School me please, what's wrong with the DLC?

[justiceischeap]

I hear many people rant against the DLC. Why?

[Q]

1. Instead of asking what's wrong with the DLC...

...go here: http://www.ndol.org/

And do your own research. Come back and we'll discuss what you think.

[justiceischeap]

2. Read their Mission Statement

That's why I asked here. Obviously there is more to the picture than they are showing. No need to discuss here, found info at Common Dreams.

[Q]

11. But you haven't given us your own opinion...

...on the DLC. If you simply ask 'what's wrong' without offering an opinion...it's the beginning of nothing more than flame bait.

If you're read about them...why not offer your opinion?

[greenohio]

13. Asking about a Dem org is "flame bait"? Twisted. Just twisted.

[Q]

23. No...asking why something is 'wrong'...

...without even offering an opinion is flame bait. I simply asked the thread author to give their own opinion as a frame of reference.

Aren't you usually on the side of those flaming anyone who starts anti-DLC threads?

[greenohio]

34. Apparently they wanted to learn more in order ot make an opinion.

Though I know some don't need to know anything to have theirs.

[mattclearing]

25. It can end up that way. One should present an opinion if they want

to have a discussion.

[greenohio]

35. You have to have an opion in order to ask a question?

You can't have a discussion without an opinon?

Whatever.

[justiceischeap]

85. When I started this thread this morning

I had seen a lot of DLC backlash. I didn't even know what the DLC was. I kinda covered that I read their mission statement and said it was obvious there was more to it. I was just wondering why folks here didn't like them. I can't give an opinion on other folks opinion really. I guess I currently have no opinion of the DLC, so I can't give one. This was just an exercise in trying to gain more information so maybe I could form an opinion.

[patricia92243]

6. They are not leading, Just reacting to Republican hype - and not very

good reacting at that.

[Deja Q]

12. Republicans have said some of the same things. Let's look at the ISSUES:

The politicians and their histories.

Kerry may have had problems, but * is far worse. And it's ironic that * proved Kerry correct as a flip-flopper; Kerry's quick concession after a few months of "never surrender" rather proves *'s point.

The DLC has said they don't want Moore speaking for them. Gee, where's Bush and the repukes saying that they don't want Jerry Falwell (for example) speaking for them? If you ask me, they clearly don't want people voting for them. And they know there is no viable 3rd party. So by scaring off the Lefties, they only make a (by warped perception only) larger victory for the Republicans.

Sorry, but if you wanted that chap to do a FAIR research, you'd have given him more than the DLC's main site. :eyes:

[greenohio]

51. Moore says the Dems actually lost. Does he speak for you?

Make up your mind here. You complain about Kerry dropping due to lack of evidence. Then you defend Moore who said the same thing. The only "lefty scaring" going on is the "I want purity or I'm leaving" crowd.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. here are some links

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-33,RNWE:en&q=DLC+

I don't think we need another flame bait thread on the DLC.

[justiceischeap]

5. Wasn't trying to create a "flame bait" thread... Sorry (EOM)

[greenohio]

43. Don't be sorry. If you don't hate the DLC, and you ask a question...

the Dem haters here call it flame bait.

[mtnsnake]

52. greenohio, thanks for being level headed and open minded

in support of the poster who appears to have started this thread with honest intentions. Myself, I'm glad he or she asked the question.

I can never understand it when someone comes on with what appears to be an honest question, and he/she gets ostracized for it or accused of throwing out flame bait. Often times, some of us might not know enough about a certain subject, where we can even offer our own opinion. Thanks again!

[greenohio]

56. Nice of you to say.

Thank you.

[latteromden]

4. For me, it's the leadership. For others, it's the very fact that they're a

centrist orginization. I like the centrists; I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but all ideologies (well, barring this new brand of neo-fascism we're seeing in the Republicans) are welcome in the Democratic Party - but the New Democrat Network (headed by Simon Rosenberg, yeah, the one running for DNC chair) is a much more viable option for moderates.

Why? The NDN actually has a plan, a strategy, most significantly, reaching out to Hispanics. The DLC? They've got nothing. It's like the leadership wants the Democrats to lose. They insist on eliminating our strongest voices (not everyone likes Michael Moore - I, myself, am not a huge fan - but he at least speaks the truth) and keeping the Democrats tied up with the same string of corporations that the Republicans are tangled up in. And both the non-DLC party members and the voters get screwed.

[DaedelusNemo]

100. all ideologies but authoritarianism

"all ideologies (well, barring this new brand of neo-fascism we're seeing in the Republicans) are welcome in the Democratic Party"

While i'm in this thread i'll register my concern with the DLC is in the question of the relative priorities of corporations and people.

[dpbrown]

7. The DLC is a special interest group that caters to corporate interests

That doesn't mean they're wrong, it means that Democrats who believe that the Party needs a countervailing focus on keeping the relationship of corporations to society healthy rather than just happy need to build their own special interest group with as much influence or more than that of the DLC.

The justification of corporate influence in the political process is built on "judge-made law" - an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, a case that mentioned something in a footnote unrelated to the holding. That was all corporations needed to get their so-called foot in the door.

(For an history and explanation of how corporations falsely got the rights of "citizens" and how the Revolutionary War was fought against this concept, go here.

So, since the DLC's false believe in the sanctity of the dominance of corporations over public life is grounded in an unconstitutional interpretation of the law, then a need presents itself for Democrats who believe in restoring a healthy capitalism with healthy corporations, to build a countervailing group.

Hence, PDA:

http://www.PDAmerica.org

PDA is linked to the rapid growth of Progressive Caucuses throughout the nation. More than 35 states have already instituted Progressive Caucuses as part of their local Democratic Party structure.

Minnesota's site is here:

http://www.ProgressiveCaucus.net

So once you do your research, you'll see the importance of balancing the influence that the DLC exerts over the Democratic Party.

DPB

[Catchawave]

9. Yep: DLC=Republican Lite

Thanks for those great links.

[greenohio]

21. Is Kerry Republican Lite?

[wyldwolf]

22. to these people, yes he is

[greenohio]

27. Do you know how, exactly, he is Republican?

[wyldwolf]

29. I guess because...

... he's pro-national defense.

Some on DU feel that is a republican trait.

[greenohio]

31. Kerry, who voted against all of Reagan's whacko weapons

SDI and for a nuclear freeze is to pro defense for them?

[wyldwolf]

33. I guess so

Really, that seems to be the only area some here attack him.

[Eloriel]

73. Wyldwolf, I think you need to speak for yourself alone

IMO your pronouncements about how OTHERS feel about the DLC and Kerry are entirely ... well, frankly, you're talkin' outta your ass, and it ain't pretty.

I am utterly and entirely, 100% against the DLC. I'm also not, and never have been, a Kerry fan. But the two have nothing to do with one another. I don't consider Kerry a DLCer (even if he may be a "member" -- I don't know if he is or not and don't much care, and if he is IMO it's for the same self-serving reasons as everything else he does) and in fact MY issues with Kerry are much different and completely separate from the DLC. I have an idea I'm not alone on this issue, tho there may be people who are anti-DLC but pro-Kerry.

So please, butt the hell out of discussions you know nothing about so you stop misrepresenting what others think, 'kay? Like I said: it ain't pretty. And I resent it, deeply.

[wyldwolf]

102. Eloriel, you're wasting your time

your pronouncements about how OTHERS feel about the DLC and Kerry are entirely ... well, frankly, you're talkin' outta your ass, and it ain't pretty.

I've seen thread after thread where others have said exactly what I contend they say - that Kerry is republican in "disguise," and other similar nonsense. So it is you talking out of your ass. And it SURE aint't pretty.

I am utterly and entirely, 100% against the DLC. I'm also not, and never have been, a Kerry fan. But the two have nothing to do with one another. I don't consider Kerry a DLCer (even if he may be a "member" -- I don't know if he is or not and don't much care, and if he is IMO it's for the same self-serving reasons as everything else he does) and in fact MY issues with Kerry are much different and completely separate from the DLC. I have an idea I'm not alone on this issue, tho there may be people who are anti-DLC but pro-Kerry.

Oh, I get. You thought my remarks were about YOU personally. No, they weren't. Sorry.

And there are plenty here who are against Kerry BECAUSE he is DLC.

So please, butt the hell out of discussions you know nothing about

I know you think you're a mod, but you ain't. And since this discussion wasn't with you anyway, YOU should butt out.

you stop misrepresenting what others think, 'kay? Like I said: it ain't pretty. And I resent it, deeply.

Like I said, the threads posted on DU make my point. And to be honest, Eloriel. I don't give a rat's ass that you resent me pointing it out.

[greenohio]

105. "I don't consider Kerry a DLCer." Fascinating, because he is.

I think you might want to check your facts before you tell people to: "butt the he-- out of discussions you know nothing about."

Who do you consider a DLCer if being a member in the DLC does not constitute it?

[dpbrown]

39. It seems like that since the Republicans cater to "sick" corporations more

So the key is to develop a countervailing group for the Democrats that's more in support of "healthy" corporations - limited by the terms of the corporate charter, and stripped of any Constitutional protection to lie (First Amendment - which doesn't, and wasn't designed to, apply to corporations).

Like I said, the DLC isn't wrong, per se, but their unfortunate reliance on corporate donations has tainted the Democratic Party's ability to build a more populist, and enduring message.

Again, once you research the PDA and the history around the unconstitutional assignment of corporate personhood to corporations, you'll understand the need for a countervailing and more populist group as a strong part of the fabric of the Democratic Party.

DPB

[AmandaRuth]

8. as far as i can tell, being a relative newcomer

to political activism, they refuse to take on the media, refusing to believe that the message is our number one friend and enemy.

[Yuugal]

10. Al From

He is whats wrong with the DLC. I don't mind centrist dems but Al From doesn't strike me as a centrist dem. Here you have this group of corporate butt-kissers that go around knocking the liberal side of the party but whose ideas all sound like they came right out of the RNC playbook. Not very centrist.

The whole idea that we need corporate sponsorship in any form disgusts me. We are supposed to be the party of the working person and I don't see how you can be populist and still be corporate.

We aren't going to win over people trying to be like the republicans. We need a clear message, one that is anti-war, pro living wage, and one that always puts people above corporations. The DLC fails on all 3 of these issues.

[stray cat]

14. I've been checking out the website and don't have a problem with them

They definitely aren't the green party but they certainly aren't are present crop of republicans. It is a think tank for progressives - maybe more moderate progressives. They do believe in a strong military and government helping people help themselves through education. However, I have always been an independent and I like Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.

[wyldwolf]

24. sort of like

FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson...

[greenohio]

15. A magazine, a couple of blogs and Howard Dean spew hate at the DLC.

Mostly because the DLC does wield considerable influence in the party and we didn't gain the White House this round. If we had on Nov 2nd, few would be saying "I hate Kerry and his DLC buddies." The DLC is credited by Clinton himself as the reason we have won 2 pres elections since the 70s. They are NOT moderate on social issues as many claim. Kerry has stood firm voting against DOMA, late-term abortion ban, and the fetus-is-really-a-person acts. Dean (who DID support NAFTA, a DLC policy) needed something to campaign on so he called Kerry and CO Republican-lite and that congressional Dems "went along for a ride." Dean has since moved on from this language, BECAUSE THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER, but his supporters have not.

[Eloriel]

74. WRONG

I and many others here at DU were anti-DLC long before Howard Dean ever came on the scene and wisely called the DLC on their stuff.

Also utterly wrong:

If we had on Nov 2nd, few would be saying "I hate Kerry and his DLC buddies."

It wouldn't matter to me if we'd won EVERYTHING -- 100% of the House AND Senate on Nov. 2, I'd still be 100% anti-DLC, and for damn good reason.

Equally wrong, IMO:

The DLC is credited by Clinton himself as the reason we have won 2 pres elections since the 70s.

First, the DLC is Clinton's baby. Understandable (tho not laudable) that he's a little protective of it. I will admit there's a possibility that the strategy Clinton employed in 1992 (triangulation) may have helped him win the White House, I'm absolutely unconvinced AND I'm quite sure it has long since gotten totally counterproductive as a strategy. Remember there was also Ross Perot in 1992 who took a lot of votes from Bush (and some from Clinton), and many political observers call Clinton the most gifted politician they of the 20th Century. In any case, take away Clinton, and it doesn't seem to be working, does it?

Also dreadfully wrong:

They are NOT moderate on social issues as many claim. Kerry has stood firm voting against...

As I said upthread, I've never considered Kerry much of a DLCer and still don't. And yes, the DLC is IMO more than "moderate," they're downright conservative and NOT in a very nice way on many social issues. In fact, they have attacked parts of the base and are actively interested in throwing some of the base completely out of the party. They are against labor and "special interest group politics" which is a code word for groups which make up just about the entire base of the party -- labor, feminists, blacks and other minorities, the poor, environmentalists, etc., etc., etc. I don't know who they think would be LEFT, but whoever it would be would be pretty much Repuglican as near as I can tell. Blech.

And this, of course, is insultingly wrong:

Dean (who DID support NAFTA, a DLC policy) needed something to campaign on so he called Kerry and CO Republican-lite and that congressional Dems "went along for a ride." Dean has since moved on from this language, BECAUSE THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER, but his supporters have not.

Dean still believes what he said about the DLC. And btw, Dean DID support NAFTA but also got a lot smarter about it than when he originally supported it because he thought it would be beneficial for Vermont in its trading with Canada (and perhaps other nations). That's one of the things I like and admire so much about Dean: he's not just capable of growing, but eager to accumulate new understandings (a good bit of that by listening to his supporters) and reach new understandings about things. He is, in fact, the only politician I know of who actually listens to supporters and seeks out their input. He did that yesterday in Atlanta, speaking for only 10 - 15 minutes and then opening the floor to comments and questions from those in the audience. That's what he likes to do -- hear what's on people's minds, and learn from it. Too many are too arrogant and myopic for that.

[greenohio]

108. Or right.

"It wouldn't matter to me "
So you represent everyone attacking Kerry? Ok, good. So you would want to kick Kerry out of the party, and/or vote against him because he is a DLC Dem if he was President of the US. Really? Tell me, how does this strategy further a progressive cause? Because there a those now accusing of being a repuke and calling to vote against him because he is DLC.

"I've never considered Kerry much of a DLCer and still don't."
Uhhm, you're just wrong here. You have a real problem because HE IS DLC. Now you may have YOUR own little DLC member list, but not everybody has access to that. (You might want to share it...I'm curious...who REALLY is in the DLC by your standards?)

"Dean DID support NAFTA but also got a lot smarter about it... "
How convenient for him to support it and then "change his mind". You know he still says it helps his state of VT. I don't mind you giving Dean grace on Guns, NAFTA, pro-life embracing, cutting taxes, or calling himself a fiscal conservative. Just cut other Dems the same break rather than demonizing them.

"speaking for only 10 - 15 minutes and then opening the floor to comments "
You guys act like you've never seen a question and answer session after a 15 minute speech before. Really.. is Dean the only one who does that? Wow he must really care. Give me a frickin break.

[mandyky]

16. My main gripe now is how they treated Howard Dean.

The DLC spawned Clinton, which is all well and good, BUT since Clinton they've not put anyone forward who got elected. The leaders in the DLC seem to dislike liberals and the grassroots, but want to take our vote for granted as they steadily move to the right (they claim move to the center).

They had their time, and as MoveOn said (paraphrased) Maybe we need to take over the party again since we raised so much money in the 04 election.

Joe Leiberman is an example of who the DLC would run for president. He wasn't very popular here at DU, or for that matter with Democrats around the country. He had name recognition from 00 and some people like his "moral values".

[greenohio]

32. Yeah, how dare Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman campain in the primaries.

They should have let H Dean call them Republican lite and let him win.

[mandyky]

41. As far as I know Dean never said any specific politicians were GOP lite

The DLC put down Dean over nonsense during the primaries. They were almost as bad as The Club for Growth.

DLC types like Torracelli started that one 527 just to sink Dean, which is fine I guess. Ask Gephardt how falling on the sword feels.
We may see Dean run again in 08 (I hope). Obviously the DLC is sandbagging Dean for DNC Chair - who do you think wants to keep on MacAwful?

Personally, I am a Dean Democrat, and not too happy with the party machinery. I consider myself a member of the Black Caucus (and I'm white), because the rest of the crew, except for Boxer, seem to be cowards and sellouts. If the DLC wants to run things, maybe the Greens can run someone I can vote for in 08, or something.

[greenohio]

42. I guess that its OK then to paint all congressional Dems as repuke-lite

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=VXTxJZpAvnnOgTph2i593h==

The man started early and viciously attacking the congressional Dems because he knew that is where the likely nominee would be.

Who is Dean referring to when he says "we cannot win as Republican-lite" "we have tried and failed." ? Who? It has to be somebody. On DU it is interpreted as the DLC.

[mandyky]

63. At the time NOONE, except a very few were standing up to Bush

They were passing tax cuts and voting for the IWR, etc. In case you didn't know, Dean had many supporters in the Congress, esp. the House and the CBC. When Dean gave his "I Wanna Know" speech (DNC Winter Meeting 03), here at DU we were calling Daschle and the Senators the pink tutu crowd. A lot of people out here wanted Dems to stand up. Dean gave those people a voice.

And Howard Dean never "viciously" attacked anyone. He told it like it was about Bush and the Congress. Dean did one time say something implying he was the only anti-war candidate, and he apologized to Kucinich (not sure about Sharpton and Braun and Graham).

As for TNR, they endorsed the war and was it Leiberman? It is kind hard for me to take this article (or many of theirs) concerning election 2004 seriously. The crap in the article was all DLC and RNC talking points against Dean. As for Rove wanting Dean, I think he was bluffing.

[wyldwolf]

72. he called Clark a "republican" right before he asked him to be...

...his VP... or was it after?

[greenohio]

107. Rose colored revisionist history.

"Howard Dean never "viciously" attacked anyone. He told it like it was"

To say that Dean never viciously attacked his opponents in the primary is a joke. He did, throwing the lowest of blows, by implying that his opponents no longer represented Democrats. He implied that his opponents were helping shrub. It was a sickening display of party infighting. When his opponents attacked back, Dean and his Deanie Babies cried foul. Dean has since moved on, the Deanie Babies, unfortunately, have not.

[FightinNewDem]

75. "DLC types like Torricelli"?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, at least gey your straw men right. Torricelli was never a big DLC guy. If you want to trash the DLC, at least tar and feather people like Mark Warner, Tom Carper, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, who are actually active in the organization.

[leesa]

17. They are Republicans

[greenohio]

30. Kerry is a Republican. Tell me how?

[wyldwolf]

18. It's really simple

After being outspent by the Republicans and slowly, then dramatically, losing ground to them through the 70s and them 80s, some Democrats decided to rectify the situation in 1985.

After devastating losses in the 80, 84, and 88 presidential elections, and disappointing congressional losses in 80, 82, 84, a group of moderate Democrats organized to move the party back in the direction, policy wise, of Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ - especially in the areas of defense and economics.

An interesting article in the Boston Globe summed up the state of the democratic party pre-DLC:

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.

Further, there had been a growing volatility of the electorate since the late 1970s. In 1964 poll, over 70 percent of the public said that they could trust Washington to do what was right most or all of the time; by early 1994, only 19 percent expressed similar confidence (Phillips 1994: 7). In 1964, when asked, "Would you say the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all people," nearly 40 percent more people agreed with the latter than with the former. In 1992 that sentiment had reversed itself, with 60 percent more people believing that the government was run for the benefit of special interests than those who believed it was run for the benefit of all.

And remember, this slide in public confidence in the government happened while Democrats controlled things pre-DLC and after the emergence of the McGovern wing of the party.

Most who criticize the DLC do so because of their corporate connections. But a check of records of even the more liberal non DLC democrats show corporate contributions.

So to answer your question, the only thing "wrong" with the DLC apart from what ALL political groups do, is that they've learned that to win today, you must raise large sums of money - and even then you still may not win. Oh, and that they've successfully altered the idealogical direction the party had been taking since late 60s.

Still, the angst those on the further left feel can only be summed up in the fact that, at least until the emergence of DFA, they've not been able to organize to counter the DLC. But, as we've seen in an earlier thread, even the DFA contributes to the DLC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. The DLC is for homeless Republlican "moderates".

They used to be called Rockefeller Republicans. Fat cat capitalists.

[greenohio]

20. Is Kerry a homeless Republican?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. He sounds more like Rockefeller than FDR.

Draw your own conclusions.

[greenohio]

28. Exactly which issues are you refering to?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. First, and foremost, his vote for the war.

FDR changed the country by moving to the left.

Rockefeller tried for the presidency by moving the Republican party to the left..and failed.

Kerry tried for the presidency by moving the Democratic Party to the right...and failed.

The Republicans win because they stand for something - no matter how loathsome. The Democrats lose because they stand for everything..and nothing. Kerry the supposed anti-warrior, signed on to the war in Iraq and spent most of his campaign trying to justify his cowardly and immoral vote by bleating that the illegal occupation wasn't being done efficiently rather than pointing out it's obvious illegality and immorality.

The rest of the campaign was spent trying not to be a "liberal" just as Rockefeller tried not to be a "conservative.

[wyldwolf]

38. c'mon

How did FDR move the country to the "left?"

The New Deal? A revolutionary set of programs only inacted because of the depression and one FDR never intended to be permanant.

Now, I'm not attacking the new deal, just stating fact.

Or was it his Japanese-American internment camps?

And Kerry did not "vote for the war."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Kerry didn't vote for the war? Yeah, and Bush is "compassionate".

What did he think he was voting for? Peace? For all those GIs in Kuwait to get a tan?

Oh, That's right. He was "deceived". Unlike most of the rest of the world.

Choice a: He believed Bush wasn't going to war. Which makes him an imbecile.

Choice b: He knew (like the rest of the world) that Bush was going to war. Which makes him a collaborator.

[wyldwolf]

65. being on the left, I figured you would understand nuances

so, if it has to be repeated again...

Kerry voted to allow Bush to take the necessary measures to disarm Sadamm. The vote came after Bush said he'd approach the UN again and give the weapons inspectors time.

Choice a: He believed Bush wasn't going to war. Which makes him an imbecile.

In an interview with Tim Russert concerning Bush's claims of WMDs:

Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. - - - Howard Dean

[greenohio]

44. "by moving the Democratic Party to the right" exact issues please?

The war...that's it?

So if you support the war, you are a repuke. Is that what it all comes down to?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Repuke, no. Fascist, yes.

What "war"? The attempted occupation and subjection of a 3rd world nation with a wrecked military is hardly a "war".

And, "..that's it?" Certainly enough for me to consider the perpetrators and collaborators in the crime not worthy of my vote.

How about you?

[greenohio]

48. I am against preemptive war period. But if I

called all Dems who supported wars I disagreed with "fascists", there wouldn't be any Dems left. I don't think Bosnia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq (in 98), Somalia or Haiti were threats to the US during Clinton's term. We didn't have UN resolutions for most of those. We just did it. Should I think the Dems who supported those wars as 'fascists'?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. If it walks like duck.....

It seems we agree, if as you say, you are against all "preemptive wars".

The ones who wage them certainly can't be called pacifists.

[greenohio]

50. So who do you support then?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Hell, I'll compromise.

I'll be registering Green for '06 because I won't have to hold my nose while voting. I'll vote Dem for my rep because he had the courage to vote against the war. Unfortunately, my Dem senator (Cantwell) sold out and collaborated with Bush.

I voted for Clinton both times. Voted for Gore. Voted for Kerry. I "compromised" my ass off.

Enough of that. The country has now reached a state that it has assumed all the tokens of colonialism at it's worst. It's time for a real opposition party to come forward and the Democrats aren't filling the bill.

[wyldwolf]

66. ok, so you're officially out of the electoral process

[greenohio]

106. You can only abandon compromise from a position of strength and power.

That, we do not have in excess. Abandoning compromise from a position of weakness, leaves you with nothing. You enable the opponent to get everything he/she wants.

[bobweaver]

36. Because they are the ones who turned the Ds into a corporate party

The Rs were once a minority party, a wealthy one but fewer in numbers. They began pouring huge amounts of money into their campaigns and started winning big elections (the so-called "new right", "sagebrush rebellion," "Reagan revolution", what have you.) The D's started losing and pinned the loss on being outspent.

The Ds decided they needed to get big money behind them to "stay in the game" The D's traditional constituency simply didn't have that kind of money, so the D's sold out to corporations, who gladly donated to both parties, ensuring them special access to power no matter which party won a particular election. By hooking onto the corporate gravy train, this created unseen but very real ties between the Ds and business interests (corporations). This also forced the Ds to abandon, to some extent, their traditional base of labor, minorites, and anyone else not locked into corporate America.

This decision was largely made by the DLC, and for a short time, it worked (Clinton won twice, but that's about all they can hang their hat on). In the meantime, Ds began to lose elections beginning in 1994 with the R's "takeover" of the House of Republicans (oops, the House of Representatives). And they have been steadily losing their grip ever since. The DLC does not make the connection between their lurch toward corporate cash and away from their traditional base, and their resulting string of electoral defeats.

Voters who used to vote for the Ds because they fought for their economic interests have no compelling reason to vote for the Ds any more. The Ds are just not fighting for them. The R's aren't either, but the R's are offering some of them other "goodies" such as the much discussed moral values issues. So these people went for the Rs instead of the Ds, and the Ds are suffering because of it. The Ds abandoned the class struggle, and this has hurt the Ds in the long term.

This decision was made largely by the DLC, and it has come back to hurt the Ds in a big way. The Ds must renounce corporate donations, and fight for the economic interests of their traditional base, if they ever hope to regain some power. The DLC seems to be unwilling or uninterested, so that is why many Democrats are unhappy with the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

40. the DLC has nothing to do with the '94 loss

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, (pre-DLC) 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

The DLC does not make the connection between their lurch toward corporate cash and away from their traditional base, and their resulting string of electoral defeats.

Because, for one, they never moved away from their traditional base, which has always been moderate. Secondly, there is no connection with "corporate cash" and their supposed electoral defeats (were these elections stolen by the GOP or did we lose because of the DLC? Can't have it both ways.)

Several observers have commented on the growing volatility of the electorate since the late 1970s (Greider 1992; Phillips 1990, 1993, and 1994; Germond and Witcover 1993; Greenberg 1995). By most accounts, this phenomenon reached a new high in 1992, as voters expressed growing disgust with the federal government, elected officials, and politics in general, and a greater willingness to support outsider candidacies, even those of such diverse figures as Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, and Ross Perot.

[w4rma]

53. NAFTA and the AWB were both DLC policy. They are the bills that caused

the 1994 rout. And frankly they deserved it for those bills.

Also the fact that the DLCers in Congress fought tooth and nail against passing universal healthcare because they are in the pockets of the drug companies.

[wyldwolf]

61. prove it

All I ask.

Prove it.

[greenohio]

45. The Ds always accepted money from corporations

and had many policies that benefited corps. Subsidies for coporations raged in the 70s...long before the DLC.

[justiceischeap]

90. Thank you for that explanation! (eom)

[Zhade]

54. Just read my signature, or ask Eloriel for her links.

Likewise, madfloridian has dug up some great stuff; the last part of my signature is the result of her work.

[greenohio]

57. How does one,

read your signature? I clicked on your profile, but nothing.

[Zhade]

59. Er, duh. Sigs are off right now, sorry!

NT!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Most people on DU

come from the left wing of the Democratic Party. The DLC is felt by most people here (rightly or wrongly I don't know; I'm from the UK and I'd don't know much about them) to represent the right wing of the Democratic party.

The amount of friction between two ideologies is inversely proportional to the distance between them, so more flak gets thrown at the DLC than at the Republicans, because they disagree less. Its exactly the same as the way the conservative Catholics and conservative protestants spend more time and more hatred attacking one another than they do on atheists or Hindus.

[wyldwolf]

62. how do you figure that?

Most people on DU come from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. I see far more

posts here attacking othe Democrats for being too right-wing than for being too left-wing, which implies to me that most people posting here are on the left wing of the party.

There are a fair few posts describing the whole democratic party as too right wing, too, but not as many as there are internal criticisms.

[wyldwolf]

69. maybe it's because

moderates are the voice of moderation?

That we don't attack other "wings" of the party UNLESS we're attacked?

That the leftwing here is small but very vocal?

I would agree that there is more non DLC here than DLC type dems, but it is too difficult to assign everyone labels here on the political spectrum.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. It certainly could be that,

But the ratio is farely extreme - I would guess there are at least three or four posts attacking the DLC for every one defending it.

[PassingFair]

70. Most people at DU have read links that make it abundantly clear

that the LEADERSHIP of the DLC is directed at keeping compromised, corporate controlled dems in positions of power. They do NOT want populist-based candidates to come in and clean out their private pork barrels. Are there good DLC members? Of course.
Do From, Reed and the rest of the PNAC linked jackasses need to go? Yes.

I am writing my favorite senator (ms. stabenow) and asking her to step away from the group as a symbolic measure.

There are about 5 (count'em) five posters on this board who seem to leap into action (like lizards sunning on rocks with one eye open for bugs) any time the DLC acronym is typed.

[FightinNewDem]

79. "Lizards"?

Way to build a majority, cap.

[PassingFair]

82. OK, make that

6

[PROGRESSIVE1]

58. The DLC is run by the same corporatist SOB's that run the GOP!

I'm a capitalist and believe in free and FAIR markets. The DLC HIGHJACKED the Democratic Party and made it the party of big, rich, monopolistic corporations! Opportunities are being taken away as we speak by the establishment of DLCers and Repugs! We need some reform that is meaningful! DLC = GOP-LITE!

[FightinNewDem]

89. Your icon

Curious that you bash the DLC yet have a Wes Clark icon.

Do you know where Clark's people first distributed his book "Waging Modern War"?

It was at a DLC conference in New York in 2002.

And what to make of this?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252098&kaid=131&subid=192

[welshTerrier2]

64. FUCK the hideous, disrespectful DLC !! please read this ...

fuck the DLC ... i hope moderates and lefties read this and distance themselves from the DLC ... they should not be in control of the Democratic Party ... left and center will have their disagreements, but the DLC has been and will continue to be a destructive force in our party ...

the source of much of the following comes from this article that's available on the DLC's website:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

first of all, the DLC put political considerations ahead of considering whether invading Iraq was insane and immoral ... in response to Kucinich's call to bring the troops home from Iraq comes this little gem from the DLC:

But Kucinich also reflects a persistent if small faction in the party that helps reinforce Republican claims that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with military leadership or with vigorous defense of our national interests.

is supporting bush's policy that led to losing thousands of young Americans, alienating the rest of the world, bankrupting our treasury, killing more than 100,000 Iraqis, threatening global peace in a totally failed military escapade going to instill confidence that Democrats can lead on international issues ???

and fuck the DLC and the disrespect they showed for those of us "baby boomers" who were right that bush lied and that Saddam had no WMD and was NOT A THREAT to the U.S. ... and to suggest that people protested because they were nostalgic and had fond memories of the good old Vietnam days is an outrage ... here's what the fucking DLC had to say on this subject:

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

and look at what these jackasses believe is, and I quote them here, "every failed or outdated lefty idea" ... they used this phrase in response to the following ideas proposed by Dennis Kucinich:

Come home and establish a living wage.... Come home and provide single payer, guaranteed health care for the forty-one million Americans who suffer illness without relief.... Come home and provide guaranteed social security for generations to come without privatization and without extending the retirement age, which would be devastating for minorities.... Come home and make non-violence an organizing principle within our society.

is this what the Democratic Party should be opposed to ??? an American works hard all day and still can't make enough money to move above the poverty line? we should oppose finding a way to provide healthcare to the 41 million Americans who have no healthcare?? we should not support social security and resist attempts to privatize it??? and we should not embrace the non-violence teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King???? i think the neo-cons would use exactly the same description of these policies that the DLC used: "failed and outdated lefty ideas" ... no wonder so many call the DLC republican-lite ... do moderates disagree with the DLC on these issues ??? because I don't think of them as lefty ideas at all ... these ideas sound like what the Democratic Party once was and hopefully will be again ... the bold new direction the DLC envisions has built us into a minority party ...

it's time to throw the bastards out of power ...

[wyldwolf]

67. how about this quote

... relating to your piece above in which you wrote:

first of all, the DLC put political considerations ahead of considering whether invading Iraq was insane and immoral ... in response to Kucinich's call to bring the troops home from Iraq comes this little gem from the DLC...

So, do you adhere to this quote?

I think we're really stuck in Iraq. We're there, we can't leave because if we do there may be a regime that will be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, particularly if it is a fundamentalist regime.

Agree?

[welshTerrier2]

71. not sure i understand your question ...

if you're asking me whether I agree to the following:

I think we're really stuck in Iraq. We're there, we can't leave because if we do there may be a regime that will be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, particularly if it is a fundamentalist regime.

here's my answer ... first, let me say that i'm not quite sure how this question is responsive to what i wrote but i'll be glad to answer ... the point i was trying to make was not whether our Iraq policy was right or wrong (i think it's wrong) but rather that it should have been evaluated based on whether it was in the national, and international, interest and not whether it would "make the Party look wimpy" if we didn't go along with bush ...

so, without understanding where you're headed with your question, my answer is: no, i don't agree ... again, that was not at all the point of my post ... to elaborate on my answer, though, i believe that we owe a great debt to the Iraqi people ... but I do not believe that continued U.S. military presence will ever allow that debt to be repaid ... i believe, regardless of bush's intentions, or anyone else's intentions, that continued U.S. military presence only will prolong the instabilities in Iraq ... I also think that civil war will is inevitable there ... no need to ask me all the "yeah but don't you think that Saddam was blah, blah, blah" ... he was a horrible tyrant ... but i'm afraid our purpose in invading really had nothing to do with "liberating" Iraq ... i believe bush's sole purpose was to exploit Iraqi oil and establish a U.S. military presence in the region ... I think the elections are going to have catastrophic results ... it's clear that the Shia will dominate the vote ... will this lead to stability ?? will this quell the uprisings ?? i doubt it ... i think greater violence will result ... and what will bush do when Sistani asks the U.S. to leave after the elections? what if bush refuses? the Shia have been quiet because they are virtually guaranteed a win in the elections ... but once in power, will they promote democracy or will they impose their own fundamentalist religious views? i guess i think there is no way for the U.S. to succeed, even if it had the best interests of the Iraqis at heart ... and i don't think bush does ...

so, i think we have to leave ... i think Democrats should oppose continued occupation ... I think Democrats should support the rebuilding of Iraq once the Iraqis settle their own internal conflicts ... so, if you're going to show me that the quote you provided came from someone with whom I might otherwise agree, that's fine ... but anyone who thinks we should remain in Iraq is refusing to see what the results of our policies really are ... it's time for the U.S. to get the hell out of there ...

clear enough ??

added on edit: btw, i wanted to give you my most honest answer to the question you raised ... i still hope you address the specific issues I raised in my post ... since i posted, i found the source of the quote you asked me about and have the following comments ... for others reading this, the quote came in a Truthout interview with Howard Dean ...

first, let me say that I did not vote for Dr. Dean in the primaries ... if your point in asking me the question was to suggest that I not only disagree with the DLC but also with Dr. Dean's position, the answer is I absolutely disagree ... I was a very early supporter of Dr. Dean ... I may have even been the first to introduce him to DU and vice-versa ... but I dropped my support for Dr. Dean over his pre-invasion position on Iraq ... Dr. Dean called for giving Saddam 60 days to disarm after which he approved of invading ... i did not agree with him on Iraq then and still do not ...

[FightinNewDem]

76. Person the barricades, blah, blah, blah

Well it seems that the Henry Wallace Chowder and Marching Society is out in force tonight...:crazy:

[welshTerrier2]

77. got anything intelligent to say ??

or are you satisfied with a little name calling ???

[FightinNewDem]

78. Warning: Angry Rant Ahead

Look, I have tried to stick to the facts where the DLC/New Democrat topic is concerned. Inevitably, I get shouted down by by a cadre of tinfoil hatters who see the vast, neocon conspiracy behind every corner, who accuse every non-Deaniac, non-Kucinichite of being a stealth Republican, who make a point of questioning my party loyalty, my integrity and my sanity. It gets old after a while, and by god, I have a right to be ornery.

I am willing to wager that I have spent more time, invested more of my limited money, walked more precincts, made more GOTV calls, written more letters to the editor, testified before more legislative committees, held more party offices, registered more voters, put up more Democratic yard signs, and been arrested at more protests than any of the armchair Che Guaveras who seem to delight in implying that I am a closeted version of Dick Cheney. If someone thinks they can question my Democratic bona fides, then they can bloody well kiss off.

I am active in the DLC. By attending DLC workshops, I have learned an enormous amount about public policy and its implementation on the local, state and national level. I have discovered valuable policy options that I have begun to push through the legislative process in my home state. And, last but not least, I have forged many friendships with folks active in the DLC, be they staffers, elected officials or citizen activists. I take the attacks on these people personally. They are men and women of dedication, committment and integrity, and I don't take kindly to their being the targets of cheap shots by ill-informed nitwits.

[welshTerrier2]

80. that's all well and good but ...

first, let's hope that you were not referring to me as an "ill-informed nitwit" ... if you were, well, what's the point of continuing a discussion ...

i have also tried to "stick to the facts" in what I wrote by making my comments in direct response to an article on the DLC website ... i introduced no "facts" beyond quoting what the DLC has published ...

as to your anger at all the evil DU'ers who have attacked you, I have not attacked you ... i've raised specific criticisms of the DLC based on a specific article I referenced ... perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that I defended some members of the DLC in another thread that's currently active ...

if you disagree with what i wrote, how about explaining why you do ... so far you've been unresponsive to what I wrote ... is the hostility so high on DU that everyone just responds in anger without even discussing what was said ??? if that's where we're getting to, what's the point ??

[FightinNewDem]

81. No, you aren't the "nitwit"

I didn't mean to imply that at all. Sorry about that.

Unfortunately, too many folks here think that the facts are made up of the Sirota article, a piece in the Nation a few years ago, and perhaps the weird rantings of the "Black Commentator". There is no attempt to actually understand the DLC's philosophy or its actual positions on the issues. For example, I have seen several posts that reference the DLC's alleged support for the Bush tax cuts. In fact, the DLC opposed the Bush plan, and has called for the rollback of most provisions of the 2001 cuts (leaving intact the reductions for low and middle income taxpayers that slipped through).

Is the DLC more hawkish on foreign policy than many Democrats would like? Quite possibly. But their foreign policy positions are still within the mainstream of Democratic thought. If the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee can endorse their foreign policy white paper, then it is tough to say that it is some sort of radical right wing proposal.

[Q]

84. The DLC is more than 'hawkish'...they support Bush's...

...invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not only that...they smear other Democrats in opposition to the lie that Bush is fighting the 'war on terror' there. Calling them simply hawkish disregards the fact that they support lying to the American people about why we attacked and occupied Iraq.

I don't understand how Bush can so boldly lie to the American people and get away with it. That he can get away with it gives the DLC the room to support him and participate in the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the deaths of American soldiers.

They should be ashamed.

[VAMom]

103. Perhaps the reason he gets away with it

is because he knows he has the support of the DLC?

[welshTerrier2]

86. no problem ...

here's an article i posted in another thread I started ... it provides a real view into what our military is doing over there and how it's affected the Iraqi people ...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0107-34.htm

please tell your DLC friends to get us the hell out of Iraq ... i hear all sorts of people saying we need to stay there ... the DLC does, the DNC does, Kerry does and even Howard Dean does ... for christ's sake, we're killing people over there ... what we're doing will lead nowhere ... what we're doing has lead nowhere ... and still there are calls for more of the same ... it's time to let Iraqis have their country back ...

this isn't about bashing anybody ... it's a plea to wake the fuck up ... what the hell kind of people have we become that we parade around the world with our military destroying a country like Iraq ??? this is not about some type of nostalgic Vietnam era protest ... frankly, i don't care who voted for IWR or anything that happened leading up to the invasion ... what's done is done ... but how can anyone be so blind that they continue to support the daily nightmare over there ??

i remember a story a couple of years ago where an Israeli air attack on a Palestinian house killed a child ... the press was up in arms ... the whole world was up in arms ... "how dare those oppressive Israelis act so irresponsibly?" ... well, the U.S. has killed more than 100,000 Iraqis ... 100,000 ... i just have trouble picturing all those dead bodies ... i'll bet you if you laid each body end to end, you could make a ring all the way around the Capitol Building and the White House ... make a good aerial photo don't you think ???

if this is what the DLC condones, then they're DEAD WRONG ...

[PassingFair]

83. Points taken, now tell me,

what do you think of your leadership, and where they are taking you?

[welshTerrier2]

87. i'll ask you the same question ...

what do you think of Dr. Dean's statement that we must now stay in Iraq to finish the job ?? Do you agree with him on this specific position ??

i'll also you refer you to this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0107-34.htm

[PassingFair]

92. Dr. Dean is not privy to all info concerning Iraq.

If "finishing the job" means imparting whatever stability to the country we can with the help of UN troops, and than making sure the screen door does not hit us on the way out...then yes, I agree with him.

[welshTerrier2]

93. Here's Dr. Dean's statement:

"I think we're really stuck in Iraq. We're there, we can't leave because if we do there may be a regime that will be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, particularly if it is a fundamentalist regime."

i'm not privy to all info concerning Iraq either ... so, your position, and Dr. Dean's as I understand it (please correct me if i'm misstating this), is that with continued U.S. military presence in Iraq (and the U.N. if we could ever talk them into it), the U.S. will succeed in leaving behind a regime that is less dangerous than Saddam Hussein and will likely NOT be a fundamentalist regime (would you consider Sistani and the Shia fundamentalists?) ...

and you agree with this ?? you see a basis to believe that progress is being made today ?? you have reason to hope that continued military efforts will make things better for the Iraqis? why do you think this?

do you feel the statements made in the article I referenced are distortions? have we not killed 100,000 Iraqis? is there not death and disease everywhere? how is the U.S. making things better? Bechtel is busy over there painting the buildings ... and bush doesn't give a damn about the Iraqis ...

i'm all ears on this ... i really hope supporters of Dr. Dean, and I'm not "anti-Dean" by the way, will not agree with him on this issue ... he needs to rethink his position ... i appreciate that the alternatives available to the U.S. are not great (i.e. Iraq and a hard place) ... but the madness has to stop and it has to stop now ... we cannot continue to occupy Iraq no matter how well intentioned some of us may be ... if you have a sincere belief that the U.S. military can make things better over there, please explain why ... surely you don't think there's any evidence to support this belief so far ...

[PassingFair]

95. Don't forget that he said this in "real" time.

I think that we will have to resign ourselves to a theocratic regime in Iraq. We destablized it, and we won't have a choice of who runs it. But we can and must try to make for a turnover that precludes civil war and further devestates the country.
We can't leave in a day. We broke it, now we have to supply some glue and hold the pieces together for a while.

[welshTerrier2]

98. well, OK ... i hope he takes more time and reconsiders ...

it's hard to see how the course the U.S. is on will achieve either of the very desirable objectives you cited ...

it would be great if our military could "preclude civil war" and not further devastate the country ... but our actions are causing civil war (which i believe is inevitable) now ... and i don't at all understand why you think "more of the same" will lead to anything that somehow will not further devastate the country ... we're causing the devastation ...

and the idea of supplying some glue and holding the pieces together for awhile also seems to have no basis ... if we were really achieving that, there would be room for discussion ... but it seems like all we're doing over there is making more pieces, not holding the pieces together ...

the U.S. has been a destructive force in Iraq ... we are not rebuilding the country ... there will not be democracy ... we are not restoring hope to the Iraqi people ... we are not succeeding we are failing ... why would anyone call for more of the same ???

[PassingFair]

101. Not right now and not for the forseeable bushie future...

but under Dean or Kerry, maybe we would not be experiencing "more of the same".

[Q]

88. And it seems that you have discovered in these workshops...

...that you can fool most of the people all of the time.

One question: Why do you call yourselves "New Democrats"? Why did you feel the need to disassociate with the Democratic party?

My guess is that you're called New Democrats because you don't want to be associated with the 'old' party (of liberals and progressives) that supported worker's and women's rights...or anything else that reflected a government of, by and for the people.

[welshTerrier2]

91. here's what the DLC is running away from ...

and don't take my word for this ... as i stated above, these are their words ... the DLC referred to the following as "failed or outdated lefty ideas":

1. a living wage
2. single payer, guaranteed health care for the forty-one million Americans who suffer illness without relief
3. guaranteed social security for generations to come without privatization and without extending the retirement age
4. make non-violence an organizing principle within our society.

those nutty left-wing radicals ... the next thing you know they'll expect us to lose more elections by fighting for civil rights in the South again ...

[no name no slogan]

94. Waitaminute-- are you Canadian or something?

It's truly amazing how corporatists can be so threatened by four simple planks like those you posted. Good god, you'd think you'd written the Communist Manifesto or something!

Any SMART business person knows that PEACE is good for business. So are healthy people, and people who have money to spend on goods and services.

It beats the hell out of me why the corporatists are so hung up on these. :shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

96. Canadian ?? nope ... worse ...

i'm from Massachusetts ... home of the perpetual republican governors ...

[no name no slogan]

97. HA!!!! I should have known!!!

I'm from Minnesota, the home of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone! And sadly, we too have not had a Democratic governor in office since 1990.....

[welshTerrier2]

99. damn ... outed again ...

i'm so ashamed ... would it help if i told you i was originally form NY ??? nahhhhhh ... probably not ...