Rove: "Look out, here comes the DLC!"

[NinetySix]

There are lots of diversion tactics being used these days, and it isn't unlikely that the sudden rash of pro-DLC vs. anti-DLC posts might be one of them. Who knows what professional flunkies reside among us, performing "psy-ops" among the opposition? It happened back in the late '60s with cops and agents posing as counterculture revolutionaries in order to stir the passions of hippie undesireables and incite them to illegal acts.

Don't respond to DLC posts, don't alert, don't do anything. Let 'em either sink under their own weight, or let the plants play out their mock-battles on their own. It's time to get back to the REAL issues.

[dalloway]

1. recommended and kicked.

[Eloriel]

2. Sorry, but the DLC is a very BIG "REAL issue" to me, and has been

for quite some time -- several years now. They need to be utterly defeated and exposed for what they are, and I make it my business to try to do that with some regularity.

[rniel]

23. Damn right

They may have done almost as much damage to the democratic party than republicans have.

[blm]

31. Yeah...they are almost as bad as CATO Institute.

I think we should make a firm decision not to trust ANY politician that the CATO Institute is comfortable with.

Actually, DLC isn't even in the ballpark with the scumbags of the CATO Institute. If you want to spend time attacking corporatists, start at the top of the corporatists wagon.

[Jacobin]

3. It didn't start here on DU dear.

[Armstead]

4. Been around here long?

These go back to the beginning of DU.

It's a festering division, and the anti-DLC types are not all "professional flunkies" for the GOP.

[Mark E. Smith]

5. Recommended and kicked

[LittleClarkie]

6. I bet the actual DLCers wouldn't mind

less strife.

[gratuitous]

7. Intra-party feuding doesn't matter to 98% of the populace

The DLC, its pros and cons, is only of interest to a very small portion of the electorate. Single mothers trying to get through another month keeping body and soul together don't know Al From from Uncle Al the Kiddies' Pal.

I see nothing Rovian here. Which is, of course . . . I've said too much already.

[Clark2008]

29. I'm a single Mother trying to get through another m onth

with no child support.

AND, I know who Al From is.

[welshTerrier2]

8. but perhaps this thread is a plant ...

until we resolve the very real policy differences among us, healing the intra-Party rift IS A REAL ISSUE ...

pretending it does not exist is absurd ...

and arguing that we can't debate other issues simultaneously is absurd ... there have been plenty of posts today on CAFTA, workers, Iraq etc ...

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Rift may be too kind ...

This may be the first time the base has collectively fought back on the DLC issue in concert and without any planning. The ferociousness of the Left's response and the surprise to the response has put the DLC at a heretofore distinct disadvantage. Ergo, appeals to stop it as if it were a smaller issue rather than a historic sea change. The DLC liked the attention paid to it through traditional media/communication means, but now the internet is a great equalizer and its 24/7. That medium clearly is the realm of the Left. Not pretty for the DLC, not pretty at all.

The DLC will be able to continue to its aims, such as they are, and attracting their believers. But no longer will the DLC be relying quite so condescendingly comfortably that the Left/Grassroots/Netroots will shoulder the burden of getting everyone elected equally. The focus has shifted to selecting causes, projects and candidates that fit holistically with what individuals value or their belief systems. That is something that has been spoken about before, but now it is actually coming to be and the DLC coping mechanisms are outdated.

Trashing the hardworking Left, who have been loyal and of great assistance in the past, is not the best harbinger of future political success. The DLC's policies are inextricably tied to preserving an America focused on global corporatism (NAFTA/CAFTA), not the liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness model. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back to going along to get along. That is the philosophy that enrages because it truly may come to pass that political options that were unthinkable now become realistic.

Lately, The Left clearly has started to value its ideas and opinions much more highly. The DLC is now realizing they need to value the Left as well. Now how the DLC chooses to go forward will be interesting - the Left is clearly healthy and fit.

[welshTerrier2]

16. very nice post ...

you touched on some excellent themes, PC ...

there was an article in today's WP that stated the Hillary was truly caught off-guard by the crossfire she walked into with her calls for unity at the DLC conference ... even with all the political experts she's surrounded by, she apparently lacked an awareness of the strength of the rebellion within the Party ... i was truly stunned by this revelation and plan to write about the possibility that many elected Dems don't necessarily oppose us; they're just so out of touch with "little unimportant Democrats" that they really don't know what the hell is going on ...

i'm not sure whether i actually believe this or not ... need to sleep on that one overnight ...

but one thing i do believe, and i think your post and most of the others i've read on DU don't go far enough, is that the intra-Party problems the Democratic Party has gone way, way beyond the conflict between the progressives and the DLC ... the real problem i see is that the Party needs a major infusion of democracy ...

i had hoped that with Dean as Chairman, we would see a push to bring the direction of the Party and its candidates in line with the beliefs of the grassroots ... by grassroots, i don't mean the left, center or any other place on a political spectrum ... i mean every single Democrat who wants to have a voice ... perhaps Hillary's being clueless about the Party's internal strife is an indication of how out of touch the "elite" Democrats really are ... if they want our support, they better support us ...

we need to have processes that allow each and every Democrat to be heard on the issues ... if we don't change the status quo very, very soon, the opportunity we have now to regain majority status for not just an election or two but, for the long-term, will be squandered ...

at a time where Democrats should be running away with national polls and preparing to return to majority status in the next election, we are getting more of the tired old move-to-the-center poison ... what the Party still doesn't understand is that they will lose everytime if they put politics ahead of policies ... the best politics come from having the best policies and having the courage to fight for them ...

anyway, i really enjoyed reading your post ... very well said !!

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Thank you very much. Deeply admire your passion!

Time is the great leveler. Howard Dean has had less than 6 months in his new role and look at how much has been accomplished. A real and lasting change of direction. That is the heart of the matter.

The other hidden little intra-party "squabble" comes when the DNC's money needs to be spent. That is going to be the clash of the Titans. Governor Dean knows who sent the money and certain pols are going to need it. How will the money be spent? That is what is causing great terror on behalf of the DLC - which DLC members that can pull in that kind of cash, consistently without the DNC's help.

Once the cash is there for candidates, this goes to the obvious DLC strategic shortfall, where are the votes? The DLC decided to bet the farm, healthcare, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the squishy changeable center. You have to have natural passion to inspire, you only need a pollster to define the mythical center. DLC has plenty of folks who have traditional "centrist" strategies, but innovation is the province of the passionate.

For primary presidential candidates especially, the center doesn't come to in the same numbers at the "base". And as far as I know, Howard has yet to make a firm decision on whether Iowa & New Hampshire are still the lead off states. If that changes, once again the DLC would be in deep trouble. Can you imagine regional primaries?

So, your conclusion about how fundamental this is to the future of the party is true. Your also right about people seeing the still water, but not understanding the deepness.

Look forward to seeing your posts tomorrow. Thanks again for your graciousness.

[JDPriestly]

26. Hillary missed her chance.

The flurry is not about the DLC. They've always been, well, the DLC. We liberals have never liked the DLC, but we've always accepted it as a necessary evil. This storm is different. It's about Hillary, not just the DLC.

Since leaving the White House, Hillary has focused on being a team player in the Senate and on winning friends and influencing people in the Republican Party. As a result, she has been troublingly silent about issues that matter to liberals, most importantly, about the Bush administration's deception on Iraq, about Bush's theft of the presidency, his lies and incompetence. It hasn't hit her yet, but one of these mornings she is going to wake up and realize that she can't count on the support of the liberal base that elected her husband.

Hillary has worried too little about keeping the confidence of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and too much about winning votes from the Republican wings of the parties. That was a dumb thing to do. In the end, Hillary's Republican friends will vote for Republican candidates. As for the DLC, they will vote for the highest bidder. Can Hillary pay the price? I doubt it. There are too many good looking, slightly younger men from red states with beautiful families, great pedigrees and much closer ties to corporate money who will offer more than she. Hillary might be able to trump their hands if she could play the liberal support card, but, at least at this point, it looks like she doesn't hold that card and her bluff is about to be blown.

That's because we liberals, who are the reliable Democratic voters, have had enough. Hillary ignored us for five years. As a result, most of us want "anyone but Hillary." Hillary miscalculated -- badly. It will take a lot for her to regain our confidence. Of course, she's got Bill. We love him, but whether he is enough to win back our trust, only time will tell. We are only now reaping the whirlwind caused by NAFTA, and that was his baby. So I question whether even Bill can overcome our mistrust of Hillary. Too bad, I would love to see a woman in the White House.

[rniel]

24. One thing though

Is as far as presidential candidates go. All the frontrunners are DLC people. That's the one thing they still got going for them. I hope we can find someone not affiliated with them that has a good chance to win.

[ChiciB1]

30. You Said It...

And we need to keep it going! I'm a Liberal and have been for a long time. It's time we make LIBERAL the operative word and not let the Repukes constantly trash it!!!

[MoonRiver]

42. Many of us trusted the DLC and voted for their candidates, while

simultaneously holding our noses, because DLC propagandists convinced us they had the winning strategy. LOL is all that's left to say about that "winning strategy". It's time to find a better way, one that will not only win elections, but also embrace core democratic principles, which the DLC has sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed. The DLC has sold the soul of the Democratic Party to the devil and it's time we grassrooters reclaimed it.

[Mass]

20. The why do people hide behind three letters rather than discussing issues?

We do not talk about pro against anti CAFTA. We talk about the DLC, the DLC, and the DLC again (pro or con, both threads are as bad as possible).

WE do not talk about pro and anti corporatism. We about the DLC, the DLC, and the DLC again.

Sure, a large part of the DLC people answer the criteria, but many people OUTSIDE the DLC do too.

[NinetySix]

22. Exactly my point.

Issues are important. Sure, there are disputes between DLC and non-DLC, but they should hinge on the issues. Keep to the issues, and we won't be sitting around slamming each other, but working toward a common goal.

Metaphorically speaking, the GOP are like the current, and pro- and anti-DLC forces both want to go upstream. Let's not argue about who wants to go further ustream yet, because while we do, we're getting carried further downstream. Neither of us has enough oars in the water to do it alone; let's get a ways upstream before we start swinging the oars at one another.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. This is complete fucking horseshit.

That WHORE Hillary spews a bunch of BULLSHIT about how we all need to unite behind the PNAC/DLC agenda, and suddenly the DLC operatives flood this board to make anyone who dare questions the annointed Stepford Wife into a "Freeper" or a "RoveBot"??

FUCK YOU LITTLE CORPORATIST PUSSIES.

Defend your DLC bullshit, if you can. Don't cop-out of what Hillary or From said by running away, you cowards.

[NinetySix]

10. My point is simply: move on to a new subject.

I don't see a whole lot of constructive activity going on in these posts. DLC Sucks! vs. DLC Is Great! just seems to be not only wasted energy, but a seeming substitute for Two Minutes Hate. Enough! Those of us who care about unseating the current cabal should consider the importance of these issues on a grander scale before we begin launching intramural attacks against one another.

And remember that all the energy used in these petty debates might not actually be wasted, but harnessed by other interests.

[Armstead]

12. Okay try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1961544&mesg_id=1961544

An effort to discuss a specific reason why some people find the DLC so destructive to the larger picture.

Your contribution is welcome.

[welshTerrier2]

13. petty debates ?????

you mean like whether we are losing our democracy because both major parties are being controlled by greedy, corporate interests ???

or the pettiness of criticizing so many Senate Democrats for their continuing support of bush, the neo-cons and all their PNAC friends in their occupation of Iraq ...

take a read on this thread before you go labeling the debate as petty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1961981&mesg_id=1961981

if you're calling for unity, i agree with setting unity as a goal ... but if you're trying to stifle the necessary debate that must occur before unity can be achieved, your unity will be only an illusion ...

[Don1]

15. Well put. n/t

[NinetySix]

21. My point is simple.

We are completely out of power, whether we are socialist, DLC, yellow dog, or moderate. We sit in our tower arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while the landscape outside our lofty window slides ever-rightward.

In 1988, I absolutely despised Al Gore. I thought he was one of the worst, most right-of-center candidates I had seen in our party in my lifetime. I wasn't interested in his ideas. I much preferred Michael Dukakis, with whom I found myself in agreement on many important points. Oh, but wait, he let some convicted murderer out to kill again because he was so soft on crime...or something. Wouldn't it have been better to have Gore win the nomination in '88? At least we know he would have fought (as he did in 2000, in contrast to Kerry's obsequious prostration in '04).

I'm perfectly willing to compromise with people in this camp, our camp, with whom I disagree if it means ejecting the madmen in power now. I'll put it this way: do you prefer the DLC to PNAC? I'll go on record: I do. We need to put a stop to the corruption in the long term, that's for sure, but we need to slow the degeneration of our country in the short term if that's all we can do.

Until we wrest some of the power from these maniacs, all our blustery arguments are ACADEMIC. Eyes on the prize.

[Don1]

14. And how do I know

you're not psy-ops for the DLC?

Don't tell anyone to ignore the DLC without taking a look at what they are first.

I am willing to do that objectively:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1961268
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964058

Are you?

[NinetySix]

19. Paranoia strikes deep...

Into your lives it will creep....

Republican unity is not just unified, it is in creepy fucking LOCKSTEP. I'm not the least bit interested in maintaining absolute discipline over progressive thinkers with honest disagreements; in fact that is EXACTLY how I envision democracy itself. I'm just complaining about the increasingly rabid attacks we are perpetrating on one another.

I don't like the DLC myself (at the risk of starting YET ANOTHER FUCKING FLAME WAR), but I think we'd both rather have Al or Hillary, or even JoeMentum as President rather than these madmen who have used their bizarre and destructive domestic and foreign policies to maneuver the Republic we all love into riding this crazy bobsled to Hell.

I understand that there are real and important differences among us. But they don't have to be sloganized, which almost invariably leads to the demonization of the other side. Let's keep our cool -- and our PERSPECTIVE.

[Don1]

44. I disagree.

You can have your opinion, too, like you said, this is democracy...even though it really isn't. It's a republic with rampant corruption and election fraud.

"I don't like the DLC myself (at the risk of starting YET ANOTHER FUCKING FLAME WAR), but I think we'd both rather have Al or Hillary, or even JoeMentum as President rather than these madmen who have used their bizarre and destructive domestic and foreign policies to maneuver the Republic we all love into riding this crazy bobsled to Hell."

Joementum or Al or Hillary, no. You have to understand that this is a pendulum. Hillary as President will be 1 or 2 terms and then we will face another Neo-Con President. Hillary will not undo everything that BushCo has done, because she is complicit in half of it. She will undo some it. So 4 terms from now we will be in twice the trouble we are in now.

A Progressive, yes. We need a leftie to undo all the BushCo damage. Then, 2 terms from now, we will be in a nice spot with universal health care, civil liberties, and maybe some peace. After those 2 terms, who would believe the right-wingers?

Now, if the best that the Dem Party can give me is a Hillary or God forbid, an Al From, then I am out. So are others. We will let the fascists take on even more power. The reason is that we will quickly have a socialist revolution afterward. It has to get worse before it gets better.

[bvar22]

17. The DLC is the BEST tool Rove has inside the Democratic Party.

The DLC is much like Gannon was in the White House Press Pool. The Republicans could always count on Gannon for support, or to distract from pertenint criticism.

The DLC is can always be counted on to intercept and marginalize criticism of bush* and the republicans. Look what the DLC did to the Michael Moore documentary, the DSM, the Ohio Theft Fraud, the Halliburton Scandals, The Gannon Scandal. HOW MANY of the DLC are stepping in front of the Cameras demanding something be done about TREASON in the White House? How Many?


Silence on these issues is COMPLICITY. The DLC has ACTIVELY attacked the democratic Wing of the Democratic party. I'm sure ROVE is grateful.
If anything, the pleas to forget about the DLC and move on are ROVE Plants. The DLC actively HELPS the Republicans.


I'm NOT over it. I'M NOT moving on.


I CAN Effectively MultiTask!

[Totally Committed]

25. If this is a diversionary tactic...

we are not the ones doing the "diverting":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1964899&mesg_id=1964899

[1932]

27. I think the DLC posts came up because of CAFTA vote.

And perhasp the vote was as close as it was because Democrats are now realizing that you can't tilt the board entirely in favor of large corporations and still have a fair economy and democratic society.

[Q]

28. The DLC wrote the 2004 platform and now have a plan...

...to 'revitalize' and 'modernize' the Democratic party with the 'third way'. Now they're pushing the 'American Dream Initiative' and expect everyone to fall behind it even though it's a screed written exclusively by and for DLCers. They didn't want and didn't ask for input from the rest (majority) of the party.

The 'real issues' include finding a way to stop the DLC from attempting to govern in our name and without our permission. The real issues also include informing that the DLC that it doesn't speak for a majority when they collaborate, cooperate and enable the lunacy of the Bush administration. They're quite welcome to lick Bush's boots...but not in our name.

I think you'll find that 'most' of the threads about the DLC are authored by Democrats who care about their party and country. They WANT to see the Democratic party retake the majority...but not at the price of selling out the base for a few pieces of silver.

I suggest you DON'T respond to the DLC threads unless you're willing to be confronted with the painful truth of Republicans in Democratic clothing trying to divide and conquer from within. If you don't understand or care about the DLC selling out the party to corporations and to advance their own power and careers...then you really shouldn't join the debate.

[NinetySix]

32. Don't assume that I don't understand that.

I'm extremely anti-corporate. In fact, I myself am anti-DLC. I just don't see how it's effective and productive to our general purposes to tear one another down. As I posted above, I prefer the DLC to PNAC, simple as that. I'd rather have Republican-lite than the concentrated real thing, just as I'd rather have fake lemonade than suck on a lemon. Doesn't mean it's what I really want, but given two unpalatable choices, one must pick the lesser of two evils (especially if the greater is inevitable if the choice isn't made).

Let's get the Emperor out of power first in order to get back the reins of the Republic. Then we can argue about the best course for that Republic. Work to get Democrats -- ANY DEMOCRATS -- elected in the short term, but work from within the party to steer the issues and policies in a more progressive direction. Anything less divides us, making us ripe for picking. Hang together, or we shall certainly hang separately.

Baby steps. But steps in the right direction.

[ibegurpard]

33. Fine, but what if the lesser of two evils is behaving in such a way

as to further the greater evil's agenda? And won't go without a fight? That's what we're dealing with here.

[NinetySix]

34. Sometimes it takes strange bedfellows working together to win.

Imagine if we had let our ideological differences with the Soviet Union flare into hot war before landing at Normandy. Even Churchill knew the stakes: beat Germany first, then deal with the threat of Stalin.

Let's beat PNAC first. We'll work on sailing to Utopia once the keel is back in the water.

[ibegurpard]

35. Here's what you're not getting:

What if Stalin was actually UNDERMINING us for Germany's benefit?
Whether it's deliberate or not is not the issue...the results are the same.

[NinetySix]

38. Reply to both ibegurpard and Q:

Do we focus first on our nominal allies and leave our real enemies loose to wreak their havoc? When all the punches have been thrown between the DLCs and the progressives, when we're bloody and battered, but victorious, how much more energy are we going to have left to battle our REAL enemies, who have taken succor from the battle?

What if Stalin were working for the Germans? Then we'd have been sunk with or without him.

[ibegurpard]

41. Not true.

When your nominal allies are aiding your enemy (whether by accident or design), you stand a better chance of success (however slim or hopeless it might seem) by ditching them.
You seem to be of the mindset that making the best of what you are given is the wisest course of action. I agree with that. That is why I cannot understand why you would advocate the opposite in this case.

[Q]

37. Something else...

...you're not getting or acknowledging is that the DLC is part of the PNAC. The PNAC/Bush Doctrine has been so successful because there are just enough 'Democrats' to promote or vote for their policies. Bush is able to point at HIS 'victories' and say that he had 'bipartisan' support.

He's getting away with so much because he has 'friends' on the inside of the Dem party covering his ass. Most Democrats are against the Iraq slaughter...but that's not what you hear from the DLC and their corporate media.

[NinetySix]

40. OK, now you're striking a chord with me.

I can certainly see that people like Biden are enabling Bush's hawkish foreign policy. Nevertheless, it pays better dividends to discredit Bush himself (e.g., yellowcake lies, Plame's outing, DSM, etc.) than it does to go on the offensive against Biden. What better way to undermine Biden's support than to undermine Bush's justifications?

[CWebster]

39. PNAC

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1203-15.htm

[Q]

36. I'm not 'anti-corporate'...I'm anti-corporate corruption...

...so please don't feed into the stereotype that the left mindlessly 'hates corporations'.

We're not 'tearing one another down'. We're fighting against those who have sold out our party TO corporations. These are politicians that trade legislation for campaign cash and promote corporate over social welfare.

What the DLC is doing to our party is just as important as fighting against the RWing because in many ways they are one in the same.

[pgh_dem]

43. Nothing unites like a common enemy (Speaking of Rove)

Would most people on both sides of this tussle agree that if the front page of the DLC website said:

"Karl Rove has compromised our national security."

And had an article containing the following:
Detailed the known facts.
List of the allegations against Rove.
Analysis as to the possibility of indictments.
Summary that regardless of indictments, based on known facts Karl Rove is at least guilty of confirming classified information in a coordinated smear campaign, and thus has compromised national security for political gain.

Such an article would play into the DLC's claimed strong suit of Democrats who are as hard-nosed as any Kennedy/Truman style cold warrior of the 50s and 60s, and earn them undeniable street cred among liberals.

It seems to me like common sense, without significant compromise, while opening the door to both sides to find an area where we could all agree: "OK, at least we're on the same page in this case."

Again, I'm not talking about a DLC member saying this, as Kerry and Clinton have both called for Rove to be fired, and to have his security clearance revoked. I'm talking about an article on the splash page of dlc.org.

Anybody?