New Donkey takes on left-wing lie that Clinton destroyed the Dem Party

[dolstein]

It has become accepted gospel among the far left fringe that the downfall of the Democratic Party can be directly traced to the rise of the DLC and the election of Bill Clinton as president. Of course, anyone even remotely familiar with American political history would know that this is complete bunk, but because so many left-wingers are willfully ignorant of political history, this "big lie" has continued to spread, and many DU'ers now routinely make this charge.

Fortunately, NewDonkey.com has effectively ripped this argument to shreads in a recent post. I have posted some excerpts below. The entire post can be found at www.newdonkey.com.

<<Did Clinton Destroy the Democratic Party?
In the new issue of Atlantic Monthly, National Journal political columnist Chuck Todd adds his not-insignificant voice to a bit of emerging Conventional Wisdom about recent political history: the idea that Bill Clinton was responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party over the last decade or so, especically at the non-presidential level. He concludes by suggesting that Democrats begin their recovery by avoiding close association with anybody or any organization contaminated by excessive identification with "Clintonism."

. . .

First, the planted axioms:

(1) Clintonism was about "triangulation" and "splitting the differences" with conservatives; and

(2) Democrats controlled the House and Senate before Clinton was elected and controlled neither when he left office; thus, he, and his strategy of "triangulation" and "splitting the differences" must have caused this decline.

. . .

. . it represents a good example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy, really no different than the assumption that George Bush's foreign policy has thwarted Jihadist Terrorism because there have been no strikes on the U.S. since 9/11.

That becomes more obvious when you look at the alternative explanations for 1994, which include (a) many years of pent-up popular frustration with a Democratic-dominated Congress, skllfully exploited by the GOP's dishonest but resolute alliance with the term-limits and balanced-budget movements; (b) a huge number of Democratic retirements; (c) the racial gerrymandering that guaranteed big southern losses in the House; and (d) the first big mobilization of the Christian Right.

And then there's the Big Bertha of factors, which I'm sure Todd is familiar with: 1994 as the culmination of a gradual but steady trend towards realignment of the two parties on roughly ideological lines, which gave the GOP its big opportunity (in conjunction with the four factors mentioned above) to make huge gains in areas of the country previously represented and governed by relatively conservative (certainly far more conservative than Clinton-style) Democrats. . . .


. . .

Finally, you really have to look at where Democrats lost ground in 2002 and 2004 to see how truly laughable it is to suggest that "centrism" was some kind of fatal curse for our congressional and presidential candidates. Does anybody really think that, say, Max Cleland would have won re-election in 2002 had he been more of a loud-and-proud old-fashioned pre-Clinton Democrat? Or that Brad Carson could have won Oklahoma last year if he had come out for a single-payer health care system? Give me a break.

[Bono71]

1. Agree...the party has had one Democratic president

in the last 28 years (by the next election)...that person is Bill Clinton...that should tell you something.

[genius]

26. The DLC is responsible for the fall of the Dem Pty but not Clinton

The guy made mistakes. He could have been smarter. But he did tell of the DLC in 2003 and we might be able to convince him of the errors of some of his approaches. He does seem very open-minded.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[surfermaw]

2. No Clinton didn't destroy the Democrat Party

The Democrat Party was the the right of Bill Clinton from 1930 through the 50's, the moderate democrats from the south voted with the republican of the north, called the by Partisian coalition, and they could pass or defeat a vote any time they wonted...Republicans have some how convienced the R/R that they should be voting along with business, and they don't know any difference, anothere example is Gay rights, the Bush administration led the R/R and other southerners to beleive he was dead set agains Gays, with the bull about passing laws to prevent marriage between two of the same sex, but behind their backs, they were telling the Gays, that they would look out for them, take a look at his cabinet, isn't there two members of the Log Cabin group in it.. I bet you could ask the south, and I would say 1 out of a hundred might know.

Bill Clinton was the best thing that has ever happened to the Democrat party. I will say this again, we won't be able to change the souths minds untill there is a recession the next thing to a de pression.

[mattclearing]

4. Democrat is not an adjective.

It's the Democratic Party. Always has been, always will be.

[TomClash]

82. Thank you

I HATE the term "Democrat Party"

[mattclearing]

85. Anytime. People better recognize.

[Sterling]

51. the best thing that has ever happened to the Democrat party

Boy if that does not make people want to give up hope I am not sure what will. That is one of the saddest things I have read in a long time.

[mattclearing]

3. I think Bill Clinton is an exception to that rule.

I think Clinton skillfully used the DLC and worked for liberal social causes but had a corporate agenda that secured Wall Street support.

He ultimately deviated from this social-liberal/fiscal conservative stance only when it became clear that he needed to in order to work with the post-94 Congress.

But moderate Democrats won't save us from the right-wing tilt of the government on the whole. We need more opposition, not appeasement.

Until Democrats start standing up for what they believe in, they will continue to lose.

The perception that Democrats will say anything to get elected is what is killing them. That is directly attributable to Republican portrayals of Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

Chalk up our losses to pandering.

[dolstein]

5. We need ideas, not blind opposition

Unfortunately, many on the left seem content to do nothing but fight each and every proposal coming from the Bush administration.

But if we've learned anything from the past few years, it should be that (1) you can't beat bad ideas with no ideas and (2) voters will support someone who's strong but wrong over someone who's weak but right.

I think the Democratic Party could learn a lot from Newt Gingrich. After all, he's the last person to successfully seize control of Congress from an entrenched majority.

The Democratic Party needs to come up with their own contract for American. A short list of policy proposals that are easy to explain to voters, that are bold, that appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate, that fit into a common theme, and that any Democrat anywhere in the country can run on. The simple fact is that far too many voters simply don't know what the Democratic Party stands for. And so they'll vote for the devil they know over the devil they don't.

[greenohio]

9. "you can't beat bad ideas with no ideas" Amen

Excellent post.

[Blue Wally]

16. Right, but add......

Our proposals shouldn't be the usual high sounding, but non-specific slogans we usually shout. They should be like the Contract With America, specific legislative action which we will take right after being elected.

During the years right after Goldwater and right after Watergate, Republicans were truly in the minority in both houses, but they had influence by working with the Democratic leadership and by promising votes that made it unnmecessary for the Democratic leadership to get everyone in their party on board. Since we have gone into the minority, we oppose every thing and force a party line vote on every issue.

[mattclearing]

24. It's sad that you consider the devil you don't know someone from

four years ago. Sadly, with the way the perception of issues has changed in that time, it is justified.

And your strong but wrong quote is direct from the big dog himself.

And the reason they don't know what the Democratic Party stands for is the one I noted earlier:

The Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything if they think standing for it might threaten their next election chances.

Like with the election challenge: It's the principle that the Party will lose black voters, so they have to do something to keep the voters, but they're terrified of being demagogued as "sore losers" in the media, so they send ONE Senator, and only one Senator, even though at least five others were willing to stand, and really, if there was any principle to the bunch, they all would have.

Some defense of your most reliable voting bloc's rights.

That, in a nutshell, is our problem, though. No bedrock principle. Hell, we'll vote for tax cuts, unjustified war, health care and defense giveaways, anything if we think it will help us get elected.

Newsflash, Democrats, it's not working.

[Telly Savalas]

30. This bears repeating...

The Democratic Party needs to come up with their own contract for American. A short list of policy proposals that are easy to explain to voters, that are bold, that appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate, that fit into a common theme, and that any Democrat anywhere in the country can run on. The simple fact is that far too many voters simply don't know what the Democratic Party stands for. And so they'll vote for the devil they know over the devil they don't.

This is right on the money. Instead of the left and moderate wings of the party having some idiotic pissing contest over who are the true Democrats, we should be working on finding common ground so we can promote an agenda to compete with the GOP.

[IndianaGreen]

70. There is no common ground on the war. Iraq is the showstopper as...

Vietnam War was way back in the 1960-70s.

One cannot be for the slaughter in Iraq and against it at the same time, the two are mutually exclusive. As in Vietnam, one must choose between peace now, or pursuing an Iraqi version of Vietnamization that is doomed to failure. As in Vietnam, those that supported the war must admit that the war was a mistake and take responsibility for their actions.

[DaedelusNemo]

93. We can never have consensus on everything

Maybe we should more often admit that there isn't a consensus on some particular matter and that therefor there will be individual variation on it. Mark out what you do agree on, and debate will continue on the rest.

I suppose the argument against that is that the dems need to hold a strong position on the war. I suspect that, rather, any candidate will have to hold a strong position on the war. There isn't entirely agreement on the republican side, either - and less so all the time.

[ulysses]

53. a little cognitive dissonance here, dolstein.

Unfortunately, many on the left seem content to do nothing but fight each and every proposal coming from the Bush administration.

...

I think the Democratic Party could learn a lot from Newt Gingrich. After all, he's the last person to successfully seize control of Congress from an entrenched majority.

Sure, but I don't recall him having done so by tiptoeing around the Dem majority. In fact, if memory serves, he pretty much fought each and every proposal that came from the Clinton administration - except those that were already to his liking.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Dolstein, in one sense you do "get it"

but I don't see any massive clamor among the general public for half-way Republican economic policies such as "free" trade or having the great libertarian gods Market Forces and Consumer Choice "solve" the health care and affordable housing crises.

These are areas where real people are hurting desperately, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are doing anything substantive. (And please don't insult my intelligence by bringing up the Clinton plan, which was not real national health care but a complex bureaucratic nightmare designed to give the appearance of helping the public while making sure that insurance companies could continue to make medical decisions and gouge their clients. No wonder the Republicans were able to defeat it so easily.)

The more I read about the DLC, the more I'm inclined to think that you're not Republican Lite after all, but Libertarian Lite: you're fine with laissez-faire attitudes on personal behavior but are overly protective of corporations, and if helping ordinary people means that some corporation might lose money, you'll side with the corporation every time.

[Debs]

100. And I guess

Attacking those of us on the left will help with your plans of being a winner. We have lots of ideas. Living wage, universal single payer health care, more labor rights. Moderates want to commit slow suicide by becoming a 'We-are-just-like-the-gop-but-not-as-mean.' If we dont stand for principles and fight those who like Bush think Ebeneezer Scrooge is a role model, why should anyone trust us. We have to have prinicples no one cares what you think until they know you care. People by and large want people to run their government just like they want someone to fix their car. So they dont have to bother but they need to know that those people have priniples and believe in something. Bushs message that you may not agree with him but you know he stands for something was powerful to a lot of people. They are intimidated by all the information and complexity. Its why the right gets so much mileage out of dissing nuance. People will be attracted to prinipled stands even when they dont totally agree if they can sense the sincerity behind it. I watched a somewhat conservative area in Cal, Riverside during the 70's and 80s continue to reelect one of the houses more liberal members because they respected him.

I am reading a lot of bashing of us leftists by you moderates. You act like we are a bigger threat than the GOP. I dont think Clinton destroyed anything but I also didnt think he was a great champion of liberal values. I am getting a little tired of being demonized by moderates. Some in the middle have no guts, they dont want to fight, they want to say please dont hurt me to the right wing. I dont. Its time to stand up for something show the country that to us there are things more important than winning elections. When we do they might trust us again. Corporations have to much power over peoples lives and every poll shows that a majority of people think that way. The DLC idea that we dont push that message so we can suck at corporate teat, and dont look anit bussiness has people noticing we are compromising on our core values and selling out our natural constituency. People are now in the DLC bashing Micheal Moore and talking about compromising on SS or choice. That is the way to the cliff. Seeking the center is death, because the right keeps moving the center. Pretty soon Attilla the Hun would be a liberal to Republicans. The moderate Dems who would follow them rightward out of a sense of fear, and not wanting to lose, lose bigtime, they lose their integrity. The become republican lite, and dems will stay home because whats the point and republicans will vote for real republicans. Stop with the circular firing squad. Stop blaming us lefties for everything and start seeing us as much a part of the future as YOU are

[Zhade]

104. Yes, and Newt is a liar and cheat.

THAT'S who you think we should emulate?

[madfloridian]

6. New Donkey is the DLC blog. It belongs to them.

:hi:

[greenohio]

7. The DLC as funded by the DFA. We're all Dems.

Why don't you see that?

[Tinoire]

11. The DLC is funded by the DFA? I'd like to see your proof of that.

Unless that wasn't a typo and you really meant "as funded", the meaning which leaves me totally confused.

I would be extremely shocked to see the DFA funding anything to do with the DLC. Proof of whatever it is you're alleging please because DFA supporters aren't here to fund the DLC, they're here to take our party back from their grip even if that means making small contributions to the "lesser of two evils" when certain seats are at risk.

Show me where DFA fund the DLC. Show me where DFA's piddly little contributions to a few politicians even begin to compete with the DLC's REAL funding which comes from some of the most obscene, right-wing corporations, organizations and people in this country.

[wyldwolf]

13. you must have missed this thread ----->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1476582&mesg_id=1476582

Don't worry. It has already been spun and justified by the DFA crowd.

[Tinoire]

19. I just looked at it. A real pathethic attempt by DLC apologists

I saw it after I posted that. That's a really pathethic thread you know. Twisting a few lousy $1000 contributions into "DFA supporting the DLC" is quite a pile of crap.

Personally, I would prefer the DFA NOT donate a single dime to anything DLC-related and because they do, made it clear from the beginning that they would by working from WITHIN the system, I decided not to participate but I'm the DLC's worst nightmare, a frigging purist. DFA decides to be nicer and help bail a few DLC asses out of hot water and that's the thanks they get?

I hope they soon declare the grace period over & severe ALL ties with the DLC. If it's war the DLC wants, they best be careful. Progressives are very angry and took careful note when the DLC advised Kerry to "shaft the Left". Payback may be a bitch. I'd seriously consider playing REAAAALLL nice if I were the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

20. so, how much money does one have to donate before..

...it's officially deemed "support?"

[Selatius]

31. DFA supported some DLCers, not the DLC organization itself

They didn't actually support the DLC, as in giving directly to the DLC corporation itself. (The DLC is chartered as a corporation) DFA probably figured that the DLC guy in certain races was preferable to a nutjob rightwing fundamentalist. To say, "The DFA supports the DLC," is a bit disingenuous in that the uninitiated could easily construe the statement to believe that the DFA directly supported the DLC as an entire organization, not someone who happened to be DLC.

[greenohio]

36. Oooh, lets split hairs.

The fact of the matter is the more DLC candidates that get elected, the more influence the DLC has. The reason the DLC has so much influence is because there are so many of them (dozens in the congress alone.) The DFA funds DLCers. It is a fact and is not disingenuous.

The reason the DFA funds DLCers is because they are both Democrats, just so you know.

[Selatius]

45. The DLC's influence is, imho, overblown

It's an easy scapegoat. Sure, they take corporate contributions, and I'm not afraid to call them out on it, especially if they advocate "market based solutions" to certain problems, but I'm not going to blame the DLC anymore than the leadership of the party in general if its a case of incompetence or careerists who don't want to rock the boat when it's time to rock. Not everything that goes wrong is the DLC's fault, but I do believe that their relationship with corporate cash is a liability that should be contained, not to forget anyone else who is taking corporate cash and is tempted to sell out working class interests as a result.

And please, do not patronize me over the fact of DLCers being in the Democratic Party. I thought I made it perfectly clear on the point between a rightwing fundie and a DLCer.

[greenohio]

48. I think you have to have a problem with the Party and many many many Dems

because almost all take corporate cash, or cash from their pacs and executives. Why single out the DLC? Pick a Dem you hold dear, we can look up who they take money from.

[Selatius]

60. Reread my post:

I qualified it with both taking corporate cash and being tempted to sell out working class interests, not just taking any corporate cash alone. Just because a person does take corporate money does not mean that he would automatically vote against a measure that would curtail or interfere with corporate power. However, if said person relies relatively heavily upon corporate cash, he'd be less likely to vote against them than someone who goes without.

As a result, I'd rather not touch the issue at all and would instead advocate subsidizing political campaigns with taxpayer dollars. It'd get rid of the issue entirely instead of trying to subjectively decide how much corporate cash is too much.

[Tinoire]

34. There's a huge difference between "support" and being owned by.

Very cute... in order to detract from the obscene amount of money the DLC is getting from Right-wing organizations and the fact that it has many extreme Right-wingers sitting on its Executive Council, you bring up a few lousy $1000 contributions they made to DLC Dems. The question isn't off-handed support, like ejaculatory sperm tossed away in the dead of night, but being outright owned by corporations and you know it.

It's sad that's the best argument you have. Similar to grug-trafficking, money-laundering Mafia dons complaining that the $25 hold-up guys are walking the streets free and ruining the neighborhood. I think Jesus said it best- something about being too busy staring at the mote in the DFA's eye to pay any attention to the plank in the DLC's...

See if you can spot the difference between throwing a few pennies to help floundering DLC Dems not lose their seats at election team (because we're one big tent right?) and outright selling your soul, being OWNED by the very corporations standing in the way of progress and Right-Wing Think Tanks whose bidding you do by either supporting or not fighting against their right-wing obscenities.


==


While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check.

For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including
British Petroleum,
Boeing,
Bristol-Myers Squibb,
Coca-Cola, Dell,
Eli Lilly,
Federal Express,
Glaxo Wellcome,
Intel,
Motorola,
U.S. Tobacco,
Union Carbide,
and Xerox,

along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including
AOL,
Blue Cross
Blue Shield,
Citigroup,
Dow,
GE,
IBM,
Oracle,
UBS PacifiCare,
PaineWebber,
Pfizer,
Pharmacia and Upjohn,
and TRW.


And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including
Aetna,
AT&T,
American Airlines,
AIG,
BellSouth,
Chevron,
DuPont,
Enron,
IBM,
Merck and Company,
Microsoft,
Philip Morris,
Texaco, and
Verizon Communications.

Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

(snip)

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

[greenohio]

38. And the DFA funds DLCers. Paint it any color you want,

but those who have "signed on" to the DLC have recieved money from the DFA. Go ahead and make yourself feel better by talking about "who owns who".

[wyldwolf]

42. so the answer to my question is $5000?

So if someone donates $5000 or more, they OWN the candidate?

Good thing Haliburton doesn't own Dean - three times in 2003, one Robert Crandall of Dallas, TX, contributed $2000. to the Dean campaign. Robert Crandall who, since the 1980 election cycle, has made political contributions as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of American Airlines and the Chairman Emeritus of AMR Corporation. The same Dallas-based Robert Crandall who serves on the Halliburton Board of Directors.

But that doesn't reach the "ownership" level of $5000.

But how about Murdoch's News Corp? Over $20,000 to Howard Dean. Dean is owned by FOX news!

David Gram of the Associated Press reported: “One donor who gave Dean's PAC the maximum amount allowed- $5,000 is Robert Young a top official at two utility companies that have had a lot of important business before state government during Dean's nearly 11 years in office. Young is chief executive at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and chairman of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.”

Young, it seems, plays both sides, too. Not only did he donate to Dean and and DFA, he also donated to Bush and the Vermont Republican Federal Elections Committee.

[greenohio]

44. Good post.

Ahh more struggles for the psycho-pure

[greenohio]

23. Thats it turn another blind eye. This was more than one or two

candidates. "DFA decides to be nicer and help bail a few DLC asses out of hot water and that's the thanks they get?" Interesting perspective. Or it could be that DFA isn't "psycho pure" as some and believes in Dem unity.

[greenohio]

14. Its being discussed right now. DFA funds DLCers. Its a fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1476582&mesg_id=1476582

[madfloridian]

18. Oh, my goodness, we learn something new everyday. LOL

:hi:

[greenohio]

39. And then theres some who never learn.

LOL.

[Sterling]

54. Why don't you see that?

Personally I don't think it's true. I see two distinct groups within the party these days. Which ones are true Dem's is a matter of opinion but I don't see the party going into the next election with the same unity we saw this time.

[wyldwolf]

8. while we're on the subject, let's debunk a few other DLC myths...

..as put forth by those on the further left.

For example, one gem often offered up when discussing Democratic losses in recent election cycles is the Democratic party has moved too far to the right, courtesy of the DLC, and that when people have to pick between a Republican and a "Republican-lite," they'll pick the Republican. People who believe this often quote Harry Truman, a great moderate Democrat, who said "When given a choice between a real Republican and an imitation, the people will choose the real thing every time." This defies my sense of logic. What is being implied here is Democrats will either vote for a Republican if they feel the Democratic choice isn't liberal enough or they won't vote at all. Either way, if we follow this line of thought to it's logical conclusion, Democrats throw elections to Republicans if they aren't happy with the liberal "purity" of the candidate.

I'd like to see some polling data to confirm that. Until then, I'll continue to seriously doubt it.

[dolstein]

15. I agree, taken literally, this argument means that our

candidates are losing in the South because they aren't liberal enough. This simply flies in the face of all logic.

[wyldwolf]

17. much put forth here in the anti-DLC crusades...

... flies in the face of all logic.

[DaedelusNemo]

95. more complicated than that

Lots of positions that are more 'liberal' than the DLC - minimum wage increase, for example - are in fact very popular in the south. Positions on sexual morality politics like gay marriage and abortion, on the other hand, a very different story. Or, say, guns. People aren't 'all liberal', 'all moderate', and 'all conservative'. That's a one-dimensional measure that can be useful as a shortcut, but we shouldn't let it blind us to the fact that people are more complex than that. And besides, there are factors other than the policy positions - but i went on about that elsewhere in this thread.

[mattclearing]

25. I just said this above, and I'd like to hear a DLC response.

The Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything if they think standing for it might threaten their next election chances.

Like with the election challenge: It's the principle that the Party will lose black voters, so they have to do something to keep the voters, but they're terrified of being demagogued as "sore losers" in the media, so they send ONE Senator, and only one Senator, even though at least five others were willing to stand, and really, if there was any principle to the bunch, they all would have.

Some defense of your most reliable voting bloc's rights.

That, in a nutshell, is our problem, though. No bedrock principle.

Hell, we'll vote for tax cuts, unjustified war, health care and defense giveaways, anything if we think it will help us get elected.

Newsflash, Democrats, it's not working.

[Geek_Girl]

29. I can give a specific example

My stepfather (God Rest his soul) a lifelong yellow dog voted for Nader in '00 because he did not see much difference in Bush's and Gore's policies.

It's my opinion that Gore would have won in '00 if he had run a more liberal campaign and clearly defined the differences in platform from Bush's platform.

[wyldwolf]

33. anecdotal evidence... and poor

Anyone who couldn't see much difference in Gore and Bush deserves Nader.

[Geek_Girl]

46. I thought it was a very good Real Life example

Especially since my stepfather lived in Florida and Gore lost by 537 votes and Nader had 97,421.

Link

[wyldwolf]

49. it's anecdotal

and can't be credibly confirmed - like the famous welfare queen Reagan spoke of.

[Geek_Girl]

58. I assure my stepfather was a real person

but I guess there is no way to prove who he voted for. But to think that Nader did not cost Gore the election is just plain naive.

[Debs]

101. Confirm this

I voted for Nader in 2000 because when Gore chose Liberman. I could no longer support a ticket so far to the right. Now I have to admit in the sense of fairness if I had lived in a swing state, I probably would have held my nose and voted Gore/Liberman, but the example still holds

[mattclearing]

74. It would be, but most liberals saw that Bush was talking out of his ass.

He was trying to sound like Clinton, and put conservative policies in sensible, moderate sounding language. Too bad about your stepfather. I knew a couple of people who were similarly fooled.

[greenohio]

43. Wait a minute. I thought the anti-DLC crowd show Gore as an

example where he ran away from the DLC in the campaign and he gained ground? He certainly didn't run on the Clinton record, and he adopted very different rhetoric than the DLC.

[Geek_Girl]

52. maybe the anti-dlc crowd

Your referring to thinks that but I don't.

I thought Gore had a very moderate platform and so did Bush. Not that Bush is a moderate he just pretended to be.

[greenohio]

55. Fascinating. So how could Gore ran a campaign

more to the left?

[Geek_Girl]

62. Here are some of the few things I can recall

Gore's waffling on creationism being taught in schools

"Vice President Gore, known for his love of science education, refused yesterday to take a clear stand on whether public schools should be required to teach evolution and not creationism."

Link

He picked Joe Lieberman as a running mate. Joe Lieberman is a widely viewed as a conservative democrat.

He distanced himself from Clinton to be more appealing to those appalled by Clinton's immoral actions.
------------------------------------------------------

From my perspective it just seemed like he was pandering to the moral right in order to distance himself from Clinton. In turn he distanced himself somewhat from the party base which IMHO cost him the election.

Don't get me wrong I like Gore and his policies I just think he played it wrong in '00.

____________________________________________________________

In my opinion what Gore should have done was embrace Clinton's success and used his wonderful campaign skills to benefit him. Draw a very distinct line from Bush. Ignore the realigous right and emphasise his positions on the environment and technology.

[Debs]

102. Oh I dont know

Maybe pick a running mate that was anwhere near progressive.

[DaedelusNemo]

32. It's the swingers, not the dems

Swingers who might be attracted to a serious democratic policy but don't believe they see it; rather, a half-hearted attempt to not imitate the republicans too closely. In that case, might as well go with the folks who go ahead and say what they think - they actually appear to be the party of integrity.

"We're going to privatize SS"
"Uh, let's just do it a little bit."

Pah.

[wyldwolf]

37. interesting

So we should believe that swing voters will still vote against what they believe?

Sorry. Don't know how long it took you to formulate that theory, but I'll bet it wasn't long. No evidence to suggest the theory, either.

[DaedelusNemo]

66. And the option is?

I'm talking about the people who don't believe that either side gives them a chance to vote for what they believe. The people who don't think either party particularly represents them. So they're not voting 'against what they believe', they're voting either for a candidate or for the side which seems to them the least odious. If you believe that both parties are handing the country over to the corporations, you might prefer the ones who are at least up-front about it. If you vote at all.

You seem to be disputing that any such people exist (or at least that there are enough of them to matter.) I'm sure you will scorn my anecdotal evidence. If you like, you can examine the exit polls from this last election http://ourfuture.org/docUploads/greenberg110304fq.pdf[br />
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html ] and examine the positions that people took on the issues. They overwhelmingly preferred the democratic positions - a landslide. Why, then, did they not vote that way? It seems to me that the options are 1) emotional reactions to a candidates 2) Did not know/ understand / apprehend clearly the democratic and republican positions on these issues or 3) Did not trust anything the Democrats said. Feel free to add on any other options you see, and i'd be interested to know what relative proportion these causes, in your opinion, played in the result. I am focusing on causes #2 and #3; Bush can't run again, and the other causes apply to the democratic party as a whole.

There is no question people are voting 'against what they believe'. The question is why - and i would suggest many of them don't think they're doing that. You dispute that these people exist? How then, do you explain the outcome of the vote in the face of the voter's reported stands on the issues?

[mattclearing]

77. Ding ding ding ding!

Yes, believe it or not, the issues don't matter as much as whether or not you are perceived as serious about your stance.

Paul Wellstone was way more progressive than the majority of Minnesotans, but many people said in polls that while they didn't agree with him on many things, they liked that he had character and stood up for principle.

Like I said above...tax cuts, Iraq War, corporate giveaways...How do the Democrats expect anyone to take them seriously? Our senators routinely vote against their own interests just to have plausible deniability when someone calls them communist hippies.

[DaedelusNemo]

92. Right, integrity is important to people

and because they don't understand how the dems decide many of their positions they suspect it is arbitrary and simply tuned to the wind, even when it isn't.

What the dems need to do is to do a better job, not just of expressing values, but of showing how those values lead to positions on the issues, and consistently holding to them.

And it's not really that hard to do (to go into a brief rant here). Start with "liberty and justice for all", a bare necessity for good government that pretty much everyone believes in; and the idea of the American Dream, that you can get ahead in America if you're willing to put in some effort - the fundamentally liberal idea that America should be the land of opportunity. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's what we set up the government to accomplish in the first place.

It's not hard at all to explain the whys of most liberal positions starting from those as given principles. And if you do, that fills in a gap for an awful lot of people - if they can understand your motivation, it's more plausible that it might mean something and you might mean it.

Of course, you'd need to stick with your principles for it to be much help long-term... and you're probably not going to develop much results in the short-term. A dramatic rebranding of the democrats would help to speed that up; the new DNC, say, announces the party is henceforth a more grassroots party and sets up a mechanism by which they can communicate with each other, including the leadership - a forum, say, much like this one. That gives the democratic party permission to develop a new image - again, by giving it a motivation that can be understood.

[CWebster]

75. But the targeted group of voters was the "undecideds"

Remember? The assumption being that Dems would fall in line under the ABB mantle, but those wavering voters supposedly could be convinced by a Democratic contender who triangulates the Republican position.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. I'm a great admirer

of Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, but yet again I find a post seemingly written by Rip Van Winkle. The /Dems *WON* the last two post-Clinton presidential elections; and the last four elections, period! This one in a landslide! The fact is that that you can't legislate for a corrupt legislature. Give you a break! You wouldn't know what to do with it.

Why do you think so much of this board is dedicated to the ubiquitous fraud and voter suppression. Seemingly, difficult to prove in court, but court decisions, in any case, frequently bear little relationship to reality. Why do you think Congressman John Conyers and other lawyers are still collecting evidence, mindful, nevertheless, that that the overall result is unlikely to be changed, because of the composition of the composition of the two houses? And you think Max Cleland lost in 2002!

[dolstein]

12. Sooner or later you're going to have to face facts

I can understand why people would believe that Gore won the 2000 election. After all, he won the popular vote, and the media consortium study showed that if all valid ballots were counted, Gore likely would have won Florida.

But sorry, you're deluding yourself if you think Kerry won the 2004 election. I've yet to see any legitimate story which suggests that more votes were cast for Kerry than for Bush in Ohio. Kerry's own lawyers concluded that even if all the allegations of voting irregularities in Ohio were true, the number of votes involved weren't sufficient to affect the outomce. I'm a lawyer myself, and I know that the decision not to challenge the results in Ohio was not taken lightly.

And Bush had a three million vote margin nationally. Sure, the electoral vote is what matters, but we can't ignore the fact that Bush's margin in the popular vote was substantial.

And the story in Congress is even worse. The Democrats have been largely wiped out in the South, outside of the "majority minority" districts that were created under the Voting Rights Act.

I think the left is doing everything possible to avoid facing the harsh reality -- that there are more of them than there are of us, and that things are going to have to change if we ever want to become the majority party again.

[IndianaGreen]

21. New Donkey = The DLC's salvo in the Democratic cultural wars

The Catholic Church had its Counter Reformation, so fearful were they about Luther's reforms and the rise of Protestantism.

This New Donkey is along the same line, the DLC's salvo in the Democratic cultural wars. I guess they will also savage those of us that oppose the Iraq War because in their view we are weak defeatists in the face of terrorism.

Meet the New Donkey, same as the old Al From's donkey.

[Edgewater_Joe]

22. Yet Another New Donkey Entry That Doesn't Get It

Personally speaking, I don't "blame" Clinton for destroying the party, although in hindsight it's clear that he didn't do nearly enough to try and build an infrastructure that could sustain the attack that they should've known was coming (and his pecadilloes really hurt him in this regard). That I do blame him for.

I also think that it's clear that the entire DLC strategy only works when there's a charismatic leader running it. Because of Clinton's unique ability to cherry pick issues he could claim for himself, he was able to defang and frustrate Repunks for eight years (and I also think it's that Wile E. Coyote-to-Road Runner dynamic that has made too many Bush follows slavish, even more than 9/11 in many ways). Put any other Dem into that slot and the rhetoric sounds like what it is: Repunk Lite.

Bottom line: the DLC has been in action since 1988, and they can bleat and cry all they want, but THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE JOB.

So long. Farewell. Scram. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

End of discussion.

[Selatius]

28. Saying Bill Clinton sabotaged the Democratic Party sounds like a strawman

What people hate most about the DLC is that they readily take corporate funding, which does call into question the issue of corporatism infecting the party. When corporate interests collide with worker interests, the question arises as to whether these guys are going to stand up for ordinary people or sell them down the river just to ensure the check is in the mail.

My issue with the DLC is that they take corporate cash, and I see that as a fundamental conflict of interest with the working people in this country. The last thing we want is a corporate-driven agenda not just with foreign policy but with domestic policy as well. It's supposed to be a country for the people, not for corporations.

They must distance themselves from corporations and repudiate free trade and embrace fair or strategic trade, and they must stop relying on corporate cash. These corporations would obviously not be investing in the DLC if they did not feel that they were going to get something in return (i.e. potentially watering down progressive policies to satisfy corporate wants).

[DaedelusNemo]

35. No dollar vote without a legal vote

Wouldn't it be great to require that someone be eligible to vote before they could send in money? That would leave out all corporations, tho of course the people within them would still be free to follow their interests.

[FightinNewDem]

61. Very well...

I await your letter to Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Barbara Lee and Jim McDermott demanding that they foreswear theri corporate cash as well.

[Edgewater_Joe]

64. Clarifications

I don't think Clinton sabotaged the Party, I think he squandered an opportunity and kind of abandoned a responsibility to leave it better than he had, as he did the country.

As for the DLC ... yeah, their interests are corporate (and therefore Repunk) interests, but for me the bottom line is simpler: they suck. Their strategies don't work electorally and they sure as Hell don't work as models for leadership of the party. They've been dominant since at least 1992 (they kind of appeared in the late '80s) and they've had their chances to prove the strategies will work.

Their strategies don't work. Game Over. Simple as that for me.

[Q]

27. The New Donkey: "The sharp edge of the vital center"

That's a knee slapper.

The DLC wants to frame the discussion around winning elections and 'how the DLC came to be'. I really can't blame them because...like the Neocons...they can't promote their true agenda without running the risk of being exposed for the charlatans they are.

Can a DLCer answer this question: Why do you call yourselves 'New Democrats"? Why did you feel the need to distinguish yourselves from The Democratic party?

[greenohio]

41. Why do some call themselves "fiscal conservatives." or moderates?

Why?

[Q]

69. But do they call themselves...

...New Democrat fiscal conservatives? Or New Republican moderates? You can't even seem to answer a very simple, direct question.

But in a way that seems proper for someone who calls themselves a green from ohio defending the DLC which happens to be the antithesis of the Greens (or Democrats for that matter).

If you're not a New Democrat...why did you try to answer the question? Are you saying you're a Green Ohio New Democrat?

[ulysses]

47. destroyed? pshaw.

He and Al From placed the party firmly in the position of dominance and prestige it enjoys today.

[greenohio]

50. Because they are the all powerful all knowing gods

that we have made them.

[ulysses]

56. indeed!

After all, who else but those worthies could have led us to such a powerful position while achieving almost nothing of worth? Awe-inspiring, indeed.

[greenohio]

57. Yeah, all those dozens of DLC elected officials won

despite their DLC membership.

[ulysses]

59. proof positive!

Dozens! And just think of the many more dozens affected so positively by welfare reform!

[greenohio]

63. Yeah, lets pick apart every candidate on everything

except certain ones who are exempt.

[ulysses]

68. ok, yes. you got me.

I tend to exempt Democrats who didn't push for welfare reform and NAFTA. I am a bad, bad man.

[greenohio]

84. So bad, bad man, who do

fell about Dean who was a huge supporter of NAFTA?

[ulysses]

87. he understands the challenges, at least.

We ought to change NAFTA. We've only done half the job with globalization. You've globalized the rights of big corporations to do business anywhere in the country, but what we now need to do is globalize the rights of workers, labor unions, environmentalists and human rights. If you do that, you raise the standard of living in other countries. And what happens is our jobs stop going away because the cost of production goes up.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary Debate in Greenville SC Jan 29, 2004


http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Free_Trade.htm

Next?

[greenohio]

89. He still says

NAFTA helped his state. Its convenient, after its passed and all to start qualifying your support. He still does not call for its repeal.

[ulysses]

97. we can't have everything, I'm told.

You're tripping yourself up in your own "purity" agitprop. I'm quite happy to admit that Dean isn't the Second Coming, but he still gets it a hell of a sight more than BC.

[greenohio]

98. "Dean isn't the Second Coming"

I'm tripping myself up?

[ulysses]

99. yes, you are. n/t

[quaker bill]

65. Self serving pabulum is self serving pabulum

Read the election returns and weep.

Sorry, but what the DLC is doing is not working. you can come up with all the butt covering excuses you want, but election returns do not lie.

Clinton won because he is a masterful politician. Anything less and the Jennifer Flowers story would have burried him. Anything less and the Monica Lewinski story would have burried him. There is nothing about a series of policies, regardless of how well crafted, that overcomes something like this. The only thing that stands a chance is personal political skills. Recall the swifties, they were not close to as credible as Jennifer Flowers, but did vastly more damage.

If centrism was the answer, we would be inaugurating President Kerry next week. Kerry had centrism down cold, what he lacked was personal political skills. To quote the man; "I did not connect with the voters". Quite true, but unfortunately, it was not because they were apathetic.

Clinton's election was not a test of centrism as a theory. It was a test of a candidate with political skill running against a cold fish, with an assist from a third party candidate who was also a strong personality. Sandwiched between Perot and Clinton, Bush Sr. had all the sex appeal of Mr. Rogers.

You centrists love to hang your hat on Clinton's election for validation. In doing so, you take far too much credit for yourselves and give Bill Clinton, the man, far too little.

It is the fatal flaw in your argument.

[GOPBasher]

71. I agree about Clinton. But about Max Cleeland...

I agree that the downfall of the Dem party did not happen because of Clinton. Many of the Dems in the South were old conservatives anyway. Our social liberalism of the 90's was probably the biggest factor in our demise in the South.

One thing though: Max Cleeland probably won. He was ahead in all the polls, and then on election day, somehow, Chambliss won on the audit-free voting machines. It was interesting. And it keeps happening.

[Q]

72. That 'social liberalism'...

...you speak of was CIVIL RIGHTS. And it was in the 60s...not the 90s...when this type of social justice lost the South. The South was 'lost' long before the 90s.

[Selatius]

81. I don't think southerners are THAT bitter over 40 years ago

Nowadays, it's things such as "moral values" that loses the vote in the south. I live in Mississippi, and sure, there's KKK activity in certain parts of Mississippi, but most folks I know generally don't care about that junk anymore, especially the younger generation. What gets folks is things like gay marriage and abortion. They're only that way cause of where they get their information from: Corporate news outlets, hate radio, and the church priest. As a result, it also makes it more difficult to sell progressive ideas on things such as health care and public education, especially if it's called "communism."

[Hippo_Tron]

91. See my post below, Mississippi is not representative of the whole south

Let's face it Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina all go Republican in huge numbers, Democrats aren't going to win there. But Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennesee, and until recently Georgia aren't the same way. Democrats don't need to campaign in Mississippi and Alabama. They need to campaign in Arkansas, Tennesee, and Louisiana.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Carter and Clinton both won southern states

You're right, the "solid" democratic south was lost with the civil rights movement. But Jimmy Carter won almost every southern state, I believe the exceptions are Florida and Virginia. Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina were really the first to convert to solid GOP, Texas followed quickly in presidential elections. But Clinton still managed to win Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennesee both times, as well as Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia (if you coun't those as southern states). He also won Georgia the first time and Florida the second time. And I don't buy that whole thing about social liberalsim ruining our chances in the south. Clinton won in 1992 championing allowing gays to serve in the military, an idea that was more radical at the time than it is today and thus he was elected championing gay rights more than Kerry did.

Democrats probably aren't going to win Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina again any time soon, there's simply too much "social conservatism". But if we plan our campaigns right Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennesee, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida can all be swing states. Forcing the GOP to defend these southern states will force them to take money out of places like Ohio and give us a big advantage.

Democrats have the solid northeast and the solid west coast now, we don't need the solid south anymore. We just need to take a few southern states and we'll win in a landslide every time.

[CWebster]

73. ...the far Left fringe...

The Right's tactic for marginalizing the Democrats in the opening salvo, but read on:

"It has become accepted gospel among the far left fringe that the downfall of the Democratic Party"

So, the Democratic party isn't doing too well, huh? As a matter of fact, it has experienced a "downfall"?

Clinton himself did not destroy the party as you try to create a strawman argument to suggest. It was the boat he rode in that soured without Clinton to front it. One could argue that the Right succeeded in making Clinton damaged goods--much in the same way they marked Dean. The reality is the Right wants complete control so they are willing to use unethical means to achive their agenda. The only Democrat who is safe from the Republicans is Zell Miller, but it doesn't matter to what extent Dems seek triangulating to innoculate themselves from the Rights attacks--they will attack anyway. It is best to at least stand strong for something.

The Clintons held promise on their arrivial, but ushered in an increasing willingness to compromise on Reaganism. Ultimately, that tendency weakened the Party's plank because it became complicit in supporting the ruling, corporate class.

The New Democrats, or the Reub lite, who continually demonize the old Democrats as closer to commie reds, so often represent the agenda of the Republicans and that leaves the Democrats, under DLC leadership, without a tune of their own, thus the "downfall" of the party. Because " gradual but steady trend towards realignment of the two parties on roughly ideological lines" serves the Right only.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

78. Ya think?

By alienating their base and by going along to get along with so much of this criminal administration?

[Q]

79. delete

double post

[Q]

80. Who is in this 'left-wing'...

...that the New Donkeys and Democrats seem to despise so much? This is a very broad term that most likely includes: Women. Workers. Minorities.

The DLC...as a minority faction...has started a war of words with the majority of the party. Doesn't sound very wise to me.

[eg101]

83. DU needs an "anti-DLC" forum

the DLC is the epitome of corporatism and we need to organize to disassociate the DLC from the Democratic party. Let's start with a DU forum focused on how to oust the DLC from our party! Same goes for the "New Donkey" or "New Democrat Network" or any other stalking horse for corporate power.

What does it matter if we win, if we end up with a party that is just marginally different from the GOP?

Look to the social democracies of Europe for political answers: they have the highest quality of life, the highest standards of living.

As for Clinton, he sold out to corporate power. He is nothing to me.

[DaedelusNemo]

96. How about a debate on the issues?

There's plenty of DLC-DFA tension and name-calling, but i just don't see much debate of their respective positions on individual issues. It could well turn out that one or the other of them indeed has the positions that most people here agree with. Or it could turn out that people agree with the DLC on some things, the DFA on others. Other way, it would be a productive discussion, seems like, maybe providing something to step forward from as opposed to this swamp.

(Not griping at you personally, rather the forum)

[RogueTrooper]

86. Clinton's strategy was brilliant for it's time

but it's time has past. Long past. For me, it is not so much that the DLC are ideologically wrong but that they are ideologically obsolete. Twenty odd years ago they represented much needed new thinking in centre-left politics but now they are just ideological dinosaurs. They are now as damaging to the Democratic party as those they rose to oppose. The DLC represent a moment in time that has long past.

Now, as for your strawman argument at the end of your post. At it's been a while here is a reminder...

"Finally, you really have to look at where Democrats lost ground in 2002 and 2004 to see how truly laughable it is to suggest that "centrism" was some kind of fatal curse for our congressional and presidential candidates. Does anybody really think that, say, Max Cleland would have won re-election in 2002 had he been more of a loud-and-proud old-fashioned pre-Clinton Democrat? Or that Brad Carson could have won Oklahoma last year if he had come out for a single-payer health care system? Give me a break."

Who said they had to run as old fashioned pre-Clinton Democrats? Standing up and being proud of being members of the Democratic party, and proud of what the Democratic party stands for would have been enough. Campaigning with a background of a party that is proud of it's values would have helped too. It is not about be left, right, liberal or moderate it is about understanding the evironment around you and the 21st centuary DLC has a very poor record of that.

[Dhalgren]

88. I think that the sooner the Democratic Party

comes out of the closet and publicly promotes itself as the slightly right of center party that "real" Democrats can go to bed with, the better off everyone will be. That way the vile, despicable, lefty-commie-pinko-fags can go find their own party. And those awful feminists and "woman-righters", and pro-abortion freaks can just go and find themselves some other party. Then the "real" Democrats can get down to sharing power with their blood-money brothers the corporate/republicans.

[Debs]

103. Bravo

I'm with you Dhalgren

[Tinoire]

94. LMAO! The New Donkey??? Sounds more like the same "Old Ass"

Sounds more like the same "Old Ass", same old shit.

Ah lol, LMAO, the New Donkey indeed! Well, at least it's appropriate and conjures up exactly the right idea in people's minds ;) Good pick!

The DLC really should really consider getting competent help in its marketing department! This one is not going to do the DLC any favors. The New Donkey? The New Donkeys? LMAO!