we are now technically in a three party system w/ Dem's divided

[rainy]

With the DLC now operating as it's own party not in step with the whole Democratic Party this makes a legitimate third party out of the rest of the non'DLC dems. The non'DLC dems are already legally established and should now call themselves something like the progressive dems or the real dems and take under their wings all the Greens and progressives and start separating themselves from the DLC. This, I believe would cause the DLCs to start to loose support and we could finally take our party back and our country back. Greens and other third parties have such a hard time getting on the ballot, this would give them some new power and ability to get elected.
What say you guys?

[Vincardog]

1. The new party should be named 'The Democratic Party'

WE should Reach out to the Greens Progressives working people and everyone who believes in Education, Living Wages and the environment.
Let the DLC re brand itself as Repug Lite. Let them explain what their positions are.

[madrchsod]

2. remember the republicans are also

having problems but the republicans will still let the extreme right fuck them. if the dlc fucks us then we let it happen

[nicknameless]

3. The DLC is an illegitimate 3rd party.

They've been trying to hijack the Democratic party, but they're out of step with their constituents. We don't need to form a new party, we need to freeze these corporate-money-grubbing DINOs out of ours.

[podnoi]

35. "New Democrats"? Their site appears to use Orwellian Doublespeak

They call themselves the "New Democrats" (what is new about the same old corporate cowtowing?). I have not kept up with their Marketing, only how they vote (against the people it seems to me). If they were trying to Replace the Democratic party I was not aware of it. But that is what it sounds like?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

"The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) leads the New Democrat movement, a national network of elected officials and community leaders whose innovative ideas are modernizing progressive politics for the 21st Century. "

How can they claim *both* to be the "Original" Democratic Party *and* "New Democrats" at the same time? Doesn't this sound like Orwellian (re: Repub marketing strategies) doublespeak?

[nicknameless]

38. Doublespeak and Oxymorons.

They also call themselves "Progressives," regardless of the fact that they are diametrically opposed to all things progressive.
They have no ideals, since what they're really about is raking in corporate money. They're just trying to co-opt the labels.

Good thread to check out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1971055

Don1's posts about the DLCers' activities are very revealing.

[bearfan454]

63. Damn straight nicknameless. n/t

[rhett o rick]

65. HOW ? nt

[wyldwolf]

4. bullshit

That's what I say.

With the DLC now operating as it's own party not in step with the whole Democratic Party this makes a legitimate third party out of the rest of the non'DLC dems.

Do you have stats suggesting this?

we could finally take our party back and our country back.

How can you take back what you've never had???

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Not really

Sorry for disagreeing, but I'm just not seeing it. Just for the record, I would like a more democratic, open political system with some proportional representation in the House and easier ballot access for third parties.

I also should note that I'm quite a bit to the left of the DLC leadership. I think Al From and Bruce Reed are idiots. I also think that the DLC leadership's constant villifying of the party's left-wing is damaging and idiotic. And I do think that some in the DLC are too quick to slur those who oppose the Iraq War as "unpatriotic." I also disagree with them on a lot of political tactics, although even there, I find the sentiments on this board a little over-the-top. Even most DLC position papers I've seen advocate heavy opposition to Bush, especially on things like Social Security. The only people I see urging full accomodation are the Sens. Nelson from NE and FL (and frankly with Ben Nelson I'm willing to cut him some slack b/c he comes from one of the most Republican states in the country). I find it bizarre that people try to use them as representative of ALL DLC'ers.

But let's seriously look at the issues. There is largely a great deal of agreement across the board. Even on foreign policy, the general outlines of a Democratic foreign policy are clear, even if people disagree over the specifics of the war in Iraq.

The main issue that separates the DLC and other Democrats is trade, and even on that there are many free-trade non-DLC Democrats, as well as plenty of DLC'ers who have publicly had second thoughts about trade. The vast majority of DLC'ers voted AGAINST Cafta. Now, the Bankruptcy Bill was truly noxious and was a major blunder, that I'll agree.

But people keep talking about this gaping chasm between the DLC and the progressive wing of the party and act as though the DLC is some monolithic and insidious cabal that is manipulating the entire party to its own ends and who agree with the Republicans on everything. Please. Read the DLC position papers. I'm to the left of them on a lot, but there's no way the GOP would embrace the DLC platform. And the DLC is FAR from a monolithic bloc. It's an informal grouping of a large number of Democrats. Many are somewhat associated with them but are well to the left of the DLC leadership and many others are to the RIGHT of the DLC leadership. Plenty of them have few associations with the leadership.

Oh, and who, mind you, have ALWAYS had big ties to major corporations. You can disagree with that. Frankly I think we need full public financing to cut off corporate influence. But to think that corporations have only now been contributing to the Democratic Party. Sorry, that's simply not true. There's always been a large business-friendly element within the Democratic Party. And, as far I see it, as long as that doesn't make Democrats into corporate hacks, I'm okay with some business input (of course, there are some DLC Democrats who ARE too pro-corporate, esp. Diane Feinstein).

But the idea that this party is actually two different parties is ridiculous. Democrats, DLC and Progressive, are more ideologically homogenous than anypoint over the last 100 years, in fact, probably since before the Civil War. We are now quite firmly a left-of-center party, who largely agree on goals, federal powers, and social issues, if we have degrees of differences. There is widespread agreement that we need to oppose the Bush administration! Democrats in Congress, Cafta and Bankruptcy Bill notwithstanding, have been extremely strong in opposition to Bush. Sorry if they don't satisfy you 100% of the time. Like I said, the Bankruptcy Bill and Cafta were genuinely noxious pieces of legislation that deserve scorn. But otherwise I find the need for 100% agreement with DU to be a ridiculous call. We're NOT the majority of the party and if you want someone in office who agrees with you 100%, run for office, b/c you're the only one who agrees with yourself 100% of the time.

Now, if you're positions are closer in line with the Green Party or Socialism, that's fine. I have no problem with your advocacy of that and if you want to be a Democrat, fine. But don't think that just because you see like-minded individuals on DU that you somehow are a majority of the Democratic Party or that people to the right of you somehow need to leave the party.

Now, I fully expect to get flamed for this or get a bunch of angry replies, but frankly I don't care. I'm not a DLC-booster and I disagree with them on a lot. But the insinuations and over-the-top calls that the party has left you are annoying. As an opposition party, we're doing FAR better than we were a few years back. It's NOT 2001 anymore.

So no, we're not in some de facto "2-party" syste in which Democrats are actually 2 parties. Sorry if I have to disagree with you.

[wyldwolf]

7. no flame here. That's why the people you speak of are referred to as...

... the two percenters.

[loudsue]

40. You simply haven't done your research:

The DLC have made it a written policy that they will not (NOT) support candidates who proclaim any type of populist agenda (meaning: they won't support a candidate who professes to have the welfare of the PEOPLE in mind, over the corporate interests.)

For those candidates who will follow DLC policies, they will provide funding, TRAINING, MENTORING, and other types of support (which I suspect has something to do with Diebold), to get them elected.

They support business, "free" trade, "deregulation"and a strong military. They DO NOT support Unions, Labor, Medicare, Fair markets, and obviously not fair elections.

You need to go read what they say about which candidates they will support with all of their corporate money.

I happen to know, personally, a man who was one of Bill Clinton's primary benefactors. He is "Mr. DLC", if you will. He is a REPUBLICAN, in every way, except that he and his minions have deliberately infiltrated the Democratic party to make it republican in every way -- except by name.

The DLC apologists have no clue what they're talking about... but I become highly suspect when I see support for the DLC on Democratic Underground.

I KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, WHO HAVE FORMED THE DLC.

Quit trying to tell me they're Democrats. They're infiltrators, and it was bought with a LOT of money. They ARE part of the mafia that is running this country.

:kick::kick::kick:

[leanin_green]

41. I've said the same thing for years. . .

They are the infiltrators sent in to confuse and undermine our party as part of the declared cultural war on liberalism started by the "Contract On America." This is basic militaristic strategy, infiltration, confusion, destabilization and division from within.

[nicknameless]

43. GREAT POST !!!

Thank you!! :thumbsup:

[rainy]

48. Thanks for your information. It sums it up nicely!

[Nederland]

66. Question

You claim that this is "written policy". I went to the DLC website and couldn't find any such policy written down. Can you provide a link?

Thanks.

[loudsue]

68. Links? Here ya go!

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota

Here's another one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/267680p-229158c.html

<snip>"In the view of former GOP strategist Marshall Wittman, now a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, "The honeymoon blew over quicker than a Texas thunderstorm on a hot July day."

Here's our friend Mike Ruppert weighing in from his site:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012505_mole_movement.shtml

Some of my favorite articles have been taken down... I don't know how to "mirror" (or whatever) where you can save a web page even if the site takes it down, or there would be several more really good articles added to this list.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Nederland]

72. Nice Try

...but none of these articles refer to a "written policy" of the DLC not support candidates who proclaim any type of populist agenda.

FYI, when you claim that something is "written policy" I would expect you to produce a link to a DLC source, not a media article.

[loudsue]

84. Like I said in my other post....

Right then I couldn't find some of my favorite linked articles. But there are plenty of them out there!

So: See my post # 83.

Better yet....

here's a copy of it.

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

<snip>

"NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

<snip>

"To many up-and-coming politicians, NDN's events are heaven-sent forums at which they can strut their stuff and ring up contributors. Case in point: Tom Carper, the newly elected senator from Delaware. Last year, NDN raised $55,000 for Carper's Senate race. But it provided an intangible benefit as well. "He's a believer," says Rosenberg. "In addition to all the support we gave him, he'd come to a lot of our other fundraisers, and he was able to meet a lot of new people and develop new contacts. That's one of the reasons why so many elected officials come to our events." For politicians like Carper, NDN is a pipeline for campaign contributions. For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists. "The candidates are validated to people in the room as New Democrats," says Rosenberg.

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

What about "republicans in the Democratic Party" don't some people understand?

:kick::kick::kick:

[wyldwolf]

76. YOU simply haven't done YOUR research

The DLC have made it a written policy that they will not (NOT) support candidates who proclaim any type of populist agenda

Do you have that written policy?

I didn't think so. And the assertion is ludicrous anyway. Want to talk DLC support for economic populism?

The Clinton administration championed economic policies that truly "lifted all boats," simultaneously spurring business development, the first mass upper middle class in human history, the first large-scale gains in real middle-class incomes in 30 years, and historic gains in employment and homeownership for the working poor and minority Americans. And when Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996 on this record and agenda, he made red-state inroads that today seem astonishing. (1)

They support business, "free" trade, "deregulation"and a strong military.

The entire Democratic party supports business and a strong military. They always have. What? You think FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn't support a strong military? And Free trade has been a hallmark of the Democratic party for decades.

Support for trade expansion is the oldest continuous policy tradition of the Democratic Party, reaching back at least to the administration of Martin Van Buren. The original populist Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, was more of a free trader than Bill Clinton or anybody in the DLC. Every single Democratic president of the 20th century has been pro-trade. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman insisted on unilateral trade concessions near the end of and after World War II to prop up European economies threatened by communist expansion. (2)

They DO NOT support Unions, labor

Ah, at least we have some real written policy on this topic - but it contradicts what you claim:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252167&kaid=106&subid=122
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250496&kaid=107&subid=175

They DO NOT support Medicare, Fair markets, and obviously not fair elections.

What planet are you from. Medicare? Got to the DLC's site and do a search on Medicare. Mark Warner's recent speech is a good starting point.

Fair Markets? Already covered that.

Fair elections? Start here: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=127&subid=169

And if you just don't have time to wade through the list of articles that call for campaign finance reform, let this one thing sink in:

Election reform: After two consecutive presidential elections marred by wildly inconsistent rules and practices -- for registering to vote, voting early or by absentee ballot, handling challenges of voter eligibility, informing voters of polling place changes, purging voter rolls, designing ballots, and casting, counting, and recounting votes -- it's time to create a level playing field for this most fundamental ritual of democracy. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 did not adequately address these problems, and actually made some of them worse. It's time for a HAVA II that aims more seriously at basic uniformity -- or, alternatively, for a grassroots movement to adopt uniform state election reform legislation

(You're on of those) whose knowledge of the DLC is unencumbered by any actual information on what we believe, write, say and do, other than what you've picked up on Democratic Underground, or in the Collected Works of Bob Borosage.



(1) Ain't No Easy Code
The policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council responds to David Sirota.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8973

(2) ""

[bushclipper]

79. slam dunk!

You have a knack for taking the wind out of the anti-DLCers sails, but you outdid yourself this time!

[loudsue]

85. See post # 83.....

sorry...I didn't have time to go "fishin'" when I posted before, and a lot of my saved articles had been taken down.

Here's the scoop:

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

<snip>

"NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

<snip>

"To many up-and-coming politicians, NDN's events are heaven-sent forums at which they can strut their stuff and ring up contributors. Case in point: Tom Carper, the newly elected senator from Delaware. Last year, NDN raised $55,000 for Carper's Senate race. But it provided an intangible benefit as well. "He's a believer," says Rosenberg. "In addition to all the support we gave him, he'd come to a lot of our other fundraisers, and he was able to meet a lot of new people and develop new contacts. That's one of the reasons why so many elected officials come to our events." For politicians like Carper, NDN is a pipeline for campaign contributions. For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists. "The candidates are validated to people in the room as New Democrats," says Rosenberg.

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

What about "republicans in the Democratic Party" don't some people understand?

:kick::kick::kick:

[wyldwolf]

89. ..which has ZERO to do with what is being discussed

All I see is the method in which the DLC recruits candidates and filters out those who don't fit their standard. No problem there.

Perhaps this is why the far left of the party can't ever seem to organize - they simply have no organization to do it.

The link is, of course, an editorial full of snideness and - well - editorializing.

The quote on "populists" didn't come from Rosenberg or anyone else in the DLC. It came from the write of the piece, Robert Dreyfuss, a lefty who certainly isn't a bastion of journalistic neutrality.

So, now...


:kick::kick::kick:

[AJH032]

6. I don't see how DLCers are corporatists...

considering they promote higher corporate profit taxation and higher taxation on the top income tax bracket (just like traditional Democrats). I think many anti-DLCers are blinding themselves.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of the DLC, but I'm not going to make up lies about them because of it.

[xchrom]

70. higher taxation in some arenas, but like clinton did with

nafta, an overall screw job for workers.

the dlc mistakenly believes they can recreate the tech bubble of the 90's at will -- it's easy for conservatives like them to tout higher taxes in that context.

they would drop that idea in a heart beat if they couldn't recreate their ''bubble''.

[sandnsea]

8. That'll guarantee Republican control

There's more in the center than on the left. People who think Democrats should only be those on the left guarantee a Republican center. That's sort of what's been happening for 30 years.

[AJH032]

9. exactly

the way to overcome Republican power is not to divide the Democrats in two.

[robcon]

10. Without the centrists/DLC, we are dead.

The analysis, such as it is, that by becoming smaller, the Democratic Party will become larger and will win more elections, is fallacious and dangerous, IMO.

I welcome the DLC. Big tent. All Democrats.

[rainy]

12. except there is no room for the PEOPLE under the big tent.

honestly, after watching the Democrats vote for Bush to go to war I realized that they are mostly all sellouts. I thought I was living in bazarro world until Robert Byrd got to the floor and I cried out loud. Finally a man speaking for the people, not worried about the next election but speaking from his heart and his TRUE feelings. Watching Kerry, who I knew in his heart was an anti-war hero give Bush power to start illegal wars made me so sad. What a sell out. We need real leaders, heros. I wish more people would speak plainly like Mr. George Galloway now there's a man who speaks for the people.

[rainy]

11. The point I'm trying to make is that the people don't have a voice

no one speaks for the people. Watching the news there is no descending mainstream voices. All for the good of the middle ground. Our system now resembles a spectator sport where it is us against them and no real enlightenment in between. The current capitalist system and global money system is unsustainable. We need to wake up and begin to make a real difference. Our rivers, bays and lakes are dying, we are breathing dirty air causing us to be ill, we drink gross tap water. We produce so much junk that some day will end up in landfills and what will we ever do with all of this stuff? We cannot keep having growth. Something has to give and I'm afraid it will be our health.

In the end greed and selfishness will lose because we will run out of things to sell. All our resources will run dry. Even our labor will one day run out as we are all made sick by the sick earth we create with our waste and abandonment.

[wyldwolf]

13. the middle ground ARE the mainstream voices

[madfloridian]

24. Define middle in this case, since a right of center group claimed term.

We need to redefine center and middle, and where we have been is not. The other party just kept moving, and we kept following, and soon we were not in the middle anymore.

[wyldwolf]

25. the problem with you reply

... is that is based on several unproven assumptions

since a right of center group claimed term

DLC is not "right of center." Prove it.

The other party just kept moving, and we kept following

Nope. Prove it.

Poll after poll (Gallup and Pew to be exact) shows the majority of Americans are moderate and that most rank and file dems want the party to be more moderate.

Don't bore me with parsings of the words "moderate," "liberal," and "conservative." When someone says they're moderate, they know the definition of the word.

Mainstream America's views on most issues are solidly to the right of the two percenters here on DU and line up with those of independents and DLC-type Democrats. That would be the middle ground.

[madfloridian]

27. I am mainstream America.

Far more so than most here. I was raised Southern Baptist, and still was until 2003. When I first came to DU in 2002, I was in shock. I saw a world of people tolerating each other's views on the whole. I realized I had led a pretty sheltered life in many ways.
Now I am talked to like I am a fringe lefty, and I resent it a lot.

I never saw much divergence here from the Southern Baptist world view, and there still is not too much. One thing I am seeing though is that people are furious about war, furious about govt involvement in Schiavo's case, furious about the church butting in to private stuff.

Yet my Senator, DLC voted for the war, still agrees with it, voted for the bankruptcy bill which hurt the seniors in his area, voted to jump into the Schiavo affair.

Don't talk to me about mainstream America. I am no lefty, never have been, and if I am shocked at recent votes by that group of folks in congress....then I imagine others are as well. The New Dem House Coalition finally stood up against CAFTA only to be brought down by the DLC at the last minute. And Senator Nelson voted for it also.

[wyldwolf]

42. Why do you always take things personally?

Throughtout this consversation, nothing has been directed at you personally.

But you want to talk mainstream America as it relates to DU?

DU couldn't be further from it.

The Pew Research survey on "Deaniacs" shows they were far from mainstream America.

Moveon.org's internal survey of members? FAR from mainstream America.

Gallup's poll of Dem leadership and average rank-and-file Dems (voters) showed differing results from the previous surveys mentioned. BIG differences.

But you want to talk specific issues which really are irrelevant to this discussion. Fine. Mainstream America hasn't a clue what CAFTA is nor how it may or may not affect them.

Iraq? At it's inception, mainstream America was behind the Iraq war.

[madfloridian]

67. You are judging who we are.

You are telling me what "mainstream" folks believe. You do this a lot. You made it personal. I am beyond insults now.

I oppose the DLC in every one of its names and forms. Third Way, New Dems, whatever. I was getting more open-minded about it, trying to see both sides. Since Hillary aligned herself with them, and struck the party a huge blow....I am very decided now.

Firmly oppose.

I am what is generally considered "mainstream" as opposed to "liberal."

The mistake you make is telling us we are not worthy. Actually I thought the Pew poll was done very well. Proud of being part of that movement, and I still am. The Pew Poll showed we were on the whole an intelligent lot. Yet you say I am not mainstream. You do not get to decide who is mainstream. You do not get to define.

The more you guys insult me and Dean and the DNC and DFA, the more strongly I oppose the group you stand for. I am tired of being insulted, and tired of having that group look down their noses at us.

So, what else have you got?

[wyldwolf]

71. insults?

You think you've been insulted?

Have I "PMed" you?

I oppose the DLC in every one of its names and forms. Third Way, New Dems, whatever. I was getting more open-minded about it, trying to see both sides. Since Hillary aligned herself with them, and struck the party a huge blow....I am very decided now.

Firmly oppose.

I know. Tell me something new.

The mistake you make is telling us we are not worthy.

Show me an example of that.

Actually I thought the Pew poll was done very well.

It was. And it showed just how out of touch the majority of Deaniacs were/are with mainstream America and rank and file Dems.

The more you guys insult me and Dean and the DNC and DFA, the more strongly I oppose the group you stand for. I am tired of being insulted, and tired of having that group look down their noses at us.

There you go again. EVERYTHING is personal to you. Criticize Dean? You're insulted! Boo hoo.

[madfloridian]

73. Nice job, wyldwolf.

I am sure you feel better.

[wyldwolf]

74. nah, it's getting old

Just ask the anti-DLC types to source anything and they avoid it like the plague.

By the way - and it just occured to me - because Dean is now chair of the DNC and I am a member of the DNC, he doesn't speak for me, he WORKS for me. If I have something to say about him, I will. Not that I said anything at all negative about Dean in our entire exchange.

[marions ghost]

87. thanx madfloridian

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[wli]

30. it's so much worse than that we can't possibly imagine

The entire Republican/Democrat debate isn't really about good vs. evil. It's mostly about trying to flock to the "kinder master." We don't have anything remotely like the choice of "freedom." The few legitimate participants (i.e. non-corrupt politicians) are relegated to a back corner to be laughed at when anyone bothers letting them in the door at all, and certainly have no influence whatsoever over the corporate-sponsored sham so thoroughly bolted down that even the votes in Congress are fraudulent, not just electoral votes.

[Greyhound]

75. Exactly...

and like the mad floridian, I am what used to be considered a left-leaning moderate.
Some background; the second photo taken of me was being held by Mamie Eisenhower, whenever the family made the trip to AZ I spent my days with Barry in 'the shack' learning about HAM radio. Apparently I was terrified of Ladybird and wouldn't come out from under the coffee table. Our family was always all over the board, politically, but we always valued freedom above all, and that was always the common ground we could agree on. I am a certified gun-nut, as I believe you should be able to have any firearm you want, and pay the consequences, should you ever use it. I am a total socialist, in that I believe a right to education, health-care, and justice, are among the self-evident truths Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration, and should not be profit-driven industries. Mostly, I believe that you should be free to live your life as you wish, and you can leave me the hell alone to live mine the way I want to. None of these are core values to either party anymore. Each election is an exercise in futility. I get to decide which group of behavior police will get to steal my life and tell me what I'm allowed/not allowed to do with it.
So now the dems are out, and the repugs rule,:nopity:so what? Both of them are just going to keep screwing us until we have nothing left, and they can move on to the next bunch of a-holes too stupid to hold on to their freedom, if they have any. :puke:

[ray of light]

14. then welcome to the wonderful world of never beating the Republicans

[rainy]

15. If winning means selling my soul what difference does it make?

Nothing changes, everything stays the same.

[ray of light]

16. because by letting neoCONS win-you're hurting the people more

Dems need to be united. DLC and Progressives left, greens whatever, need to be willing to accept each other's views in order to defeat the Republican Bully. Look at the Religious zeolots and the Corporations--they're holding hands and they don't care! They're winning and we're losing!

[rainy]

18. we are losing because the election machines are rigged and because

of the lap dog corporate media. I guess you are right. The neo-cons will keep winning but I can't help envisioning a better world beyond the left and the right.

I'm a visionary, I SEE a better world.

[ray of light]

31. You are right...we are losing because of the election fraud!

Notice I didn't say VOTER fraud! And like you, I'm a visionary too, but it's scary to know the other side is so corrupt and yet does that mean we have to be corrupt to to fight them back? After all, we know they're full of dirty tricks, but how do we fight back and still maintain our integrity?

[JVS]

44. As though we were not already there!

[Pepperbelly]

17. If you've got a problem with the DLC ...

then run for office or support non-DLC candidates. I don't know that you or anyone else needs to influence past your own vote.

[bloom]

32. influence

Isn't that what grassroots activism is about. Influencing and educating others in a direction contrary to the MSM corporate influence.

If people were just going go along with whatever the DLC people planned to do - why bother logging on to DU? (Unless you wanted to convince others to STFU).

[nicknameless]

19. I agree with you.

The DLC has little to do with being centrist and a lot to do with corporate give-aways at the expense of The People.

"Medicare reform"
"Patriot Act renewal"
"Bankrupcy Bill"
Iraq "war" support
"CAFTA"
... etc ... etc ... :puke:

Excerpt from How the DLC Does It
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

[rainy]

20. Wow, thanks, I was starting to feel all alone here at DU

[nicknameless]

21. Believe me, you're not.

Check out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1971055
and replies at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1969896

[ulysses]

22. don't worry - it's just the backlash.

The DLC has been running down the left for 20 years, but now that a lot of people have taken notice and are talking back to From and the Gang, they're the injured ones. :eyes:

[nicknameless]

29. Sorry, I should have been more specific about what I was agreeing with.

I disagree about forming a 3rd party. WE are the Democratic Party. The DLCers are corporatists who know that America's political system pretty much restricts voters to a pathetic either/or choice.

They've latched onto the Democratic Party like parasites. And too often, they've reduced the choice to either the rw crooks or their slightly-less-corrupt cousins on the other side of the aisle.

They need to be forced out of the party, not allowed to take it over.

[Q]

23. The DLC isn't part of the Democratic party...

...and they don't have a mandate or a consensus to presume to lead. Yet...that's exactly what they're doing when they recruit and then push politicians like Kerry and Hillary as the only option.

One of the main goals of the DLC propagandists is to convince as many Democrats as possible that they're in the 'minority' if they believe in traditional Democratic values. They throw out memes like "2%ers", that liberals are part of a 'fringe' and that the DLC represents a majority of Democrats. At the same time they feed negative stories to the corporate media...trashing liberals/progressives and insisting that they can't win elections.

They smugly proclaim that the 'new deal' is dead and that they helped kill it.

The only 'coalition' we need is the millions of disenfranchised Americans that have given up on the Democratic party and stopped voting because they're not being represented.

The propagandists lie when they say we 'never HAD our country'. They want you to believe that the corporate takeover is a done deal and there's nothing you can do about it. But that's not true. You can REFUSE to vote for politicians that don't represent your interests and those beholden to Big Business instead of the people.

[cmd]

26. It's not a party of one

The Democratic Party consists of people on the far left and people on the right. The DLC is part of the party. If you can't accept that , then become your party of one. It won't help us win elections; but, at least you'll have had your say.

[madfloridian]

28. The DLC sort of declared itself sort of independent this week.

Seems like to me.

[bloom]

33. 56% of DEMOCRATS want to bring the troops home...

That is a hell of a lot more than "one".

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=251


the "DLC" - (which does NOT represent the majority of Dems) says:

"...Neither are demands by left-wing Democrats and the anti-war group, MoveOn.org, that the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq. Rather than offering fresh fodder to Karl Rove, the party would do better to heed Sens. Joe Biden, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who have set an example for responsible, progressive patriotism. They have balanced blunt criticism of the Bush administration's blunders with concrete suggestions for relieving the strain on U.S. forces in Iraq, broadening international support for the Iraqi government, and speeding up the pace of reconstruction.

Of course, as the opposition party, Democrats have a responsibility to hold the White House accountable for the painfully high price we've paid in Iraq, the thousands killed and wounded, and the billions of dollars spent. But they must do so in a way that makes it clear they are rooting for America to succeed in Iraq.

As they catalogue the administration's many mistakes, Democrats should also attend to the other side of the balance sheet. That side shows that our forces and their allies have toppled one of the world's most odious tyrants; upheld the principle of collective security; liberated a nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq's hopeful experiment in representative self-government; and changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict...."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253472

----

The DLC is the PNAC arm of the Democratic party.

[bloom]

34. If that's not bad enough...

Will Marshall speaking for the DLC calls those of us who oppose torture, "anti-American". (He is also insulting at least 56% of all the Democrats. It's unbelievable, really.)



"Democrats should also bring a sense of proportion to the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. These sickening deviations from America's core principles have damaged our country's moral reputation around the world. True patriotism demands not denials and whitewashes, but a thorough, independent investigation, punishment of those responsible, and clear policies to prevent a repetition.

Yet the revelation that some U.S. troops aren't saints should not come as too great a shock, at least to grownups. By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253472

[Q]

37. There are millions of Democrats...

...and only a few thousand (at the most) are DLCers and they are mostly politicians, lobbyists and political hacks. In other words...they're an organization that represents interests outside of the party.

The DLC is NOT part of the party in any 'official' sense of the word. It's an organization put together by a few individuals without any kind of input from the rest of the party.

They are very similar to the Neocons in that they simply have TAKEN control of a political party using corporate cash and influence. And like the Neocons...once they were in control they began eliminating any and all dissent within the party.

And please tell us just how the DLC is 'helping us win elections'?

[cmd]

46. To posts 28,33,34 and 37

Whether you want to admit it or not, the DLC is part of the Democratic Party. I do not agree with them on every issue, just as I do not agree with you on every issue. It is of no value to any one in the party to continually bash other members. Parties of one can get no where. Winning comes from working together.

[mmonk]

64. Then tell the DLC to stop telling people

they have to get rid of us to win.

[bushclipper]

80. when have they done that?

[mmonk]

81. Do you get their magazine

Blueprint?

[LittleClarkie]

82. I don't think you have the authority to decide who is or isn't

in the Democratic Party.

We can't even stop Zell from having a D next to his name. Like it or not, they are the DEMOCRATIC Leadership Council.

[marions ghost]

86. well said, Q

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

36. We need the Democratic wing

of the Democratic party. We need candidates that are just as highly financed to run against DLCers or the US will officially be a one party state.

[flaminbats]

39. progressives can get more done within the majority party..

Martin Luther King's father was a Republican..but in 1960 he voted for John F. Kennedy. Before he had voted for Eisenhower, Dewey, even Wilkie! But millions of minorities began to see in the 50's and 60's that integration couldn't just happen with the support of Republicans.

Civil Rights, the Great Society, and even the peace movement only made progress when liberals battled these issues out against conservatives within the Democratic primaries. Today we have the same problem..Republicans have a conservative base, and Democrats have a moderate midwestern voting base. But winning over moderates will not happen by fighting them, it will happen when liberals grab the bull by the horns! If liberalism becomes a force within the Republican party two things will happen..first conservatives will gradually migrate into the Democratic Party over time, second the more battles liberals win within the Republican party..the more Democratic moderates will take our side!

[mmonk]

50. So we capitulate

to the conservative movement within the Dem party? But what about the constitution and Bill of Rights and ill advised wars? Just shut up and don't fight it?

[flaminbats]

53. why fight a referee?

bring the fight to the Republican primaries, a liberal candidate might not win on super Tuesday..but what about California and New York?

In politics liberals are one team, conservatives makeup another. But moderates act only as a referee. Fighting these battles out in the Republican primaries will sway moderates more than in the DLC primaries.

[mmonk]

55. Are there enough

liberal voices in the republican party? No, and they will likely be squashed by big money and character assassination. Are there enough liberal voices in the Democratic party? They are dwindling and will be ridiculed by the media, republicans, and so called dem "moderates" who will distance themselves from any progressive thought. Gigs up unless somebody has the vocal courage to keep it up pointing out things the media and parties won't.

[flaminbats]

58. just imagine if liberals had that attitude in the past..

there would have been no civil rights movement, no New Deal, and the Vietnam War would still be raging on.

Instead of "I have a dream" perhaps MLK should of asked.."Are there enough?"

[mmonk]

59. It takes people in rebellion

to change a society. That rebellion can be done peacefully like in the past through protest. In absence of that, politicians today go after the money like never before. They are basically undoing what good has been done.

[flaminbats]

61. I agree completely!

you're only making my point, time to bring our fight into the majority party.

[auburngrad82]

45. Keep dividing Democratic votes and we'll never beat the GOP

Yes, there are problems with voting fraud. Yes, Dems do have a problem coming together and working as one organization to defeat the GOP. But if we can't decide to vote as a block then we will forever be the minority party.

[Vinca]

47. That's exactly what I was going to say.

The reason Republicans win is because come hell or high water they stick together. Additionally, they rarely blab negative comments about another Repuke in public, giving the American people a sense of stability and trust. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have a need to get things out in the open. We might be more successful at the polls if we hid the dirty laundry.

[mmonk]

52. Exactly

[welshTerrier2]

56. tell that to the abhorrent, divisive DLC

from the DLC website comes this little hate-filled gem:

"So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

or perhaps this will help build unity:

"What leftish elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon."

source: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

[Greyhound]

77. Why can't you understand that the dems will never beat the repugs

as long as they insist on trying to shove the divisive issues down peoples throats? They will vote against you. Every time. The repugs, eventually figured it out. :banghead:

[Cocoa]

49. that was more true under Clinton

and that's what Nader tapped into in 2000.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. I think you're kidding yourself and that we all ought to cut it out

Splitting the party doesn't help us, no matter how you wish to shake it around.

We should fight like heck to be sure the Democratic party continues to reflect the views of the majority of its members, but then we have to stop entertaining the GOP with our in-fighting, pull together and make sure we get rid of the real problem.

I don't like a lot of what the DLC stands for, either. But for heaven's sake, keep the eyes on the real goal!

[Q]

54. Perhaps the DLC and the rest of the party disagree...

...on what the 'real goals' of the party should be? One would think that a 'real goal' would be to expose the lies and deceptions that brought us the 'war' on Iraq and to make those responsible for it accountable to the people and the rule of law. But the DLC actually promotes and supports this illegal war. This is an issue that's not going to go away simply because our party needs 'unity'.

We keep seeing references to the 'in-fighting' in our party...but little acknowledgement that the attacks are coming mostly from the DLC. Their rhetoric shows that they hate the 'left' as much as our opponents on the Right. It makes it very hard to 'pull together' when the DLC has no interest in working with the left. In fact...the DLC is smug about there being no 'liberals' among them.

The division we're seeing in our party arises because of complete disagreement on important issues. Neither side seems willing to change their minds. There can be no 'unity' at the cost of giving in to those working with and protecting the Bush administration.

[cmd]

57. Yaaaaaawn

[mmonk]

60. Don't yawn at the truth

The DLC attacks any dem that stands against extreme judicial nominees, an illegal war, an America that has torture camps, an America that acts as a international belligerent, and an America that is taking away the legal power of people and their civil liberties. I don't think DINO is the way to victory.

[Greyhound]

78. It is the direction of our lives and our society, not a spectator sportn/t

[Toots]

62. In Alaska they have six Official Parties

Republicans , Moderate Republicans , Libertarians , Independents , Democrats , Greens.

[aspberger]

69. what you say may be technically true

for the sake of posterity let's not officially break up the Democratic Party. Some day the party will recover, so do not strangle the sick patient.

[loudsue]

83. Here's a link to an article that spells out the entire DLC agenda.

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

<snip>

"NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

<snip>

"To many up-and-coming politicians, NDN's events are heaven-sent forums at which they can strut their stuff and ring up contributors. Case in point: Tom Carper, the newly elected senator from Delaware. Last year, NDN raised $55,000 for Carper's Senate race. But it provided an intangible benefit as well. "He's a believer," says Rosenberg. "In addition to all the support we gave him, he'd come to a lot of our other fundraisers, and he was able to meet a lot of new people and develop new contacts. That's one of the reasons why so many elected officials come to our events." For politicians like Carper, NDN is a pipeline for campaign contributions. For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists. "The candidates are validated to people in the room as New Democrats," says Rosenberg.

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

What about "republicans in the Democratic Party" don't some people understand?

:kick::kick::kick:

[welshTerrier2]

88. so much for these right-wingers representing the "mainstream"

from the article you posted: "Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics."

let's rid ourselves of these DLC elitists and take control of our own Party ...

and i just love the part about not letting "liberals slip through the cracks" ... maybe some of DU's so-called centrists should come out against the crap the DLC is peddling ... as the article states, this is not your father's Democratic Party ...

[Q]

92. The DLCers complain about the left wanting 'purity' and 'litmus tests'...

...and brag about a 'big tent'. But here THEY are demanding loyalty oaths and making sure 'liberals' don't get cooties on their organization and qualify as 'new' Democrats.

This stunning hypocrisy should be pointed out whenever possible.

[elperromagico]

90. Okay, so the GOP beats two parties instead of one.

Depending on whether or not you believe that fraud happened last year, Bush got anywhere from 48%-51% of the vote. Kerry got anywhere from 48%-51% of the vote.

Split Kerry's vote in half. Then take the Dem vote in states like MI, MN, WI, PA, et cetera. Split that in half too.

The math doesn't bode in our favor.

[TreasonousBastard]

91. Haven't we always been such?

Has everyone forgotten that for a hundred years or so the Dixiecrats had little to do with northern Democrats, and that civil rights legislation ultimately gave them the go-ahead to switch parties?

It was Republican support that got us the EPA and the Voting Rights Act way back when, against Dixiecrat opposition. My, how things have changed!

Republicans are doing things like hitting the black churches hard to win them over on moral issues, and gaining big in the more conservative Hispanic communities. The point is to fight back, and if the DLC can get us a Governor in the Midwest or a Senator from Texas, that's their job.

I don't like them talking as if they are talking from the party, but someone has to get a foothold in places like suburbia. If they can get us a few wins in enemy territory, we just might get the country back.

Remember that "all politics is local," and the DLC has its place in some localities to dispell the myth that all Democrats are Communists looking to take away their guns and homes.

[Skinner]

93. Locking

If you want to go third-party, then GO. But please don't do it here, because this is a site for Democrats.