the key difference between Dean and the DLC

[CTLawGuy]

Dean is favor of DOING GOOD at the expense of LOOKING GOOD, if that proves necessary.

Speaking out against the Iraq war is a good example. Dean is ok with being tagged an ultra-leftist even though he is far from it, so he has no problem doing the right thing by speaking out against the war. His philosophy is that "if you consistently do right, people wil respect you and support you because you are genuine."

The DLC is in favor of LOOKING GOOD and they will sacrifice DOING GOOD to achieve it, if they must.

The DLC supported the war in Iraq becuase they thought it would make the party look good. The fact that voting for the war was not the right thing to do didn't concern them. their philosophy is that "if you don't get elected, you can't do right, so if you have to do wrong to get elected, it is worth it."

[idlisambar]

1. Sounds about right n/t

[BornaDem]

22. Agree with you. n/t

[On the Road]

2. Clinton, Gore and Some Others Are (or Were) DLC Also

It's important not to tar everyone with the same brush.

[CTLawGuy]

5. even Dean was DLC

but he and Gore became alienated as the DLC tacked far to the right after 2000 and September 11th.

[wyldwolf]

11. you have some proof of this, right?

A quote from Gore. An article. Something?

[CTLawGuy]

15. try his move on speech where he completely refutes the DLC line on Iraq

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

[wyldwolf]

3. aside from speaking out against the Iraq War...

...Dean is as DLC in his policies as they come. In fact, he wasn't really anti- Iraq war. Wanna discuss? Throw out some issues and we'll see how Dean and the DLC compare.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

9. All snarkiness aside, I asked for a comparison on issues

Would you like to do a break down on issues and compare Dean and the DLC?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

10. you're constant

I asked for a simple comparison between Dean and the DLC on the issues.

I know my facts. Do you know yours?

[CTLawGuy]

14. they're definitely YOUR facts

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

7. Well Clark wasn't anti-IWR either

In fact a resolution to threaten military action was his idea, but that's gotten lost in the fog of Primary 2003 too.

[wyldwolf]

12. correct

At least we can admit that.

Deaniacs overlook Dean's belief in WMDs in Iraq and his support for the Biden-Luger amendment.

[CTLawGuy]

16. Bush didn't like Biden Lugar

and there was a reason. it wouldn't have let him run over Iraq like the IWR did.

[Totally Committed]

21. I totally disagree with this...

Wes lost his position at CNN because he refused to stop his criticism of going to war in Iraq! Lou Dobbs got him fired because he refused to spout the pro-administration/IWR opinion required.

This is a shame, because I originally came into this thread to make a positive comment about Howard Dean, but instead I find my candidate being lied about.

I don't understand why it is necessary to tear down another candidate in order to try and make yours appear better. Especially if the statement you make is completely disingenuous in the first place! Why can't you tout Howard Dean without tearing down Wes Clark? Certainly you know Howard Dean is an amazing man. His views and courage are strong. He was anti-war in the primaries, and acquitted both himself and his supporters very well. Why can't you just say those things and leave the negative and untrue bullshit out?

-----

To quote a fellow Clarkie on this very subject:

IWR did authorize the use of force. It placed that ability into the hands of the President to use at will.

A resolution which simply threatened to create such a authorization, should certain demands not be met, is quite different. That is called "keeping all the cards on the table" and is not the same as an ultimatum to use force as the first response. It is simply putting that possibility on the table to send a message.

Not only did Clark not encourage military intervention, he discouraged it to the congress during his head to head with Perle. That same committee, during their recent rematch, praised his foresight and slammed Perle for his optimistic and activist pro-invasion statements.

Clark's Quote on the subject:

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

Maybe it's just been too quiet and you are looking for a flame-war? Amuse yourself some other way.

TC

[Pepperbelly]

44. bullshit!

George Bush already had the idea before he drove onto the national scene in 2000.

[Sparkly]

82. What Clark are you talking about?

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Dean may be more of a moderate on some things than I might like but

I think he will still prove to be good in the position he is in.

In fact, if he just states the facts and gets the GOP panties in a bunch I will count it as a success.

[TheFarseer]

28. Who was anti-war then?

Kucinich? Sharpton? Maybe one of them could have taken down W in the general election running on an anti-war platform? Well, they probably would have captured D.C.'s electoral votes anyway.

[sandnsea]

67. I think that's the point

Dennis Kucinich was anti-war, but he was all for getting the inspectors back into Iraq, he just didn't have a plan to do it.

The rest all made threats of war as part of their Iraq strategy. Kucinich was the only one who was clearly anti-war. Probably Sharpton and Braun too, but Kucinich had the true anti-war following.

[Zorra]

8. The DLC supported the war because their corporate masters hired them

to do so.

Oh yeah, another difference: Howard Dean is a democrat.

[DuckFan4ever]

13. For sure.

If Howard Dean isn't the face of the Democratic Party, then who is? No one else is out there doing what he's doing.

[FightinNewDem]

18. Dean is a New Democrat

Dean: Pro balanced budgets
DLC: Pro balanced budgets

Dean: Pro free trade
DLC: Pro free trade

Dean: Favors a market-based national health care system
DLC: Favors a market-based national health care system

Dean: Supports sweeping lobbying and conflict-of-interest reforms
DLC: Supports sweeping lobbying and conflict-of-interest reforms

Dean: Backs a permanent tax credit for R&D investment
DLC: Backs a permanent tax credit for R&D investment

Dean: Supports a comprehensive plan for energy independence
DLC: Supports a comprehensive plan for energy independence

Folks, if you still think that Dean is a lefty in the mold of Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders, you're wrong. Dean is, for the most part, very much a New Democrat. Read Dean's health care plan, and compare it to Lieberman's plan. They are nearly identical. Ditto for their energy platforms. The main difference between Dean and some other New Dems is one of style and rhetoric.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

23. I'll ask you a second time

why the DLC bashed Dean mercilessly?

Wouldn't they be thrilled that one of their own is doing well?


--------------------------------------------------
Heres a comparison for you

Democrats: against murder
Republicans: against murder

Democrats: believe child molestation should be illegal
Republicans: believe child molestation should be illegal

Democrats: in favor of the interstate highway system
Republicans: in favor of the interstate highway system

HMM Democrats and Republicans must be the same people :eyes:
---------------------------------------------------


here's another comparison, using non-trivial issues

Dean: against the invasion of Iraq
DLC: for the invasion of Iraq

Dean: in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts to balance the budget
DLC: in favor of keeping the bush tax cuts, at least in part.

Dean: in favor of being balanced toward Palestine and Israel
DLC: in favor of Israel

Dean: In favor of being proud to be a Democrat
DLC: in favor of running away from the Democratic base and playing the "middle".

Dean: run campaigns with small donations and heavy local activist involvement.
DLC: run campaigns with big corporate donations, insult and dismiss activists as being harmful to the party.

Dean: run a 50 state presidential campaign
DLC: run an 18 swing state campaign

If you look at the unimportant and uncontroversial issues, Dean and the DLC will often agree, but looking at the big, important issues, there are BIG differences.

[FightinNewDem]

25. It's Debunkin' Time!

Dean: against the invasion of Iraq
DLC: for the invasion of Iraq

Fair enough. This is an area of legitimate disagreement.

Dean: in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts to balance the budget
DLC: in favor of keeping the bush tax cuts, at least in part.

A vast oversimplification. The DLC did not support the Bush tax cut proposal. They do support leaving in place a limited number of tax cuts and credits that primarily benefit lower and middle income taxpayers. They support the repeal of most aspects of the Bush plan.

Dean: in favor of being balanced toward Palestine and Israel
DLC: in favor of Israel

Wrong. Aside from Dean's weird red-meat incident in New Mexico, most of his public statements have been firmly in support of US support for Israel. This places him squarely in the Democratic mainstream, and not in the company of the fringier, pro-Palestinan elements of the party. In addition, Dean's campaign chairman, Steve Grossman, is a former national chairman of AIPAC, which pretty well undercuts any notion that Dean has a serious Israel problem.

"On comparing his views to Americans for Peace Now and AIPAC, when asked if his views of the Middle East were closer to APN's views, Dean said, 'No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view.' (Forward, November 22, 2002)"

Dean: In favor of being proud to be a Democrat
DLC: in favor of running away from the Democratic base and playing the "middle".

This is crap, plain and simple. The simple fact that the DLC has a different notion of what constitutes the Democratic Party's values and traditions than you do does not give either side a monopoly on legitimacy. Frankly, many of the people involved in the DLC have been working for and electing Democrats for a hell of a lot longer than many online newbies, so I'd be really careful about comparing partisan bona fides.


Dean: run campaigns with small donations and heavy local activist involvement.
DLC: run campaigns with big corporate donations, insult and dismiss activists as being harmful to the party.

First of all, the DLC does not "run campaigns". It does not endorse candidates, raise money for candidates, or have any thing to do with nuts-and-bolts organizing. It is basically a think tank and networking group for policymakers to share ideas, brainstorm, and strategize. Second, if you think that the Dean high command at the DNC is forgoing corporate donations, then you are remarkably naieve. Oh, and for kicks, go and check the campaign finance reports of Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, et al; you might be in for a rude surprise.


Dean: run a 50 state presidential campaign
DLC: run an 18 swing state campaign

This is utterly without any basis in fact. The DLC has actually pushed for a national approach for years. If you can show me some citation to the contrary, I'll buy the first round.

[madfloridian]

41. There was a time such arrogance would have upset me.

There is just so much you posted that is so arrogant and so off-base that I am almost too stunned to reply.

If you don't think the DLC has a hand in political campaigns, then I have some swampland for you.

Your quote:
"First of all, the DLC does not "run campaigns". It does not endorse candidates, raise money for candidates, or have any thing to do with nuts-and-bolts organizing. It is basically a think tank and networking group for policymakers to share ideas, brainstorm, and strategize."

Hey, maybe that is why we have been losing. Maybe that is why the GOP has the WH, the Senate, and the House. Because they have sitting and thinking and brainstorming. Or as Howard Dean puts it, they "pontificate in offices."

Well guess what....the "activists" they scorned are becoming part of the party now. It will take a while, but it is happening whether they like "activists" or not.

I see their hand at work here in Florida. Anyone who looks, smells, or sounds progressive is thwarted in their efforts...in a covert manner by unnamed people.

It is going to take a long long time to even out the party again because they shut out the traditional interests of the party to get the corporate money. We did not know it then, but we do now.

There will be both kinds of money, grassroots and corporate. But this time it won't be so one-sided, and this time we know what happened.

And if you can not see and hear the difference when Al From, Tom Vilsack, Will Marshall, and Bruce Reed speak their platitudes, and when Howard Dean speaks from true belief in his goals.....then you have not been paying attention.

We are in Iraq because of this group, and we will probably stay there because they want it to be a paradise for corporate interests and oil companies.

I could take each of your points and give more truth on it, but it ain't worth it anymore. When someone goes out of their way to squelch activism and excitement in the party, then I suspect their motives. All this "internet newbie" crap is over the top.

[FightinNewDem]

53. Here we go...

No, the "internet newbie" thing is not crap.

Some of us were fighting for Democrats long before the Dean campaign, long before MoveOn, long before there was such a thing as the internet as we know it.

Some of us were writing postcards for Democrats twenty years ago. Some of us were canvassing door-to-door, trying to unseat John Sununu back in the 1980s.

Some of us were fighting the good fight against the Seabrook nuclear fiasco decades ago.

Some of us have fought like hell to protect our state's hate crimes law from a right-wing assault.

Some of us have fought like hell to rid our environment of toxins like mercury, CO2 and NOX.

Some of us have fought like hell to protect the legal rights of victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Some of us have fought like hell for a state budget that is more concerned with the public good than with private interests.

Some of us have had he guts to tell the casino industry to take their blood money elsewhere.

Some of us have spent untold hours trying to clean up a broken system of ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws.

And guess what. Some of us are New Democrats and damn proud of it.

And frankly, we don't appreciate a lot of condescending finger-wagging from people whose involvement pales in comparison to ours. :rant:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[FightinNewDem]

58. A bit thin-skinned, aren't we?

Recall, Madfloridian, that you were the one who questioned the party loyalty of New Democrats.

[Pepperbelly]

59. Damn you get mad when someone ...

disagrees with you about something.

[madfloridian]

64. Yes, I do, PB.

Because I am just as important to the future of this country as you and the DLC folks are. I would have been fighting harder a long time ago if I had been aware of the changes they had made.

There really is no need for the attitude toward those of us are working hard at local levels.

It is arrogant, and it is needless.

And yes, I do get mad about that. Some in the wing of the DLC make light of our importance, and oh, yes, I resent it.

This is not about Dean or me or you. This is about the fact that we are just like most of the real true Republicans now. They don't have a voice in their party anymore. We were not having one in ours, and that is being changed now. But it will take a while.

Meanwhile it is not very productive to irritate the "little folks".

Oh,BTW, this is a not about disagreement, this is about losing my party and my country because 40 men from the South sat down in 1988, made up a platform to cater to the big guys, and forgot the people had needs as well.

Hell, yes, I am mad. But you are trying to make it about me. It isn't.

[Pepperbelly]

65. Get over yourself enough ...

to stop throwing rocks and making assumptions about other people. When you do that, you harm whatever case you are making.

I am not a member of the DLC. If I was, I would certainly say yet you make that assumption because I noted that yor get mad when someone disagrees.

Well, tough luck. I still think you are thin-skinned and should cool off a little bit. And yes, YOUR posts certainly are about you and about no one else.

[madfloridian]

69. I can't get over myself....I need to fight for what we have lost.

You have always done that to me, so I will ignore it.

I am very worried about some of the people I work with through some groups here. And yes, part of it is about me, so go on with the making fun.

Because our party has too often laid down and died on some very important issues, I work with some folks who are in medical crisis and nowhere to turn.

The government and congress have shoved the costs of Medicaid (the program for the poor), down to the states. The states can not afford it without raising taxes, and the Republicans won't raise taxes. Jeb is making it sound like it is simply being privatized here, but more is going on. People are losing their access to medical care by the thousands. Agencies who traditionally helped are not getting enough funding to aid them. It is a crisis. Since I am retired, I can do some of this as a volunteer.

Does that make it about me? Not really, it is about what has been done to these people by both parties. I have one person I have tried to help who will lose so much. I have contacted congressmen by phone to no avail. Things are in crisis, Pepperbelly, and I am trying to help.

How does one not stand up and fight when there is no one standing for them?

Is it about me? If you think so, it is. The DLC does not stand for the ordinary person. That is why we are here. I can not get exact numbers of those who are losing access here in Florida to their drugs for their mental/emotional problems, but there are many. This is dangerous.

In Tennessee over 300,000 may lose their Medicaid.

I could go on, but it does not matter. It is always about me according to some. Am I angry, yes. And I think that all parts of the party should be angry, but I don't hear them. I don't even hear any of them speaking out that this horrible travesty is happening.

[Pepperbelly]

70. Your work is commendable ...

and I truly respect the effort and desire you put into it.

That said, when someone disses Dr. Dean, that does not make them the devil incarnate.

[madfloridian]

71. This thread is more about activists, not Dean. At least in my posts.

This was not about Dean, Pepperbelly. It is the DLC versus Activists.

We are at least having a little say in things now, but not much. I still can not get Bill Nelson to respond to anything. I get more response now from my GOP congressman Putnam.

This was about the attitude toward including others in the party. It was about being lecture for being a "newbie internet activist."
I don't like that much.

[Pepperbelly]

72. Well I didn't do that ...

just noticed that your words were written with red edges and you were very mad. Watch that. Runs the blood pressure up, makes it hard to eat. Relax a little.

And yes, you are one of the good guys. Very sincere and committed. But relax. You really will feel better.

[madfloridian]

74. Would you like to have this said about you?

I don't think so. I get your point, but I was right to get angry over this. I will continue to do so. You may not have realized what I was responding to, though. Here is part of it. I did not like being called a internet newbie.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"No, the "internet newbie" thing is not crap.

Some of us were fighting for Democrats long before the Dean campaign, long before MoveOn, long before there was such a thing as the internet as we know it.

Some of us have fought like hell for a state budget that is more concerned with the public good than with private interests.

Some of us have had he guts to tell the casino industry to take their blood money elsewhere.

Some of us have spent untold hours trying to clean up a broken system of ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws.

And guess what. Some of us are New Democrats and damn proud of it.

And frankly, we don't appreciate a lot of condescending finger-wagging from people whose involvement pales in comparison to ours..."

(and that comment upset me. and you jumped in on me as well. not fair)

Because see, I do many of those things as well. I don't think others should judge me. They don't know what I do.

[Pepperbelly]

75. but you don't understand me!

When someone is mad, I cannot HELP but poking them just a little.

[madfloridian]

77. That's ok.

I understand now what you were doing, but the comments from the other were not acceptable.

[Larkspur]

88. And the New Democrat mantra has led the Democratic Party into near

permanent minority status.

Go ahead and keep fighting the loser's way but get out of our way because we want the Dem Party to behave like an opposition party, not a Repuke-lite party.

[CTLawGuy]

45. Hey

I like the red sox by the way. I wish they would get rid of Bellhorn btw and get a real second baseman.


Now, back to your points.


Dean: against the invasion of Iraq
DLC: for the invasion of Iraq

Fair enough. This is an area of legitimate disagreement.

Thank you for being strong enough to cede a fair point.


Dean: in favor of being balanced toward Palestine and Israel
DLC: in favor of Israel

I don't think I can argue this further, so I'll have to cede the point. I did hear about Dean's famous statement about balance and the uproar it caused.


Dean: In favor of being proud to be a Democrat
DLC: in favor of running away from the Democratic base and playing the "middle".

This is crap, plain and simple. The simple fact that the DLC has a different notion of what constitutes the Democratic Party's values and traditions than you do does not give either side a monopoly on legitimacy. Frankly, many of the people involved in the DLC have been working for and electing Democrats for a hell of a lot longer than many online newbies, so I'd be really careful about comparing partisan bona fides.

You mean people like Zell Miller?

Somehow I think the Democratic base doesn't agree with Bush as much as the DLC seems to do. I don't think the Dem base was for the Iraq war, or the tax cuts. Most Democrats believe that social programs are better for the poor and middle class than an extra 300 bucks.

I'll post Al From's comments again about the Dem base:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=251866

The fact is, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean likes to call it, is an aberration, a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home. That wing lost the party 49 states in two elections and turned a powerful national organization into a much weaker, regional one.

the core of the Democratic base is the activists and From just completely dismissed them in this famous attack on Howard Dean. These activists advocate responsible foreign policy, gay rights, civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights and From just seems to be embarassed by them.

Dean: run campaigns with small donations and heavy local activist involvement.
DLC: run campaigns with big corporate donations, insult and dismiss activists as being harmful to the party.

First of all, the DLC does not "run campaigns". It does not endorse candidates, raise money for candidates, or have any thing to do with nuts-and-bolts organizing. It is basically a think tank and networking group for policymakers to share ideas, brainstorm, and strategize. Second, if you think that the Dean high command at the DNC is forgoing corporate donations, then you are remarkably naieve. Oh, and for kicks, go and check the campaign finance reports of Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, et al; you might be in for a rude surprise.

The DLC doesn't endorse candidates? Then why was it so interested in what Howard Dean was doing in the primary?

Dean made his mark from many small donors. He raised record amounts of money that way and he is transitioning that strategy to the DNC very well.

In fact Dean is making big donors upset:

"Democratic fundraisers say that there is growing concern over what they call Dean’s lack of attention to major donors and that donors are much less likely to give money if they don’t have sufficient opportunity to meet with the party’s leadership."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060705/fundraisers.html

Big donors like to donate to both parties to hedge their bets. But Dean has found a way to break out of the cycle of dependence on this money.

Dean: run a 50 state presidential campaign
DLC: run an 18 swing state campaign

This is utterly without any basis in fact. The DLC has actually pushed for a national approach for years. If you can show me some citation to the contrary, I'll buy the first round.

in retrospect, i agree with you and won't argue this point further.

[FightinNewDem]

54. At least we agree on Bellhorn!

Move Billy Mueller to second, and let Youk start at third.:toast:

[FightinNewDem]

57. I'll concede a point here

I'll give you points on the small donor issue. Dean did the party a real service by revitalizing the small-donor approach, an area where the DNC has been out to lunch for years.

Re: the endorsement issue, the DLC can't endorse candidates, due to its tax status. Frankly, there wasn't a clear consensus among the DLC's leaders in 2004 as to who the candidate should be. Al From supported Lieberman, Bruce Reed backed Edwards, Ed Kilgore and Will Marshall were with Kerry, and Clark had some support as well. It's the same story for 2008. Clinton, Warner, Richardson, Bayh and Clark all have a claim to the New Dem constituency in some way.

Look, as a New Dem with higher political aspirations, I wish the DLC could raise me all of this money , but that isn't how it really works. The NDN and the New Democratic Coalition PAC actively support candidates, and are certainly ideologically allied with the DLC, but they are separate groups, and the coordination between the organizations is not as significant as people on the left seem to think.

[wyldwolf]

27. before you ask a question, answer the question that was asked first...

...or take the challenge.

But I really don't expect you to.

No one ever does.

See, that is the hallmark of the anti-DLCers.

Openly challenge them and they either disappear or try to sway the discussion away from the point.

..and the point being - as I originally asked: Let's compare Dean and the DLC on the issues and see how different they are?

But, in the spirit of healthy debate, I'll take on your list BEFORE you accept my challenge, even though my challenge was issued first.

Dean: against the invasion of Iraq
DLC: for the invasion of Iraq

Dean was for the invasion of Iraq. He supported the Biden-Luger amendment.

Here is a nice source:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

I could post a few snippets, but the article is so fact based, sourced, and fair about Dean's supposed anti-war stance, I'd rather let others read it all and take it in.

Dean: in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts to balance the budget
DLC: in favor of keeping the bush tax cuts, at least in part.

You're problem is with most other Dems in this instance, not just the DLC. Even Dennis didn't call for the complete roll back of all the tax cuts.

Barbara Boxer is in favor of middle class tax cuts.

You have a problem with a smaller tax burden on the lower and middle class? The DLC's (and many other Democrat's) belief that repealing the tax cut on the very rich and closing corporate tax loopholes can generate $641 billion in budget savings.

Yeah - Dean would have lost 49 states had he promised to repeal the tax cuts on the lower and middle class.


Dean: in favor of being balanced toward Palestine and Israel
DLC: in favor of Israel

Dean feels his position on Israel is exactly like Bill Clinton's.
Now... with Mr. Clinton being Mr. DLC, one wonders if you believe all DLC members hold the same positions on this issue?

Dean: In favor of being proud to be a Democrat
DLC: in favor of running away from the Democratic base and playing the "middle".

Silly statement. The Democratic party has always been a moderate party, and recent polling says rank and file dems want to the party to be more moderate. The moderates are the base.

Dean: run campaigns with small donations and heavy local activist involvement.
DLC: run campaigns with big corporate donations, insult and dismiss activists as being harmful to the party.

Wanna talk corporate contributions?

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.

Dean amassed over $110,000 in donations in the first four months of his campaign from people with ties to the Fund for a Healthy America, a Vermont utility group.

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.

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

Massive amounts of Deans financing for his gubernatorial campaigns came from the health care, insuurance, banking, and pharmaceutical industries, with 65 percent of his campaign money coming from outside of Vermont.

One of Deans last acts as Governors was to auothrize the sale of the Vermont Yankee plant to Entergy/Koch Industries He refused to sell Vermont Yankee to another company just months earlier who offereed exactly the same deal. Entergy/Koch INdustries is, owned by the two riches contributors to the Bush Campaign in the United States, the Koch Borthers who founded the same Cato Institute that honored Dean with his conservative rating, as well as being the financial backers of virtually every neo-con think tank in D.C.

After the sale, Among the largest and first contributors to Deans presidential campaigns were the executives of the energy companies in Vermont owned in one way or another by Entergy.

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

Some things just don't change. Last month, the Dean Administration caved in to the demands of the state's major utilities, agreeing to support the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear station to the out-of-state Entergy Corporation. Under the deal, ratepayers are to be saddled with another expensive power contract while shareholders take the cash proceeds and run.

And for those looking for political intrigue, Vermont now has its own version of the kind of insider dealings that resulted in Vice President Cheney's national energy plan. Vermont utility executives got complete access to the Dean Administration's Public Service Department to pressure a deal on Vermont Yankee that will give the utilities some $25 million for their corporate coffers, and lock ratepayers into high-priced energy costs for the next ten years. This sweetheart deal was struck just after certain utility officials made political contributions to the Governor's presidential bid. Meanwhile, environmental groups didn't get the time of day.

...The timing of the Dean Administration's change of heart is troubling. The Department's support for the Entergy sale was announced just after utility officials made major campaign contributions to the Governor's presidential campaign. Was there a connection? Like Vice President Cheney, the Governor will say no. But only the utilities were in talks with the Governor's energy department. Environmental groups were denied any access to these discussions. And the utilities got what they wanted. If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020820040031/http://www.clf.org/hot/hydro_quebec_to_vermont_yankee.htm

Who is Entergy?

Entergy-Koch, LP (EKLP) is a limited partnership, formed in February 2001, between subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and Koch Industries, Inc.

http://www.eklp.com/

Among the papers under lock and key, NEWSWEEK has learned, are the records of Dean’s meetings with utility executives about the controversial sale of a Vermont nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. Dean’s lawyers refused to release the papers to an environmental group last year, citing “executive privilege”—an echo of Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense of his energy-task-force meetings. “His sealing the records makes Cheney look accessible,” says one aide to a rival.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660764/

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

Howard Dean got contributions from:

Time Warner $78,736
Microsoft Corp $52,122
IBM Corp $39,335
Morgan Stanley $29,350
Citigroup Inc $26,386
Goldman Sachs $24,500
Viacom Inc $22,750
News Corp $20,650 (yeah - the FOX News folks!)

Dean: run a 50 state presidential campaign
DLC: run an 18 swing state campaign

Dean can say all he want to say about this because he never ran a presidential campaign. Mark Warner - big time DLCer - calls for a 50 state campaign.

[CTLawGuy]

31. why did the DLC attack Dean?

NT

[wyldwolf]

32. sorry, darboy - I've played your game - now face the music

I know you're scared to take an honest and open look at the issues and see where Dean and DLC members stand on them... I understand.

All through Dean's run, I watched him (and his Deaniacs) attack anyone who dared oppose or disagree with him. He isn't above criticism and he did not deserve a free coronation.

And two DUers have seriously debunked your tirade, and your chief concern is that people were mean to Dean. :nopity:

[CTLawGuy]

37. wow, you know me so well

:eyes:


I posted below about your statements.

I dont' think Dean is above criticism, but I think doing things like claiming he was really for the war is over the line.

[FightinNewDem]

35. Simple...they disagreed with his approach

The DLC was upset with Dean's efforts to cater to the louder parts of the Democratic left. The whole "Democratic Wing" schtick really pissed off a lot of Democrats, not all of whom can easily be characterized as rabid DLCers. Basically, Dean ignored his commendable record as Governor. He could have run as the Paul Tsongas of the race, but the casting call had an opening for a Paul Wellstone, so Dean went that way instead.

Let me paraphrase a friend of mine, a Democratic elected official in New Hampshire and a 2004 Edwards supporter:

"If GOVERNOR Dean had been on the ballot, I would have supported him in a heartbeat. It's CANDIDATE Dean that I can't support".

In other words, the Dean campaign made a fetish out of appealing to the self-proclaimed base, and looked down its nose at more centrist Democrats. You never got that impression from any of the other campaigns.

[madfloridian]

43. Hi, it's me. I am one of the "louder parts" of the party.

Shall I go away now? I think I need to find the thread I posted one night where the Dean Campaign openly showed DLC compliments to Dean through the years...right on the campaign website.

And they asked why the DLC was going after him? and after the "activists."

Meanwhile the 40 of them, including the PPI, sat in their offices and decided the party platform and goals and inhaled the corporate money.

I need to find that thread. Oh, my.

40 men running the party while sitting on their duffs and thinking about it.

Oh, did I mention that the House New Dem Caucus got the courage to oppose CAFTA, and the DLC just came out in favor of it?

[FightinNewDem]

48. The Great Center Left Conspiracy Lives!

Yes, it's all one big evil conspiracy aimed at you, Madfloridian.

With all due respect to my friends who work at the DLC and PPI, you guys give them way too much credit. It's a freakin' think tank. There is no evil cabal meeting in Bruce Reed's living room to decide the fate of the western world. Frankly, Bruce would rather be at an Orioles or Nationals game than plotting the downfall of western civilization. But when I see him next weekend, I'll convey your outrage.

Oh, and since you mentioned corporate cash, will you be asking Mr. Conyers to return the buckets of dirty casino money that he has received in recnt years?

[madfloridian]

51. There it goes again.

Guess what, you hurt yourself with it. That arrogant attitude many have toward us.

[CTLawGuy]

36. You have some good points

unlike most people I can admit when I'm wrong on some things

Dean: against the invasion of Iraq
DLC: for the invasion of Iraq


Biden Lugar was not an endorsement of the illegal invasion and takeover of Iraq. It authorized military force ONLY to get rid of WMD. Bush was against it because it wasn't flexibile enough. Back in 2002, Dean suspected Saddam might have WMD, as many of us did, but he wasn't going to be in favor of invasion without that invasion being necessary due to hard evidence.

Dean: in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts to balance the budget
DLC: in favor of keeping the bush tax cuts, at least in part.


Dean and Gephardt called for complete repeal. I don't care what Dennis did, I don't even like Dennis that much. The Bush tax cuts were completely irresponsible and we have to repeal them. It's ok to be in favor of lower taxes on the middle class, but not when the country has a huge defecit.

I find it ironic acutally - its a REPUBLICAN idea that the middle class is better off with an extra 300 bucks in cash rather than universal health care, good schools and firm social security.

It's all about asking the question, when there's a war on and the country is in debt, should we be cutting taxes?


"Yeah - Dean would have lost 49 states had he promised to repeal the tax cuts on the lower and middle class."

that statement reeks of typical DLC thinking. You ask, "what will make us look good?", rather than "what is right?"


Dean: in favor of being balanced toward Palestine and Israel
DLC: in favor of Israel

I'll cede that point to you. I shouldn't have brought it up because I dont have enough knowledge. I heard what Dean had said about being balanced and then how he was attacked for having that position.


Dean: In favor of being proud to be a Democrat
DLC: in favor of running away from the Democratic base and playing the "middle".

this is Al From of the DLC: "The fact is, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean likes to call it, is an aberration, a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home. That wing lost the party 49 states in two elections and turned a powerful national organization into a much weaker, regional one. "

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=251866

"Weakness abroad?" Is that what opposing an immoral war is? is that what speaking out against torture and GITMO is?

"interest group liberalism," you mean like gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, civil liberties. (I thought liberal wasn't supposed to be a dirty word)

Mr. From trashed the values of the Democratic Party in that statement - sticking up for the disadvantaged (interest group liberalsim) and standing for a responsible and humble foreign policy (weakness abroad).

If you agree with Mr. From then you and I are on different sides.

Dean, on the other hand, is in favor of standing up for what we believe in, even if we don't think it will play in Peoria. Because maybe Peorians are looking for someone with conviction rather than someone trying to sell them a bill of goods.


Dean: run campaigns with small donations and heavy local activist involvement.
DLC: run campaigns with big corporate donations, insult and dismiss activists as being harmful to the party.

Dean raised record amounts of money on the Internet from donors giving less than $100 each. yes, Dean has a few contributors that give more, but the power of the small donors rules the day.

Dean: run a 50 state presidential campaign
DLC: run an 18 swing state campaign

Dean most certainly HAS run a presidential campaign before, his own.
he got promoted to chair because the state party chairs liked his ideas about empowering them to do more. Now, Dean is paying for organizers in red states like CO, and he is visiting and organizing in red states.

[wyldwolf]

76. Let's clarify our statements, then

Biden Lugar was not an endorsement of the illegal invasion and takeover of Iraq.

That isn't what your problem was. Your problem was supporting the Iraq war. The Biden-Luger amendment did just that but with a different time frame.

Dean and Gephardt called for complete repeal.

And they were both wrong to do so. The Bush tax plan should never have been passed, but the two of them would have been big time losers had they won the nomination and announced repealing the tax cuts on the lower and middle class.

As I said before, and as Kerry repeatedly said, education and health care would have been very affordable if only the tax cuts on the wealthiest had been rolled back.

Interesting you should invoke Gephardt - who fought to pass Clinton's DLC economic plan in '93 and campaigned on it during the primaries. And also interesting you would wave off Kucinich for not being against repealing the whole Bush tax plan. The insinuation there is Kucinich must be DLC-ish by your standards.

Concerning the quoted statement from Al From

"Weakness abroad?" Is that what opposing an immoral war is? is that what speaking out against torture and GITMO is?

First, the facts show that the politics of Dean's most ardent followers WERE NOT representative of the Democratic Party rank and file now or in the past accept perhaps during the McGovern period.

From the McGovern era on, the hard left has opposed every military endeavor the US has been involved in. The US - even under Democratic control - has never been pacifist. And the DLC and it's members have spoken out against the torture and gitmo. Invoking that was definitely a red herring.

"interest group liberalism," you mean like gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, civil liberties. (I thought liberal wasn't supposed to be a dirty word)

Remember - it was the Democratic party under the control of moderate-centrists like Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton who enacted the civil rights measures you speak of.

"Interest group liberalism" as referred to by the DLC hearkens back to one of the reasons the group was founded - so the Democratic party could once again put the national interest first.

Dean raised record amounts of money on the Internet from donors giving less than $100 each. yes, Dean has a few contributors that give more, but the power of the small donors rules the day.

To be fair, everyone raised record amounts of money on the internet in the last presidential race. The fact remains that Dean took corporate money - lots of it - from some very unlikely connections, shattering your theory that the Dean didn't run a campaign funded partially by corporations.

Dean most certainly HAS run a presidential campaign before, his own.
he got promoted to chair because the state party chairs liked his ideas about empowering them to do more. Now, Dean is paying for organizers in red states like CO, and he is visiting and organizing in red states.

No, Dean ran a campaign to win the nomination of the Democratic party. That wasn't a presidential campaign.

I understand what Dean is doing now.

But to claim the DLC didn't promote a 50-state strategy is unfounded.

[CTLawGuy]

103. .

"Remember - it was the Democratic party under the control of moderate-centrists like Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton who enacted the civil rights measures you speak of."


You forgot that FDR did a lot of things to help the people (e social security) But if these people were "moderate centrists" then the Dems have never had any liberals. Dean is very firmly in the mold of all those people.

Its actally really funny that you invoke HST, JFK and LBJ.

If HST were a memeber of today's DLC in 1948, the Dems would not have not put civil rights in the platform, for fear that Strom Thurmond would have walked out of the convention hall, formed his own party and split the vote. He would be afraid of losing 49 states by doing something so "stupid" as standing up for black people.

If JFK was in the DLC in 1962, he would have followed the advice of Gen. Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay and responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis by invading Cuba. He wouldn't have wanted to look "weak abroad". The action would likely have caused a nuclear war.

If LBJ were in today's DLC in 1964, he would have calculated that the Democratic Party would lose the south for a generation if he signed the civil rights act, and he would have vetoed it rather than risk a weaker party. Wouldn't want to lose 49 states now, would he :eyes:


Don't associate these great people who took the Dean strategy of doing good over looking good and compare them to your group, who would have advocated each and every counterfactual course that I outlined here, all in the name of looking good.

[wyldwolf]

108. why do you always overlook all my points and veer off in other directions?

Ok, why not...

You forgot that FDR did a lot of things to help the people

Yes, he did. He was great moderate president.

But if these people were "moderate centrists" then the Dems have never had any liberals. Dean is very firmly in the mold of all those people.

Well, maybe not by YOUR standards. "Liberals" or "Progressives" like yourself left the party in 1948 and formed the Progressive party with FDR's former VP -Henry Wallace - as their presidential nominee. See - FDR had replaced Wallace on the ticket in (I believe) 1944 because he was too liberal.

If HST were a memeber of today's DLC in 1948, the Dems would not have not put civil rights in the platform

On the contrary - today's DLC are strong proponants of civil rights. What gives you the impression otherwise? I'm sure you've done detailed analysis. Let's see it.

But back to the history lesson. Two factions broke away from HST's Democrats - the Dixiecrats and the Progressives. Both got about 2% of the national vote. Both thought Truman (and Roosevelt by extension) to be too moderate.

If JFK was in the DLC in 1962, he would have followed the advice of Gen. Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay and responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis by invading Cuba. He wouldn't have wanted to look "weak abroad". The action would likely have caused a nuclear war.

Wrong again. A more modern example is the neocon's urging of Bill Clinton (DLC) to invade Iraq - which he didn't do. Of course, the DLC - like Democrats traditionally - will always use the military if the need arises. But let's not invoke IWR again here unless you're prepared to paint Dean with the same brush. As I've already shown, Dean used the same language and backed the war itself via the Biden-Luger amendment.

If LBJ were in today's DLC in 1964, he would have calculated that the Democratic Party would lose the south for a generation if he signed the civil rights act, and he would have vetoed it rather than risk a weaker party. Wouldn't want to lose 49 states now, would he :eyes:

DLC Democrats are strong proponants of civil rights. What gives you the impression otherwise? I'm sure you've done detailed analysis. Let's see it.

Don't associate these great people who took the Dean strategy of doing good over looking good and compare them to your group, who would have advocated each and every counterfactual course that I outlined here, all in the name of looking good.

Wait - you're claiming FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton took Dean's strategy???

Do you REALLY want to debate whether Dean has "done good" (by your srandards?) He has a LONG record as governor we can examine.

The fact is, Dean's record as a DLC governor was more conservative than that of many in the DLC. I believe he saw an opening with the left when it came to the Iraq war and tried to remake himself politically - at least image wise. Opportunistic.

But deep down Dean will always be the DLC centrist. And good for him.

[CTLawGuy]

109. The DLC is in favor of civil rights

as long as being thus in favor is not politically risky, as is the case today.


Yes, dean is a centrist. His brand of centrism is strong and principled, and not the DLC centrism of political triangulation and calculation.



Name one thing that the DLC has favored that was politically unpopular yet morally correct.

You can't because their very philosophy is to appeal to the broadest range of people possible. However, you cannot do that and remain a consistent and principled politician.

Howard Dean signed the civil unions bill BEFORE an election (when he could easily have waited until after and when he could also have advocated a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision) he signed it because it was the right thing to do. It had 30% approval. and guess what? he didn't lose 49 counties in VT (to take a poetic license). As thanks for his bravery, he had to wear a bullet proof vest at campaign stops because of all the death threats. An old lady called him a "g*ddamn queer lover" at a campaign stop. and you know what, he still won, barely, at 50%. In VT you need 50 percent to win outright, otherwise the legislature (Republican controlled) would have decided the governors race. He wasn't afraid to lose his seat. He didn't worry that signing the CU bill would make him "unelectable" and a "ultra-liberal". He just knew it was right.

Name one current DLCer who has done anything remotely close to that.



As to Dean's "strategy". If he was trying to "remake himself as a leftist", wouldn't he know that would hamper his electability and thus undercut his chances of winning the GE? Wouldn't it have been wiser to come out as a centrist and say "I'm electable" like Kerry did?

[wyldwolf]

112. why do you always overlook all my points and veer off in other directions?

The DLC is in favor of civil rights as long as being thus in favor is not politically risky, as is the case today.

On the contrary - today's DLC are strong proponants of civil rights. What gives you the impression otherwise? I'm sure you've done detailed analysis. Let's see it.

Yes, dean is a centrist. His brand of centrism is strong and principled, and not the DLC centrism of political triangulation and calculation.

He has a LONG record as governor we can examine. Would you like to?

Name one thing that the DLC has favored that was politically unpopular yet morally correct.

Oh, geez. You wanna talk MORALS. See, that word is so subjective. But I'll give it a shot:

Clinton's 1993 budget which raised taxes on the upper class.
Military intervention in Kosovo
Proposed military intervention in Darfur
Elimination of racial profiling

Howard Dean signed the civil unions bill BEFORE an election (when he could easily have waited until after and when he could also have advocated a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision) he signed it because it was the right thing to do. It had 30% approval.

Reality check: Dean had no choice but to accept such a bill. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

As to Dean's "strategy". If he was trying to "remake himself as a leftist", wouldn't he know that would hamper his electability and thus undercut his chances of winning the GE?

He should have but as we saw during the primaries - and still see on DU - there are those who think the politics of mainstream American and rank-and-file Dems will someone magically conform to their own leftist views.

In my opinion, has Dean won the nomination, he would have run like hell back to the center.

Wouldn't it have been wiser to come out as a centrist and say "I'm electable" like Kerry did?

Yes. He might have won the nomination if he had.

[CTLawGuy]

121. I know Dean's record

and its not perfect, just as he is not perfect, but it is good.

"Clinton's 1993 budget which raised taxes on the upper class.
Military intervention in Kosovo
Proposed military intervention in Darfur
Elimination of racial profiling"


I'm sure raising taxes on the upper was REALLY unpopular :eyes: since this country is full of rich people...

Kosovo was not particularly unpopular - how many US casualties?

proposed intervention in darfur? "Proposed" doesn't cut it.


Elimination of racial profiling was unpopular maybe in the South, but not in the country as a whole.

While all those things you said were moral things, they didn't require a ton of political courage. You'll have to do better.

Also Dean coulnd't have advocated a constitutional amendment against CU's? He couldn't have waited until after his election to sign the bill?

[wyldwolf]

123. apparently you don't

I'm sure raising taxes on the upper was REALLY unpopular :eyes: since this country is full of rich people...

On the contrary. It was spun as "raising taxes" and was indeed unpopular among the electorate.

Kosovo was not particularly unpopular - how many US casualties?

The amount of casualties is irrelevant. You didn't ask for things that were "particularly" unpopular.

Gallup Information:

Do you favor or oppose the United States being a part of the military action in Yugoslavia? Feb. 19-21, 1999

Oppose: 45%
Favor: 43%

Do you favor or oppose sending U.S. ground troops along with troops from other NATO countries to serve in a combat situation in the region?

Oppose: 55%
Favor: 40%

proposed intervention in darfur? "Proposed" doesn't cut it.

You asked to name one thing the DLC has favored that was morally correct. It certainly DOES cut it to favor a proposal.

Elimination of racial profiling was unpopular maybe in the South, but not in the country as a whole.

You have a stat on that? And again, I gave you what you asked for.

While all those things you said were moral things, they didn't require a ton of political courage. You'll have to do better.

No, then you'll try to set the bar higher with your subjective opinion on what is "courageous" and "moral."

Also Dean coulnd't have advocated a constitutional amendment against CU's? He couldn't have waited until after his election to sign the bill?

Why not research it, and then ask yourself: If the state legislature forced Dean to make that choice, how would one think that the state legislature would approve such a constitutional amendment?

Post after post, you set them up and I knock them down.

[CTLawGuy]

124. you don't knock anything down

you cut and paste the same post in different places.

you twist my words to make yourself look better. How's this for a definition of unpopular: support for it is in the 30's or less, like Dean's civil unions bill. that was the standard that I showed.

The data you showed about military action showed that support and opposition was evenly split. That's hardly "unpopular"

You talk about republican's spinning the tax increases. thats funny, in one breath you claim in horror that advocating getting rid of Bush's tax cuts would have resulted in electoral doom in 2004, but in the next breath bring up that Clinton raised taxes. Hmm, he still managed to win reelection. Isn't that weird?????

You can propose something that no one hears about except for a few vigilant people, and then decide not to go forward with it, sparing it from widespread criticism. Somehow I don't think Kosovo and Darfur were a huge political risk for Clinton other than among the Repugs, who hate him no matter what.

Dean could most certainly have come out in favor of an amendment. The VT supreme Court may be powerful, but not so powerful as to preclude a constitutional amendment. And where did they ORDER Dean to sign the bill before the election?

Face it, the DLC has no credibility. It's from the land of Jim Crow and "seg'agation now, seg'agation forevah", and frankly, I just don't trust them.

[wyldwolf]

126. sure I do...

and it is demonstrated by my points that you IGNORE.

See, here's your pattern.

You set up a few myths, I knock the down.

You ignore the bulk of them and fixate on one or two - the ones you think you have the most credibility on. Then I knock them down, too.

I paste the same things because you won't address them.

Yet you continuously paste the "why did the DLC attack Dean" dribble as though that means anything.

Face it, you idolize a failed candidate and it is his rabid spinning supporters who sank his campaign.

you twist my words to make yourself look better. How's this for a definition of unpopular: support for it is in the 30's or less, like Dean's civil unions bill. that was the standard that I showed.

Desperate. Show me where I twisted your words.

And will I have to repeat that request over and over??

The data you showed about military action showed that support and opposition was evenly split. That's hardly "unpopular"

Evenly split? 40% to 55% is evenly split?

You talk about republican's spinning the tax increases. thats funny, in one breath you claim in horror that advocating getting rid of Bush's tax cuts would have resuled in electoral doom in 2004, but in the next breath bring up that Clinton raised taxes. Hmm, he still managed to win reelection. Isn't that weird?????

I claimed nothing in horror. And your reasoning here is a bit confused.

1. I claimed advocating rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the lower and middle income earners would have been very unpopular. Big difference in what you SAID I said. Good thing your, I'm assuming, accidental misrepresentation of my words is posted for the record.

2. I claimed Clinton's tax increase on the wealthy were spun as plain "tax increases" and that the economic plan was unpopular when introduced - which is true.

You can propose something that no one hears about except for a few vigilant people, and then decide not to go forward with it,

Yes you can. So? You can't go forward with anything until you're in power to do it.

Somehow I don't think Kosovo and Darfur were a huge political risk for Clinton other than among the Repugs, who hate him no matter what.

There are two things patently false about that statement. The first - yes, any military action is a political risk for a president. I'll let you figure out the second one.

Dean could most certainly have come out in favor of an amendment. The VT supreme Court may be powerful, but not so powerful as to preclude a constitutional amendment.

Sure he could have, but it would have made no difference. The state legislature was going to do one with or without Dean. They had the votes to overide any objection from Dean, and they gave Dean the choice of which one. In theory Dean could have advocated a constitutional amendment against CUs but as in all cases, constitutional amendments are extremely hard to pass. In Vermont, it take three years to do it. Only the state Senate can propose an amendment, and it takes a vote of two-thirds of its members with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives.

So, here would be Dean - supposedly a Democrat (who advocates states rights on this issue) embroiled in a fight with the Vt. Legislature over gay rights with Dean being on the anti-side. Further, since the VT Legislature put the choice before Dean, it is obvious and logically concluded that the Senate would not have passed the amendment anyway.

And where did they ORDER Dean to sign the bill before the election?

Well, I guess it was signed in Vermont. And they didn't issue him an order to sign anything.

Face it, the DLC has no credibiliity. It's from the land of Jim Crow and "seg'agation now, seg'agation forevah", and frankly, I just don't trust them.

Playing the race card?

And there's a psychological term used for fearing something you have no knowledge of... but it escapes me now.

[CTLawGuy]

127. I'm not going to waste my breath with you anymore

thanks for playing.

We will prevail and lead this party back into power.

We will do it for the 1700 brave soldiers who were forsaken to gain electoral brownie points.

Traitor Tom Daschle has already paid the price.

My friends and I will do our best to put strong, reasonable Democrats into power who will NEVER EVER support an illegal war, or irresponsible tax cuts, or "patriot acts" in the name of being "electable".

Mr. Electable War Hero (whose buddy was just appointed DLC chair)already left us with 4 more years of the worst president in American history, who is about to appoint a Supreme Court justice for life. I don't want to go through that again.

So, pat yourself on the back Wyldwolf, in your own mind you have won, and I will see you in primary 2008.

We shall see how this plays on the field.

[wyldwolf]

128. Darboy - Embarassing Kerry in front of the swing voters since 2003.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/5/31/21483/2855/46#46

Primary winner 2008: Southern moderate (probably DLC) Democrat.

[CTLawGuy]

131. Damn right

If fighting to take my party back in memory of the 1700 needlessly killed in Iraq embarasses Kerry in front of the swing voters, then so be it.



BTW why are you looking at my posts in old Kos threads?

Am I going to need to get a restraining order?

[wyldwolf]

132. ah, see! I KNEW you couldn't stay away!

You must have caught your breath!

1. Based on your posts, the Democratic party was never "yours."
2. Good job embarassing Kerry. He lost, we got Bush back. Good job!

Am I going to need to get a restraining order?

Gee. You seem to be stalking me. After all, you DID say you weren't going to "waste your breath on me" anymore. But then you came back!

[CTLawGuy]

133. Kerry didn't need me to lose

he did it all by himself by voting for the war and then trying to claim he was against it.

he did it by ignoring his senate record and running on his vietnam service - which the swift boaters managed to turn into a liability. They didn't need my help for that.

he also did it by coming across as aloof and elitist, and a flip-flopper.




If you think I'm some Kucinich leftist, find my posts where I try to explain to the kucinichites why we can't just leave Iraq tomorrow (since you're so good at finding my posts).

I'm mad that there are some in the Dem party who put "electability" over human life and our national credibility in foreign affairs.

thats my beef.

[wyldwolf]

136. but you sure looove that Kerry lost!

All we needed was the swing voters - and you sure enjoyed embarrassing Kerry in front of them.

You had your own little Swift Boat thing going, huh?

[CTLawGuy]

137. no, i've never been on a swift boat

I actually don't love that Kerry lost. I figured it probably would happen, but I don't love it.

The point of my sig on that board was to express my view that Kerry, like the DLC, is ashamed of the Democratic base and Democratic ideas, (or at least acted as such in the years leading up to 04 and during the campaign). He had to run his campaign on "look at me, I served in Vietnam, and Im not a massachussetts liberal. See, I voted for Iraq and I'd do it again!"

I'm guessing you are a southern moderate yourself. Well I am a proud New England liberal (not a far-leftist, but a liberal nonetheless). We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

You have right to fight to make the party how you want it to be, as do I. I, of course, hope that my side will win out in the end. that's what makes this party great.

[wyldwolf]

138. but you had your own swiftboat thing going on

With so much at stake in '04, you just loved embarrassing Kerry in front of swingvoters.

In addition - and as many on DU have asked many times - why do you believe you know what the base is?

Gallup had a poll that showed rank and file Dems (that would be the base) want the party to move to moderate/centrist positions.

As terrible as the Iraq war is, it cannot be the only determinate of "Democratic ideas."

[CTLawGuy]

139. well at least you admit the war is terrible

I find your statement interesting on the "rank and file dems".

first, what did they define as "moderate"? Dean is a moderate and so is Lieberman, but there is a lot they don't agree on.

Also, the Repubs have been trashing the word liberal for years. I can understand why Dems might be nervous about being associated with the word.

The southern moderate Dems have been leaving the party over the last 10 or so years with the rise of the religious right.

Sometimes nader folks say "Gore was so bad, he didn't win his own state even."

and after I tell them that Nader didnt' win his own state either, I explain that Gore hadn't had to run in TN since 1990. The state was very different back then. The repubs have gotten good at drawing southern dems to their side by espousing religious fundamentalist ideas. The problem is we are not going to get them back by trying to be like Republicans. If they like tax cuts, the repugs will always be better than us. If they are in favor of the Iraq war, the Republicans will always be more bellicose.

trying to be sort of like the republicans is not going to impress them. HST said "given the choice between a republican and a democrat who acts like a republican, people will choose the republican every time."

Yes southern moderate Dems are part of the base. but a significant portion of the base is at odds with their philosophy. Bush wins by catering to his own base, who loyally turns out for him, rather than voting for a Nader-like candidate. he wins swing voters by appearing strong, genuine and likeable. We need to do the same.

[CTLawGuy]

110. The DLC would have gladly given up half the Dem Party's constituency

to help further equality for 13% of the population by favoring the Civil rights act?


Wouldn't that make them "unelectable?"

Isn't that "interest group liberalism?" Its' only 13% of the population????????


I find that hard to believe.

[wyldwolf]

113. yes

I find that hard to believe.

Because your given to espousing often repeated anti-DLC talking points and don't really know too much about them.

[CTLawGuy]

114. bullshit

the DLC cares only about winning, thats why they attacked howard dean for opposing the war. they thought he would lose to bush.

[wyldwolf]

116. whatever

You're pounding the table.

[CTLawGuy]

117. thank you

I knew I had the right idea :)

[wyldwolf]

73. why are you answering a question with a question?

[CTLawGuy]

24. wow, those are some REAL hot button controversial issues there

:eyes:


see my post 23 above.

[wyldwolf]

115. yes they are

market-based national health care system
comprehensive plan for energy independence

[CTLawGuy]

118. its not the war, it's not the budget

sorry...


How do you explain the DLC attacking Dean?

[wyldwolf]

122. why do you always overlook all my points and veer off in other directions?

today's DLC are strong proponants of civil rights. What gives you the impression otherwise? I'm sure you've done detailed analysis. Let's see it.

[flaminbats]

33. Wow, a market based national healthcare system!!!

Why not a morality based national healthcare system?

When will the DLC understand that those in power, not the underdogs, need moderate their politics? Only a liberal opposition party can ultimately moderate a radically neoconservative government!!

[sendero]

107. I never did think..

... Dean was a "lefty", that was media fiction from the start.

What I DO think separates Dean from the DLC chumps is that he is willing to fight the Repugs on their own terms, not sit in the corner and WHIMPER.

I've said it over and over, so I'll say it again. I want a Dem in power. It can be a leftist Dem, a centrist Dem, I really don't care - either one will be a vast, vast, vast, vast improvement over the venal morons we have now.

So - I will be selecting a primary candidate based on their potential to win, not a set of policy nuances that are subject to change or to being thwarted at whim.

[1932]

20. The DLC is primarily interested in one thing: free trade.

And they don't care if free trade is mechanism for transferring a lot of wealth from people everywhere who work for a living into the pockets of already wealthy multinational corporations and their insiders.

Anyone who doesn't put that goal first and foremost is not on the same page as the DLC.

[idlisambar]

55. free trade is not a primary interest, it is a strong secondary one

The primary interest is to cater to multinationals in order to gain access to their money. Free trade is on the agenda of most of the DLC's backers so naturally the DLC is a pusher of free trade.

[1932]

101. Yes. Free trade is the way multinationals make the most money, so...

...that's why it's high on the DLC agenda.

[NMDemDist2]

26. Do we HAVE to churn the Dean/DLC wars again people?

do we REALLY?!?!

:banghead:

[CTLawGuy]

29. hey, you're the one kicking the thread

NT

[NMDemDist2]

34. yeah, I guess it coulda been locked without kicking it LOL

but hey, I didn't want to ruin your fun on a Sunday afternoon

:evilgrin:

[CTLawGuy]

39. I'm a masochist

but seriously, I wanted to change the discussion from ideological stance between Dean and the DLC to their beliefs about STRATEGY.

the DLC knows that you can't do right without being in power, and they believe the way to get to power might include doing wrong. They believe that is worth it if, ultimately it gets them into power where they can do right.

Dean believes that doing right and not being afraid of looking bad will return Dems to power by showing that Dems are people of conviction and strong morality, which will impress even people who don't agree on issues, and who are sick of politicians that pander constantly.

that's all I meant to say.

[FightinNewDem]

30. Thank you.

:woohoo:

[madfloridian]

42. I call them the DLC/Activist wars.

That is really a better name for them. We are supposed to stay out of their way and let them run things. :D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Yes, it's not JUST Dean

There are a whole lot of fed-up activists within the local and state parties who are itching to kick From and the rest of the DLC "thinkers" write back to the corporations they love so much.

[Totally Committed]

66. I agree...

Fromm and Co. need to shove off.

TC

[JNelson6563]

38. Interesting article

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."

A key member of the event committee for the 2000 annual fall dinner was Mike Lewan, who runs a boutique lobbying house that has represented clients such as Oracle and BellSouth. In the late 1980s, Lewan, who joined the DLC because he was "one of those disaffected Democrats," went to work as Lieberman's chief of staff--and promptly introduced the Connecticut senator to the DLC. Today, Lewan helps recruit support for the DLC on K Street. "It's astonishing to me how much support the DLC is getting from the professional Washington people, the lawyers, the lobbyists," he says. "There's a relationship and a trust level that's been built up."

Joining Lewan on the event committee were several dozen of Washington's elite lobbyists, including representatives from the Dutko Group, Greenberg Traurig, the Wexler Group, Verner, Liipfert, and SVP Kessler and Associates, all with blue-chip clients, along with lobbyists for Chevron, Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, and others. One was Arthur Lifson, vice president for federal affairs at Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers and a company that stands to gain enormously if, say, Medicare were privatized along the lines proposed by the DLC and by one of its founders, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. "The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."

Oh so much more, do check it out: http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

It's a veritable how-to on becoming Rethug-lite. :toast:

Julie

[CTLawGuy]

40. Hi Julie

:hi:

good to see you!

[FightinNewDem]

47. Interesting Reply

Let's see how a few DU rock stars feel about corporate money:

Donors to Barbara Boxer:

Axciom Corporation
AFLAC Insurance
Allergan, Inc.
American Resort Development Association
American Sugar Cane League
American Sugar Beet Growers Association
AOL Time Warner
Amgen, Inc.
AT&T
BAE Systems
Bear Stearns & Co.
Bechtel
BellSouth
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan
Blue Diamond Walnuts
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Chevy Chase Bank
Cisco Systems
Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Comcast
Covad Communications
Crowley Maritime Corp.

Donors to Cynthia McKinney:

AFLAC
AGL Resources, Inc.
American Bankers Association
American Crystal Sugar Inc.
American Peanut PAC
Bechtel
Bellsouth
Broadwave USA, Inc.
Coca-Cola Enterprises
Devry, Inc.
Delta Air Lines
Enron (yes, THAT Enron)
Florida Sugar Cane League
Georgia Power Co.
J.P. Morgan-Chase & Co.
Lockheed Martin
Parsons Corp.
Coca-Cola Co.
Verizon Communications
Wachovia Bank
Westinghouse/CBS
Weston Solutions, Inc.

Donors to John Conyers:

AT&T
General Motors
Clear Channel Communications
Daimler-Chrysler
MCI
Microsoft
Alleigance Telecom
Amazon.com
American Airlines
Anheuser-Busch
AOL Time-Warner
Association for Commercial Real Estate
Ballard Power Systems
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan
Boeing
Caesars Entertainment Inc.
Comcast
Continental Airlines
Dean Foods Co.
Deloitte & Touche
DTE Energy Co.
EBay Inc.
Echostar Communications
Ford Motor Company
GAF Corporation
Guardian Industries Corp.
Harrah's Entertainment
Level 3 Communications
Mandalay Resorts
Mercury Finance Co.
News America Holdings-Fox PAC
Nova Chemicals
Pitney Bowes
Reed Elsiever, Inc.
SBC Communications
Sony Pictures
Sprint
Station Casinos, Inc.
Teligent
Texaco
Title Industry PAC
Tropicana Resort & Casino
Verisign
Viacom
Walt Disney Productions
XO Communications
Yahoo

[madfloridian]

49. Wait, now you are arguing there should be no corporate money?

Oops, I had you mixed up with someone else. I thought that someone felt that there was room for small and large donors, which I how I feel. But it looks like you think there should be NO corporate donors. Dean does not think that, he is working with them right now.

I think there has to be both.

HOWEVER, Simon Rosenberg stated that the purpose of the DLC founding was to lessen the need for reliance on the "traditional bases" of the party. Now that, I do NOT agree with.

I think it is the arrogance that bothers me most. The DLC does not think ordinary average people have a place in the party. That is one of the major differences between them and us and Dean.

[idlisambar]

50. neither source

publicly funded elections would be ideal. This is the strategy that has the greatest potential for reducing the influence of money on politics.

[FightinNewDem]

61. You are absolutely right.

A publicly funded system would be ideal, so long as it wasn't burdened with onerous "gatekeeper" provisions that exclude maverick candidates from the process.

[Cha]

52. Prescisely!

"I think it is the arrogance that bothers me most. The DLC does not think ordinary average people have a place in the party. That is one of the major differences between them and us and Dean."

[idlisambar]

60. can you provide a source?

just curious where you are getting this information.

[FightinNewDem]

62. The FEC

The Federal Election Commission web site has a wealth of data on its web site:

http://www.fec.gov

The site is not clearly organized, so it takes a while to figure out how to navigate the site, so you'll have to be patient.

A lot of the same info can be found at www.tray.com and at opensecrets.org.

And my apologies for not citing the source of the data.

[idlisambar]

63. Thanks! n/t

[JNelson6563]

68. Interesting indeed

I have to wonder how many small donors the DLC has in comparison to the "DU rock stars" you cite.

One name I didn't see on any "rock star" lists was one of the scariest on the DLC's "Koch". Care to comment on that?

Julie

[wyldwolf]

78. How about these connections and donors to Dean? KOCH? FOX? Halliburton?

Dec. 22, 2003, 11:32PM

Dean blasted for support of Enron insurance setup
By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Enron may be only a dying ember, but some Democratic presidential candidates are blowing on the coals.

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who regularly slams President Bush for his ties to former Enron Chairman Ken Lay, has recently been accused of hypocrisy by the other candidates for helping Enron in Vermont.

They have seized on reports that as governor, Dean pushed aggressively for tax breaks for corporations that set up subsidiaries whose sole purpose is to provide insurance for the parent company.

One company that took advantage was Enron, creating a spinoff in 1994 called Gulf Company Ltd., which has been taken over by the state of Vermont since Enron's bankruptcy.

Like his predecessors, Dean heavily recruited what are known as "insurance captives" -- which collect and invest premiums paid by the parent company and fill in gaps in coverage. Vermont has, by far, more of these businesses than any other state.

(snip)

Dean's campaign has suggested that Gephardt is in no position to criticize since the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has received more than $200,000 in Enron contributions since 1989. During much of that time, Gephardt was House Democratic leader.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/special/enron/2316370

Wanna talk corporate contributions?

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.

Dean amassed over $110,000 in donations in the first four months of his campaign from people with ties to the Fund for a Healthy America, a Vermont utility group.

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.

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

Massive amounts of Deans financing for his gubernatorial campaigns came from the health care, insuurance, banking, and pharmaceutical industries, with 65 percent of his campaign money coming from outside of Vermont.

One of Deans last acts as Governors was to auothrize the sale of the Vermont Yankee plant to Entergy/Koch Industries He refused to sell Vermont Yankee to another company just months earlier who offereed exactly the same deal. Entergy/Koch INdustries is, owned by the two riches contributors to the Bush Campaign in the United States, the Koch Borthers who founded the same Cato Institute that honored Dean with his conservative rating, as well as being the financial backers of virtually every neo-con think tank in D.C.

After the sale, Among the largest and first contributors to Deans presidential campaigns were the executives of the energy companies in Vermont owned in one way or another by Entergy.

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

Some things just don't change. Last month, the Dean Administration caved in to the demands of the state's major utilities, agreeing to support the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear station to the out-of-state Entergy Corporation. Under the deal, ratepayers are to be saddled with another expensive power contract while shareholders take the cash proceeds and run.

And for those looking for political intrigue, Vermont now has its own version of the kind of insider dealings that resulted in Vice President Cheney's national energy plan. Vermont utility executives got complete access to the Dean Administration's Public Service Department to pressure a deal on Vermont Yankee that will give the utilities some $25 million for their corporate coffers, and lock ratepayers into high-priced energy costs for the next ten years. This sweetheart deal was struck just after certain utility officials made political contributions to the Governor's presidential bid. Meanwhile, environmental groups didn't get the time of day.

...The timing of the Dean Administration's change of heart is troubling. The Department's support for the Entergy sale was announced just after utility officials made major campaign contributions to the Governor's presidential campaign. Was there a connection? Like Vice President Cheney, the Governor will say no. But only the utilities were in talks with the Governor's energy department. Environmental groups were denied any access to these discussions. And the utilities got what they wanted. If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020820040031/http://www.clf.org/hot/hydro_quebec_to_vermont_yankee.htm

Who is Entergy?

Entergy-Koch, LP (EKLP) is a limited partnership, formed in February 2001, between subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and Koch Industries, Inc.

http://www.eklp.com/

Among the papers under lock and key, NEWSWEEK has learned, are the records of Dean’s meetings with utility executives about the controversial sale of a Vermont nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. Dean’s lawyers refused to release the papers to an environmental group last year, citing “executive privilege”—an echo of Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense of his energy-task-force meetings. “His sealing the records makes Cheney look accessible,” says one aide to a rival.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660764/

Dean Donors:

Time Warner $78,736
Microsoft Corp $52,122
IBM Corp $39,335
Morgan Stanley $29,350
Citigroup Inc $26,386
Goldman Sachs $24,500
Viacom Inc $22,750
News Corp $20,650 (yeah - the FOX News folks!)

[madfloridian]

79. Not that it matters, but a couple of posts in response.

Actually I don't bother to respond to a lot of this anymore. A lot of it is hyped, some totally not true. Our other candidates did a magnificent job in digging out the dirt, didn't they. Then it turns out that Dean had not actually closed many records at all....less than the other two previous governors. Only about a third of what had been accused. But that never made the news.

Howard Dean in VT originally supported some deregulation, and it did benefit Vermont. I am posting some facts from Fact Check, and an article from the WP showing he called for re-regulation of business. Also from his book You Have the Power, I will post a small snippet about the Enron deal that was so big on the blog last night.
http://www.factcheck.org/article119.html
Small snip from it:
"There’s nothing secret about Vermont ’s desire to entice big corporations to set up tax-advantaged “captive” insurance companies in the state. In fact, the Vermont website advertises the fact and calls the idea “simply captivating.”

These “captives” allow corporations to provide their own insurance rather than purchasing it elsewhere, while still getting a tax deduction for the premiums the parent pays to its own company. The world’s most popular havens for these captive insurance companies are offshore – Bermuda and the Cayman Islands . But Vermont started going after this business for itself 20 years ago – long before Howard Dean became governor.

"He claims Dean aided Enron at the expense of Vermont's needy. But Enron got nothing special, and the state GAINED revenue."
"the state balance sheet shows Vermont gained revenue after Dean’s supposed “giveaway.” After Dean signed the 1993 tax cut the total taxes and fees collected from captive insurance companies more than doubled, from less than $9 million in 1992 to more than $19 million last year, according to Dan Towle, Director of Financial Services of the Vermont Department of Economic Development. A slight drop in revenue (about 2%) in the first year or two was quickly made up by the growing volume of captive insurance business attracted to the state, which saw the total number of captives more than double from 257 at the end of 1992 to 597 at the end of last year. Some “givewaway.”"

Vermont even proudly advertises its captive insurance program, which started about 20 years ago, pre-Dean.....
http://www.vermontcaptive.com/?CFID=379501&CFTOKEN=40902424

WP November 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59183-2003Nov18¬Found=true
Dean calls for new regulations on business.
"As governor of Vermont, Dean advocated deregulation, angering some environmentalists. But the events of the past two years have convinced him deregulation is to blame for many of the nation's problems.

"California is proving it does not work," he said. "I think the reason the grid failed is because of utility deregulation."

And from You Have the Power:
"I didn't mind the gaffe stories quite as much as the ones that were entirely made up. Newsweek's Michael Isokoff, for example, pursued a story that I had participated in insider trading, and the Boston Globe printed a story intimating that I'd had a secret meeting with Enron over a captive insurance company (which Enron didn't own until a year after the supposed meeting.")

He did not sell his soul for 2000 dollars. That is silly. The VT Yankee deal was started in 2001. Like the Enron thing, I often wonder if that is all they can find. :shrug:

Next I will post percentages of donors that make Dean and Kucinich look really good.

[wyldwolf]

81. it only matters in reference to those who...

Decry corporate money then deny their guy gets it/got it.

That's all.

Holding Dean up to any candidate as one who hasn't been influenced by corporate donations is hypocrisy.

[madfloridian]

83. I saw your point, but percentage does count a lot overall.

Percentage wise he was not as influenced, which is what his goal is for the DNC right now.

[wyldwolf]

85. sure it does

But as I just posted below, who sets the bar? At what point does taking corporate money "corrupt" someone?

Further, is there any indication that corporate money that went to other candidates - be they DLC or not - has had any influence in their policy or stated positions?

[madfloridian]

87. And I just posted about the influence below.

Think MBNA.

[madfloridian]

80. Donor demographics...looking good for Dean and Kucinich.

This chart shows the percentage of $2000 and over donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=P

Looks like 11 or 12% for Dean, and only about 8 percent for Kucinich.

This one is percent of donors $200 and less.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S

Dean 62%. Not bad for getting grassroots money. Not that it matters. Just saying.

[wyldwolf]

84. so where's the cut off?

Do we hold Howard Dean up as the model - the bar - and say any more corporate money than he recieved makes you a "corporate whore" (a term used be some on DU)?

[madfloridian]

86. I was only responding to your post.

I thought the $2000 was not that bad in the overall picture. I have no cutoff.

I think to say that Dean, whose 200 or less donors were 62% of his total, would be overly influenced by corporation is not right.

I don't have a cut-off. I go by how they vote. For example, Bill Nelson and Jim Davis, both DLC, voted for the bankruptcy bill recently. I consider that voting against my interests, though I don't intend to declare bankruptcy. Anyone could though, because of illness. Now people can lose their homes in Florida because Medical bills, where before they could not.

[Sparkly]

89. I have to disagree with that.

I think there may be policy differences, but that doesn't mean the DLC is insincere in its stances.

As I see it, the DLC may be more pro-business than some Democrats (not saying that's right or wrong) and they were articulating a strategy of foreign policy and defense at a time when many in our party -- indeed in our country -- weren't particularly eager to focus on those topics. (I thought, but may be wrong, that it was a response to rightwing groups like the PNAC and Heritage Foundation.)

Finally, on policy alone, I don't think the gap between Dean and DLC is all that huge (particularly compared with the contrasts between Democrats and Republicans as a whole right now). I admire Dean's courage to tell it like it is -- that outspoken strength and clarity have been missing in our party leadership for too long. But I also think there's room for all views. Let's not villify the DLC.

[FightinNewDem]

90. A chorus of "huzzahs" for Sparkly!

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[madfloridian]

95. This statement you made to me above is so wrong.

"... we don't appreciate a lot of condescending finger-wagging from people whose involvement pales in comparison to ours.."

I would appreciate it if you would not judge my political involvement.

I do judge those who vote against my best interests, or the overall best interests. It is statements like yours to me like that one that make us upset. It is a attack against those in the party who are new and who care. The DLC in Rosenberg's words, was formed so as not to need the base of the party.

[Cha]

91. The dlc has villified Dean and

therefore a lot of us.

They're going to have to show me something before I have any respect for them.

[Sparkly]

94. I certainly hope they haven't, and if they did, I didn't see it.

And if I didn't see it, I'd dare say few people did. More importantly, I don't see Dean changing his style or his message at all, so that'd make any attempt to change his leadership -- if there was an attempt -- ineffective at best.

The party is diverse and I know there are many debates and arguments within it -- down here at the grassroots as well as up there at the helm where policy is steered. I'm happy Dean has the wheel, and confident our party is united in defeating Republicans.

[madfloridian]

96. It started early in 2003.

It started when he said "what I want to know".

[Sparkly]

98. I'm not sure what that means, madfloridian.

If there is a DLC campaign to villify Dean, it isn't getting very far, is it?

[FightinNewDem]

99. The Great Kerfuffle of 2003

Madfloridian is referring to an op/ed piece that Al From and Bruce Reed wrote back in 2003. In it, Al and Bruce threw a few sharp elbows at Dean, largely on the foreign policy front. By the same token, Dean went out of his way to poke at the DLC, with a reference to them as the "Republican Wing of the Democratic Party".

The whole thing was a bit overblown, since historically, Dean and the DLC have had a pretty good relationship. The DLC has featured Dean's State of the State speeches on its web site, and most of his campaign's policy proposals were straight out of the DLC book.

[madfloridian]

100. Here is more of an explanation.

I don't want to go into too much as it gets overheated.

Dean was a DLC centrist when governing in VT in many ways. He was often commended by them for things in his governorship.

At the CA state Dem convention in Feb.2003, he said he wanted to know why all these Democrats were voting for Bush's agenda, and he laid it out, including the Iraq War. He got huge ovations throughout the speech, and the relationship between him and the DLC went downhill from there. The irritating part was that the memos they sent out made fun of anti-war activist, and they did it often about activist in general.

They have done good things, but we have had a lot of harmful things voted on that hurt ordinary people.

If they just attacked him, that would be expected. Read Good night, Vietnam. That was when they started going after the enthused anti-war activists. It is at the ndol site.

I am pretty much a moderate myself, but I am an activist. There is more to the story, but that is the gist of it.

[Q]

92. I see that the DLC has their...

...'propaganists' out in force...attacking anyone that dare even mention the 'right wing' of the party on this board.

One has to admit that...like the RWingers...they have their 'talking points' honed to a fine edge. They can twist and bend the truth with the best of them.

This is a group of corporate-financed shills that still can't admit that their buddies on the Right committed election fraud or that Gore actually WON in 2000 with a populist campaign. Admitting that a populist campaign won would destroy their argument that the 'base' really wants a candidate and party that caters to big business and doesn't give a shit about the commoners.

They hate liberals and activists and lash out at them because they stand in their way. They don't like to be reminded that they're RWingers working within the Democratic party to neutralize the last remnants of the new deal/great society. That is...to replace social welfare with corporate welfare. Backing illegal wars is part of this 'plan' to enrich defense/energy contractors and Friends of the corporate wing of the party.

Don't listen to the propagandists. Do your own research. And then decide if you want the party to go back to being the party of the people or part of the one-party system of corporate greed and corruption.

[FightinNewDem]

93. We were wondering when you'd show up

Funny...some of us were actually coming to a bit of an understanding on the whole DLC/Dean kerfuffle from 2 years ago.

But now I guess we have to listen to the usual diatribe about how Bruce Reed and Ed Kilgore secretly fund PNAC using the funds from the Afghan heroin trade and Andy Rotherham's Indonesian sex slavery ring...

[Q]

106. The PNAC and their 'new Pearl Harbor' is no laughing matter...

...and it's telling that you're attempting to make it sound like a 'nutty conspiracy theory'. The truth? The DLC/Progressive Policy Institute's Will Marshall and others in the DLC do indeed support much of the PNAC agenda. And it's certainly not 'funny' that this agenda brought this nation illegal, immoral wars and astounding levels of war profiteering. It's no coincidence that those who started and promoted this war are also profiting from it.

The DLC's 'with us or with the terrorists' mentality is similar to that of the Neocons. The New Dem pundits insult our intelligence when they suggest we're 'coddling' terrorists if we don't support Bush's decidedly illegal wars.

Unlike the DLC...we refuse to work with or enable the Bush junta to do even more harm. It's not 'bipartisanship'...it's party suicide.

[Cha]

97. What a choice! I'll take..hmmm..

PEOPLE! :patriot:

[wyldwolf]

102. I see the anti-DLC stalwart is out in force..

...exhibiting faux outrage and attacking anyone that dare even disagree with them on this board.

This is a discussion board, right? I mean, the only people who can make posts that can't be replied to are the admins. At least that was the impression I was under.

I have to agree with one point. Do your own research, Don't just pound away at Google looking for contrary evidence.

And be fair. If you hold the DLC up to a standard, hold the rest of the party up to it, too.

That it typically where the anti-DLC brigade fails and, when presented with the evidence, they either scatter, present red herrings or strawmen (see post I'm replying to) or quickly try to change the topic.

[lojasmo]

104. Okay-

Any senator who voted for the IWR, NCLB, and the patriot act will NEVER get my vote.

In fact, any democrat who voted for all those things will never get my vote.

[Q]

105. It's real 'outrage'...

...and it won't be the last time you see it...as more and more Democrats become aware that the DLC collaborates with Bushie Fascists. More than anything else...this is the most offensive act against the Democratic party and our country.

I'm asking fellow Dems to research beyond the flowery rhetoric...because what the DLC says and what they mean are two different things.

Let's get one thing straight: those 'attacking' the DLC are simply RETURNING FIRE. The DLC has been attacking progressives, liberals, populists and anyone to the left of Lieberman since the Clinton years.

They are the ones that broke off from the party and called themselves 'new' Democrats so they wouldn't have to be associated with the rabble (working class poor, women, minorities, anti-Iraq war groups) that stymied their ability to get cash from pro-war, anti-worker corporations.

And like the RWingers...THEY are the ones that have demonized good people in their own party that dare speak out against Bush's corporate agenda and his illegal wars. Their bloodlust and greed is equal to that of Bush...more than willing to lie to the people and piss on the Constitution to benefit their corporate sponors and further their political careers.

The DLC has literally taken over the leadership of the Dem party. Using corporate money and the corporate media...THEY write our party platform and use their insider influence to make sure their chosen candidates become the nominee. Like the Neocons...they run 'our' party behind the scenes.

I'm just glad to see that the word is spreading. That more Democrats are finally realizing that there is an enemy within the party...an enemy more insidious and dangerous because they pretend to be on our side while they help the Bushies plunder our treasury and rape ours and the world's resources.

There is no more Democratic 'big tent' in which all are welcome. Liberals and true progressives need not apply as far as the DLC is concerned. The DLC has spelled it out on ther websites for all to see. They hide their true motives behind the Fog of War. A war they support and helped promote.

[Cha]

111. And it turned to SHIT

for them just like it did for the rovians.

"There is no more Democratic 'big tent' in which all are welcome. Liberals and true progressives need not apply as far as the DLC is concerned. The DLC has spelled it out on ther websites for all to see. They hide their true motives behind the Fog of War. A war they support and helped promote."

[Mary 123]

120. Convinced

I'm a democrat-leaning independant and I am now convinced I will never join this party. No wonder you people can't get into the White House. You remind me of the Libertarians with your stubborn all or nothing ways and I agree with Hillary, although I don't intend to vote for her, you NEED TO FACE REALITY.

[CTLawGuy]

vote however you want

but if you think I'm going to stand by while my party aqcuiesces to sending 1700 of my brothers and sisters to die in an illegal, unnecessary war, you have another thing coming.

This is politics, if you want unity, move to Cuba.

[CTLawGuy]

125. vote however you want

but if you think I'm going to stand by while my party aqcuiesces to sending 1700 of my brothers and sisters to die in an illegal, unnecessary war, you have another thing coming.

This is politics, if you want unity, move to Cuba.

[LittleClarkie]

130. Nah, the wild one just has a different opinion than yours

why do people with whom some disagree get labeled sychophants, apologists or propagandists. It makes those people who use such words look like they're at the end of their rope, argument-wise.

What if we do our own research, and we don't see Satan in the DLC. What then. Who will be the next "propagandist?"

[CWebster]

119. Dean stands for something

genuine.

[The Jacobin]

129. Just Win Baby

All that counts is numbers. If DLC candidates put us over 50% in the House and Senate then bring 'em on.

[depakid]

134. The difference is the DLC LIES constantly

and has ZERO honor and ZERO integrity.

Dean speaks the truth (for the almost part) and listens and acts rationally.

[wyldwolf]

135. ??

So, throughout the primaries, Kerry and Edwards lied constantly but Dean spoke the truth and acted (acts) rationally?

Just clarifying that.

You are aware Dean was DLC?

And could you provide some examples of the DLC lying constantly?