DLC and CAFTA

[Don1]

CAFTA passed very recently by a very slim margin in the House. There is a lot of yelling at the DLC for this, but let's look at it objectively. Is there a significant difference in the way that the DLC voted versus how the non-DLC voted?

There were 15 Democrat Representatives who voted for it. Only 3 of them were DLC. 3 out of 39 members of the DLC voted for it. That is 7.7%. For non-DLC Dems, 12 out of 163 voted for it. That is 7.4% for non-DLC Dems. There was no significant difference in how the DLC voted on this one in the House.

However, the Senate had a different story. 7 out of 18 DLC'ers voted for it with one not voting. That makes 38.9%. 3 out of 25 voted for it. That makes 12% for non-DLC Dems. This IS a significant difference in voting for the Senate. Additionally, if the DLC had voted at the same rate as the rest of the Dems (12%), then only 2 DLC'ers would have voted for the bill. As a result, the bill would have failed by one vote in the Senate!

Here is the House DLC roll call on this issue:
B. Schiff, Adam, U.S. Representative, CA No
Baird, Brian, U.S. Representative, WA No
Berkley, Shelley, U.S. Representative, NV No
Capps, Lois, U.S. Representative, CA No
Carnahan, Russ, U.S. Representative, MO No
Case, Ed, U.S. Representative, HI No
Chandler, Ben, U.S. Representative, KY No
Crowley, Joseph, U.S. Representative, NY No
Davis, Artur, U.S. Representative, AL No
Davis, Jim, U.S. Representative, FL No
Davis, Susan, U.S. Representative, CA No
Emanuel, Rahm, U.S. Representative, IL No
Engel, Eliot, U.S. Representative, NY No
Etheridge, Bob, U.S. Representative, NC No
Ford, Harold, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN No
Harman, Jane, U.S. Representative, CA No
Herseth, Stephanie, U.S. Representative, SD No
Higgins, Brian, U.S. Representative, NY No
Holt, Rush, U.S. Representative, NJ No
Hooley, Darlene, U.S. Representative, OR No
Inslee, Jay, U.S. Representative, WA No
Israel, Steve, U.S. Representative, NY No
Kind, Ron, U.S. Representative, WI No
Larsen, Rick, U.S. Representative, WA No
Larson, John, U.S. Representative, CT No
McCarthy, Carolyn, U.S. Representative, NY No
McIntyre, Mike, U.S. Representative, NC No
Meeks, Gregory, U.S. Representative, NY Yes
Millender-McDonald, Juanita, U.S. Representative, CA No
Moore, Dennis, U.S. Representative, KS Yes
Moran, Jim, U.S. Representative, VA Yes
Price, David, U.S. Representative, NC No
Sanchez, Loretta, U.S. Representative, CA No
Schwartz, Allyson, U.S. Representative, PA No
Scott, David, U.S. Representative, GA No
Smith, Adam, U.S. Representative, WA No
Tauscher, Ellen, U.S. Representative, CA No
Udall, Tom, U.S. Representative, NM No
Wu, David, U.S. Representative, OR No

Here is the DLC roll call for this vote in the Senate:
Baucus, Max, U.S. Senator, MT No
Bayh, Evan, U.S. Senator, IN No
Cantwell, Maria, U.S. Senator, WA Yes
Carper, Tom, U.S. Senator, DE Yes
Clinton, Hillary, U.S. Senator, NY No
Conrad, Kent, U.S. Senator, ND No
Dodd, Christopher, U.S. Senator, CT No
Dorgan, Byron, U.S. Senator, ND No
Feinstein, Dianne, U.S. Senator, CA Yes
Johnson, Tim, U.S. Senator, SD No
Kerry, John, U.S. Senator, MA No
Kohl, Herb, U.S. Senator, WI No
Landrieu, Mary, U.S. Senator, LA No
Lieberman, Joe, U.S. Senator, CT N/A
Lincoln, Blanche, U.S. Senator, AR Yes
Nelson, Ben, U.S. Senator, NE Yes
Nelson, Bill, U.S. Senator, FL Yes
Pryor, Mark, U.S. Senator, AR Yes
Stabenow, Debbie, U.S. Senator, MI No


See also, the following:
Patriot Act analysis:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1961268
DSM analysis:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964058

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. take a look at the senate vote

8 of the 10 were dlc

(and lieberman didn't vote-and he's dlc)

[Don1]

2. Ok, thanks. Will look it up and edit. n/t

[Erika]

3. Why don't the DLC join the Bushbots?

They are doing nothing, no that's not true, they are hurting the American worker in voting for Bush's plans.

[Mass]

5. Dorgan, Spitzer, Kerry, ... ?

[Mass]

4. And 12 of the DLC members voted against.

[stewarde]

6. ron kind...

Ron Kind may be on the DLC.

But he is THE MAN. He represents the disctrict in Wisconsin about 3 miles away from my house (I live near district borders) and he friggin rocks.

[Mass]

8. Thanks

My list was not exhaustive, all additions are welcome.

BTW dont forget. Voting for CAFTA is unforgivable. It condones even worse laber conditions for Central American workers. (for those who cares a little farther than their own *).

[Mass]

7. And his mother had just died. So give him a break for once.

But I forgot, DLC people dont have mothers.

[shance]

9. Who were the other seven Representatives that voted for CAFTA?

n/t

[Don1]

11. There were 15 total Dem reps who voted for CAFTA.

Bean
Cooper
Cuellar
Dicks
Hinojosa
Jefferson
Matheson
Meeks (NY)
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Ortiz
Skelton
Snyder
Tanner
Towns

There were 10 Dem Senators:
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Wyden (D-OR)

These are total lists for the Dems and so some of these names are DLC and some non-DLC. You can tell that from a comparison of names found in listings in the op.

Hope that helps.

[expatriot]

10. those %'s are pretty good being that they are our centrist wing

The fact is that Democrats had more unity on this than the Republicans which is a small victory in itself.

In 1993, House Democrats split on NAFTA 102-156 (102 vote yes).

If we disagree with DLCers on the issues (which I do) we need to civilly present alternatives to their candidacies in the primaries instead of ranting about how they need to be purged from the party. (not saying you are).

[Mass]

12. OK, let's present an alternative to Spitzer.

When are people going to be able to bypass these labels and go to the record.

And I am all to provide an alternative to anybody who voted for CAFTA and condoned the worsening of labor conditions to Central American workers.

[expatriot]

14. yes, I agree....

I need to go to get offline for the night but I think if we, as progressives want more influence in the Democratic Party we need to do it constructively instead of bitching about how the DLC is just a bunch of Bushies and lamenting about how we can't purge them from the party and how we are going to leave the party because of them, etc.

[Don1]

13. I think people disagree on DLC strategy because of where they stand.

For example, I do not view the DLC as the centrist wing of the party. I view them as the right wing of the party. I view the Progressive Caucus as the left wing of the Party. And I view the entire party as centrist when averaged out.

So, from my perspective, why would I support a right-winger, even if he won the Dem primary? I would vote Green/Independent/Socialist/non-Dem in that particular race or not vote at all.

I don't know about purging these guys just yet, but I do think that on this issue, just enough of them voted against the Democrats to let CAFTA pass. I wonder if they were told to by corporate sponsors. And I think they need to be watched closely with votes so that we all can make the decision of whether or not to keep them together as citizens of the Dem party.

This is why I have done the 3 analyses so far. It's data for us.

[Mass]

15. As all Dems should

I guess you are happy with Salazar (after all, he is not a DLCer).

the DLC has never been a group where everybody voted together. I grant you that some of his members are very right wing, but not all. Some people outside the DLC are very right wing too.

Should we not be focusing on the people and not the label.

[Don1]

17. Yes and no.

It is easy in a way to watch the DLC as a group. So far, their actions seem to be statistically different than the rest of the Democratic party. And their rhetoric on their site is different, too...and I am hearing rumors about corporate co-optation of that whole group...and they have connections to PNAC...

But your point is good, too. Consider purging any right-winger. I think we need to be objective and rational about it, too.

Consider some criteria that we could all vote on together:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1961969&mesg_id=1962631

[Mass]

18. I would spend more time purging a Salazar or a Biden

than Dorgan, Spitzer, or Kerry.

But I guess all of us have our prioriries, I guess. Mine is about issues, not labels.

[bvar22]

19. Biden has "connections" in the DLC.

He isn't an "official" member, but he is featured on their website where he is praised and fawned over. The DLC website frequently includes his name when naming groups of DLC members.

http://www.dlc.org/search_results.cfm

Biden has his OWN Corporate Connections and probably doesn't need the DLC to funnel Corporate Money his way. So far, he hasn't needed DLC money or support in his Primaries. I hope that changes.

Some politicians are wising up that connections to the DLC may not be such a good thing, and are not asking for "official" membership. You don't NEED to be an "official" member of the DLC to be corrupt, but it usually helps.

The DLC tried to grab some of Barak Obama's popularity after his election. Barak Obama blew a fuse when he found out that the DLC was trying to use his name. It was a pretty embarrassing episode for the DLC PR men, but they seem as shameless as Republicans.

Twice the DLC has tried to claim credit for Obama, slapping him up on their list of members, and for the second time, they've had to back down. <...>

They may love the guy, but Obama wants nothing to do with the DLC. Remember, Obama raised over $3 million from MoveOn members, the very organization the DLC wants purged from the party's ranks. We know where Obama's loyalties lie, and it's wiith the netroots. He's one of ours.

This little episode also highlights the DLC's interesting tactic of slapping up people on the list without asking for permission to do so, an attempt to take credit for peoples' success."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/8/102/32777

Voting Records are NOT a good tool to determine someone's TRUE allegiances. The DLC only needs just enough Democratic votes to ensure passage of Corporate Written legislation. After the vote is ensured, DLC members can cover their asses with meaningless votes so that they can say "SEE. I voted AGAINST CAFTA. I'm for the PEOPLE!" and they still get to pick up their bribe money from the Corporations. These politicians are NOT stupid.


It isn't a coincidence that CAFTA passed by only 2 votes.
Did you wonder what all that last minute shuffling was about?
It was also a "Cliff Hanger" in the Senate.
Most Corporate Written legislation is NOT as blatant a sell out as CAFTA, but almost all the votes are squeakers withjust enough Democratic Traitors for passage.

[Mass]

20. Conspiracy theory

which is why we forgive so much to some because they do not have these three letters behind their names, but attack our liberties more often than people listed in the DLC list.

I guess it is time I leave the Democratic Party and list as independant, if this is the future of the Democrats, this is a bunch of nonsense and we should not be surprised if we lose.

BTW, there was a good reason not to vote for CAFTA (alavery for Central American Workers) and I will not stop at the three letters behind the name. I will fight against those who voted for this abomination.

[bvar22]

21. It is NOT a theory but a FACT...

..that studying PURE voting records is NOT a valid tool for determining someone's true allegiances. The Voting record MUST be weighted by the importance of the VOTE, whether this individual's vote was critical or not. Throw Away VOTES are REAL. After a bill is ensured, votes are meaningless. This has ALWAYS been true with our system of government. Ask someone who serves in either State or Federal Government. Vote Trading takes place EVERY DAY.
It is naive to assume that it doesn't.



ON EDIT:changed "stupid" to "naive".

[Don1]

22. My priority is issues, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1971055

[expatriot]

16. um... the closest you can get to "purging"

someone from the Democratic Party is to defeat them in a primary.
The way our political system is set up, the primaries are the equivalent of the "run-offs" in multi-party systems. Because it is winner take all, we have to form our coalitions before the general election rather than after the votes are counted (as they do in multi-party systems). It is like a bell-curve... If one side of the bell-curve is divided, the other side of the bellcurve dominates and the losing side has nothing to show for it the morning after. If you break off, the centrist tendencies of the party won't shift left to pick up the 2 per cent they lost from the tail.... they will try and pick up from votes from the non-activated, corporate-brainwashed middle america center.

The U.S. national political system is like two sumo wrestlers pushing against eachother to control the center and the idealogues of each side are chihuahuas biting the heels of their side's sumo wrestler trying to "pull him" back further to the right or the left depending on the side.

With that, I go to bed.