the DLC, then we're missing a critical component:

what exactly did the DLC say about NASCAR dads?

To me, this post is about what I said in post 59.

However, iff the DLC is advocating using conservative arguments to win the votes of the NASCAR dad, then I say who cares? Obviously the candidates who have the best chance of winning aren't using those arguments. Dean is the most fiscally conservative candidate anyway, right? And he's not trying to appeal to NASCAR dads.

[CWebster]

152. You are missing the essential point

Why even bother with what the party represents and who it represents if the underlying belief and message is that it is essential to run a Republican in order to get elected?

Self-loathing "Democrats"...and if they think so little of the ideology of the party, the principles established by FDR -the platform it champions and the constituients it represents, then I'd suggest they would ideally be better suited in reforming the Republican party into something less facist rather than trying to make the adjustment for the Democrats. They render the party useless.

Democrats must loudly toot their own horn rather than believing they have to accept the Republican version in order to participate.

The DLC has done more damage in capitulation--in seeking to steal Republican thunder than furthering an honest and effective Democratic opposition. And look at where we now stand when the chips fall. Nowhere.

[AP]

159. Which candidate is a Republican? I have to dispute this premise.

Edwards is not like by the DLC. I heard David Broder say this on NPR. I presume they're not fans of Sharpton and Kucinich. Kerry is actually talking about progressive taxation, which seems to be a DLC litmus test that he isn't passing.

Lieberman doesn't have a chance. Does Gephardt's union-friendliness preclude a full embrace by the DLC. Dean has managed to make himself a DLC pariah even though his fiscal conservativism might put him to the right of the DLC. That leaves Calrk. I'm hoping he doesn't get the nomination, and I bet he doesn't.

It seems to me the Dems are running a full spectrum. We'll see who gets nominated, eh?

[AP]

162. ...and CW, you're missing one essential point: in the original post,

the claim was made that the DLC is orchestrating the appeal to Nascar dads as an attempt to further a corporate agenda without an evidence that this was anything more than a product of the original poster's imagination.

Even the logic upon which the presumption is founded is weak, at best.

Furthermore, I know that Edwards is interested in this demographic, and he's definitely not pushing a pro-corporate agenda.

So, bascially, this entire thread was about trying to use the DLC to discredit a very sensible notion that Democrats should think about appealing to white, southern, tax burdened, suffering middle aged white men with the same message of equality of opportunity on a level playing field which has appealed to blacks and women for 50 years. Why discredit it? Because, if you take it seriously you might not prefer Dean as your candidate.

[Terwilliger]

57. Behind the DLC takeover

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

By John Nichols

<snip>

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.

A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention.

The triumphalist talk was backed up by the reality of the convention. Vice President Al Gore, a man present at the founding of the DLC and loyal to the organization ever since, was nominated for the Presidency. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the current president of the DLC and very possibly the truest of its true believers, was nominated for the Vice Presidency.

<snip>

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."

It's not surprising that Jackson, 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.

Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whom the DLC dismisses as "a cranky peddler of corporate conspiracy theories," says publicly what many veteran Democrats admit privately. "You had Al From and the DLC and the corporate lobbyists running the Democratic Party convention this year, picking the candidates, writing the platform, just as they'll run things in the fall and after November if they're given a chance," says the consumer activist. "Even if Al Gore wanted to do the right thing, which I do not suggest that he does, he would be told by the DLC and its corporate contributors, 'We're sorry, that's not in the script.' "

<snip>

How did the DLC become so powerful? In part, by grabbing hold of party machinery and hanging on for dear life. As far back as 1988, just three years after the organization's founding, DLC-ers mounted a full-scale effort to reshape the party. First, they engineered the development of the Southern "Super Tuesday" primary in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the Presidential nomination for a Southerner such as Gore the first time around. Next, they installed another DLC co-founder, Michigan Governor James Blanchard, as chair of the party platform committee.

But the DLC was unable to shape the course of the party at that 1988 convention.

"Although many DLC members found their way into some of the most important roles at the convention, it did not mean that the New Democrats had the upper hand," observes Kenneth S. Baer in his new book Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (University of Kansas).

Four years later, however, it was a different--if still somewhat disappointing--story for the group. As the 1992 campaign geared up, the DLC and its then-chairman, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, engineered a historic clash between what DLC theorist Will Marshall describes as "party traditionalists" and the New Democrats. Long before Clinton's carefully calculated denunciation of rapper Sister Souljah, the DLC pointedly denied the Reverend Jesse Jackson a speaking slot at a high-profile 1991 session in Cleveland. (Jackson once memorably said that DLC stands for "Democrats for the Leisure Class.")

Jackson identified the DLC leadership, most of which hailed from the Southern states that had made up the Confederacy, as "Dixiecrats"--a reference to the racist Democrats who blocked civil rights. The battle of Cleveland was on. The well-publicized confrontation exposed the DLC's fiscal and ideological ties to distinctly non-Democratic groups and individuals. Then-Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said he was dismayed that a top Ohio Republican had provided $50,000 in funding for the DLC gathering and that the event was awash in Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, and AT&T money. Then-Representative William Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who had been a DLC governing board member, said the group's agenda on affirmative action and other issues of concern to African Americans "sounds like David Duke."

<snip>

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.

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."

<snip>

[AP]

144. Becaue the candidate I like, Edwards, is not a favorite of the DLC, and...

..because I think Edwards is going to win, I'm not interested in the DLC, and I'm willing to accept that they suck, and I look forward to the day when REAL campaign finance reform makes them obsolete.

However, can we please discuss whether it's wise for candidates to try to appeal to the vast middle of the spectrum whose economic interests the Republicans have abandoned. Thanks to the fact that America is (temporarily?) less racists and less sexist than it has ever been, the Democrats can appeal to these people with their core message, and without having to compromise at all to racism and sexism.

Who really DOESN'T think now is the time for Democrats to make a big play for middle America?

Even the war issue is hurting Bush in places where lots of people have sons and daughters in the services.

[w4rma]

147. Dean and the DLC

Dean Statement in Response to DLC's Charge that Public Servants are "Fringe Activists"

“Once again, the DLC has chosen to put their own political agenda ahead of the progress needed to unite the Democratic Party. This election has barely begun, and the DLC has repeatedly dismissed people who attend caucuses, who get out the vote, and now the 1.3 million members of AFSCME as ‘fringe activists’ who do not reflect ‘the mainstream values, national pride and the economic aspirations of middle-class and working people.’

“The DLC staff can say what they want about me, but they owe an apology to the 1.3 million members of AFSCME. Our teachers, our health care workers, and our state and local public servants don't need a lesson from Washington insiders about the needs and concerns of middle- and working-class families. What they need is a Democratic Party that will stand up for them.”

Posted by Mathew Gross at 04:27 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000206.html

Tell From and Reed of the DLC What You Think
Click here to sign a letter to the Democratic Leadership Council telling them that you're an active Democrat who supports Howard Dean. You can tell your friends about the link, too: www.deanforamerica.com/DLC

Posted by Mathew Gross at 01:29 AM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000240.html

Fineman on the DLC Memo
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000213.html

Former DNC-Chief Steve Grossman to DLC: "Creating Conflict is Not Leadership."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000225.html

Liberal Oasis on Howard Dean and the DLC
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000226.html

Will the Real DLC Please Stand Up?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000228.html

Congressional Members Call on DLC to Stop Divisive Tactics
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000238.html

Activists Are Out of Step
By Al From and Bruce Reed
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=85&subid=65

The Real Soul of the Democratic Party
By Al From and Bruce Reed
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=127&subid=900056

[davhill]

145. Graham had a NASCAR entry

It didn't win much either.