Liberals/ Progressives stay true: don't vote for DLC-approved candidates

[Q]

Why vote Republican-lite when you can vote Republican? Shouldn't this also apply to Democrats? Why vote Democratic-lite when you can vote for a Democrat?

Liberals, Progressives and Populists should make a pledge right now to stop the Democratic party's slide to the right by refusing to vote for any candidate vetted or sponsored by the DLC or their think tank operatives.

We must overcome the mindset of voting only to win instead of voting to change the course of American politics and the Democratic party. The only way the party and America will truly 'win' is to vote for candidates with a history that shows they're not in bed with corporations, haven't supported illegal, aggressive wars and unabashedly support civil, women's and worker's rights.

It will be a difficult challenge because the party bosses will always pressure you to vote for their choice instead of yours. They'll tell you that your candidate can't win because he/she is too liberal or populist in a nation 'gone conservative'. But don't fall for that propaganda. It's this very attitude that has disenfranchised the Democratic base and discouraged many Americans from voting at all.

It's up to the Progressive wing of the party to finally take a stand and just say no to the 'lite' politics of concession, compromise and collusion. Vote for those who love America and it's people...not for those who simply want to profit from it.

[Q]

1. Be informed...

....about the candidates and what they stand for. And don't be persuaded by those who accuse you of being a 'single issue' voter if you refuse to vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in choice or any number of issues relevant to Democratic principles.

It's important that we don't support...with our votes...politicians who lie about reasons for war or tax cuts for the rich. They're more interested in power and money than the Constitution or the American people. Do everything you can to keep them out of office.

[benEzra]

2. The DLC's rigid authoritarianism...

will drive away more swing voters than they hope to gain by moving to the center on a few issues. Who's more palatable to swing voters, a liberal with a "live and let live" philosophy, or a centrist who preaches "do as I say, or else"...

BTW, the DLC is clueless on a number of issues...

[Q]

4. And they are in no way the part of the 'party of the big tent'...

...because they require a 'litmus test' before they'll support any candidate. Their 'test' isn't about whether the candidate supports Democratic principles and values...but about whether they support supply-side economics and war profiteering. They must be pro-corporation and believe in corporate over social welfare. Candidates must be willing to give up on the Demcratic base and spend their time and money campaigning for the hearts and minds of the phantom swing voter and those with power and money.

[greenohio]

133. Should we have voted against Kerry in the last election too?

Wow, encouraging us to vote against Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. I'll be voting Green and against the DLC(R)

We must make our votes valuable to the Democrats. As long as they can take the left for granted they will pander to the right.

[w4rma]

9. Green = funded by Republicans (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. A noticable lack of links in your post.

Not to mention that Democrats are also funded by Republicans.

[leanin_green]

204. Good, then we'll use their money against them.

If that is truly the case and not just a phenomenon over the last two election cycles, then good. Perhaps then Greens will begin to overtake Democrat-lite canidates and a new progressive voice will begin to take shape.

[mdmc]

263. why vote dlc, you can vote gop and win!

God help us !!!

[blondeatlast]

13. Oops, my bad.

Blame it on the dye.

[FightinNewDem]

5. Brilliant.

Brilliant. Just bloody brilliant. Vote against Barack Obama, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Jennifer Granholm. That will make the world a better place.

[DaveinMD]

6. thank you

[charlie]

7. Strike Obama

Though they'd like to claim him, he's not a New Dem.

[FightinNewDem]

32. This old canard

I assume you are talking about the "Black Commentator" article.

Well, the DLC profile of Obama involved a questionairre, which asked for biographical information and answers to a number of questions touching on both specific policy objectives and larger, value-based matters. It's far more extensive than what made it into the final profile. Obama answered the questions, sent them in, and gave them a photo as well. Nobody snuck him in.

Obama is someone who is able to work well with both the DLC and the "progressive" wings of the party. The fact that he does so means that he is held in high regard by folks of varying political stripes.

[charlie]

55. Yes I am, no it's not a canard

He had no objection to the profile as "one to watch." In fact it's still there. He didn't however, expect to be listed as a "New Democrat" in their directory of DLCers. Your characterization of the questionnaire as "far more extensive" than what's onsite doesn't seem to jibe with his account:

To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC since I began this campaign a year ago. I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list beyond filling out a three line questionnaire asking me to describe my current political office, my proudest accomplishment, and my cardinal rules of politics. Since my mother taught me not to reject a compliment when it's offered, I didn't object to the DLC's inclusion of my name on their list. I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html

And of course, you know about his disavowal of membership and request for removal from the directory. Like I said, the DLC wants him and incorrectly and prematurely assumed they had him.

[FightinNewDem]

66. Actually, it is a canard.

Of course. Let's take the word of a fourth-string online columnist.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I was sent the same packet as Sen. Obama. I know what questions were asked. I know that it said in clear terms that I had been selected for inclusion in the DLC publication. I know who I had to talk to about getting the editors a photograph for the publication. Sen. Obama received the same info as me and the other 98 folks on the list.

My suspicion is that "Black Commentator", if he not simply blowing smoke out of his backside, spoke not with Obama but with a relatively junior campaign aide, who was willing to placate a crank rather than listen to him whine about the evil DLC.

[charlie]

78. Mmm, I dunno

I'm not taking the word of the columnist, but the correspondence ostensibly written by Obama. It was he who described the profile packet as a 3-line trifle, not BC.

But again, I didn't say he was surreptitiously included in their 100 profiles. I said he was touted as a New Democrat in their directory without having been confirmed as a DLCer.

[eg101]

82. I heard Obama say he was not a protectionist on trade

and that is right up the DLC's alley. Obama == DINO and opportunist, it would seem to me. I haven't seen a candidate since Perot that I thought was worth spit, anyway. Most all politicians suck. Henry B Gonzales was OK.
I can't figure out why other people don't see that. America has not moved to the Right because of politicians, and I don't know why so many Democrats online think any politician is going to move America Left.

[Zhade]

254. Maybe this will help you...

"I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform."

Obama's not DLC, nor does he approve of them. Get it yet?

[moggie12]

12. Demonizing Centrists Plays Right Into GOP's Hands

Ditto on the thought that it's not such a great strategy to toss out some of our best and brightest like so much bathwater. If we throw out Obama, Warner, Edwards, Bayh, Rendell and many others who are moderate, we're going to be looking at 50 red states in 2008. I don't agree with many DLC positions, but let's engage in heart-to-heart discussion with them before we start throwing people overboard.

[Q]

14. We're not 'demonizing' centrists...

...but finally telling the truth about them.

Obama does not belong to the DLC. They tried to sneak his name in on their membership list...but he told them to take it off.

The DLC's idea of a 'heart to heart' discussion is to suggest that Liberals are 'out of touch' and traitors.

The DLC is IN the hands of the GOP. Why else would they support many of Bush's policies and especially his illegal, aggressive wars?

[DaedelusNemo]

18. I take it more that DLC & GOP both in hands of $ /nt

[moggie12]

27. DLC in not in the "hands" of the GOP, I don';t think

I don't agree with many DLC positions, but I "see where they're coming from."

Here's my take: Dems were scrambling/confused after two huge Reagan victories and Bush "I" win and along comes Clinton who wins with a "centrist" message. Everybody starts thinking Clinton's centrist position is better than getting clobbered a la McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis. The DLC viewpoint gets a lot of "respect and attention" just because of this. In my not so humble opinion, the DLC has gone overboard and are pretty much captive to Wall Street these days, but I still see the value, and agree with, some of their positions.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a special, bizzare case. Everybody thought we were going to get "bogged down" in Afghanistan but the initial result of the invasion was an "easy" victory. On top of giving Bush a "glow of success", many thoughtful leaders, including Kerry, were on the record as wanting to make Saddam comply with inspections. I think a lot of Democrats went along with the Irag resolution in the hopes that Bush's tough stand would make Saddam toe the line. Well, you know the rest.... I personally don't fault Kerry and the other for voting for the resolution but I do fault them for not screaming their heads off when it became clear Bush was going to invade no matter what.

That's my two cents for what it's worth. I don't see the DLC as "in the GOP's pocket" -- I think most are good people who've gone off the deep end on several key issues (well, okay, several politicans stay in power by taking enormous Wall Street donations, I'll give you that). I would LOVE to discuss this further with you if you have an interest. The topic of "where the DLC has gone wrong" is one of my big bugaboos lately and my husband is tired of hearing me rant about them.


(BTW, I copied some of this from another reply I'd made earlier today -- it turns out it was to one of your posts! I don't want you to think you have dounble vision -- I figured I'd copy here again rather than ask you to look there. I added some more stuff to this one.)

[FightinNewDem]

30. "Snuck"? Ha!

Nobody "snuck him in". He answered the same questionairre they sent to the other members of their "100 to Watch" rising stars list.

I would also add that the 100 to Watch publication was issued well before "Obamamania" took hold in Democratic circles. The booklet was released in the Spring of 2003, and the decisions as to who was on the list was made the previous winter.

[Geek_Girl]

44. If Obama asked

to be taken off the membership list then he is not a member.

Here's a link to the list: Link

I don't see his name. I guess he's not a member.

[wyldwolf]

46. no one said he was a member

[Geek_Girl]

58. Yes I'm just dreaming this thread

It's all an illusion or something? :crazy:
Link

[wyldwolf]

60. apparently you are

re-read the title of the thread.

[Geek_Girl]

83. I was responding to a post within the thread

Nobody "snuck him in". He answered the same questionairre they sent to the other members of their "100 to Watch" rising stars list.


I have a fundie RW friend that loves to play with symantecs to put down and twist the truth to those that opose his views.

I see the DLC supporters have opted to use the same kind of annoying tactics.

[wyldwolf]

84. and that post was replying to the original post

...which said "DLC approved"

[Geek_Girl]

86. I was replying to the

"Snuck"? Ha! by FightinNewDem within this thread.

[wyldwolf]

87. which didn't claim he was a member of the DLC

[Geek_Girl]

89. Ok Maybe I misunderstood this post

Brilliant. Just bloody brilliant. Vote against Barack Obama, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Jennifer Granholm. That will make the world a better place - FightinNewDem


I took it that he was claiming that Obama was a member of the DLC and you can read the rest of the following posts that argue the point. Again we can play this stupid game of symantecs all night. If the only way you can defend the DLC is through annoying post that twist what people have to say then your not going to gain much support for the DLC.

As a moderate democrat I once thought the DLC had some interesting points. But from post that I've read from DLC'ers like yourself and having to listen to a DLC candidate in my home town. I've pretty much have come to the conclusion that the DLC is a piss poor think tank with not much thinking going on.

[wyldwolf]

91. It was all pretty simple

Original post:

don't vote for DLC-approved candidates

post you replied to:

Just bloody brilliant. Vote against Barack Obama, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Jennifer Granholm. That will make the world a better place.

Then, in post 32, further emphsizing he is a DLC-approved Senator:

Obama is someone who is able to work well with both the DLC and the "progressive" wings of the party. The fact that he does so means that he is held in high regard by folks of varying political stripes.

Of course, in post 82, an Obama-hater chimed in: I heard Obama say he was not a protectionist on trade and that is right up the DLC's alley. Obama == DINO and opportunist, it would seem to me. I haven't seen a candidate since Perot that I thought was worth spit

Perot? :eyes:

Then, in post 44, you declared he wasn't a member - which no one ever claimed him to be.

So, so far in this thread, we have those claiming he is just as bad as the DLC, he is too good for the DLC, and he is DLC-approved (he was one of their 100 to watch), but no one has claimed he is a member.

If the only way you can defend the DLC is through annoying post that twist what people have to say then your not going to gain much support for the DLC.

No, I typically defend the DLC issue by issue if I agree with them on the issue.

As a moderate democrat I once thought the DLC had some interesting points. But from post that I've read from DLC'ers

That is, perhaps, the problem.

[FightinNewDem]

95. All of this begs a question

What constitutes a "DLC candidate" or a "DLC-approved candidate"?

Is it someone who is a dues-paying member of the DLC? You won't find too many, since the DLC already provides its magazine and publications to elected Dems upon request.

Is it someone who was named to "100 To Watch"?

Is it a member of the New Democratic Coalition in the House or Senate?

Is it someone who has been featured as "New Democrat of the Week"?

Is it someone who has been praised in an article in Blueprint or on ndol.org?

Is it someone who has participated in one of the DLC's policy forums?

Is it someone who has completed the DLC's excellent communications and leadership workshops?

[Q]

97. Kerry was a 'DLC-approved' candidate...

How does one tell? You can tell by the fact that Kerry touted and promoted many of the DLC's causes and agenda.

[eg101]

117. kerry IS a member of the DLC

longtime member. He is right in the DLC mainstream. Almost ALL the main Dem candidates in 2004 were DLCers

[Geek_Girl]

99. Symantecs again, You guys must be lawyers :)

I would say a DLC candidate is a democrat who is openly and publically a member. Listed in their directory of members. Obama is not listed so I assume he is not a member. (I know no one said he was)

Link

[FightinNewDem]

102. I resemble that remark

Actually, I am a lawyer. But that's a different character flaw...

The member directory is out of date, and frankly, there are people listed who have no business trying to pass themselves off as a New Democrat (my own state senator, for example, opposes most DLC initiatives, then votes with the GOP on budget issues, but tries to say he's a New Dem; he's neither!)

My references to Obama and the DLC were in the context of the "100 To Watch" list that was released in 2003:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251581&kaid=104&subid=210

Obama was included in that list, so I assume he is "DLC-approved" or whatever the term in the original post was:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210

[Q]

98. It's very clever...

...the way you parse the words of other posters when they were simply trying to correct an error. One poster implied that Obama was a DLCer. He's not...and the other poster simply pointed this out. And you turn it into a meaningless diatribe not much more useful than to distract from the main issue.

There are many reasons to dislike the DLC. One of them is that none of their leaders seem to be able to tell the truth about their purpose in the party or even why they call themselves 'new' Democrats. But as more Democrats become informed about them...it's clear that they're called the corporate wing of the party for a reason. It's also clear that they smear liberals and progressives and seem to be on a mission to keep them out of leadership positions in the party.

[wyldwolf]

106. there was no error to correct

the way you parse the words of other posters when they were simply trying to correct an error.

No error to correct. See next response.

One poster implied that Obama was a DLCer.

No he/she didn't. Re-read the thread to this point.

There are many reasons to dislike the DLC. One of them is that none of their leaders seem to be able to tell the truth about their purpose in the party or even why they call themselves 'new' Democrats. But as more Democrats become informed about them...it's clear that they're called the corporate wing of the party for a reason. It's also clear that they smear liberals and progressives and seem to be on a mission to keep them out of leadership positions in the party.

Do you have a little file that you cut and paste generic and conspiratorial DLC lines from?

[Geek_Girl]

128. If your trying to garner support for the DLC

This really is not the way to do it. Picking at peoples post and playing semantic games is just plain annoying especially on a forum. If you really want to gain support for the DLC.

1.)Start a DLC thread that lays out why the DLC good for the grass roots and the democratic party.

2.)Start a discussion about why the DLC has taken certain position that are controversial to the democratic base.

3)Start a discussion on what the DLC has accomplished for the democratic party.

4)Try and post intelligent comprehensive arguments that support the DLC instead of putting other posters down.


That's just my advice not just to you but to anyone that wants to put forth a pro-dlc argument/discussion. The democratic party needs to have this debate not just on a forum but within the party itself. The grass roots wants reform within the party maybe it's time the DLC takes a deep look at it's own organization and policies and look to see how it can reach out and work with the grass roots.

[greenohio]

141. Were you undecided before?

I don't think so.

[wyldwolf]

160. I'm not

If your trying to garner support for the DLC
This really is not the way to do it.

I'm not, but thanks.

Picking at peoples post and playing semantic games is just plain annoying especially on a forum. If you really want to gain support for the DLC.

Posts are made here to be discussed. That's why we call it a discussion forum. If you can't admit you're wrong or can't defend your statements, and want to hide behind the "semantics" crutch, go ahead

4)Try and post intelligent comprehensive arguments that support the DLC instead of putting other posters down.

See, the problem with all these anti-DLC posts are numerous. Chief among them is the anti-DLC'ers ability to "put other posters down" yet claim others are doing it to them.

[Geek_Girl]

215. You just don't get what I'm saying

Oh well I guess there's nothing more to say.

[wyldwolf]

220. I'm not sure you get what you're saying

So I guess there's nothing more to say.

[Geek_Girl]

239. Thanks for the Put down

If your a member of the DLC which I assume you are, then why would you put down a voter (like myself) that has donated money and voted for local and national democratic candidates who happen to be DLC? Your are making Q's case for him. Stop putting us down!!! Stop beating up the voters and the grass roots. If you want to garner support for the DLC on this forum then your going to have to do better than putting people down.

[Q]

96. The Black Commentator did an intervew with Obama...

in which it was pointed out to him that he was on 'a' member list of the DLC. He later contacted the DLC and told them to take his name off all lists related to their organization. This doesn't mean that he's not a moderate or that he necessarily hates the DLC...he simply didn't want them to use his name in any way without his permission.

But you can find many anti-DLC articles in the Black Commentator. I'm not sure that you'd like how they describe the DLC. They consider them anti-Black and a detriment to the party.

[wyldwolf]

109. you can find critical articles on many Dems at Black Commentator

and apparently Black Commentator stretched the truth a bit if they told Obama he was on a member list.

He was actually on, and still is on, a list of 100 Democrats to watch:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251581&kaid=104&subid=210

But for those keeping score of Black Commentator, they called Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Carol Mosely Braun, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and Wes Clark "barbarians."

I must be true.

[FrenchieCat]

259. I can't stand

The Black Commentator. I had some email exchanges with him. An opinionated patronizing arrogant Jerk, if you ask me. He may be Black, but he certainly doesn't speak for this Black Frenchie Cat....that's for sho'!

[Tinoire]

283. BC had a valid point- All 8 answered a certain Q like "barbarians"

Btw, other than that one problem with Dean, BC liked him very much and gave him a lot of support: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.blackcommentator.com+%22howard+Dean%22

Kucinich, Sharpton and, later on, Dean were favorites of BC for their progressive views. The other candidates were totally unable to ever pass muster.


I'll put your sentence in context for the record. Straight from the BC the article dealing with the Dems willingness to fund Bush's obscene war:

Two Civilized Men Among The Barbarians: Dennis Kucinich & Al Sharpton

Democrat Debate Reveals Vast Moral Deficit

(snip)

Why do we work? What is the purpose of industry and commerce? Do other peoples have rights that stronger nations are bound to respect? Only Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton appear prepared to take part in the evolving global discussion on the central issues facing humanity, Americans included. Other nations have begun fashioning answers to these questions, to the moral, material and physical betterment of their inhabitants. They are reaping the benefits of a long and sometimes bloody debate over humans’ obligations to one another, and the proper uses of wealth and power.

(snip)

The mind-shrinking corporate media snicker and sneer, focusing instead on the other candidates’ partial schemes based on the concept of “affordability” – barbaric constructions in which the lives of fellow citizens are endlessly devalued.

(snip)



“No choice” candidates

Wars, and war profiteers, require money. No funding, no war. Occupations can be even more expensive. The entire cast of characters running for the Democratic nomination – including Lieberman – now claims to be opposed in some fashion to Bush’s Iraq policy. But only two propose that Bush’s policy be de-funded.


Howard Dean: “…even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops.”

Joe Lieberman: “…we have no choice.”

Bob Graham: “…whatever is required for the troops in Iraq.”

John Edwards: “I will vote for, what's necessary to support the troops.”

"We have no choice” is also the Kerry and Clark position. Thus, the entire top tier sees no alternative to funding a policy that they so loudly oppose. They denounce the madness – and then hand the madman a check.

Kucinich: “I will not vote for the $87 billion… I say bring the troops home unequivocally."

Sharpton: “I would unequivocally vote no… Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way.”

(snip)

Braun: "…it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run…" In the end, the former U.S. Senator cannot escape the imperatives of Manifest Destiny. By her moral compass, demonstrations of U.S. resolve are more important than other people’s national sovereignty. The Black woman from Chicago cannot imagine that she is talking like a barbarian, that such patterns of thought are the principal threats to the survival of the human race – in short, that she is warring against civilization.

Seconds later, Moseley-Braun waged war against English as a coherent language: “…it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.” It’s not so much Moseley-Braun’s fault that this sentence makes no sense. The logic of barbarism does not mesh with the realities of an inter-dependent globe. It becomes difficult to communicate in civilized company – the essence of George Bush’s problem at the UN, last month.

(snip)

http://www.blackcommentator.com/58/58_cover_dems.html

[greenohio]

134. YES YOU ARE. Thats all you do Q.

You are telling us to vote against Kerry, Warner, Rendell, Feinstein, Cantwell, Stabenow....etc. What a loser strategy.

[Q]

224. I voted for Kerry. Did you?

It's up to those in the relevant states to decide if they'll vote for DLC candidates.

[greenohio]

233. What?...thats a violation of your rule of voting against DLC candidates?

Make up your mind Q.

Of course I voted for Kerry. I'm not the one telling people to vote against him.

[greenohio]

137. I think that is where Q wants us to go

What else can he mean by encouraging us to vote for a repuke?

[leanin_green]

207. Centrist is what passes for the left today.

Let's face it, who really represents left-leaning views anymore? This whole mess is about staying in power for all these whores, many of them give up the fight to stay in the club. Sometime in the future, when the pendulum begins to swing the other way, who will be the ones staying true to their values then, these same Democrats?! I doubt it. Anyway, does it really matter, fair elections are over, caput, gone, bye-bye!

[wyldwolf]

21. not to mention...

Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, and literally hundreds of other national, state, and locally elected Democrats.


I guess the grand left revolution first involves having these Dems lose to their Republican opponents. Then, after suffering under GOP rule for years us moderates will finally learn our lesson.

[lastliberalintexas]

34. No, I'd keep Landrieu

She's probably the best we can hope for in LA. But Feinstein? In CA?! Nope, they can do much better. And no, I don't want her to lose her next election- unless she loses in the primary, that is.

[greenohio]

155. Better check with Q.

It may not be ok with him and his hate Dems crowd.

[eg101]

81. In fact, I plan on voting against all those pols

if I get the chance. All of them are naught but a lot of corporate whores.

[wyldwolf]

110. oh, that's funny

Are you going to to move from state to state each election cycle to do that?

[eg101]

116. sounds like a plan

now you be sure to stay home.....

Actually, I expect most of those whores will be promoted by the media for President in the future, so I will most likely have the pleasure of not only voting for them, but I will also have the opportunity of coming online with evidence of their whoredom when they are nominated by the corporate media for President. See ya then.......

[wyldwolf]

167. most of them, huh?

[leanin_green]

205. Has voting for them helped any?

[leanin_green]

206. Tell me, has voting for them made things better?

[loyalsister]

8. Can you clarify?

Are you talking national or local?
If Howard Dean's ideas were put in place, local parties leaders would pick their candidates. This would include some compromise based on geography.
Under your current thesis, if in a district in MO where the population voted 75% in favor of conceal\carry on a ballot, a dem candidate supporting that particular measure might be unacceptable.
Are you serious?

[Q]

17. I'm very serious...

...because if a candidate is DLC affiliated it means that they don't believe in traditional Democratic principles and values. They are worshippers of the Third Way. That means that they believe in trickle-down economics, corporate welfare and are essentially against worker's rights.

But you have to follow your own conscience. You might be better off voting for the candidate that (according to the slanted polls) has the least chance of winning as long as he's not DLC.

[FightinNewDem]

104. But wait...there's more!

We also believe in kicking puppies, stealing snow cones from children on hot summer days, stealing sunlight, and surreptitiously putting razor blades into candy on Halloween.

Now excuse me while I contact my evl masters, Al From and Bruce Reed...

[greenohio]

152. LOL!

[jswordy]

10. (In Captain Picard's voice:)

"Quite right, Q! Numbah One, ENGAGE!"

[greenohio]

143. I don't remember Picard saying that. I think it was more...

"Shut up Q, get out of my face and leave us alone."

[MisterLiberal]

15. Lite is just that! LITE!

Q's right. We have to stand for something and we have to be a true alternative or else we're standing in W's shadow and that's a sick place to be.

[KnowerOfLogic]

16. Sadly, when 2008 rolls around, the DNC/DLC candidate will get the nod

again.

[Q]

19. A few of us 'round here...

...predicted a year or so before the 2004 election that a DLC vetted candidate would get the nod. I happen to agree with you that we'll once more see a DLCer as nominee. They were already grooming DLCers on Nov. 3rd, 2004.

[MisterLiberal]

20. We can stop it NOW

But we need to communicate our will.

Money talks, we need to SCREAM!

[Q]

24. Unfortunately...the DLC doesn't get their money from the people...

...They get it from the corporations which they represent. They don't care about your small contributions...they're after the big bucks. In exchange they agree to back legislation and laws that benefit the benefactors.

[jswordy]

23. If you will watch closely, the...

...election of the party chairman will be a litmus test for what is to come.

the DLC backed Kerry, they injected Clark pre-Iowa to give Kerry time to regroup as his camp was falling apart and to blunt Dean's anti-war message (in Clark's own words), and they worked with the DNC to stack the primaries so the Iowa caucus would determine the winner in a collapsed season, thinking at the time that process would bolt the handpicked Kerry out of the chute faster. Dean threw a momentary monkeywrench into their plan, but they got ol Wes to right things for them.

Then we lost the general.

A winner has to come from the dark horse spot next time, with real fire in the belly, and not be the safe choice of the handlers. If we have a smoke-filled room nom again, we will lose again. (If you see Clark and Obama as outsiders or not insider-picked, you need new glasses.)

If you see a Dean as chair, you will see the party is ready to allow that kind of baseball-type bringing up of new talent from the farm teams. If you see a Roemer type get the nod, it will be the old pols in charge yet again.

[Q]

25. Dean as Chair...

...would definately signal a change in game plans. But many of us expect a so-called moderate (aka playing both sides) to get the stamp of approval from the DLC dominated leadership. That's why they're softening up the Dem faithful with their talk of 'compromising' on issues like abortion and religion.

[greenohio]

153. I am so tired of the Deanie Babies.

Since Dean is saying we should embrace pro-life dems, that he fully supported and still supports NAFTA (now with some modifications), that he is against any form of gun control, and that calls himself a fiscal conservative (he cut taxes). Tell me Q, how Dean is such a true leftist when his own supporters call him a "so-called moderate".

[Q]

200. I've never once referred to Dean as a 'true lefist'...

..nor have I even suggested he wasn't a 'moderate'. Perhaps you should use your own words instead of trying to distort mine?

[greenohio]

234. So Dean is a moderate "(aka playing both sides)"

Shouldn't we vote against him as well? Or is it just current DLC moderates rather than former ones?

[wyldwolf]

26. ah. Another conspiracy theory

..well, lots rolled into one.

[Q]

28. A supporter of the DLC crying CONSPIRACY THEORY?

What a shocker.

[wyldwolf]

35. yes

the DLC backed Kerry,

Though Lieberman was their first choice

they injected Clark pre-Iowa to give Kerry time to regroup as his camp was falling apart and to blunt Dean's anti-war message

Conspiracy theory

and they worked with the DNC to stack the primaries so the Iowa caucus would determine the winner in a collapsed season,

Planned, and well publicized, so that the nominee would have more time to campaign

thinking at the time that process would bolt the handpicked Kerry out of the chute faster.

Again, conspiracy theory. Lieberman was the first choice

Dean threw a momentary monkeywrench into their plan, but they got ol Wes to right things for them.

Conspiracy theory

Then we lost the general.

After a poor showing in the primaries

[FightinNewDem]

70. Clarification

The DLC didn't back anyone in the primaries. They can't, because they are not a PAC and their tax status precludes endorsements.

In fact, the "Big Three", Al From (DLC founder and CEO), Bruce Reed (DLC President) and Will Marshall (PPI President), all supported different candidates during the primary campaign. From backed Lieberman, a close friend for many years; Reed served as an unofficial policy advisor to John Edwards; and Will Marshall helped Kerry on national security and defense policy.

In addition, Elaine Kamarck, who has written many of PPI's policy papers and who has been a frequent contributor to other DLC publications, was a policy advisor to Howard Dean.

I really don't know about Ed Kilgore (NewDonkey.com) or Andy Rotherham (eduwonk.com), the other main public voices of the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

75. thanks for the clarification

... and for further exposing the conspiracy theory.

[Q]

92. I'm indeed honored to have TWO DLCers here to defend...

...the DLC's proud tradition of selling out the party to corporate interests.

Yes...we know the DLC didn't 'back' anyone in the primaries. (wink,wink) And of course we know that the Religious Right didn't back anyone either because that would have threatened their tax status. I'm glad that conspiracy theory is laid to rest.

But they had a lot to say about those who were running. They said favorable things about Kerry and liked his DLC-like campaign...especially his sucking up to corporations and disavowing the 'old' Democratic party of the liberals. Meanwhile...they kicked the shit out of progressives like Dean because he was becoming too popular and raising too much money. The record (the DLC website and their think tank online magazine) will show that the DLC was doing everything they could to make sure no one to the left of Lieberman had a real shot at getting the nomination.

But wait a minute. I can't keep track of your rhetoric. First you say that the DLC didn't back anyone in the primaries and then say that the 'big three' of the DLC all backed candidates during the primary. Which is it? They didn't have to officially back Kerry to give him support in the campaign. If nothing else...they helped him by smearing his Dem opponents.

You're throwing around a lot of names...but did you know that Marshall signed on to the PNAC doctrine? Do you even know the backgrounds of the people you now associate with?

If you want to convince Democrats that the DLC is not a threat to the future of their party...perhaps you could at least explain why they're so closely attuned with many Bush policies? And while you're at it...explain the DLC's position that being against the unnecessary, aggressive war on Iraq is tantamount to being against the war on terror?

[greenohio]

140. Whos tradition is it to tell us to vote Repuke?

Oh yeah, thats yours.

[greenohio]

147. Great Post... I didn't know that...not that the tin hat crowd will

believe it. You know the ones with the tin hats telling us "why vote repuke-lite (DLC) when you can vote repuke?"

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[jswordy]

127. If you are going to make charges impugning what...

...I post, then at least be very well-read, so that you can know what has been reported and quoted, so you can possibly separate those facts from "conspiracy theory."

Before I go into that, I have never seen anywhere in the credible news media that Joe Lieberman was the DNC/DLC first choice. I have seen stories where DNC/DLC operatives have dissed Lieberman for ill-supporting Gore during the elex run of 2000, then so quickly abandoning and criticizing him. From the aggregate of those news sources, I have concluded Lieberman is no chum of the DNC/DLC.

Now on to your other charges...with my quotes you listed appearing here in italics...

....they injected Clark pre-Iowa to give Kerry time to regroup as his camp was falling apart and to blunt Dean's anti-war message...

...thinking at the time that process would bolt the handpicked Kerry out of the chute faster.

Dean threw a momentary monkeywrench into their plan, but they got ol Wes to right things for them.


All of the above are paraphrased from direct quotes from Gen. Clark, as told to two reporters at the same time, at a gathering of his campaign staff held immediately after he withdrew from the race. Clark then later recanted his quotes, saying he thought they were off the record when he said them. But both journalists said such protection was neither asked for nor offered when the comments were made.

If you will bother to follow the money trail, you will see that Clark's outstanding campaign debt was later quietly retired by DLC operatives. Which, to we "conspiracy theorists," would be a motive for him wanting those quotes to go away.

Then we lost the general.

CLARIFICATION: This quote refers to Democrats losing the general election, not losing Clark.

[jswordy]

129. Hard to find this stuff on the Net, much has simply...

..."gone away," but you can look at this stuff about Gen. Clark if you would like some light shown on his candidacy. Some of this material has quotes from primary sources that are used in secondary sources I cite here, and so it is not quite as credible as primary source material would be, but the primary source material has largely been cycled off search engines in the past year.

Full source disclosure now over, here you go...

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_7798.shtml

...and...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067833/

"Wes Clark is a very, very talented guy. He’s done stuff with the DLC." -- Al From

...and, PRE-Clark announcement, when the news media were sniffing out whether he'd run from DNC and DLC sources who had met with him...

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/tomasky-m.html

Other Democratic insiders, several in the Clinton circle, agreed. I spoke with one about Clark's mid-January lunch with Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, which happened at Clark's behest. This insider spoke with McAuliffe about the Clark lunch and said, "Terry's view is that he's very seriously considering it. Now there's serious, and there's serious, so who knows, but Terry thought it was pretty real."

Of course, a few conversations may be only that, and it's obviously true that rumors can get converted into fact or elevated beyond their reality in no time. There were reports that Clark had met with the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) Al From; the DLC's Karin Kullman says that Clark has spoken at council forums on military policy, not talked political turkey with From. Also, according to press reports, he had talks with former Gore campaign aide Donna Brazile, but Clark says the conversation was the result of an accidental meeting in a green room at CNN. ("But I've known Donna for many years," he says, "and she's always been one who has told me, 'You should run for something one day.'")

All pre-announcement downplay efforts aside, the meetings are on record there.

...and...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/19/105646.shtml

In an interview with the Miami Herald, Clark said that "he had been flooded with requests to run - including from New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton."

In comments to the New York Times, Gen. Clark said that both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton had encouraged him to make the run.

[wyldwolf]

162. Q, uh. I mean Jswordy, none of these sources confirm what you charge

... not even (bwahahahahaha) NEWSMAX!!!

[Tinoire]

284. More... and also shared Hillary Clinton's fund-raiser, Rosen

It's totally disingenious for anyone to pretend Wesley Clark wasn't backed by the DLC. For whatever reasons, he was. I doubt he'd make that mistake again after the shabby manner in which they used him to stop Dean and then cavalierly tossed him aside.

New Democrats Offer Goals
Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Sen. Bob Graham Address New Democratic Network's Annual Meeting


June 17, 2003--Potential presidential candidate Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark and declared Democratic candidates Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Bob Graham addressed an audience of several hundred Democrats attending the New Democratic Network's annual meeting. NDN was formed in 1996 to elect "New Leaders for a New Time."

(pictures available)

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ndn061703.html
===

Wesley Clark’s initial mission was to thwart Dean’s momentum as he entered the race in September with the Clinton family blessing only after no other candidate from the field of Democrats could slow the Dean machine. The Clinton-led centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) also prodded Clark as they were in fear of losing relevancy to the angry left wing of Howard Dean’s “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.” The thought was Wesley Clark’s military pedigree would easily establish him as the anti-Dean candidate and Clark could vault to the front of this weak field. It started out well as Clark went directly to the front of the pack only slightly behind Howard Dean.

(snip)

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_7798.shtml


====
<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

"We wanted to have a meeting that would focus on ideas, not just the presidential horse race," said Bruce Reed, the DLC's president. In previous years, he noted, the presence of candidates put the spotlight on who was there and who was not.

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm


Another article about this same meeting in Philly:

Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma: At Philly meeting, praise and scorn for presidential contender

By Tom Curry
MSNBC

PHILADELPHIA, July 28 - Meeting in Philadelphia to plan strategy for the 2004 elections, members of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council grappled Monday with what one Democratic political consultant here called "their worst nightmare," the possibility that Howard Dean might win their party's presidential nomination. DLC activists said that despite Dean's recent fund-raising successes, his winning the nomination is far from a sure thing.

<snip>
DLC'S ROLE AS COUNTERWEIGHT

The DLC is the business-friendly group that helped write Bill Clinton's platform in 1992. It serves as a counterweight in Democratic politics to labor unions and interest groups such as the NAACP and the National Organization for Women (NOW).

<snip>

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

MSNBC article but now archived. You can find it here:
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/4/144349/2024

[wyldwolf]

161. Q, is this your other identity?

If you are going to make charges impugning what I post, then at least be very well-read, so that you can know what has been reported and quoted, so you can possibly separate those facts from "conspiracy theory.

Where have I made charges "impugning what you post?" Unless you are Q.

All of the above are paraphrased from direct quotes from Gen. Clark, as told to two reporters at the same time, at a gathering of his campaign staff held immediately after he withdrew from the race.

Link?

[MisterLiberal]

31. The ultimate conspiracy

is this; think about it; isn't it odd that grassroots people give more money than any other organizations or people proportionately?

And those grassroots people are the poor?

Keepin' em in their place.

[FightinNewDem]

40. Yup...

They also kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, have Amelia Earhart stashed away in a cave on Guam, offed Jimmy Hoffa, faked the moon landings, covered up the Roswell crash, put Walt Disney into frozen animation and helped O.J. hide the knife. I also have it on good authority that Al From and Bruce Reed were seen on the Grassy Knoll back in 1963.

Wake up. In the primaries, the voters rejected Dean and Kucinich. Resoundingly. Even in NH, which is a state tailor-made for a Dean candidacy, almost 80% of Democratic voters picked someone else.

[MisterLiberal]

52. Wide awake

When did this become the Republican Underground?

I didn't know it was fashionable to trash other Democrats here.

[wyldwolf]

57. ask the person/people who start threads like this daily

...of course, moderate and DLC Dems aren't really Dems to those people so it's ok to trash them I guess.

[Q]

197. You have 39 posts and you're accusing...

...DU of being 'Republican Underground' because Democrats are allowed to criticize their own party? You must be thinking of that OTHER party that doesn't allow criticism.

[greenohio]

235. Are you pulling rank Q?

Thats right, once you have over 1000 posts, then you can bash Dems daily. Its the DU way.

[Q]

94. Perhaps it's because you're relatively new...

...here that you're not aware that the DLC supporters on DU always use the 'conspiracy theory' gambit to try to discredit anyone against their RWing agenda. And it's been pointed out before that the Bushies do the same thing when confronted with the truth about the 2000 election, 9-11 or the Iraq war. What's next? Calling us a focus or fringe group?

The 'voters' didnt' reject Dean or Kucinich. A small group of party operatives made that decision for all of us. Please don't try to make it sound as it were some sort of democratic process where the people had a voice.

[FightinNewDem]

100. Reality Check

Let's take a look at the vote in my home precinct (Manchester, NH, ward 3) from a year ago this month:

Kerry: 384
Dean: 208
Lieberman: 123
Edwards: 116
Clark: 105
Kucinich: 13
Gephardt: 6

I guess that Al and Bruce have a lot of relatives in my neighborhood.

[wyldwolf]

111. I think it's because he's noticed...

that DLC supporters use the 'conspiracy theory' gambit because DLC bashers seldom present any evidence to confirm their conspiracy theories. Take you, for example. You post a litany of very similar sounding accusatory posts that rarely contain a shred of evidence beyond what is "in your mind" and if you do by chance present something to back up your claim, you can never quite explain why the charge is so bad.

[jswordy]

139. Huh! See my replies above here under...

If you are going to make charges impugning what...  

and

Hard to find this stuff on the Net, much has simply...

for evidence. I could have listed much more, but I have other things to do with my time, too.

It amazes me, at times, how people will cling to their preconceptions even in light of overwhelming cumulative evidence to the contrary. But you know, hey, that's exactly how Bush got himself elected...by counting on that tendency.

[greenohio]

156. Ahh, so based on those links we're to vote repuke.

We should have voted for shrub over Kerry, a loyal Dem who has voted consistently pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-environments.

[jswordy]

158. You've jumped off a cliff, I guess...

..yer comment is so off-topic and baseless. Vote "repuke"? Where did you get that reactionary bit?

I said in the links I posted that the sources left to draw from are secondary because many of the original source reports have cycled off the Net, remarked on the credibility issue, etc. Still, the primary sources did indeed run those items during the elex cycle. There is a documented case there. If I did not have a life, I could dedicate time to rooting out the primary soruces, but to what end? No one who was not predisposed to the factual evidence would be convinced, anyway.

Be my guest, if you wish to stick yer fingers in yer ears and go LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. Matters little to me, there are lots of folks doing that nowadays.

But the documentation issue raised earlier is a non-starter. You won't find me here raising "conspiracy theories" minus documentation.

Some have their eyes open, some have them closed. SHRUG. So be it.

[greenohio]

236. "Why vote Republican-lite when you can vote Republican? "

Read the original post. Republican-lite clearly points to the DLC, as it has here consistently on DU. In short, this statement clearly says to vote Republican over a DLC Dem. It is in the post you are supporting.

Some are so self righteous not to even read the topic at hand that they accuse everyone of "having their eyes closed". Meanwhile they are bumping into walls.

[wyldwolf]

163. you quoted NEWSMAX! Bwahahahahahaha!

...and the other articles don't confirm anything.

[greenohio]

237. NewsMax...isn't that a RIGHT WING publication?

[FrenchieCat]

260. You are making me not want Howard Dean as DNC Chair....

I supported Wes Clark, and he did not get into the race to beat anyone other than Bush.....and he was not and is not a DLCer. Your story about Clark giving a chance for Kerry to regroup is false and a lie. Wes Clark ran to win....not as a "Kerry/DLC" favor.

as Tom Rinaldo posted in an earlier thread, there are just some cold hard facts....that I would take note of if I were you.....

" ....As to the controversy about Clark being a centrist ploy to defeat Dean, some centrists initially backed Clark for exactly that reason. One could say they feared Dean because they honestly believed he would make a poor candidate, or one can say they feared Dean because he threatened and challenged their power base within the Party. Or both. Clark definitely had real grass roots support as evidenced by the Draft Clark movement and Clark's continuing active core of activists, but some established centrist backing was probably essential to Clark having any chance of overcoming the late entry related handicaps I outlined above. I've written more extensively on this elsewhere, but in short my position is Clark never entered the race because he wanted to stop Dean, he entered the race because he wanted to defeat Bush, and Clark was concerned that Dean could not do so due to his, in Clark's view, insufficient national security credentials for the coming election as Clark foresaw it. Clark got some establishment Democratic backing but they never "loved" or trusted him as one of their own. Soon as Kerry regained some footing they deserted Clark for Kerry in a relative heart beat.

[genius]

22. Let's give the DLC members a chance to quit and redeem themselves.

Before we dis the members of the DLC, let's send them letters telling them we cannot vote for DLC members and giving them an opportunity to correct this error in judgment.

[FightinNewDem]

47. Let me tell you something

Let me offer a little perspective on this idea.

I am a DLC member and an elected official.

Somebody tried this stunt after the From/Reed/Dean flap erupted.

Do you know how many letters I received?

Zero.

Do you know how many e-mails I received?

Zero.

Do you know how many people mentioned it at campaign events, at the State House or on the streets of the district?

Zero.

In the primary, I finished well ahead of a Dean-funded challenger, and in the general, I received more votes than any legislative candidate has ever received in my district.

If you honestly think that the silly DLC-bashing is relevant to the lives of average Democrats, then you are sorely mistaken.

[Geek_Girl]

51. I'm an average democrat

I'm not an elected official or a pundit or live in the beltway. I'm your average middle class taxpaying democrat who happens to live in a red state.

I have supported every single military action in my life. I even believed Saddam had WMD's. But he didn't Bush lied and I'm not naive enough to believe that those in power in government did not know this. So why in the world did the DLC take a pro Iraq stance? Why? Explain it me please. Your a DLC member explain it.

[Q]

88. Of course a 'member of the DLC' will think it's 'silly'...

...to criticize the DLC. What other position could you take other than to try to discredit critics of YOUR club.

It's might be relevant to every Democrat that factions of their party are doing things in their name they might not like or agree with IF they knew about it.

For instance...many Democrats weren't aware that the DLC is trying to drive liberals and progressives from the party. Many Democrats don't know that the DLC has never taken a position on the 2000 election fraud except to say that 'Gore lost' because he was a populist. There are many things that Democrats in general don't seem to know about the DLC. (The corporate wing of the party)

There's nothing more dangerous to Bush or the Neodems than informed voters. Both want voters to vote with their emotions instead of their intellect.

[FightinNewDem]

90. More ranting, I see

"Both want voters to vote with their emotions instead of their intellect."

Yes, I suppose that's why the PPI has issued dozens of policy papers on topics from foreign policy to economic development. We all know how rowdy folks get after hearing about R&D tax credits...

[Q]

103. How many Democrats even KNOW about the PPI?

The fact is that the DLC is to the Democratic party what the Neocons are to the Republican party. No one voted for the Neocons to take over the Republican party. The same goes for the DLC.

[lastliberalintexas]

29. I think that depends on geography

I live in Texas, and the best candidate that I am going to get under our current system is a rather conservative Texas Democrat. S/he won't be perfect, but then none of us is. In my area, the 2 Dem Congressional candidates were Nick Lampson and Jim Wright, who are pretty centrist to center right by my scale. But they would have been a hell of a lot better than Ted Poe and Kevin Brady will be in those seats.

No matter how much I would love it, a true liberal would not have won Southeast Texas, even though Lampson had won easily in his district since his first race. Lampson still carried my area, but because of the Delay re-re-districting being defended by a DUer on another thread, Poe was able to be elected by the wealthy Houston suburb vote. Lampson is mostly pro-choice (only bad vote was late term abortion), very pro-labor, pro-middle and working class, etc. Poe is *none* of those things. So I still would have voted for the DLC/conservative Dem in that race. That does not mean that I would have wanted Lampson to be minority leader, and leadership positions are a completely different issue.

But suffice it to say that I do think that under our current system, in some areas we do have to hold our noses and vote for the best that we can get. A Texas/Georgia/Alabama Dem is going to be conservative and at odds with true progressives on some issues, but at least valuable to us at times. But a Texas/Georgia/Alabama repub is just a Nazi, and is worthless to ANY of our causes.


However, there is no reason and no excuse for people like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton to have voted as conservatively as each has for the past 4 years. Massachusetts and New York are NOT Texas, and their Democrats should by God be able to vote like a progressive. I would love to see Dems in the more liberal areas and states withhold their votes from the repub lite candidates, since they CAN do better.

So while those of us in the red states/counties are battling the Nazis and getting the best we can get (for now), it's time for the blue staters to battle the enemy within.

[MisterLiberal]

33. You are defeating yourself

if you believe a liberal cannot win your district.

They have you compensating your own opinion!

Vote your conscience and participate in the system; register people to vote; help a liberal candidate!

It's actually fun! Yes. there's work involved, too but you get to network with like minded people.

[lastliberalintexas]

43. I have

Once you've been here longer, maybe you'll discover that. I've worked for the Democratic party and its candidates for 20 years, both in volunteer and paid positions. I've registered voters, worked the polls, put out yard signs in 20 county state senate districts and driven people to vote. I've served in my county Dem club, helped create a county Dem club and donated money through the years.

I am also a native SE Texan who knows what plays here. One who is liberal on economic issues and moderate to conservative on social issues is our best chance until the populace has been deprogrammed from the brainwashing of mainstream media.

[MisterLiberal]

53. Dont let them

tell you how to vote or how to be politically active.

Of course, if you were liberal on social issues like me, you might have a bit more of a problem with saying "oh well".

[lastliberalintexas]

56. Again, you know nothing of me

I am very liberal on social issues. But I also know what reality is, and the current political reality in SE Texas means that someone more moderate than I will likely represent this area.

No one has told me how to vote, how to be politically active or how to think about issues. I'm not quite sure how you got that idea from my posts?

Idealism is nice, until reality bites you in the ass.

[MisterLiberal]

62. I only know what you SAY

and you said you were moderate to CONSERVATIVE on social issues, so please forgive me for believing you.

The reality is that you are allowing them to dictate THEIR reality to YOU.

I wish Liberals (sorry, didn't mean to include you) weren't so pansy sometimes. We're afraid to use the "L" word. We're afraid to vote our conscience or support the GOOD candidate because, "Gosh, others might not like to vote for him/her" so we do the Repukes a favor and "moderate" our political activity so we don't offend anyone.

Too bad some people are ashamed of their beliefs.

You give the people a REAL alternative. No wonder the people of your area won't vote Democrat; you guys keep giving them candidates who are "moderate to conservative" on social issues.

Is that a choice?

[lastliberalintexas]

68. Reading for comprehension is a good thing

I said that one who is moderate to conservative on social issues is our best chance for the time being, meaning a *candidate* who is moderate to conservative on social issues.


"No wonder the people of your area won't vote Democrat"

Again, reading comprehension is good. The people of my area continue to vote DemocratIC. We only have a republican Congresscritter now because the wealthy Houston suburb vote weighted the newly drawn district in Poe's favor. Lampson won Jefferson County, the bulk of his former district, with about 65% of the vote. The other 35% of the county was simply the right wing nutcase pseudo-Christian vote.


You are correct in one thing- I don't refer to myself as a Liberal. I am a Socialist, and damn proud of it. Sorry to disillusion you about "pansy" lefties.

[MisterLiberal]

71. Quite a resume you have there

"Very Liberal"
"Moderate to Social"
"Libertarian" and now...DING!
"Socialist"

Are you sure you are you?

[lastliberalintexas]

74. *sigh*

I guess for some people it is hard to understand how a person can have small l libertarian beliefs on social issues (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of drugs, etc.) and be a Socialist (ie, a redistributionist) on economic issues. I am a libertarian Socialist, if you must have a label. I have never referred to myself as moderate to conservative, so you can do away with that red herring.


Now, how did this become a discussion of my personal political beliefs? What I wrote referenced what I believed was necessary to win a seat in a moderate to conservative Democratic area and had nothing to do with what *my* ideal candidate would support. It had to do with the necessity or reasonableness of supporting DLC/moderate Dems in certain geographic areas due to the beliefs of the voting populace, in response to Q's arguments against supporting such officials or candidates. Good googly moogly.

[MisterLiberal]

79. Sure it did

you said that you gave up voting for people who you REALLY believe in so you could vote for a moderate/conservative on social issues.

Did you or did you not say that?

If you vote for a "moderate" on social issues, you are socially "moderate".

If you vote for a conservative on social issues, you are socially conservative.

People can talk whatever they want about their labels; it's their VOTE that counts and by YOUR votes, you are "moderate to conservative" on social issues.

Did you or did you not say you would support candidates who are moderate or conservative on social issues?

[Geek_Girl]

54. That's my thinking too

If you want to win the red you have to be left on economic issues and moderate on social issues and you have to be a fighter. That's why I kind of like Reid he's conservative on social issues but he does seem to be a fighter and left on economic issues.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. It's not ideal by any means for me personally

I am really a libertarian when it comes to social issues and a Socialist when discussing economics. But I do realize that the Blue Dogs are the best we can do in certain areas for now. I'm not really sure we want them in leadership positions, however.

I think that was the real problem with Daschle- in order to represent his conservative state he sometimes had to sell out the party and liberals. While I understand that and would still prefer Daschle to Thune, it just shows why someone like that shouldn't be in a leadership role. Reid probably would have been better as Whip, and Feingold, Durbin or even Harkin should have been Leader. JMHO.

[Geek_Girl]

61. Reid is not DLC

There are many moderate dems that are not DLC. I won't vote for a DLC candidate but I understand why there are democrats that feel they have to take a moderate or conservative stand on social issues.

It's not all moderate dems that I have a problem with it's DLC dems that I won't support.

[lastliberalintexas]

64. Oh I'd even support DLC member Dems

Again, depending on where they are running. I didn't mean that to sound like an attack on Reid, as I'd much rather have him than a republican in Nevada. It's actually the blue states I'm more irritated with. There is no excuse for Kerry, Clinton, Chafee!, Snowe!, Feinstein, et al.

We red staters have to take what we can get for now! :hi:

[MisterLiberal]

76. oboy

You just keep taking what crumbs the Republicans let you have.

No wonder we don't need moderates running the party.

:eyes:

Or whatever political persuasion you are this hour.

[Lorien]

130. "We red staters have to take what we can get for now!"

That, in a nutshell, is why we are where we are right now. The Right is SO FAR right, that we Dems (left wingers; not libertarians) are willing to "take what we can get right now". So the repugs infiltrate our party and give us less objectionable repugs as our only alternative; we end up "taking what we can get".

Until we DEMAND better or decide to go third party, we'll continue to lose both elections and our liberal (and even moderate) ideals.

[wyldwolf]

77. one problem with your voting habits

You can't be a DLC candidate UNTIL you've been elected and are running again.

In other words, first time candidates can't become a member of the DLC coalition until you're elected. You can be a donor and be a "member," but that info isn't disclosed anywhere.

So, essentially, if you vote for a new candidate, he/she may very well be future DLC. And if you like him/her, and they run for re-election unopposed, then you'll either vote DLC or third party (or GOP) and hurt the Democratic party.

[MisterLiberal]

65. Wow

NOW you're a LIBERTARIAN?

Which is it?

"really liberal" on social issues?
"moderate to conservative" on social issues?
"libertarian" on social issues?

[MisterLiberal]

63. I don't like this

I would much rather be liberal on social (i.e. PEOPLE) issues and moderate (GAG, CHOKE, PUKE) on economic issues.

Money isn't everything. In fact, if you sell your soul, it's not worth anything and this party is continually trying to sell its soul.

Repugs just take the money AND the elections and laugh. Oh, then they'll tell us that we're "too liberal".

[Geek_Girl]

80. It's preferable for me too

But living in the conservative south I can understand why a politician may support abortion with restrictions. What I don't understand is how a southern candidate can be pro-outsourcing. That's just dumb politics. There is no excuse for a southern democratic running for office to not have a strong liberal platform on economics.

[Pepperbelly]

36. this is pretty dogmatic, Q ...

that's no way to run a railroad.

If I like the candidate, I will vote for him/her. For example, if Wesley Clark runs (I hope he will not for personal reasons), I will support him because I know his values and intelligence and trust his judgement completely. If someone claims he is a gop or a dlc or some other DU boggyman, it will make no difference whatsoever to me and that person making charges will have a fight on their hands.

Nope. Far too dogmatic for me.

[MisterLiberal]

37. Sounds Dogmatic?

Then let slip the dogs of matic.

[Pepperbelly]

38. Curb your dogma! Or it might get run over by its kharma! nt

[MisterLiberal]

48. LOL

Good one.

Dogs are matic you know.

[Q]

41. Well...I'm a dogmatic sort of guy...

...but I respect your opinion...most of the time.

To each his own. It depends on what kind of Democratic party you want down the road. We'll forever be fighting off the corporate candidates if we can't get together and finally say No More.

We have to take a stand and soon. We're either the party of the people or the party that fools the people into thinking we're the party of the people. We can't represent both the corporate state that oppresses the people and the people they oppress.

[Pepperbelly]

42. I am from the FDR wing of the party.

There don't seem to be many of us left.

:(

[MisterLiberal]

45. Little wonder

FDR died in 1945 man!

Get with the 21st Century; we're having fun here!

[ElectroPrincess]

39. I hear that ... No, I will vote for candidates that will put their

constituents' (all of them!) concerns first vice promoting even more egregious corporate welfare.

The DNC is a machine who's first concern is serving the interests of those in control of large corporations. It don't matter, large corporations can be either USA or foreign based. It's the love of power and hording of the mean green that drives both major parties.

[Geek_Girl]

49. I've pretty muched made up mind

I'm not voting for any member of the DLC in primaries, in general elections, local or national. I'll vote for a paleo-con, a third party canidate or just won't vote before I'll vote for a DLC Dem.

[MisterLiberal]

50. DLC

Who elected these guys again?

Where are the party leaders?

Oh, I forgot. We dont have any.

[greenohio]

145. Wow, and hear we thought you were on the fence.

[Cats Against Frist]

67. I'm not a toe-the-line liberal, progressive, or Democrat

and there are several things that are pro-Republican issues on which I agree: gun control and federalism -- meaning the second and tenth Amendment (though the Bushies are not for federalism, they want it all up at the Big Fatherland Government level, too, just like they bitched about, about the Dems, for years).

That said, I've always voted Democrat because I FUCKING HATE NEOCONSERVATIVES, CORPO-FASCISTS and the RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

Which would damn near sum up the DLC -- at least, if not in philosophy, in spineless action.

I don't vote for Republicans, and I don't vote for Republican "appeasers."

I am a libertarian and the GOP scares the fuck out of me. However, I would just as soon that they win, and the DLC learn a little lesson about just who's fucking radical and who's not.

[Cats Against Frist]

69. One question, though

I've seen several members of the DLC, in intereviews, express the same sentiments that I have about the human condition -- Wes Clark crying on 60 minutes, Obama, Pelosi on the floor of the House. Why are they so spineless, when it seems that some of them are good people. Maybe that's it -- their heart is in the right place, but they're not good leaders. It's confusing.

[w4rma]

73. Obama and Pelosi aren't DLCers and I'm not so sure Clark is one, either.

So that's probably why.

P.S. I agree with you on your issues. I don't like the federalism stuff either. It is a form of congomeration of power. And I also support the 2nd amendment and oppose any more gun control.

[Q]

105. Since the influence of the DLC is increasing....

..in the party because of Clinton and corporate cash...I wonder how other Dems not interested in going to the right have had to change to appease them and not become a target of their scorn?

And what happens to the Democrats who want to remain liberal or progressive? How do they fit into the plans for a 'new' Democratic party?

That's how I see the DLC. They're creating a new party built around the third way instead of the ideal of the 'party of the people'. (Third Way: a promise to share the loot with both sides)

So what happens when the majority of the party becomes DLCers? Can or will that happen? What party would then represent those that neither party thought was politically expedient to represent? Who will represent the interests of the poor? Women? Workers? Minorities?

[wyldwolf]

164. wait! Haven't you and yours often said..

DLC influence is DECREASING?

[shance]

72. Great point Q - However, we need to have our vote COUNT before

we can think about worrying about this.

[Q]

85. We should also time a bit of time to think...

..about who are the politicians ignoring election fraud as if it doesn't exist? Which politicians are 'suggesting' that this alledged fraud is nothing more than a conspiracy theory?

Identify the politicians who don't want election reform and you've connected the dots right back to this thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

248. I usually don't like these gloom and doom vote counting posts, BUT

Your statement makes more sense than this entire thread.

[Lorien]

93. Well said

I generally agree with your posts, and this one is no exception.

If the dems don't learn from the past five years and ditch the DLC "strategies", then I don't see any profit in devoting my energies or my vote to them. If they do decide to "stay the course", then I'm hoping that the Progressive Party of Vermont decides to expand Nationwide. We may not win elections in the short term with a third party, but we'll never win any if we stick to the same course. I was vehemently anti-third party...until Nov.4th.

[Q]

101. I'm beginning to get the impression that the DLC believes...

...that progressives are too stupid to understand what they're up to. Either that or they simply don't care what we think. But their intentions are obvious.

The DLC used to fly under the radar...but they've been speaking out against the 'out of touch' liberals and progressives since the boy king took office. They've divided the party between 'old' and 'new' Democrats. They literally believe that if you're not with them...you're with the terrorists. Or so says their rhetoric about not supporting Bush's war in Iraq equates with hurting the cause against the 'war on terror'.

And speaking of the war on terrorism...the DLC seems to agree with Bush that the US is fighting the war on terror there, bringing 'democracy' to Iraq and we're there to liberate them.

[greenohio]

135. "progressives are too stupid"...they are if they vote repuke

rather than pro-choice, environmental friendly, pro-civil rights democrat who also is a member of the DLC like Kerry, Rendell, Feinstein, Stebenow, Cantwell.

[Guava Jelly]

107. You either vote for the democrat or you help republicans

It must get old hopping around on one foot after shooting yourself in the other.
vote green = repuke
vote anything besides dem dilutes the vote and helps republicans
picking a candidate that is far left will also help republicans.
but go ahead
oh your out of bullets wanna borrow my piece.

[Q]

112. That sounds oddly familiar...

...haven't we been told this same thing for decades? What has our undying faith bought us besides minority status with our party being in the worse shape it's been in a century?

How many times have we heard...just vote for the Chosen candidate and once we get in power everything will change? But we witnessed the Democratic party leadership giving up on us and Democratic values BEFORE they became the minority.

This is the diatribe of extortion and fear mongering. It's what the party told Blacks for so long...only to see their party abandon their civil rights during the LAST TWO elections. What will Blacks be voting for if they vote Democratic again in 2008? Will they told again to just 'shut up' about their votes being stolen so as not to hurt the image of the party?

The 'vote Democratic or die' slogans are getting old and tired. Many Democrats are wondering why they should vote for a party that seems more beholden to Bush and corporate welfare than they are to the Democratic base.

Want our votes? You'll have to earn them by actually representing our interests.

[Guava Jelly]

113. 1 + 1 = 2

since we are a divided (voting)nation.
we have to appeal to the thinking repubs the undecideds and keep our base.
lets say 48 percent are repukes
lets say 48 % are democrats
lets say 2% are greens
now lets say 1% switch from Dems to green
WOW WE GOT A wopping 3% green vote
the repukes win 48% to 47%
that sure will teach the DLC.
and we are screwed again.
May i recommend a small calibur for shooting your own foot the wounds are less messy
and yes vote dem or die
or Vote dem or vote republican
unless we get run off voting thier are only 2 choices

[Q]

114. "since we are a divided (voting)nation....

...we have to appeal to the thinking repubs the undecideds and keep our base."

It depends on what you mean by 'appeal to'. Does it mean giving up on what distinguishes us from Republicans?

Here's the problem: for every one 'repub' we try to 'appeal to'...we lose several of our base. The Democratic party has a big bucket they're trying to fill with 'swing voters'. They're so obsessed with filling up that bucket with non-Democrats that they don't notice the big hole in the bottom leaking out untold numbers of once-faithful Democrats.

You're trying to make a deal with the devil and nothing good can come from it. Instead of giving bits and pieces of our party away in order to 'appeal' to those who may or may not vote for us...how about standing up for Democratic values and bringing all those Dems who have lost faith back into the fold?

Don't you get it? Whatever the party is doing ISN'T WORKING. What does that tell you? To do more of the same? Or appeal to the Democratic base and go back to grassroots efforts?

And I might add: what's all this rhetoric about guns? One post about loaning me a gun seemed quite enough.

[Q]

115. delete

double post

[mstrsplinter326]

123. Sounds Familiar

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

Does France = Al Qaeda? No. Then to say that voting green = voting republican is equally wrong. It's much more nuanced than that.

Sometimes having morals means more than winning. No, wait, scratch that - it always does.

[MisterLiberal]

154. Wow

You go ahead and study about nuance.

Because if you really believe that voting Green doesn't weak our party and help the Repukes, then I don't know what to say.

[mstrsplinter326]

268. So...

Only democrats switch and vote green. and...

Election reform, including instant run-off cannot be achieved. and...

The Democratic party should and does define itself as the 'We're not Bush' party.

-------

Thinking like that is why we are losing. You don't want people to vote for the greens? Co-opt their issues. Until then, you can't make the case that the democrats deserve votes by their own merit. And when you can't make that case, it aught to be obvious why we are losing across the national board.

"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
As if.

[greenohio]

132. Way to cheer on those repukes.

[greenohio]

149. So vote for an anti choice candidate

over a pro-choice one?

[JNelson6563]

108. What does it matter?

The Iowa establishment will do as they are told, like cattle and there we will be stuck with *ahem* the "most electable" person. You know, someone who's a good closer.

The fact that the likes of Donnie I-can't-handle-one-whole-state Fowler is being seriously considered for DNC chair tells me we are going to be seriously screwed next time. In bad off then as we were this time even....

Julie

[eg101]

118. unless we activists start convincing the Iowa voters differently

suppose we start right now and show Iowa evidence that a social democrat vision could deliver a higher quality of life for most people. Maybe in 2008 primaries, a different type of Dem candidate could win?

Or we can just go back to gossiping about politicians....

[Q]

119. Americans have already seen that vision...

..in the form of Social Security, social services, medicare and many other policies and programs designed to help the people improve their lot in life and stay above poverty. But the very point of this thread is that some Democrats are willing to 'soften' their positions on these and other issues important to the Democratic base in order to 'appeal' to the so-called swing voters.

[eg101]

121. or maybe they have a different reason for abandoning social democracy

maybe they know that if they go centrist, the media will look more kindly on them, and talk favorably about them and talk more about them, and maybe social-liberal, economic-conservative yuppies will send them money and so will corporate donors and rich investors who know that the best way to carry out the rightwing corporate agenda is to infiltrate and corrupt the Democratic party? Whattaya think? Hmmm?

[CWebster]

122. Bingo!

And how do you face off against that?

[eg101]

125. tell truth to power

you tell that fact to the people. You get people on the tv to say just that! That is a necessary first step. Admit it. And then say it and keep saying it.

[no name no slogan]

159. Power already KNOWS the truth-- we need get back our base

Noam Chomsky says much the same thing: Power already knows the Truth-- we need to mobilize our old base supporters at EVERY level to really have any chance at changing things.

This party has sadly lost its way on economic issues over the last fifteen years. Our nominee last year NEVER talked about the struggles of the working class-- but was quick to toss bones to the middle class. His chief economic advisor was the Chairman of CitiGroup-- a huge Wall Street company that spends TONS of money so they could get rid of Depression-Era laws that protected the people from predatory financial companies.

We have effectively abandoned the socially moderate/conservative, economically liberal base that formed the largest part of our New Deal coalition. On economics, there's little difference between Dems and Repubs: both parties supported so-called "free trade", neither party platform called for a Living Wage law, nor did either platform call for stricter regulation of corporate monopolies in finance, trade and media.

So, here's our socially moderate/economicly liberal voter, faced with a choice between two candidates who will export her/his job and will let the robber barons run the entire show. Do you think this churchgoing, god-fearing loyal union member and Democrat would vote for the highly-educated 'elitist' who wants legalize all kinds of 'perversion', or the nice, churchgoing, god-fearing fella from the Republican party?

The DLC is sadly misnamed: it does not provide any 'leadership' for the Democrats, other than those who are happy to do the bidding of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

[greenohio]

138. They won't for long if people listen to your "vote repuke" logic

[JNelson6563]

120. Go right ahead

I have my hands full in MI. I can understand where you are coming from in your Or we can just go back to gossiping about politicians.... remarks. Really I can. Only you are much mistaken in assuming that is applicable to all. My political activity is primarily in the real world. I don't view participation at political DBs as actual activity.

Cheers-
Julie

[mstrsplinter326]

124. I'm with you, Q; consider me an ally. nt

[Q]

126. Appreciate it...

...but, to me...you're a good ally of the Democratic party...the 'missing' party that still exists in the minds and hearts of many Americans.

[greenohio]

136. "good ally of the Democratic party" who will vote for a repuke

because there's not enough difference between DLC and a repuke. Thats right, Kerry was a just a carbon copy of shrub.

This is the stupidist political strategy I've ever heard.

[greenohio]

131. Isn't it a Right Wing tactic to tell us to vote against Democrats?

Seems like the radical left is looking more like repuke-lite everyday.

[Cocoa]

142. another tactic

attack the dems most ferociously when they achieve their most important successes.

It happened consistently with Daschle, and dem bashing supposedly from the left reached a peak when the dems were filibustering Bush's judges.

Sometimes the lefties liked the same picture of dems in tutus that Rush Limbaugh liked, which used to be very very common here at DU but thankfully isn't anymore.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Cocoa]

146. Brace yourself for an assault against Harry Reid

they're holding their fire pretty much for now, but right in the thick of the Social Security battle, Reid will be the target of a sustained and vicious onslaught, supposedly from the left.

[greenohio]

150. I can see the Reidtraitor threads now. ...

Reid sells secrets to Repukes.
Reid's brother is a repuke.
Reid lives in a repuke neighborhood.
Reid fed my baby to a dingo.
Reid took away my tin foil hat.

[Q]

178. Please don't call fellow DUers 'fools' or accuse them of being 'repukes'..

...in your desperation to defend the DLC...you're trashing other DUers for expressing an opposing opinion.

[wyldwolf]

183. why not practice what you preach?

[Q]

192. Have I called you or anyone else a 'fool' or a 'repuke'?

I would never do that. I might call you an apologist for the DLC...but that's not a personal rebuke.

[wyldwolf]

193. "personal rebuke"

So, If I called you stupid, it would be a personal rebuke.

If you called me dumb, it wouldn't be?

Your just excusing your own insult hurling.

[greenohio]

214. Actually, I didn't.

I said voting for repuke is acting like a repuke OR fool, but apparently the mod, who allows a thread that says "why not vote repuke" won't allow someone saying, that sounds like a repuke. Fascinating.

I wonder if this will get deleted as well. But I will say it again:

VOTING REPUKE IS ACTING LIKE A REPUKE!

[dolstein]

148. Since the DLC better represents the TRUE liberal/progressive traditions

I'll stick with the DLC over a leftist posing as Democrat any day. The fact is that if DU had been around in 1948, people like you would be urging us to vote for Wallace over Truman.

[greenohio]

151. Good post.

Nicely done.

[moggie12]

157. "Dolstein" raises an interesting point

Applying your logic Q, would you have advocated voted for Wallace over Truman in '48? Using same logic, would you have advocated voted for Nader over Gore in '00? I'm sorry but I still have hard feelings about the left's attacks on Gore in '00. Great, they vented their spleens, look what we got: Bush, who is recklessly leading the country down the path to geopolitical chaos and economic ruin.

I said in a post somewhere up above that I don't agree with DLC positions (especially on "war on terror" and not fighting Wall Street), but I believe in some things they stand for. Government can't ensure "social justice", but it can and should ensure that hard-working Americans get a fair shake and enjoy the fruits of their labor. In practical terms, this is the difference between advocating "redistributive wealth" policies versus advocating progressive taxation, education loans/grants so kids can go to college even if their Daddy isn't rich, etc.

[Q]

166. In case you hadn't noticed...this is 2005

...and AFTER these events:

impeachment of a president for a blow job

a transparently, blatantly stolen election in 2000, unprecedented and illegal supreme Court decision.

takeover of the free press by the Bush corporate state.

9-11: The Bush government receives warnings of an attack from all around the world. An August briefing says that bin Laden is determined to attack in the US. Saudi hijackers fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon and the Bush government goes about their business and gives the terrorists all the time they need for a successful 'mission'. Bush and his family have longtime connections to the Saudi Royal AND bin Laden families. Bush redacts 28 pages from an official report related to Saudi financing of terrorism.

Bush and Cheney warn Democratic leaders not to investigate 9-11. Investigation eventually happened but both refuse to testify under oath.

Iraq: the leader installed by the 2000 coup declares permanent war and attacks a country that posed no threat to our country and had nothing to do with 9-11

Tax cuts for the rich during a 'time of war'.

Patriot Act: A law to nullify the Bill of Rights.

Homeland Security: A law to enable war profiteers.

And after all of this and more...a faction rises in the Democratic party to preach moderation, bipartisanship and cooperation with the most corrupt government this nation has ever seen. They support his aggressive wars and many of this other policies that rape and plunder the American people and their natural resources. They do so in the name of the 'third way'...an agreement where both neocons and neodems share the loot from a treasury pilfered for an unnecessary war and tax cuts for those who don't need them.

Haven't you heard? Everything has changed. We have the most secretive government in history....a rubber stamp congress and a missing loyal opposition. And the DLC's advice of moderation is to collaborate with a president that makes Nixon look like a saint? If we still had a free press...they would call both Bush and his enablers traitors to our country and Constitution.

Logic? Continued silence eventually becomes betrayal and those who cooperate with the corrupt Bush government...despite all the evidence that they're liars and criminals...should be thought of as enemies of a free people. The DLC should be treated no better than the Bush government as long as they continue to work with them and make their horrible policies a reality.

[wyldwolf]

168. come now, Q

impeachment of a president for a blow job

A president you detest. He's DLC, ya know! The GOP was doing you a favor!

a transparently, blatantly stolen election in 2000, unprecedented and illegal supreme Court decision.

Stolen from another guy you'd detest if he were president now. He was DLC, too.

And who played a role in that theft? Why, folks like you, Q, who advise people not to vote Dem and vote 3rd party.

[Q]

171. I guess your attempts to stereotype went astray...

...because I defended Cllinton for eight years. That he was DLC had nothing to do with it. What the RWingers did to him was wrong...and illegal. Many Democrats...myself included...didn't even become aware of the DLC until they started trashing Gore.

And you MUST not have read many of my posts...because I've always been an Al Gore fan. When others were attacking him after the 2000 selection...I wanted him to run again in 2004. But Gore's greatest achievement was when he told the DLC to go to hell.

You're getting so caught up in your tirades that you don't seem to know what to say next. I knew that sooner or later the same group of DLC defenders would come out and try to shut down this thread. You and yours were expected.

And now the usual ploy: I must be a crazy leftist. Maybe even a commie or a terrorist. I can't be a 'true' Democrat because I don't like what the DLC means for our party. Predictable. How about doing something unique for the DLC and try to defend their Bush licking positions instead of trashing fellow Democrats?

[wyldwolf]

175. no they didn't

I was dead on.

[Q]

176. Do a search on DU...

...and see if I didn't defend or support both Clinton and Gore. Don't you dare infer that I'm a liar unless you have evidence to support it.

And in fact I defended everything Democratic when I first came to DU three years ago. Although I still vote exclusively Democrat (anyone but DLCers)...I can no longer blindly defend a party controlled by the DLC that cooperates with the most corrupt government in American history.

[wyldwolf]

179. DU wasn't around for you to defend Clinton for 8 years

sorry, jswordy.

[Q]

185. That's not what I meant and you know it...

...stop being obtuse. DU had many discussions about Clinton...even after the 2000 fiasco. But I'm sure you'll find my threads in support of Gore.

Jesus...why in the hell do I have to prove to YOU that I'm a 'real' Democrat or that I defended Clinton or supported Gore? What is it with DLCers that they can't promote their own policies and agenda instead of trying to trash other Democrats who object to those policies?

[wyldwolf]

188. it's what you said, jswordy

I don't think any posts of yours exists defending Clinton on his policies... maybe over the blowjob... but I've yet to see them.

[Q]

190. Why do you keep calling me "jswordy"?

Certainly you're not implying that I'm not the same Q I've been since I joined DU? I've never changed my handle.

Forget it. I don't care what you believe. As a Democrat of 30 years...I'm asking you to defend the DLC's positions instead of these blathering distractions.

[wyldwolf]

191. look at post #127 and the "author"

You were replying to me as jswordy.

[dolstein]

170. I'll make you a deal . . . as soon as you actually know something

about the DLC, I'll begin taking your opinions more seriously, ok?

The fact is that the DLC has been highly critical of the Bush administration on a wide range of issues. If you'd actually bothered to visit their web site and read their publications, rather than rely on second hand rhetoric from like-minded left-wing no-nothings, you'd realize this.

[Q]

174. You obviously take my opinions 'seriously'...

...or you wouldn't have bothered to show up on this thread. Unless of course you only showed up to try to shut down this thread with flames and accusations of not being a 'real' Democrat?

Criticism means nothing without action to back it up. I never said the DLC wasn't critical of SOME of Bush's policies. They DO support many of Bush's most corrupt policies.

And please don't accuse me of not knowing about the DLC. Many of us have been studying the DLC since 2000. We already know that they have connections to the PNAC and that they hate liberals as much as the Neocons.

http://www.ndol.org/

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132

You now have the opportunity to tell all of those visiting this thread why we should want the DLC as part of the Democratic party. Inform us of their policies. Defend their third way. Go for it. We'll promise to pay attention.

[greenohio]

238. No no. We find them amusing.

Theres a difference. But you keep on working to demonize Kerry and other Dems. Many of us predicted this behaviour in the event Kerry lost.

[Redleg]

252. Damn straight.

They want to purge the party.

[slay]

262. You are so right Q

This is the time to make a stand. If the center are unwilling to finally listen to the TRUE left, let them stand with the right where they belong. The left has been so demonized, even members of our own party are afraid of liberal values. What a shame. The center has proven itself ineffective for the last time to me.

[eridani]

256. Um, progressive taxation IS redistribution. Sheesh! n/t

[wyldwolf]

165. dolstein, where the hell have you been?

dolstein had some great posts last year on the DLC being more closely aligned with the pre-McGovern Democratic party than the "leftists" to will admit.

Wish I had them bookmarked.

[no name no slogan]

177. Ah, yes, those damned McGovernites...

You know, the ones who fought for proportional representation within the party, elected party leaders, and inclusion of minorities (and their views and experiences) into the party.

The ones like Rev. Jesse Jackson, who successfully demanded that the multi-ethnic, multi-generational Illinois Freedom Democratic Party delegation be seated over the Richard Daly-dominated 'old boys club' in Miami in 1972. The same Rev Jackson whose voter registration efforts in the 1980s in the south made it possible for DLC poster boy Bill Clinton to win the presidency by a plurality in 1992. Damn, those vile McGovernites!

The Democrats have always had their left wing and their right wing. They've even had a Labor wing. However, the party has NEVER had a 'corporate' wing-- until now, that is.

The only thing 'moderate' about the DLC is that they might toss you a quarter or two while they give away the bank to the corporate masters who pay their bills. The positions of today's DLC are hardly "liberal": many of them are to the right of Richard Nixon in 1972. And they're about as friendly to the working man as those of the Rockefeller Republicans.

I come from a state where the Democrats may not have even existed today, had they not merged with the populist Farmer-Labor Party in the 1940s. This is the same party of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Gene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone-- all good FDR style Democrats. I am the great-grandson of a former Minneapolis DFL city council candidate, who was on a first name basis with Humphrey. I worked on Paul Wellstone's first Senate campaign, even before the first caucuses. I am a proud union member. And I am an unashamedly progressive liberal Democrat, too.

I don't have a gripe about moderates in the party-- in fact I welcome them with open arms, because we share many common ideals. However, I refuse to lie still while this party is co-opted by a bunch of corporate apologists who seem to think this country needs more corporate control, not less.

The DLC is not "moderate", not in the old "pre-McGovern" sense of the word. It is corporatist, through and through, and should be described as such.

If you don't believe me, just ask DLCer Hillary Clinton, whose Arkansas law firm were the legal counsel for Wal-Mart-- one of the most anti-labor, anti-living wage companies there is.

[wyldwolf]

180. but the fact still remains

The DLC more closely resembles the pre-McGovern Democratic party.

[no name no slogan]

184. Yeah, the corpo-friendly, labor-antagonizing DLC

Yup, you're right, the pre-1972 Democrats didn't want a damn thing to do with organized labor. In fact, labor never carried their water, even when it wasn't in their own best interest to do so.

Sorry, that is utter crap. The DLC is antagonistic to labor, at best. JFK, while good for business, would have NEVER supported something as egregiously unfair as NAFTA, or the WTO.

Today's DLC == Rockefeller Republicans, circa 1964. Socially liberal, unapologetically corporatist.

[wyldwolf]

189. call them what you will

... but the fact still remains as I said.

[no name no slogan]

210. No they don't

The DLCers are cultural liberals and economic conservatives-- just like the Rockefeller Republicans.

The pre-McGovern Democrats were cultural moderates (like HHH, pro-civil rights and anti-abortion) and economic liberals.

BTW, if the McGovernites "ruined" the party, why did McGovern himself endorse Wes Clark (DLC poster boy)? And why did Gary Hart, his campaign manager, endorse Kerry?

[eridani]

257. That is an assertion, not an argument

Care to substantiate it?

[Q]

195. Well said...

"This is the same party of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Gene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone-- all good FDR style Democrats. I am the great-grandson of a former Minneapolis DFL city council candidate, who was on a first name basis with Humphrey. I worked on Paul Wellstone's first Senate campaign, even before the first caucuses. I am a proud union member. And I am an unashamedly progressive liberal Democrat, too.

I don't have a gripe about moderates in the party-- in fact I welcome them with open arms, because we share many common ideals. However, I refuse to lie still while this party is co-opted by a bunch of corporate apologists who seem to think this country needs more corporate control, not less."

This is the life and times of a 'true' Democrat. Thank you.

I don't like that it's being intimdated on this thread that not agreeing with the corporate wing of the party somehow makes you a 'fake' Democrat. We're here to fight FOR the Democratic party that presumes to be the party of the people. And indeed we do welcome 'true' moderates...those who don't feel the need to call themselves 'New Democrats' so they won't be associated with the 'old' party of Wellstone and others.

[Q]

169. I would love for you to explain how the DLC better represents...

...'true' progressives and liberal traditions. Great sound bite...but now expound on it.

It seems that all the DLC has left is to try to smear and discredit that which they can't fight with facts and reason.

It's part of the DLC SOP to question the loyality of Democrats and others on the 'left' who expose their complicity with the Bushies. Instead of defending their support of an unnecessary, aggressive war on Iraq...they accuse Democrats against the invasion and occupation of hurting the war on terrorism and imply that they're 'with' the terrorists. It should be obvious that the DLC has adopted the slash and burn tactics of the RWingers.

The DLC is a bullying minority in the Democratic party...much like the Neocons in the GOP. Their attempts to bully and intimidate Dems who don't want the greedy politics of the DLC in their party is a tactic worthy of Rove.

[dolstein]

172. The fact is, if great liberals like Truman, LBJ and JFK

were on the ballot today, the typical DU'er would find many reasons to vote against them. Most DU'ers act as if the Democratic Party was founded by George McGovern in 1972, and that everyone was just fine until the DLC took over the party in 1992. The truth, of course, is that the McGovern campaign represented a sharp break from previous Democratic administrations, particularly on foreign policy but also on cultural issues, and that the Democratic Party had been in decline for at least two full decades before Bill Clinton was elected president.

The DLC is actually interested in rebuilding the Democratic Party as the true majority party that it once was, and its policies are very much informed by Democratic platforms of the pre-McGovern era. The Democratic Party used to be the party of free trade, pro-growth economic policies and a tough internationalist foreign policy. You can disagree with these positions if you want, but you cannot deny their Democratic roots.

[no name no slogan]

181. So that explains our rapid decline since 1992, then?

Let's see, we won the presidency by a plurality in '92, then lost control of the House (which we'd held since 1954) AND the Senate. Then we lost more Democratic state governors (now at the lowest level since 1964), and further lost more seats in state assemblies and in local elections, too.

So tell me, how is it that the Corporatist Wing of the Democratic Party has "helped"?

[wyldwolf]

187. Decline over the last 40 years, more specifically, most without DLC

The last time a Democratic challenger defeated a Republican incumbent in a landslide (i.e., with 55% or more of the popular vote) was 1932.

The last time a Democratic candidate has won in a landslide was 1964.

The last time a Democratic candidate was won an outright majority of the popular vote was 1976.

When a party holds power for too long, says Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he believes, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for, and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

The more common explanation for the 1994 Republican Revolution, though, is that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans. According to Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, the danger for the dominant party isn't ideological bankruptcy but ideological drift. "Certainly you can make the argument that, if a party's far enough away from the mainstream, if they don't lose they don't get enough impetus to correct their behavior," he says. Boston Globe

Democrats lost solid Congressional majorities in the senate in 1980, 1982, and 1984.

So tell me, how is it that the pre-McGovern Wing of the Democratic Party (DLC) has "hurt"?

[no name no slogan]

209. Quoting "The Economist" and Century Foundation just proves my point

You wheel out two right-wing organs to back up your arguments about Democratic 'decline' of the last 40 years? It's in their vested interests to see the Democratic party emasculated by the "new" Democrats. What next, quoting the Wall Street Journal editorial page about the benefits the WTO brings to Chinese slave laborers?

And what is it with the "pre-McGovern Wing" of the party bullshit? Did you agree with the racist segregationists in the south who opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts? Do you believe that party leadership should be selected by an inner circle of unelected, unaccountable fat-cat contributors and twisted old ward-healers (98% rich white males, btw), or by the party members themselves?

I find it hilarious that you keep on yammering about the "pre-McGovern" Democrats, when in fact many of your cherished DLC champions not only got into politics BECAUSE of McGovern, but actually crafted their socio-cultural positions after his legacy!

The "new" Democrats have all but refuted pro-Labor (read: "old Democratic") economics, and have embraced the cultural liberalism of the "McGovernites".

Just look at this year. Who did McGovern support? Wesley Clark (DLC). What about Gary Hart, McGovern's campaign manager? John Kerry (DLC).

The "new" Democrats have much more in common with the McGovernites than they don't.

[wyldwolf]

216. shows you how much you know

Ruy Teixeira, the Center for American Progress, and the Century Foundation:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=2501


The Economist is not quite "rightwing."

So for you to say these sources are rightwing kind of damages your credibility a bit.

Did you agree with the racist segregationists in the south who opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts?

Those were the Dixiecrats. Again, you show just how much you know.

Do you believe that party leadership should be selected by an inner circle of unelected, unaccountable fat-cat contributors and twisted old ward-healers (98% rich white males, btw)

They're not.

I find it hilarious that you keep on yammering about the "pre-McGovern" Democrats, when in fact many of your cherished DLC champions not only got into politics BECAUSE of McGovern, but actually crafted their socio-cultural positions after his legacy!

And many did not. Kerry, for example, modled his politics after JFK.
But that is beside the point. I've said that the policies of the DLC more closely resemble that of the pre-McGovern Democrats.

The "new" Democrats have all but refuted pro-Labor (read: "old Democratic") economics, and have embraced the cultural liberalism of the "McGovernites".

George McGovern was a bit anti-labor and the democratic party has alway been socially liberal.


Just look at this year. Who did McGovern support? Wesley Clark(DLC). What about Gary Hart, McGovern's campaign manager? John Kerry (DLC).

Wesley Clark isn't DLC. Gary Hart isn't DLC.

[no name no slogan]

243. Clark not DLC? Okay, then I guess I'm Jesse Jackson

Wes Clark was the Clintons' stalking horse in the primary race. His late entry was designed to draw attention from Dean (who was ex-DLC, but had fallen out of their graces). The fact that Wes Clark completely ignored Iowa is proof enough, IMHO, to prove that he was little more than a flak for Dean.

Do you believe that party leadership should be selected by an inner circle of unelected, unaccountable fat-cat contributors and twisted old ward-healers (98% rich white males, btw)

They're not.

The hell they're not. How do you think the reps to the DNC are chosen? I KNOW, for a fact, that in most states DNC reps are NOT chosen by the membership of the party, but by the party leadership-- and are more often than not large contributors to the candidates. Thankfully, my own state of MN actually ELECTS our own DNC delegates at our state convention-- which is a culmination of six months of precinct caucuses and conventions-- about as democratic as you can get.

The Economist is not quite "rightwing."
It sure isn't if you believe the corporatization of America is a good thing. The Economist is little more than the mouthpiece of global capital. If I want to know what the power elite thinks, I pick it up. Best to know thine enemy than be blindsided by a smooth-talking pol from Arkansas, IMHO.

George McGovern was a bit anti-labor and the democratic party has alway been socially liberal.

Oh, well, I guess that explains why in 1972 the Humphrey/Muskie axis printed up buttons that said "Acid - Abortion - Amnesty -- Vote McGovern"?

If Humphrey ran for president in today's post-Roe v. Wade world, he'd be considered "Pro-Life". Hell, even McGovern was opposed to "abortion on demand" in 1972-- as he stated during the campaign

The party has been more culturally liberal than the Repubs (at least since FDR), but they have NEVER been as culturally liberal as they are now. It's a well-documented fact that Wall Street is culturally more liberal than Main Street. And now that Wall Street has taken over the leadership of this party, it's given middle America one less reason to vote Democratic.

Furthermore, I never said Hart was DLC. I said that all those "McGovern Democrats" you disparage are the same ones that you folk refer to as "new Democrats" today.

RFK was the first "new Democrat". He suggested that the party engage in corporate/governmental partnerships to fight poverty. Unfortunately, his "new Democrat" descendents have taken that to mean that we should abandon public solutions and depend on the largesse of the corpocracy to solve our problems.

Quite frankly I find it hard to believe that an organization founded by a man whose wife's law firm represented Wal-Mart really has the best interests of working people in mind. The fact that they share contributors with the GOP and organizations like PNAC is merely icing on the cake.

The DLC and its apologists have done more to promote a single-party state than anyone in the last 100 years. Their "third way" is little more than a tarted-up bypass to the Republican Road to Ruin.

[wyldwolf]

261. conspiracy theories abound

Wes Clark was the Clintons' stalking horse in the primary race. His late entry was designed to draw attention from Dean (who was ex-DLC, but had fallen out of their graces). The fact that Wes Clark completely ignored Iowa is proof enough, IMHO, to prove that he was little more than a flak for Dean.

No proof. No sources. Wishful thinking to excuse a Dean loss.

How do you think the reps to the DNC are chosen? I KNOW, for a fact, that in most states DNC reps are NOT chosen by the membership of the party, but by the party leadership-- and are more often than not large contributors to the candidates. Thankfully, my own state of MN actually ELECTS our own DNC delegates at our state convention-- which is a culmination of six months of precinct caucuses and conventions-- about as democratic as you can get.

The "reps" to the DNC? Do you mean elected representatives or delegates? In my state, (GA) the DLC had ZERO to do with "picking" anyone and I defy you to prove any they do in any state. And regardless of HOW delegates are chosen, how can you pin the process on the DLC? It's been going on for years.

Furthermore, I never said Hart was DLC.

Oh, so when you said, quote: "Just look at this year. Who did McGovern support? Wesley Clark (DLC). What about Gary Hart, McGovern's campaign manager?" You were just asking me if Hart was DLC? Right.

It (The Economist) sure isn't (Rightwing) if you believe the corporatization of America is a good thing. The Economist is little more than the mouthpiece of global capital. If I want to know what the power elite thinks, I pick it up. Best to know thine enemy than be blindsided by a smooth-talking pol from Arkansas, IMHO.

Ah. Anything dealing with money and economics is rightwing. I get it. You're just trying to spin out of your obvious mistatements. And speaking of rightwing - are you diverting the point to Clinton?

And what about the other VERY Democratic source I used that you called "rightwing?"

Honestly, when are you going to present some documentation to compliment your editorial?

[eg101]

222. DLC is just the latest stalking horse/handpuppet of corporatism&investors

and now that the DLC has been exposed online, the NDN & NDOL is being prepped by the establishment media as the next stalking horse.

I really think ALL past presidents and prominent politicians were crap: LBJ, FDR, whatever. Just because they were better than the GOP don't mean anything to me. There was no Golden Age of the Democratic party.

We Americans (we progressive Americans, that is) should see our country and our govt as akin to a business where WE are the owners-shareholders, and where politicians are our hired men. We should take a page from the business school dogma and expect a continual improvement in the dividend returned to us, the citizen-shareholders, in the form of higher wages, universal healthcare, an ever-stronger social welfare state, etc.

So, your ersatz nostalgia and your continual attempted manipulations and hearkening back to the "golden days" of the "great" Democratic leaders, I find laughable. I see them as thieves and colluders.

[Q]

186. More...

...DLC diatribe? Why not explain your position of support for the Iraq war and the 'war on terror' that isn't?

Let's talk policy...and just how the DLC plans to make the party a 'true majority' again by waging aggressive wars, shitting on workers and unions and selling the party out to corporate interests? And while you're at it...tell us why the DLC is trying to drive liberals and 'true' progressives out of the party?

They may be 'interested' in a lot of things...but all we've seen since they assumed control is the worst record of setbacks and losses our party has ever seen. You call this success?

[dolstein]

202. Please cite a single article on the DLC web site

Where the DLC proposes "shitting on wokers and unions and selling the party out to corporate interests."

[messiah]

173. So why do you support Dean then?

People gave him lots of cash he still kept his extremely dlc like/republican lite stances, what's the deal there?, fake angry rhetoric?, passion without action?.

[Q]

182. I didn't support Dean...

...or any other candidate. My choice for 2004 was Gore. In fact...that's when I recognized the true face of the DLC...when they and their Lieberman stooge trashed the one person who could have won last November.

I do appreciate what Dean has to say about what the Democratic party needs to accomplish...but I haven't thrown my support behind him yet in any way. I have defended him against the DLC tirades...but it's clear that the DLC doesn't support him in any way. So I doubt that you could call his postitions 'DLC lite'.

[Radical Activist]

194. Then why would you support DFA?

Which supports moderates including people like Salazar who joined the DLC. Will you hold DFA to the same standard?
This is why I don't join the group even though it markets itself to progressives.

[janx]

199. Supporting DFA does not require supporting Dean; he's not

running for anything now anyway (except for DNC chair which he probably won't get).

[Radical Activist]

201. I didn't take issue with their support of Dean

I took issue with their support of moderate DLC style candidates in general.

[messiah]

196. Ok Q

I agree with you a lot but except that I think Dean is dlc like. The only thing he differs from them on are donations and rhetoric and even then Dean is still economically-neolibertarian aka dlc "like".

[Q]

198. I've defended Dean...as I have defended other Democrats...

...who have been unfairly criticized for their opposition to policies that bring us closer to the right on too many issues. Like I wrote before...I have been a Gore supporter since before the 2000 election and I still believe he got a raw deal from the party bosses.

I didn't even notice Dean until other Democrats started attacking him and helped the corporate press smear his character. I became even more pissed off as the DLC started arbitrarily attacking liberals like Moore...practically saying that he was a traitor for exposing the corrupt Bush government.

[Q]

203. "The DLC'S National White Man's Conversation"

The Black Commentator
Issue Number 51
July 31, 2003

http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc.html

The DLC'S National White Man's Conversation

The right wing of the Democratic Party is once again threatening to secede. Our fervent wish is that nobody tries to stop them. Historically speaking, Charleston, South Carolina would have been a better locale for the Democratic Leadership Council’s secessionist-minded “National Conversation,” this week. Instead, the party’s corporate extortionists chose Philadelphia to make a stand for the American White Man, whose every idiocy must be accommodated lest the party fall into the hands of…you know who: them!

White men are terrified of them – which explains why the poor fellows get all confused and vote against their own interests every time it is imagined that they – “special interests,” Blacks, unions, and the dangerous people who call for health care, jobs, peace and justice – are about to intrude on the “national conversation.”  White men are insecure, especially the young ones. “"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Mark Penn, the snake oil pollster for the world’s most boringly repellant white man, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the DLC’s standard bearer in the Democratic primaries.

Fearful white men and confused white women, says the DLC, must be retained at all costs within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Just in case these “swing voters” are not fearful enough, DLC chairman Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) warned: “The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left.'' Since this is clearly an outcome unacceptable to the DLC and its corporate funders, it must be assumed that the DLC is preparing to bolt from the Party if rich white men don’t get their way.

We have seen and heard it all before, starting with the slaveholder Democrats’ secession from the Union in Charleston, December 20, 1860; to Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat desertion from the national party in 1948; to the wholesale southern white defection to the GOP that began with the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and continues without letup to this day. At each of these historical junctures, the "progressives" of the time were urged to appease the ranting, rich white men of the Party and the stupid, racist poor white men and women who follow them. Lincoln tried, but (fortunately) the slaveholders insisted on war. In the following century, national Democrats resisted a civil rights platform as long as they could, but it took one speech from Hubert Humphrey to cause the Dixiecrats to bolt in 1948, anyway. Substantive civil rights legislation drove southern whites decisively to the GOP after 1964, firmly establishing the Republicans as the White Man’s Party of the South.

As Associate Editor Bruce Dixon recounted in a June 12 commentary (“Muzzling The African American Agenda – with Black help”), a “rump faction” of white Democrats founded the DLC in the mid-Eighties as a reaction to “the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson, in which the black candidate received a percentage of the vote considerably higher than the proportion of black votes in several states, and sparked a significant expansion of the party's base constituencies among minorities, labor, and even some white rural voters. The Democratic Party was actually growing - but in the wrong direction to suit the ‘rump faction’ centered in the white South.” The corporate-bankrolled DLC gained national power with the election of Bill Clinton, and now threatens to desert the party if it cannot control the campaign of 2004. That’s what the “national conversation” in Philadelphia was all about – what the despicable Evan Bayh (whose late Senator father, Birch Bayh, was a leading party liberal) means when he raises the specter of a takeover from the “far left.”  The DLC is panicked over the candidacy of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the top fundraiser in the primary race. But the forces they fear in the party are minorities, organized labor, women’s organizations, environmentalists and the peace movement.

Continues: http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc.html

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

The DLC can't seem to fool all the people all of the time. I agree with the Black Commentator's view of the DLC.

[Q]

213. The real origin of the DLC?

"As Associate Editor Bruce Dixon recounted in a June 12 commentary (“Muzzling The African American Agenda – with Black help”), a “rump faction” of white Democrats founded the DLC in the mid-Eighties as a reaction to “the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson, in which the black candidate received a percentage of the vote considerably higher than the proportion of black votes in several states, and sparked a significant expansion of the party's base constituencies among minorities, labor, and even some white rural voters. The Democratic Party was actually growing - but in the wrong direction to suit the ‘rump faction’ centered in the white South.” The corporate-bankrolled DLC gained national power with the election of Bill Clinton, and now threatens to desert the party if it cannot control the campaign of 2004. That’s what the “national conversation” in Philadelphia was all about – what the despicable Evan Bayh (whose late Senator father, Birch Bayh, was a leading party liberal) means when he raises the specter of a takeover from the “far left.”  The DLC is panicked over the candidacy of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the top fundraiser in the primary race. But the forces they fear in the party are minorities, organized labor, women’s organizations, environmentalists and the peace movement."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc.html

[wyldwolf]

226. The Black Commentator called Howard Dean a barbarian

...and the formation of the DLC had ZERO to do with Jesse Jackson. Find me a source for that beyond the strawman-filled Black Commentator editorial.

The Democratic Party was actually growing

At the time the DLC was formed? Ridiculous!

The last time a Democratic challenger defeated a Republican incumbent in a landslide (i.e., with 55% or more of the popular vote) was 1932.

The last time a Democratic candidate has won in a landslide was 1964.

The last time a Democratic candidate was won an outright majority of the popular vote was 1976.

When a party holds power for too long, says Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he believes, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for, and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

The more common explanation for the 1994 Republican Revolution, though, is that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans. According to Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, the danger for the dominant party isn't ideological bankruptcy but ideological drift. "Certainly you can make the argument that, if a party's far enough away from the mainstream, if they don't lose they don't get enough impetus to correct their behavior," he says. Boston Globe

Democrats lost solid Congressional majorities in the senate in 1980, 1982, and 1984.

Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were thrashed in their campaigns.

And the Dem party was growing in 1985 when the DLC was formed?

Black Commentator is nothing but a digital rag.

[ChiciB1]

208. Being True To My Statement

Don't Vote for Bill Nelson in Florida! I sure hope Florida can FIND a DECENT Democrat to run for Senate when he comes up for re-election. Once thought he was pretty good, but he must have turkey feathers up his ASS! Wish I had a bow and arrow and he was ass-up in the weeds. Sure shot!

I will actively work AGAINST his re-election!!! I told him too!

[Seabiscuit]

211. Count me in. I'll continue to vote for Boxer and against Feinstein.

[greenohio]

242. Do you vote for the repuke against Feinstein?

[Seabiscuit]

251. No. I vote for any Dem who opposes her. And if she wins I don't vote for

her or for any Republican running against her either.

[Q]

212. Allow me to set the record straight...

...I'm not advocating voting against Democrats. I'm advocating voting against DLC Democrats. I'll encourage everyone to vote Democratic in every election...but vote for those who most closely reflect the values of the party pre-DLC.

[Cervello]

217. What's Wrong With DLC-Dems?

I've been a Democrat all my life. Are you trying to tell me I'm not a real Democrat. Or Bill Clinton isn't a real Democrat? Or any moderate for that matter. Where would our party be without Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, and many others?

[Q]

218. Please read the entire thread...

...and you'll find that it's the DLCers who question whether other Dems are 'real' if they don't support the policies of the DLC.

It's not for me to say if Hillary, Kerry and Lieberman are 'real' Democrats. I will say that they in no way represent the 'progressive' wing of the party: the Democrats who refuse to sell out to corporations...that still support worker's, women's and civil rights.

It's strange that you put Gore's name with the others. Gore was exiled with the help of the Clinton's and DLCers like Lieberman. Gore rejected the DLC and became a populist in the end. That made him an enemy of the DLC.

[Cervello]

219. OK, I'll Read It

I still believe that we can have both a progressive wing and a moderate wing in the Democratic party. Look at the Republicans today. They have pratically eliminated any moderate or liberal voices in the party. It is all the religious right-wing. I don't want to see us abandon a whole part of our base like that.

[no name no slogan]

244. A moderate wing, yes. A corporate wing, NO.

The Democrats have always been the champions of labor and working people-- going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. We already have one corporate party in the US: the Republicans. We do not need a second one.

Right now, the Repubs are a coalition of corporatists and religious wackos. The corporatists control the pursestrings and the leadership, while the religious wackos do their dirty work.

The corporatists have mastered the art of promising sweeping changes to the wackos, while delivering just enough to lead them on-- AND keep them in the tent.

Interestingly enough, most of these wackos have more in common with the Democrats (as far as economic interests) as they do with the corporatists. Most of them would be "Williams Jennings Bryant Democrats": very religious, yet also very adamant about economic justice and busting up corporate monopolies.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have abandoned economic populism in order to tap into the vast sums of cash the corporatists have on hand. We've basically sold the party, AND its loyal working-class constituency, for more gelt from the coffers of corporate PACs.

The Democratic party needs moderates, and we've always had our share-- many of whom have been visionary. However, we do NOT need a wing that believes that corporations and profits count more than working people.

[wyldwolf]

221. funny

you'll find that it's the DLCers who question whether other Dems are 'real' if they don't support the policies of the DLC.

Specifically where in this thread is that?

[Q]

223. Find them yourself...

...it won't be difficult...since it was one of the few DLC defenders on this thread. Run your own errands.

Want to talk about the post above with the article about the DLC by the Black Commentator? Have anything to say about their views and what they feel in the real origin of the DLC?

Or will you continue to avoid discussing the policies of the DLC? Why simply defend them in general when you could be promoting their agenda?

[wyldwolf]

225. ah, I see

You make the charge, but you can't provide the proof. A request for proof amounts to an errand for you.

Then, you want to divert to something else.

Typical.

So, what policies of the DLC are you wanting to discuss? Do you want to discuss how moral or ethical they are? A very subjective area. Do you still hold to the belief that their policies are different from traditional policies of the Dem party? If so, you may find yourself condemning Dem heroes (if you're honest.)

[Q]

227. Look...let's be honest with each other...

...you don't post on my threads to debate or discuss the issues presented. You post on them to keep other posters distracted from the premise and chill the discussion. Your petty posts challenging me on things irrelevant to the topic at hand demonstrate your desire to avoid debating anything in detail about the DLC's policies and agenda.

It's clear that you and a few others don't like anti-DLC threads...but the least you could do when you post to them is to bring a cogent argument about why Democrats SHOULD support the DLC and not be concerned about their intentions. But the DLC's slash and burn politics and your hit and run posts only further throw doubt on their true intentions.

If you want to sincerely discuss the DLC...you could start by reading the article a few posts above by the Black Commentator and give your opinion and point of view.

Convince us that we're wrong about the DLC. Can you do it?

[wyldwolf]

228. sure

you don't post on my threads to debate or discuss the issues presented.

The issue presented in your thread: Liberals/ Progressives stay true: don't vote for DLC-approved candidates.

I believe I discussed it fully.

What you do is continually post the same crap, worded a little different each time, but still the same. The purpose of which is to repeat the same lies and exaggerations over and over hoping that if people read it enough, they'll be convinced.

Further, you never provide solid sources for your charges.

I've dismantled the blurb from the Black Commentator article in a previous post. Now, I'll ask again, "what policies of the DLC are you wanting to discuss? Do you want to discuss how moral or ethical they are? A very subjective area. Do you still hold to the belief that their policies are different from traditional policies of the Dem party?"

And just so the discussion is only open to us, PM me and we'll arrange a private forum, ground rules, and time to do it. We'll also clarify where we both stand. For example, I see you as condemning the DLC for things the entire party does and policies the party has traditionally held.

Game?

[Q]

229. You've dismantled nothing...

...except to express more generalities about the DLC.

Morals and ethics are 'subjective'? Is that also the postion of the DLC or is that your own? I bet the families of the soldiers dying in Iraq or the Iraqis themselves don't believe that morality and ethics are subjective.

I would ask you to defend the DLC's support of Bush's illegal war and the unnecessary, immoral slaughter of thousands of Iraqis...but that would be too subjective.

I prefer to debate in the public forum.

[wyldwolf]

230. Q, be reasonable.

The Black Commentator editorial made a charge involving Jesse Jackson that has no proof and runs contrary to every other story on the DLC - pro and anti. And you haven't provided additional sources for it.

Further, they claimed that the party was growing at the time the DLC was formed when actually the party had been declining and had suffered their most devestating losses in history.

Plus, they've called Dean a barbarian.

They have zero credibility.

Look. You can save the transcript from a private debate and spread it around. I'd rather have you in a private real-time chat environment where others can't interrupt and you can show just how much you really know.

But if you're not up for it, I guess we'll just continue these little free for alls. If you are, PM me.

[Q]

231. That is but one article of dozens about the DLC...

...by the Black Commentator and other 'online rags'. Aren't you concerned that so MANY Democrats don't like or trust the DLC? Do you think they're all delusional?

And whether they called Dean a 'barbarian' is irrelevant to this discussion. I would submit that it's the opinion of one writer.

They have 'credibility' with many Blacks. That's good enough for me because Black Americans are the foundation of our party. It's telling that many Blacks think the DLC has racist roots and exist only to promote and enrich the wealthy white.

The very reason for public debate is for 'others to interrupt' and interject their opinions. That's what I love about DU.

[wyldwolf]

232. find me another one that makes the same claim about Jackson

I would submit that the entire editorial is the opinion of the writer - with a dash of fantasy land.

The very reason for public debate is for 'others to interrupt' and interject their opinions. That's what I love about DU.

But I proposed a private debate - between you and me. The transcripts of which you can save.

In Bush and Kerry's public debates, did anyone other than the mods interrupt? Or do you need others to feed you information that you just don't quite have yourself?

[Q]

267. Jackson was a sidenote for one writer...

...and I happen to disagree that the DLC was formed for that one purpose. But it WAS formed as an anti-worker, pro-corporate wing of the party to neutralize the 'New Deal' and any influence liberals still had in leadership roles.

I don't want a 'private debate' with you. I want all of DU watch as you try to defend the indefensible.

[wyldwolf]

271. If it is something you disagree with, why put so much stock in it?

I don't want a 'private debate' with you. I want all of DU watch as you try to defend the indefensible.

You can post the whole debate after we're through - then DU can read how I "tried to defend the indefensible."

We can even make your last statement the basis of the first debate:

Proposed by Q: The DLC was formed as an anti-worker, pro-corporate wing of the party to neutralize the 'New Deal' and any influence liberals still had in leadership roles.

But if you're running from a clear, fair real-time debate, free from outside interference, void of hours/days/weeks of lag time between forum replies, I don't see that we'll ever "debate" it.

[greenohio]

245. Mostly, a magazine, a few blogs and Howard Dean hate them.

Why? Because they have a lot of influence and we lost. If we had won, there would be less of this "vote against Democrats" garbage. Dean's supporters believe there was a conspiracy to fix the IA caucuses to keep Dean, then the front runner, from winning the nomination.

The fact of the matter is the DLC strategy resulted in the only two pres wins we've had since the 70's. And by wins, I mean, our guy ended up being pres. Of course they discount those wins as exceptions, or discount the DLC's role in them. But Clinton himself credits his success to the DLC model. He and many believe it is a model than can work again.

In short I strongly encourage you to question anyone telling you vote against Democrats, any Democrat, on DU.

[wyldwolf]

272. and if I might add

The DLC is not only responsible for the only two pres wins we've had since the 70s, there is reason to believe (as you know) that the DLC won with their candidate in 2000 and 2004.

[greenohio]

274. Tis true. Tis true.

[AntiCoup2K4]

246. Where would our party be without the DLC?

In the majority :grr:

[greenohio]

250. Without a pres since the 1970's.

Remove all of the DLC congressional candidates, and trust me, we won't be in the majority.

:eyes:

[Cervello]

255. I Disagree

Our last two presidents were all in the DLC-mold. Without the DLC, our party would be even more in the minority. A split between progressives and moderates would enable the Republican party to win every election.

[Q]

266. There is already a 'split' between the progressives and 'moderates'...

..and that's what this thread is all about. Progressives finally said 'enough' when the DLCers began to publicly attack liberals and progressives after the 2000 election. It's the DLC that has taken control of the party and is trying to drive progressives out.

Please take note that it wasn't the progressives that started calling themselves 'New Democrats' and put together think tanks to work outside of the traditional Democratic agenda and platform. The split came when the DLC third wayers decided to take the party in a rightward direction WITHOUT a mandate or consensus. At the same time they literally told progressives that they had to either jump on the bandwagon or be left behind.

There could be another reason why the Democratic party is in the saddest shape in decades. It could be that the DLC is attempting to lead the rank and file where they don't want to go.

[greenohio]

240. "I'm advocating voting against DLC Democrats."

So why did you vote for Kerry? I thought you were dogmatic? Is this a new dogma? How long will this one last?

[Q]

269. I voted Anyone But Bush for the good of the nation...

...not because Kerry was the one I thought should represent the Dem party.

What is it with some of you? Don't you WANT good government and honest representatives? Acting like the Bush enabling doesn't exist or that there's nothing we can do about a corrupt government is the defeatist attitude.

[greenohio]

276. In violation of your dogma? If you don't vote against them, how can we?

Maybe you don't really believe it and you are blowing off steam.

Of course I want good government and honest representatives. I believe that Kerry and Co would have given us that as best they could.

You Deanie Babies have this huge blind spot called Howard Dean. The one tearing the party apart by encouraging his groupies to attack all members of the DLC.

Dean, the gun toting, pro-life embracing, NAFTA supporting, self described fiscal CONSERVATIVE, is your example of an "HONEST" representative, while John Kerry is not? Hypocrite. Why don't you hold Deans feet to the fire? Oh yeah thats right, he's GOD.

[greenohio]

241. So in the last election who should we have voted for?

Tell me. I want to hear this.

[Placebo]

247. Whatever, take your negativity somewhere else.

Some of us aren't going to just give up and take the easy way out. And blaming the DLC and your so-called "Republican lite" candidates is just that: the easy way out.

[Q]

265. I certainly won't take my message 'elsewhere'...

...and it's rude of you to even make such a request. That's the nice thing about the first amendment AND having a board like DU.

And as you can probably see...blaming the DLC and Lite candidates is NOT the 'easy way out'. If I went along with the status quo I wouldn't have you and a dozen others attacking me.

The easy way out is going along to get along. But the danger in that approach is that we become part of the problem when we betray America by helping the Bushies perpetuate their lies and deceptions.

Take the Gonzales hearings and the certification of Ohio votes for examples. Rather than standing on solid principles and simply not voting for Gonzales and go on the record as opposing this crazy man...Democrats will slap him on the wrist and then vote for him anyway. This is theater...not good government. A few brave Democrats stood with the Congressional Black Caucus and went on the record as opposing the coverup of widespread election fraud in America. But that was the end of it as most Democrats voted with the Bushie Republicans to put an end to any debate about the issue. It's clear that the majority of Democrats once again took the 'easy way out' and voted with the Bushies. Does that act of taking the easy way out bother you?

[greenohio]

278. Please stay here. Keep posting to vote repuke.

You show how piranah like the anti-DLC crowd is. Just keep posting to vote repuke. Keep posting how "brave" it is to vote repuke. Other Dems will catch on to what your up to.

[Q]

279. That's an awful habit you have of...

...trying to frame my positions for me and others. You do this even though you KNOW that few if any on this thread are advocating voting for Republicans. It doesn't mean squat that you think voting for anyone but the Chosen DLC candidate is voting Republican. But there are many other alternatives if Democrats took the time to study all the candidates instead of just those pushed at them by the party machine.

And I think it's just the reverse: other Dems seem to be catching on to the DLC and are beginnning to realize that the DLCers are the 'repukes' in Democratic clothing.

[greenohio]

281. "Why vote Republican-lite when you can vote Republican? "

DLC Democrats are often refered to as Republican lite. What did you mean by this? You then go on to say that people should vote AGAINST certain DLC Democrats. What are people supposed to read by your "vote against Democrats" dogma...which, apparently, you don't even follow.

[Hippo_Tron]

249. At this rate I can look forward to Rick Santorum's inauguration in 4 years

I'm sorry but as a progressive, I'm far more concerned about fighting the criminals who run my government than fighting the DLC.

[Guaranteed]

258. Yes, but are the DLC interested in fighting the criminals who

run your government?

THAT is the question.

[Hippo_Tron]

270. Why do I give a shit? I'm not a DLC member

In the 2008 primary, I'm going to support the person who I feel that will best stand up to the Bush administration, which will PROBABLY not be a member of the DLC. In 2008, I'm also going to vote for my senator Mary Landrieu who is a member of the DLC. She's far from perfect but the alternative is somebody who is a Republican who is behind the GOP agenda 100%. She also caucuses with the democrats and fillibusters judges, that's a big deal.

[greenohio]

275. Exactly. We don't need to be supporting repukes...

regardless of what the blogs tell us.

[Q]

264. But as a Progressive...

...you should be just as interested in fighting those in the Dem party that were complicit in enabling this criminal government. This isn't about a Dem supporting a moderate policy here and there on minor issues after a debate. I'm talking about Democrats who KNEW that the Bush government was acting with criminal intent and supported them ANYWAY with their votes or by simply turning a blind eye.

Don't look now...but some of the 'crooked ones' running your government are Democrats. They may not be in the majority...but they're there right along with the Bushies...making sure the Neocon/religious Right's agenda makes it through and becomes law. As I've stated before: Dems may not be bank robbers...but they've become the drivers of the Bush getaway car.

At some point we have to accept responsibility for our own parties. We must recognize that sometimes we're part of the problem before we can take corrective measures and turn things around.

2000 & 2004 election fraud. 9-11. Homeland Security. Patriot Acts. Destruction of our environment. Cutbacks or elimination of social programs. Direct funding of the Church. Weakening of women's and worker's rights. Privatization of public education and government services. Tax cuts for the rich. Iraq invasion, occupation and slaughter.

Democrats didn't cause these things to happen...but some Democrats have at times been complicit after the fact. They've commended Bush for being a great leader after 9-11...even though he sat on his ass with children while America was attacked. They've voted for his outrageous legislation and were silent as he used executive orders to deregulate industries and take away rights of the people.

It's as though some Democrats are just as clueless as Bush. Why else would they support him and pretend that some of the things he does MUST be done for the good of the nation? You would be hard pressed to find a Democrat in DC that would go on record as opposing the Iraq fiasco. They WILL however have harsh words for those who oppose it and continue to cling to the illusion that we're fighting the war on terror there.

Want a good, Constitutional government? Then we'll have to make all politicians (aka: public servants) equally accountable. That has to mean more than just attacking Bush and his cronies. The only reason he can do such awful things and get away with it is because there's no loyal opposition in America. He must be opposed...not just by the people...but by their representatives.

[Hippo_Tron]

273. Not voting for DLCers in statewide races isn't going to solve this

I agree, we shouldn't support those who support the Bush administration on many occasions during the presidential primaries. Our presidential nominee should have a clear message and clearly distance him/herself from the other side. However, when we get down to US Senate races, especially in red states, it's a different ball game.

Example, I don't particularly care for Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson (of Nebraska). Frankly I find it disgusting, as I'm sure you do, that their criticism of the Bush administration is weaker than the Republican senators from those two states. Nonetheless, their caucus votes are important. As I mentioned above, the ranking member on the judiciary committee, for example, is not a DLCer, it's Pat Leahy a very liberal senator. Bayh and Nelson would (if we had a senate majority) would enable Pat Leahy to be head of the senate judiciary committee over Arlen Specter. This is a HUGE deal because this powerful committe lets judicial confirmations on to the floor and performs many oversight and investigative functions.

If we want things like voting reform, we need to keep people like Bayh and Nelson in the senate so that real progressives can control the agenda instead of greedy religious nutcase Republicans.

[Zhade]

253. Good plan. I'm in. FUCK THE DLC.

Their time is over.

[Grip]

277. Dean and Nader

Dean and Nader were the only guys with any real ideas/ideals.

All of the rest were beholden to the Power Elite.

The DLC is run by power brokers and 'limousine liberals.' None of these people think highly of workin' people (like me).

[Radical Activist]

280. Even the ones supported by DFA?

Is this why this thread was kicked? I guess they don't share your views.

[Q]

282. If you want a serious answer...

...then I would have to say yes....don't vote for any DLCer on any level of govenment. The reason I say this is because it just gives the DLC organization more power and a broader base.

They may or may not share my views. That's up to every individual and their conscience. But I think most Democrats do share my views on the DLC in general and that they don't want a political organization (not a party organization) that's running away from their base into the arms of the corporate lobbyists.