My first exposure to the DLC

[chaumont58]

I consider myself a moderate Democrat, but even saying that leaves me a little at sea. I know I am not far left and I sure as hell ain't a repuke. I say this because I just paid a visit the DLC web site and have read some of their pieces to describe themselves and what they think all Democrats should be.
Let me call a spade a spade. I think those people, the DLC, are bat shit crazy. Some of that stuff could have been written by a freeper. I'm not dragging any examples over. If someone is interested enough to test my judgment, let them do a google search on dlc and they will get a direct point to the DLC web site.
I voted for Clinton twice. I supported him as much as my meager resources would allow all through his presidency, including the Monica Affair, but if he wants to hang his hat on the DLC, we part company. I won't support the DLC for any god damn office, not even dog catcher.
Further more, as long as these so called Dems are right in the midst of the party, the party is fucked. Dean has an impossible task. I can see easily why they hate Dean with a passion they can not find regarding chimpie.
I have said recently that I thought the DLC was an idea whose time and come and passed, without knowing hardly anything that they stand for. After reading some of the material on their website, I say again: they are bat shit crazy.

[whistle]

1. Well, we need at least one link to start a discussion....

<snip>
The Democratic Leadership Council is an organization founded in 1985 of moderate leaders of the United States Democratic Party that tries to move the party towards centrist positions. Despite its often moderate policy positions, however, the DLC is fiercely partisan, as evidenced by the tone and content of their "New Dem Dispatch" e-mail bulletins on what they view to be Republican mistakes and Democratic alternatives. Its current chairman is Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and its vice chair is Senator Tom Carper of Delaware.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute, funded by the Third Way Foundation.

It is the opinion of DLC that left-wing positions are not politically viable, citing the failed candidacies of Senator George McGovern and Vice-President Walter Mondale. President Bill Clinton, a successful candidate, was active in the organization and is sometimes cited as evidence of the success of their policies.

Critics believe DLC-supported measures, such as the Welfare Reform Act, have had the effect of alienating the traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party such as labor, minorities, and the poor, and causing a reduction in Democratic voter turnout. Some contend that the 2000 presidential campaign was so close because voters could discern no significant policy difference between Governor George W. Bush and DLC activist Vice-President Al Gore. The DLC has been called the "Democratic Leisure Council" by the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Governor Mario Cuomo.

In May 2003, as the Democratic primary of the 2004 presidential campaign was starting to pick up, the organization voiced concern that the Democratic contenders might be taking positions too far left of the mainstream general electorate. Early front-runner Howard Dean, despite his reputation as a centrist governor of Vermont, was specifically criticized by DLC founder and CEO Al From. From's criticism of Dean was likely due to the former governor's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, which most party centrists, including From, endorsed. In October 2002, From and the DLC mentioned only in passing the plane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone, of Minnesota. Wellstone's proclamation, later used by Dean, calling himself "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" has been interpreted by some as subtle criticism of the DLC and New Democrats in general.

<link> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[pacalo]

2. After what we've been through the past 4-1/2 years,

I'm surprised to read a post such as yours. Relax & have another pitcher of KoolAid.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Seems as if you drank it yourself.

[pacalo]

25. My apologies. I thought the original post was about the DNC.

Just consider it a blonde moment. :eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. The DLC deserves a lot of the blame for that.

They forced Kerry on us, and then they ran a shitty campaign for him, just as they did for Gore.

The DLC senators voted to enable Bush's war, the bankruptcy bill, the destruction of ANWR, and the approval of some of the most vile people on earth as cabinet positions.

The DLC itself is headed by neocon war criminals like Will Marshall who recently hosted a "progressive" foreign policy discussion with none other than Thomas Donnelly, the man credited as the "principal author" of the PNAC manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the Mein Kampf of the 21st century.

"Bat shit crazy" is too good a term for the DLC. CRIMINALLY COMPLICIT is much more accurate. They are not Democrats. They are not Liberals. They are not moderates. They are NEOCON CRIMINAL COWARDLY PIECES OF SHIT!!

[Al-CIAda]

8. That says more than enough-

'The DLC itself is headed by neocon war criminals like Will Marshall who recently hosted a "progressive" foreign policy discussion with none other than Thomas Donnelly, the man credited as the "principal author" of the PNAC manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses"'

[magellan]

17. Ew. The DLC is in even more urgent need of a purge than I thought.

:hurts:
DLC

[Eloriel]

59. Not purge -- your graphic touches on the best approach

Just flush it.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. Something else I'm wondering

Isn't Joe Biden a part of the PNAC group? If the DLC has their way it could be Clinton/Biden in 2008. :\ The "management" will still probably change administration's to "calm" the people down and do some things like with Clinton in the 90's and do things a bit differently but they'll still be following the same plans if that is the ticket. Apparently Biden has a PAC set up.

[Al-CIAda]

20. Biden has signed at least one of their declairations in the past.

whateve that is worth. Mr. MBNA can be criticized on other terms though...but the larger point you make is legitimate. The theory you suggest has a name. Its called "regime rotation", and it is used for just the purpose/effect you point out.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I remember after last November

reading an article with an interview with Kerry's ex-wife Julia. She was saying how Kerry really wanted to go after the SBVT guys during the election and how they really hurt him emotionally but for some reason the DLC wouldn't let him attack them. They also wanted to really bash Bush at the convention but wouldn't let him or any other speaker. I was very surprised that Dean was voted as chairman of the DNC personally. I think they tried to get one guy who was from Texas. I can't remember his name now but he was saying how some "friends" encouraged him to run but he never said who (friends from home or what) and I think he also said that we should start talking religion more. I had a really icky feeling with this guy. I think Dean has an impossible task as well. Mrs. Clinton is also very centrist and Kerry is, I think, pretty democratic. My dad made an interesting point one time and I didn't really think much of it, but he thinks some democrats wanted it to be Kerry and to make him lose so Hillary Clinton could run. If Kerry didn't "lose" then Clinton would just stay in the Senate and the DLCers are trying to take over the party even though I think it appears that the DNC committe is tired of DLCers and wanting someone who kicks ass and we all want to go back to the party of FDR and Kennedy and their policies. People appear to be tired (by the polls) of all the crap that the republicans are doing. So why do the DLCers think they can get away with the same crap just under a different administration? Hopefully Dean can be chairman for a good couple of years to help clean out the party. And only we the people can do that too. We have to research the canidates and make sure they aren't DLCers. I know it's hard sometimes because two democrats here in Tennessee who are running for Bill Frist's seat are both DLCers but I agree with them on some of the issues I've heard them talk about. They seem more moderate. If you don't really subscribe to the democratic party's ideals then why call yourself a democrat at all?

[Zhade]

58. Dean's chairmanship was a coup.

The grassroots pushed for him, despite the party elite's desperate attempts to shoehorn in ANYONE other than Dean. I know, I was at meetings where rank-and-file Dems stood up and told DLCers to either get behind what the grassroots wanted or expect an exodus.

The DLC and their ilk LOST that fight, thankfully.

[Eloriel]

66. It absolutely was a coup -- well said

I wasn't at any meetings, but I certainly watched from a distance. The DLC and "Party Elite" big wigs (the Clintons, their consultants, etc.) all tried VERY hard to get someone, anyone, else. ABD -- Anybody But Dean. But Dean made phone calls to every single one of the delegates (over 400 total), and some of his loyal fans and supporters lobbied for them among their home state delegates, and the grassroots WON! As it became clear that Dean did, indeed, have the votes, the others dropped out one by one. :bounce:

I considered it a GREAT day for the Party, a GREAT day for democracy, and a GREAT day for the country.

Edited to add: And thus, Howard Dean fulfilled his FIRST pledge to his supporters and all Democrats: we're going to take back this party!!

WooHoooooooo!

(The 2nd and 3rd pledges, given that fabulous day in California in March 03, I think it was, were to take back the White House and take back the country.)

[Zhade]

69. It was a fantastic victory over the DLC.

I recall one very passionate young man giving the right-leaning DNC delegate a very articulate, fierce denounciation of the DLC and its policies. He knew his stuff, and by the end even the delegate had to confess the guy had some strong points.

The applause was thunderous. One of my favorite political memories.

[1932]

24. Kerry wasn't the most DLC of available candidates, and nothing was going

to stop his nomination.

[Eloriel]

70. You're right -- not even honesty, integrity, playing by the rules,

letting THE PEOPLE choose (instead of manipulting the process), etc., etc., etc. Nope, none of those quaint ideals were going to stop that nomination, nosirreee.

[1932]

80. Notwithstanding Dean's early strength, I can't think of any set of circum-

stances which realistically would have resulted in a nomination of any other candidate.

The media tried to destroy Kerry in October 2003 and he came back strongly from that, which I think is very good evidence that he was what voters were looking for to take on Bush.

Whether voters were right about what was needed to beat Bush is another matter. However, I think one thing is certain: Kerry was the candidate in 2004 who matched most closely what most Democrats (informed and uninformed) wanted in a candidate.

[Zhade]

57. Wow, I didn't know about Marshall's latest foray into fascism.

He actually hosted a PNACer? Not surprising, since he's endorsed PNAC multiple times in the past.

I just don't get how ANY Dem can defend Marshall.

[Mass]

79. Interestingly Kerry dod not vote for most of these things you quote

and if you think he is the candidate the DLC wanted, you are very poorly informed.

They wanted Lieberman, or Edwards, and even more, they would have like Hill to run. Kerry was basically their last choice.

BTW, one of these DLC Senators was heading the hearings concerning Valerie Plame (Dorgan). And Dean was listed on this website as long as he was governor.

So, I have big issues with the general philosophy of the DLC and the website they promote.

I will never confuse an organization with its members.

[snowbear]

5. chaumont58...

SooOo.. if there were no 3rd party candidate..

...and it's voting day 2008...

...and it's down to only two candidates..

...one of them a member of the DLC...

...and the other is oh.. :think: I dunno.. Bill Frist.

...would you vote?

:shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. I'd be voting with ammo in a revolution

Because if two neocon shitbags is a "choice", that's no choice at all.

[gumby]

10. I, and others I talk to are starting to wonder.

If the choice is between corporatism and more fascist corporatism, then maybe the best choice is to do like the Soviet Union did and vote for vodka. They are no better off now then they were under "communism." The Iraqis are certainly no better off under Bush's "democracy."

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

38. well, I'm also starting to wonder...

I mean, since the bulk of the party takes corporate contributions - what magic number is TOO much corporate contributions?

I know, one penny more than the guy you're voting for got.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. How about we don't let corporations influence public debate?

:think:

[cornermouse]

42. This is not a question that you want to ask.

You might not like the answer.

[OzarkDem]

101. False choice

Who says the DLC should be allowed to choose the next Dem presidential candidate? At this point, its highly unlikely the next D running for president will come from their ranks.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Your whole post tells us just about nothing.

More simple faction building without any substance. You say not once what you disagree with them on, and why you think your opinion is better. :boring:

[snowbear]

9. You're right... he gives ZERO examples...

And from what he (she?) is suggesting.. everyone of these people should just bag politics immediately:

Jim Aldinger, Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA
Patrice Arent, State Senator, UT
David Aronberg, State Senator, FL
Toni Atkins, City Councilmember, San Diego CA
Loranne Ausley, State Representative, FL
Som Baccam, School Board Member, Des Moines IA
Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Thurbert Baker, State Attorney General, GA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
Gonzalo Barrientos, State Senator, TX
Viola Baskerville, State Delegate, VA
Alan C. Bates, State Senator, OR
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Barbara Blanchard, County Legislator, Tompkins County NY
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Alice Borodkin, State Representative, CO
Lisa Boscola, State Senator, PA
Betty Boyd, State Representative, CO
David Braddock, State Representative, OK
Daniel Brady, State Senator, OH
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
Bob Brink, Delegate, VA
Matt Brown, Secretary of State, RI
Don Brown, Jr., City Councilman, Louisville, CO
Polly Bukta, State Representative, IA
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Robert Butkin, State Treasurer, OK
Thomas Campbell, State Delegate, WV
Jane Campbell, Mayor, Cleveland OH
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Twanda Carlisle, Council Member, Pittsburgh PA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Adolfo Carrion, Borough President, Bronx NY
Terrance D. Carroll, State Representative, CO
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Bill Cegelka, City Council Member, Lexington KY
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Paul Clark, Town Supervisor, West Seneca NY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Martha Coakley, District Attorney, Middlesex County MA
Mark Cohen, State Representative, PA
Steve Cohn, City Councilmember, Sacramento CA
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Fran Coleman, State Representative, CO
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Roy A. Cooper III, Attorney General, NC
Lou Correa, Supervisor, Orange County CA
Cathy Cox, Secretary of State, GA
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
J. Joseph Curran, State Attorney General, MD
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Swati Dandekar, State Representative, IA
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Ray Davis, Registrar, Stafford County VA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Sergio De Leon, Constable, Tarrant County TX
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Jim Doyle, Governor, WI
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill SC
W.A. Drew Edmondson, State Attorney General, OK
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Robert Faucheux, State Representative, LA
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
John Fernandez, Mayor, Bloomington IN
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Joan Fitz-Gerald, State Senator, CO
Michael L. Fitzgerald, State Treasurer, IA
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, Laredo, TX
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Romanie Foege, State Representative, IA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Dan B. Frankel, State Representative, PA
Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta GA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Allen Jay Gerson, Council Member, New York City NY
Gabrielle Giffords, State Senator, AZ
Glen D. Gilmore, Mayor, Hamilton NJ
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Phil Gordon, Mayor, Phoenix AZ
Ken Gordon, State Senator, CO
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI
Darlene Green, City Comptroller, St. Louis, MO
Ron L. Greenstein, State Representative, FL
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Wendy Greuel, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Peter C. Groff, State Representative, CO
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Bob Hagedorn, State Senator, CO
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
DeAnna Hanna, State Senator, CO
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Martin J. Heft, First Selectman, Chester CT
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Richard Hildreth, Mayor, Pacific WA
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Dave Hunt, State Representative, OR
Ross Hunter, State Representative, WA
Geri Huser, State Representative, IA
Daniel W. Hynes, State Comptroller, IL
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of Agriculture, GA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor Prom Tem, Menlo Park, CA
Evan Jenkins, State Senator, WV
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
Robin Johnson, Alderman, Monmouth IL
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lieutenant Governor, VA
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Richard Kriseman, City Council Chairman, St. Petersburg, FL
Annie Kuether, State Representative, KS
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Leah Landrum Taylor, Assistant Minority Leader, AZ
Patricia Lantz, State Representative, WA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
David Lindenmuth, Councilman, Woodstown Borough NJ
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Alice Madden, State Representative, CO
Louis Magazzu, Freeholder, Cumberland County NJ
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Steve Marchand, City Councilman, Portsmouth NH
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, DE
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Rosemary Marshall, State Representative, CO
Barbara Matthews, Assembly Member, Tracy CA
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IA
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IL
Kenneth McClintock, State Senator, PR
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Matt McCoy, State Senator, IA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Dolores Mertz, State Representative, IA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, KY
Tom Miller, Attorney General, IA
Doug Milliken, Treasurer, Centennial CO
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, NC
Richard Moore, State Senator, MA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Karen Morgan, State Representative, UT
John Morrison, State Auditor, MT
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York City, NY
Keith Mulvihill, Commissioner, Mt. Lebanon PA
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Pat Murphy, State Representative, IA
Ed Murray, State Representative, WA
Therese Murray, State Senator, MA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alex Padilla, City Councilman, Los Angeles, CA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Sally Pederson, Lieutenant Governor, IA
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
David Pepper, City Council, Cincinnati OH
Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, NC
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Janet Petersen, State Representative, IA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Tom Plant, State Representative, CO
Charles Potter, Council Member, Wilmington DE
Debra Powell, Mayor, East St. Louis, IL
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Brian Quirk, State Representative, IA
David Ragucci, Mayor, Everett, MA
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Ann H. Rest, State Senator, MN
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN
John Richardson, State Representative, ME
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
Joe Riley, Mayor, Charleston SC
Andrew Romanoff, State Representative,, CO
T.J. Rooney, State Representative, PA
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Sharon Sanders Brooks, State Representative, MO
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, Burleson TX
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County, WA
Scott Slifka, Mayor, West Hartford CT
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
James Smith, House Democratic Leader, SC
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, FL
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Carol Spielman, County Board Member, Lake County IL
Eliot Spitzer, State Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
Harvey D. Tallackson, State Senator, ND
Abel J. Tapia, State Representative, CO
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Mark Taylor, Lieutenant Governor, GA
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, GA
Lois Tochtrop, State Representative, CO
Charles F. Tooley, Mayor, Billings, MT
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
George Van Til, Surveyor, Lake County IN
Juan Vargas, State Assemblymember, CA
Jennifer Veiga, State Representative, CO
Val Vigil, State Representative, CO
Michael Villarreal, State Representative, TX
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Lewis J. Wallace, State Representative, CT
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Steven Warnstadt, State Representative, IA
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Kenneth Welch, County Commissioner, Pinnellas County FL
Steve Westly, State Controller, CA
Michael J. Wildes, Mayor, Englewood NJ
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Suzanne Williams, State Representative, CO
Constance Williams, State Senator, PA
Sue Windels, State Senator, CO
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR
Barbara Yamrick, Regional Tranportation District Director, Aurora CO
David Yassky, City Councilmember, Brooklyn NY
Caprice Young, President of the Board of LAUSD, Los Angeles CA

[gumby]

11. Don't know about all those elected officials,

but do know that Melissa Bean votes consistently with the Republicans on key issues. Using her as an example, what's the difference?

And what is the point of your list? Naming a State Controller in CA is supposed to suggest what? Anyone can run for elected office.

[snowbear]

13. Chaumont...

should explain the beef he has with individuals that happen to be DLC members.

BTW.. I didn't type the name of a State Controller.. it's a cut and paste job! :rofl:

The next Governor of Alaska is on that list.. I know him personally and trust me.. he's not even close to being a Rethug-lite!!! :bounce:

Ethan Berkowitz ~ Next Governor of Alaska ~~ http://www.ethanberkowitz.com/

[Al-CIAda]

12. Damn, advanced stages...the cancer may be malignant. n/t

[bvar22]

19. OMG!!!! The Mayor of Laredo supports the DLC!!!!!

Who am I to oppose the Corporatist Agenda of the Democrats who have sold out the Working Class if the Mayor of Laredo or a citycouncilman from Gettysburg,Pa thinks that the DLC are peachy?

:rofl:

Is this list meant to impress?
Size DOES matter.
If you compare your list against the list of ALL AVAILABLE City Council Seats in the United States or the list of ALL Mayors in the United States, your list is pathetically small; too small to satisfy.
:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

41. Great list, but it actually supports the OP view

in my opinion. The few that I know on the list are 100% corporatists. Corporate interests always come first. That is what the DLC is, corporatists. As long as they continue to be a force in the Democratic party, nothing will change.

[KingFlorez]

14. DLC is better than Republican

The DLC is just a faction and there should be factions. I don't see a problem with most of these people, a few scattered votes here and there don't mean a thing. A DLC Democrat will always turn out to be better than a Republican.

[snowbear]

16. You're right King..

If we started knit-picking about individual members of the DNC, we'd probably find plenty to bitch about there too. :shrug:

Here's what I'd like to know from Chaumont (who seems to have fled the coop?)

>>> WHO IS THE "PERFECT" DEMOCRAT?

Thanks for your kind reply Chaumont.. :eyes:

[Don1]

22. You're Right

People who criticize DLC'ers like the principal author of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" are just nit-picking. (sarcasm)

The enemy is neo-cons and right-wing nuts including right-wing religious nuts. Zell Miller is an example. We need to support true progressives over Democrats like these. No, it is not nit-picking. It's a huge deal for a Democrat to be a neo-con.

If the DLC OR the DNC gives us no better choice than a Zell Miller versus a Lieberman in a Presidential Primary, then we all need to stand together and vote Green.

[Zhade]

60. Just to be accurate, the DLCer mentioned merely HOSTED a PNACer.

Of course, Marshall has endorsed PNAC more than once in the past, and so might as well be counted a PNACer in spirit.

(Clearly, as evidenced by my sigline, I am no fan of the DLC.)

EDIT: replace 'on' with 'of'.

[Carolab]

21. WRONG! The DLC is trying to ruin the DNC's grassroots effort.

The DLC is EVIL.

[bearfan454]

55. I'm with you on that Carolab

DLC = repuke lite = lose elections.

[Eloriel]

72. Specifics? I don't doubt it for a minute,

but if you have specific info, I'd love to hear about it, esp. links. Thanks in advance.

[Carolab]

85. The Nation had a good article about the DLC a few weeks back.

I'll find the link.

On edit: Here it is, from DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1677431

[rman]

29. Real Democrat is much better DLC

The DLC is a small but much more wealthy and powerful faction then "the people", it's a business lobby build into the Dem party.

[Eloriel]

71. Uh, noooooo. DLC pretty much IS Republican

Their values are far too close to Repug for there to be any substantive difference. When you look at their funding (includes very far rightwing, as in Dominionists), and their purpose -- get away from Dem "special interest groups" (which is our entire base: African Americans and other minorities, women esp. pro-choice women, labor, etc.) and be business-friendly, you really have to think again about Lenin's quote (and as long as I'm quoting that, I'll throw in a few links to go with it):

DLC
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Democrats for Wolfowitz
(see esp. Tinoire's post #20) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1687818&mesg_id=1688529 )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1687818&mesg_id=1687818&page=

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

Ask the questions NOW of the DLC and Clinton. Corporate funding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1372759#1373432

New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735

(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2784312
Link: http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

[Lorien]

23. Here's a snip of one article:

"In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic vote for president and the national cumulative vote for Democrats for the House of Representatives have been nearly equal. That is in sharp contrast to the previous four decades. Then, the total vote for Democrats running for Congress usually fell between 50 percent and 55 percent, while the Democratic vote for president usually fell between 40 percent and 45 percent.

This convergence of the presidential and congressional vote has resulted in a national Democratic vote of about 47 or 48 percent. It is a reflection of the shifts of conservative Democrats in the South and West to the Republicans and of moderate and liberal Republicans in the Northeast to the Democrats. Those shifts were first evident in the voting for president in the 1950s. But their full impact was not felt until 1994, when the South began voting overwhelmingly for Republicans for Congress.

As a result of these shifts, the two parties have become more ideological. Without its conservative wing, the Democratic Party is increasingly America's liberal party. Without its moderate and liberal wings, the Republican Party is increasingly the conservative party.

That puts a particular burden on Democrats. The reason is simple: For half a century, there have been more self-identified conservatives than self-identified liberals in America. In 2004, for example, 34 percent of voters identified themselves as conservative, while just 21 percent called themselves liberals -- the other 45 percent identified themselves as moderates.

If Democrats win most of the liberals and Republicans win most of the conservatives, simple math dictates that Democrats will have to win an overwhelming majority of moderates. The only two Democrats to win the White House since 1964 -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- did just that. Last fall, John Kerry won the moderates by 9 percentage points. He needed to double that to win. Democrats clearly need to broaden their message to reach moderates, because there are too few liberals in the constituencies that they must win."

(snip)

More: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=253365

I have to disagree with Al From: Democrats HAVE NOT become more liberal (did this guy miss the 1970s completely?)-they've moved to the center, while repugs have moved to the far, far right. Voters ache for a true "opposition party". The old adage is true; given a republican and a democrat who acts like one, the people will choose the repub every time.

[wryter2000]

50. Thank you!

I have to disagree with Al From: Democrats HAVE NOT become more liberal (did this guy miss the 1970s completely?)-they've moved to the center, while repugs have moved to the far, far right.

I am so fucking sick of hearing that both parties have become more extreme. We've moved so far to the center we could be Nixon Republicans. I expect hearing that crap from RWers. To hear a "Democrat" say it makes me want to hurl.

[Zhade]

62. Well, Bill Clinton (who made the DLC famous, not the other way around)...

...has stated publically that he's an 'Eisenhower Republican', so...yeah.

[wryter2000]

73. "(who made the DLC famous, not the other way around)..."

You got that. Tell me what elections they've ever won when he wasn't running.

[Zhade]

61. He gets it wrong pretty fast...

"the Republican Party is increasingly the conservative party."

Uh, no - there is nothing 'conservative' about out-of-control deficit spending, eliminating civil liberties one-by-one, or foreign invasions of countries that didn't threaten us.

Nor is support for things like the PATRIOT Act, the illegal war, or corporate-driven anti-worker policies like NAFTA and CAFTA 'liberal' by any stretch of the imagination.

This guy is just flat-out WRONG.

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. The DLC is a malignant cancer on the Democratic party

And it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.

[IndianaDemocrat]

56. I'm betting you Think JFK was a Cancer then???

Whether you like it or not, there is a kook fringe Liberal element that is COSTING US ELECTIONS! And labeling Christians as a "Hate-Group" for being anti-gay is just one example of why we are continuing to lose in the ONLY poll that matters....

And as long as we are percieved to be Anti-Family, Anti-American and Socialist by the MAJORITY, we will lose more and more counties to RED. The newspaper in a nearby county here ran an article entitled "Where Have All The Democrats Gone?" after the 2004 election, bemoaning the utter lack of DEMS willing to run for office in Indiana...

It's long past time we stopped posturing and started to actually WIN elections...

[Zhade]

63. Echoing Republicans to win elections isn't winning.

It's capitulating.

Not interested.

[madfloridian]

89. We are not posturing, and neither is Dean. Forget their perception.

Be ourselves, dare to differ, and just keep fighting.

Your post sounded like a little fear of insulting the folks who have taken our country down a very wrong road.

[wli]

27. The DLC are nothing but GOP/AEI moles

To the Hague with them right alongside the entire Republikkkan party!

[brentspeak]

28. I would say some of THIS stuff could be written by freepers

The "let's not vote for Democrats" posts on a Democratic website are a lot more telling than a hit-and-run "President Bush should be supported" post.

[T Town Jake]

31. The same thought occured to me...

(n/t)

[cornermouse]

44. Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with the feeling of

betrayal when the gang of 7 eviscerated the filibuster?

Or those members of Congress who jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon when there were so many doubts floating around in our own heads about the wisdom of that move?

Or the lackluster campaign that Kerry ran, not entirely his own fault but I persist in believing that as the candidate and possible future President, there were things that Kerry could and should have done.

Its easy to dismiss unhappy voters with a flick of the wrist and "oh, they're just _________." Most of us understand that there are many positions within the party and don't expect to get our way every time, however I don't think falling back on the "well, who else are they going to vote for" position isn't going to work much longer either.

[magellan]

32. As a Liberal Independent I owe no fealty to the Democratic Party

I'm here because they're the closest thing to a viable opposition party this country's got. Democrats like Conyers, McKinney and Boxer reflect my values; the DLC does not. Does that mean I'm not welcome?

[wyldwolf]

37. how did you draw that conclusion from that post?

[magellan]

88. It just struck me as one of those "You must vote Democrat...

...no matter what or you're a freeper/don't belong here" posts I often hear about. I've been here 9 months and I never ran across one before so I wasn't complainin', just explainin' where I stand. :)

[Zhade]

65. OT: I love your avatar!

Very cool.

</offtopic>

[mmonk]

30. Deceitful Little Conservatives

[liberaliraqvet26]

33. So im assuming that soon to be Gov. Spitzer...

is a bat shit crazy freeper? And I guess the Clintons, Al From and James Carville are too. The malignant cancer on the party are the people who cannot accept anyone at all to right of themselves.

[wyldwolf]

39. The malignant cancer on the party are ...

... those who have set up litmus tests to determine what a "real" Democrat is.

Many of these are the people who would have voted for Henry Wallis over Truman in 1948.

Many of these these are the people who voted Nader in 2000 to "teach Democrats a lesson."

[radio4progressives]

87. Oh so here you are again.. doing the job as a DLC functionary.

forget about it.

the dlc is the Republican Branch of the Democratic Party.

Neo Libs. pretty damn close to being the same as Neo Cons, just a few shades less uglier, a few shades less fascists.

Who needs a few shades less fascists than the PNACing Neo Cons?

Litmust test?

What a dishonest piece of tripe.

How about just a little bit of effort for crediblity here?

The Dems need to come out with a platform denouncing the Rise of Fascism in America - educate people as to what it is - and how we got here.

Which means taking a critical look at the Clinton White House, which laid more layers to foundation set in place during the Reagan Admin, for it to be fully errected in this administration.

The DLC aided and abetted those in power now, and that's what they're about. It's like you want this ONE PARTY totalitarian despotic regime to stay in power for decades to come.

So why even bother holding elections? the DLC do not represent the PEOPLE. They represent their OWN PERSONAL interests.

Anyone drinking the kool aid you're passing around will only help you bring this party down further than it already is.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

74. Actually, liberaliraqvet26

You're going to find, in time, things about the Clintons and Carville that I HOPE give you pause. If you don't already find MANY things about Al From that give you pause, then you're either woefully uninformed (and we can fix that), or there's no hope for you in my book -- and judging from other posts I think I've seen from you, I believe it's the former.

There's a lot of good Clinton did -- and a lot of bad as well. Senator Clinton has done a good job in many ways, and continues to disappoint fiercely as well. The last straw for me for Carville was NOT when he went after Howard Dean (altho that was quite bad enough), it was when he went to Venezuela and consulted with the wrong side, with the enemies of Chavez. Yup, that showed me his true stripes.

The malignant cancer on the party are the people who cannot accept anyone at all to right of themselves.

Like George Bush? Or Bill Frist and Trent Lott? Tom DeLay? Zell Miller? It's no vice being "unable to accept" people who are actively doing you harm and who are NOT doing it out of the goodness of their heart, or the best of intentions, or wht they genuinely think is for the best for their country, but rather their own self-interests.

[OzarkDem]

102. Al From, yes

the rest are either badly misguided and out of touch with the voting pubic or they have no credibility either.

[JNelson6563]

34. Funding from the Koch brothers should tell you plenty

why would those bat-shit crazy extremists contribute to the DLC? Not for the Democratic cause, I assure you.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

36. Like Howard Dean, you mean?

[JNelson6563]

54. Busy thread for you!

Many fires to put out. Damn, if only more would believe the DLC's insistance that their consistently losing strategy should still be followed! Your life would be much easier!

Well, thanks for taking time out of your busy defense schedule to toss me some bait. Can't say I'm interested in playing but I appreciate your time and all.

Don't let me keep you, lots of DLC critics milling about...off you go!

Julie

[Cha]

64. Dean's our

Dino Slayer!

:toast: to Julie!

[wyldwolf]

75. you mean like Howard Dean?

[madfloridian]

90. You need to stop that Koch stuff.

How much was that you say? 2000 you say. Not much at all.

[wyldwolf]

92. no I don't.

As I said above, where is the bar set as to how much is too much? Usually just higher than your guy.

In Dean's case, he took money from Koch Industries right after he gave them a sweet energy deal. Coincidence, I know...

[wyldwolf]

35. More of the same

What is only said by a few in threads like this is that a lot of opposition to the DLC is over their support for the removal of Saddam.

Now, the only people who feel this way that I respect are those who are truly anti-war. If you are truly anti-war. IF you truly believe that war - any war - is the last resort or should not even be an option.

Because we know that the removal of Saddam was a popular policy when the Democrats were in power with Democrats like Dennis Kucinich signing on to the Iraq Liberation act in 1998. This act, of course, didn't call for the US invading Iraq but it did call for financial and intelligence support for opposition forces in Iraq to wage war.

Either way, we would be responsible.

And Democrats supported the war in Kosovo.

Democrats also supported going into Rhwanda - which we never did but, in my opinion, should have.

In each case - Kosovo and Rhwanda - the reason for military action and proposed military action was ethnic cleansing. In Iraq, there as a bit of mass killing going on as well. Yes, we were lied to about WMDs and MANY Democrats (including Howard Dean) believed it.

Yes, the Bush adminsitration played on America's fears after 9/11.

It was disgusting and the war has been ill conceived.

But had I seen the real evidence in Iraq - the mass killings - I might have been more prone to support some sort of covert military action short of full scale invasion.

Maybe.

But aside from the Iraq war, which Dems other than some in the DLC voted for (Biden-Luger amendment ring a bell?), most other criticisms can and should be leveled at most other Democrats as well.

Why the fixation with the DLC?

Well, I can give my honest assessment.

First, the bulk of DLC critics on DU know not what they speak of. Their beefs are just regurgitations of what they've heard others say and post. Consider the original poster. Here are his words, quoted:

have said recently that I thought the DLC was an idea whose time and come and passed, without knowing hardly anything that they stand for.

These people seldom verify that what they believe and instead get taken in by factional (and fictional) propaganda.

Second, there are those who have legitimate problems with the policies that many DLC members have. They've researched them and have made their conclusions. However, most of them are hypocrites to an extent. They bash the DLC for the same things other Dems do but won't own up to it. Which brings me to my third subset...

... the honest ones who will call a Democrat on the carpet - any Democrat - on an issue by issue basis not just because he/she is DLC.

I want to address some points in the opening post:

I consider myself a moderate Democrat, but even saying that leaves me a little at sea.

Why? Moderate Dems have been the bulk of the party since FDR.

just paid a visit the DLC web site and have read some of their pieces to describe themselves and what they think all Democrats should be.

In all my research of the history of the Democratic party from FDR to the present, including the DLC, I have never once seen the DLC state or describe what they think all Democrats should be. Do you have an example?

think those people, the DLC, are bat shit crazy. Some of that stuff could have been written by a freeper. I'm not dragging any examples over. If someone is interested enough to test my judgment, let them do a google search on dlc and they will get a direct point to the DLC web site.

Why not prove your point instead of throwing things out there and then telling others to do the research to verify it. That, in my opinion, is very un-Democratic.

I voted for Clinton twice. I supported him as much as my meager resources would allow all through his presidency, including the Monica Affair, but if he wants to hang his hat on the DLC, we part company. I won't support the DLC for any god damn office, not even dog catcher.

You realize, of course, Clinton hung his hat on the DLC long before you ever voted for him. So, you supported the DLC.

Further more, as long as these so called Dems are right in the midst of the party, the party is fucked. Dean has an impossible task. I can see easily why they hate Dean with a passion they can not find regarding chimpie.

So-called Dems? hmmm...

I would ask, again, for some sort of verification of your points here but, well... you don't do that kind of thing. We should take your word for it, right? Psst... while Governor, Dean was DLC and he supported all the stuff you despise the DLC for.

So, I'll issue my standard challenge to you:

List all the things you despise about the DLC, and show that the members of the DLC are ALONE in the Democratic party in supporting them. THEN - list the Democrats you find politically pure and we'll see if they've supported any or all of the things the DLC have said or done.

[ooglymoogly]

45. i have one answer for you ...joe lieberman and his ilk

hating dictators and wishing them overthrown is one thing...preemtive war to benefit who knows, is another...and therein my friend is the conundrum

[wyldwolf]

76. aside from his support of the Iraq war...

..what do you dislike him for?

John Kerry and John Edwards, in that respect, are part of his "ilk."

[ooglymoogly]

99. kerry and edwards like most democrats voted to give the president

the powers to go to war because of lies posed to them as fact and after the promise that all efforts not to go to war were exhausted and because they were ambushed into it...lieberman like the pugs was a cheerleader for the war long before it took place and needed no coaxing....other than that mrs lincoln how did you enjoy the play.

[gulfcoastliberal]

51. My problem with the DLC is their unwavering support for "free trade" and

favoring either eliminating government safety nets outright or outsourcing them to big business. The DLC backs Bush on CAFTA which even the House New Dem coalition is against. Do you deny this? Does the DLC support Bush's private accounts idea for social security? Seems like the DLC is in favor of whatever CEOs of big business are in favor of. Is that wrong? Please provide an example if so.

[Eloriel]

77. How 'bout what all Democrats should NOT be

i.e., liberals and progressives. Two examples, and these do not even include all the attacks on Dean and especially his supporters as "elite" and quite simply not wanted in the DNC (as if they had anything to say about that):

"We've got to repudiate, you know, the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there sometimes on our party's left... We can't have our party identified by Michael Moore and Hollywood as our cultural values."
— Al From, CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

"You know, let's let Hollywood and the Cannes Film Festival fawn all over Michael Moore. We ought to make it pretty clear that he sure doesn't speak for us when it comes to standing up for our country."
— Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think-tank of the DLC

They quite simply want us jettisoned from the Party all together. They don't GIVE A DAMN about the fact that it would eviscerate their base.

And speaking of our base. I thought, perhaps I'm wrong, that you are a minority. Maybe you're a Harold Ford Democratic Party activist as opposed to a Jesse Jackson Jr. style activist -- ?? Ford seems to think the work is done for minorities (and women, and labor, and, and, and). I don't, not by a long shot. And Simon Rosenberg -- who was just ONE of the Mr. Wrongs the DLC tried to foist off on us as DNC Chair -- explained it all this way:

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."


Simon Rosenberg wants to sell you out. And me, and just about everyone else in the Democratic Party but ESPECIALLY ALL of its base. He wants the Party and its "leaders" to basically have NO accountability to the people at all, since they'd get ALL their money from corporations. Lot less trouble too, all you have to do is have those nice cocktail parties and collect multi-thousand dollar checks. Whew! Lot better than actually building -- and maintaining -- a grassroots organization or something.

For the LIFE of me I can't see why you can't see all the stuff posted here for what it is, and the anti-DLC sentiment here for what IT is, which is a rejection of the foxes guarding the hen house, a repudiation of the enemy within.

And btw, there are MANY reasons that we dislike the DLC. But that was only one thing wrong with your elaborate argument about that. If I thought you'd listen, I'd go into some of that. But after all this time, I pretty much know better.

[wyldwolf]

78. ok, point by point:

We've got to repudiate, you know, the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there sometimes on our party's left... We can't have our party identified by Michael Moore and Hollywood as our cultural values."
— Al From, CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

Sorry. Michael Moore doesn't speak for me. He was against the Afghanistan war for one thing.

You mention the base? The "base" wants the Democratic party to be less liberal and more moderate/centrist.

Simon Rosenberg was right. The Democratic party should put national interests above special interests.

And btw, there are MANY reasons that we dislike the DLC.

And I can guarantee you that the Dems you like have done the things you despise the DLC for. So I guesss you just dislike Democrats.

[Zhade]

97. "Democratic party should put national interests above special interests"

So, would I be correct in reading that to mean, for example, NAFTA over labor rights?

How do you, personally, define "national interests" and "special interests"? Do you view labor unions fighting for workers' rights as a national interest, or do you instead see outsourcing boons like NAFTA to be in the national interest?

What about the illegal war in Iraq, which the DLC supported? What national interests were served in toppling a regime that was not threatening us? Is it the unspoken - oil to continue Americans' gluttonous lifestyle (approximately 5% of world population, 50% of the wealth, use of 25% of the world's resources) - or something else?

I'm very curious to know how national interests were served by committing a war crime like the invasion of a country that didn't attack us.

[eridani]

93. The Iraq war had fuckall to do with the removal of Hussein

Several ME countries were trying to arrange exile for Saddam and sons before the war. The Sociopath in Chief informed them that the war was on even if Saddam left.

[Q]

40. The DLC seems to have two jobs:

One is to put as many DLCers in seats of power as they can. The other is to demonize, marginalize and neutralize Liberals and Progressives. Their goal...like that of the RWingers who got rid of the moderate consevative influence in the GOP...is to eliminate the liberal/progressive influence in our party.

And like the Neocons on the Right...the DLC doesn't want to debate with liberals about the direction of the party. They have simply TAKEN control of the party using the cash and media from those who want to see the Democratic party weakened and then destroyed.

The DLC is the enemy within. That they're financed and promoted by the same groups that finance the RWingers and Neocons should be a cause of concern. What better way for the right to destroy the opposition than to become part of it and change it from within?

Take a closer look at who the 'party' is ALREADY pushing for 2008. Every single one of them is a DLCer. At the same time they're promoting the idea that ONLY a 'centrist' can win the White House and that progressives don't have a chance in hell. A self-fulfilling prophecy? Be prepared to be called a traitor or accused of voting for Republicans if you dare question the legitimacy of their RWing politics disguised as moderation or centrism.

[Al-CIAda]

47. Excellent post. n/t

[emcguffie]

49. Maybe we could start an alternative?

We have to shut them down somehow. Or infiltrate.

[Eloriel]

81. Dean's elecrtion as DNC chair went a long way toward helping

to shut them down, IMO. It may not have been a total victory, but it was most certainly a start. Think about it: they no longer totally control the DNC. The PEOPLE spoke and said, "No! We want a man of the People. We want our party back."

Our job is to support Dean and the DNC as much as we can, along with organizations like Democracy for America (Dean's old org) which helps support Dean-style and other non-DLC candidates.

We especially have to do this because otherwise, it's back to the corporations for the DNC too. We've GOT to make the DNC self-supporting without corporate influence.

[Q]

82. The problem is that the 'party bosses' had no control over Dean...

...as long as he was a free agent...threatening to take votes and campaign cash away from the 'new' Democrats. They didn't want DEan as Chair...but they finally conceded...realizing that they could use the DNC to force him to tone down his rhetoric about the illegal war and related topics.

Dean went from being a threat to having to work within the DLC guidelines of non-confrontation on the war and related topics.

Dean is no longer a real threat to the DLC. They love that he's now part of the party machine.

[tommcintyre]

100. So Dean sold out?

"...he's now part of the party machine."

When Dean went out and touted the bogus DNC election report in the end of June ("no widespread fraud"), it became clear to me that something had happened with him.

That was quite a surprise/turnaround from the man who had participated in demonstrating just how easy it is to hack the electronic voting machines.

It reminded me of when McCain spoke so glowingly of Bush at the GOP convention. All I could think was, "what did they promise him"?

So, now I must ask, what did "they" promise Dean?

[OzarkDem]

103. DLC candidates lose

DLC and its candidates have very little power. Most of their candidates have lost in the most recent elections, at the national, state and local levels.

They're making a big noise right now, but they don't have anything to back it up with, certainly not in popular support or money.

The only credible Dems who want to follow them are those who fear having to rely on grassroots Dems for fundraising. Sure, its easier to go to cocktail parties in DC and elsewhere and raise your money from corporate interests and their lobbyists. But it doesn't get you anywhere, least of all elected outside of your own safe district.

[Lorien]

52. Gotta agree with you once again Q

I wish I didn't, because then I would have far more hope for our party than I do. :-(

[Zhade]

67. I have a slightly different view in one regard...

The DLC has ATTEMPTED to seize control of the party, but has failed to fully do so.

Case in point: Dean's chairmanship. The DLC and party elite tried everything they could to foist one of their own on the grassroots, who would have none of it and repudiated the centrists' attempts to place one of their own as chairman.

The non-DLC grassroots won that battle, and Dean is now chair. This is not an outcome they wanted, I'm sure, because the one thing about Dean that is remarkable in my eyes is his ability to raise grassroots cash not tainted by corporate contributions from companies that will expect a return on their money once their candidate is in office.

[Eloriel]

83. Right. And here's an example of their ongoing war on Dean

Gaggin Dr. Dean
Discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3938896&mesg_id=3938896
Link: http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1281/article13433.asp


Beneath the mass media dustup over Dean's rhetoric, there is a related and more telling battle going on over precisely the issue of grassroots fundraising. Dean wants to use the same fundraising strategy as party chair that he used as a candidate, emphasizing small donations collected over the internet and through state and local efforts coordinated via the internet. Through the end of April, the Democrats had raised a little over $18 million. The Republicans had raised almost $43 million. Critics seized on the discrepancy as proof Dean could not deliver. This fails to consider the position in which Democrats found themselves relative to Republicans after the last election ("The Republicans control pretty much everything," notes Democratic political consultant Steve Cobble, "so why wouldn't they have a huge edge in fundraising?"), and it likewise ignores the fact that Dean has raised more money than his predecessor had at the same point following the 2000 election, when the party could still receive direct soft-money donations. Judged against those two factors, Dean's performance as a fundraiser would seem pretty respectable.

snip

The time is ripe for a full-throated attack on corruption in the halls of business and government and especially in our profiteering health care system. Howard Dean sees the political opening at hand. The only part he fails to grasp is how spectacularly distasteful and off-point his big idea is to the Democratic Party.

Dean still possesses enough personal leverage to make himself a real nuisance to business-as-usual Democrats. You will note that most party frontliners have avoided any suggestion that he step down as chair. This is largely because Dean's four-year chairmanship is all that binds him to his brokered promise not to run for president in 2008. The party would rather neutralize him in his role as chair. (Remember, per Newsweek, the scuttled insider plan to appoint a spokesman to stand in front of Dean?) If they can smear him enough to take away whatever lingering mass appeal he has going forward, so much the better. This is where the attacks on his public words come in, and at more than one level. Consultant Cobble again: "Dean knows that when he's out there talking is when the small donors jump in. The big-money people know that too--they know that to keep the fundraising going, he's got to put red meat out there. And they probably also realize that if they can intimidate him into stopping that, he'll be forced to turn back toward them for money."

The grassroots energies that coalesced around Dean are thus put in check, and the vaunted post-2004 battle over "the soul of the Democratic Party" is laid to rest, appropriately, with a chorus of whimpers.

[Q]

86. The DLC loses nothing having Dean as Chair...

...because he went from being an 'independent' Democratic politician to the 'mouthpiece' and fundraiser for the party. Note that when he says the 'wrong' things...the party 'bosses' jump all over him and claim that he 'doesn't speak for them'.

But best of all for the DLC is that he's no longer in a position to run for high office. He's the party's man now and can't criticize the Neocon/Neodem's corporate war.

[Q]

96. I have to disagree...

...as to whether the DLC HAS control of the party. They literally wrote the 2004 platform and only candidates with their stamp of approval have any chance of becoming the nominee. Populist or progressive candidates that get too much support or campaign cash become a target of the DLC. They helped destroy Gore when he told the truth about corporate corruption and Dean when his following grew too large.

[TahitiNut]

68. Yep. They're the "Zell-its" of the Democratic Party.

100% of their attacks target liberals and progressives. Every position they take regarding the Right speaks of "compromise" and "agreement." Their role in the Democratic Party is identical to the role of the Neoconservatives in the Republican Party - it's "good cop bad cop" fasicsm.

People like these (and those who're too blind to see them for what they are) are what make me a committed independent liberal.

[Zhade]

98. Same here, TN. Same here.

Been an indie for a while now - not having to blind oneself to the corporatism and right-leaning nature of the DLC and many elected Dems frees one up to actually SEE what's going on in the world.

[d_b]

94. HALLELUJAH!

[chaumont58]

43. Some readings from the DLC web site

Some posters fault my 'sky is falling' thread, in which I didn't provide any examples. Fair enough, I suspose. I invite those interested to read this essay, entitled Equal Access Denied.

link:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253460

One of the points in the essay implies there is a connection between Ivy League Schools denying Army recruiters access to students and what happened at Abu Graib.

[ooglymoogly]

46. thank you for steppin up to the plate

this piece really says it all...batshit crazy is a good beginning

[Don1]

84. More like

batshit Republican. That DLC essay sounds just like a GOP talking point, if I ever heard one.

[emcguffie]

48. The last 30 years Dems have been "reactionary" --

:rant:

It's been driven by the campaign by the repubs to make Dems look like idiots, you know, that seduction, "What's the Matter with Kansas" style. And the DLC was originally supposed to prove that Dems and liberals could be reasonable people who wouldn't destroy "business", rather than extreme commie pinkos who didn't believe in business.

But this has all gone way too far, now, and lots of folks are opening their eyes, and the pendumlum has been swinging.... now it's at the -- what do you call the high point of its swing? -- and it has starting to swing back.

The DLC is useless now, they were a response, a reaction, to an ongoing smear, and now that smear has become obvious to a lot of people. The corporations have gone too far, period. Who can't see that now? Who can't see what has happened to the media, and why? Finally, I think, it is becoming clear even to many sane Republicans who do actually care about our future.

Now there are nobel prize winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz standing up and saying this globalization business is nonsense (finally!). Jeffrey Sachs. The book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" hasn't gotten the attention it should, but it's certainly pulling back the curtain.

It was the very successful strategy of the right to take over. They took over, they took things way too far, we've returned to the Gilded Age, and now people can see that.

All we have to do now is fix the election business (no pun intended).

[Q]

95. Being able to see something and doing something about it...

...are two different things. Both the Neocons and Neodems are insulated from the people and they know they can literally do anything and get away with it. Hell...we live in a time when political parties can outright lie, steal elections in broad daylight, start unnecessary and illegal wars and out undercover CIA agents and GET AWAY WITH IT. Factions in both parties hide behind the fog of war as they plunder our treasury and resources for the corporate ruling class.

For the longest time I was among those who lied to themselves about what the Democratic party was becoming. No more. I don't want to see our party suffer the fate of the Republicans...who were powerless to do anything once their party had been taken over by zealots, charlatans and greedy bastards.

Contrary to the opinions of some...we don't enjoy having to fight against factions in our own party. But we can no longer afford to sit back and watch as our leadership transforms the 'party of the people' into the party of big business.

[xxqqqzme]

104. go here

http://www.ppionline.org/

Progressive Policy Institute - they R the warmongering wing of the DLC. They are no different than PNACers. Empire building w/ liberal words.

From their open letter to democrats:

'...America's work in Iraq is not yet done. We, therefore, urge you to oppose calls to withdraw troops from Iraq prematurely, before the new Iraqi government is able to consolidate its authority and defend itself against Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists. This is not the time for casting anxious glances toward the exits. Instead, Democrats should reaffirm our resolve not to leave behind a failed state in Iraq, because to do so would hand our jihadist foes a strategic windfall, swelling terrorist ranks and lending credence to Osama bin Laden's claim that the United States is a paper tiger with no stomach for a protracted fight.'...

signed by
Sen. Evan Bayh, Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Artur Davis,
Rep. Adam B. Schiff, Rep. Ellen Tauscher,
Ronald D. Asmus, James R. Blaker, Larry Diamond,
Philip H. Gordon, Edward Gresser, Bob Kerrey,
Rachel Kleinfeld, Will Marshall, Michael McFaul,
Steven J. Nider, Jeremy Rosner and James P. Rubin