I am sorry to be such a political moran....about the DLC

[renie408]

but I have heard references to the DLC repeatedly and they ain't flattering. Who are members of the DLC, what is the mission of the DLC and why is it bad?

It hasn't been until the past year or so that I have become aware of inner-party...uhh...parties.

You know, this really highlights how stupid the two party system is. I know Republicans who are INTENSELY uncomfortable with the current GOP right wing leadership. They tend to consider themselves as fiscally conservative and socially centrist. Pro-abortion, pro-gun control, screw people who need welfare...you know what I mean. They need another party, too. What's funny to me is that THIS GOP is about as fiscally irresponsible as you can get. If you think WE feel betrayed by our party's current inaction, just think how THEY feel.

[Q]

1. A link for research:

http://www.dlc.org/

Happy reading....

[DIKB]

2. There are no more true republicans

Most have either left out of disgust, or have become "stick with the winning team" whores.

[renie408]

3. I just read the Hyde Park Declaration

And all that sounds pretty good. Not a lot to hate there. At least that I could find. So what has so many people here hating the DLC?

[Q]

4. Have you actually...

...researched the DLC? Do so and then get back to us with the question about 'hating' the DLC.

[renie408]

5. Can you at least give me a push in the right direction?

I Googled "Democratic Leadership Council" and I am pulling up sites maintained by them and, at a glance, they are all a big lovefest. After I finish my work this morning, I plan to Google the leaders of the leadership council, one of which is Hillary Clinton. I am just not sure what I am looking for that would engender such distaste by so many here. My best guess at this point is that they do not swing far enough left for many of the people here.

[Mich Otter]

8. The DLC is...

The DLC is pro-business, pro-war, and pro-profits over being pro-people.
They are the Republican-lite side of the Democratic Party.
Many of us are more Socialist. We want health care and education paid for for all, pollution minimized as much as possible (even if reducing pollution does cut into profits), human rights to be respected, the rights for workers to Unionize as they wish, etc...
The Republican-lite side of the Democratic Party will never truly support these goals. They might say they support the goals but, they don't really. They are having a good time making lots of money playing the capitalist system for all they can get out of it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. well stated !!!

[fujiyama]

35. Check out this article

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307
This basically points to the heart of the problem with the DLC.

This is what really turned me off them.

Here are some excerpts from this tirade against liberals:

"The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force. "

"While Republicans stood united in their belief in American exceptionalism, Democrats were badly divided, as they have been since Vietnam. President Bush was able to rally his party by sounding the trumpet of American virtue on the global stage. By contrast, John Kerry struggled to bridge the gap between Tony Blair Democrats, who agreed with the president's principles but deplored his inept policies, and Michael Moore Democrats, who rejected, root and branch, the idea of a global fight against terrorism and for democracy."

"More than anything else, they need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization. "

"Have we the wealthy and educated Americans all become pacifists? Is the world a safe place? Or have we just gotten used to having somebody else defend us? What is the future of our democracy when the sons and daughters of the janitors at our elite universities are far more likely to be put in harm's way than are any of the students whose dorms their parents' clean?""

"Congressional Democrats sometimes make the mistake of believing they can spend their way back into the military's affections. So they call for big increases in veterans' benefits, health care, housing, and other programs to enhance military families' quality of life. These are important, but military families don't want to be treated as just another special interest group. What matters most are intangibles -- being recognized and honored for the sacrifices they make to preserve our way of life. "

This is basically bullshit and reinforces RW talking points. I expect this kind of crap from Hannity and David Horowitz but not from other so called "democrats".

[nonono]

6. DINOs

They are Democrats in name only. DINOs.

Bill Clinton said on TV that Hilary voted 60% of the time with the Republicans. I checked some of the later votes and she had not voted at all. So if she votes with the republicans 60% of the time and doesn't vote a lot of the other times, where does that leave the Democrats?

They come out against what Durbin and Dean say. They would be better off not to say anything, but they want to go on record, I guess.

Be sure and click on the leaders links on the DLC. You will be surprised at the members. Kerry, Biden, Lincoln......lots of them.

They are the left arm of the Republican party.

There is always enough of them to push the Republican Agenda through. They take turns voting with the Republicans.

It is hard to be against what Bush does, when the DLC are voting for it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. they take turns voting with the Repugs

Interesting idea. You are right, now that I think about it. Whenever I thought, hell if we stick together we will defeat some inane repug legislation, one of them would pop up. but not the same one or ones each time.

[wli]

29. I called it "stochastic betrayal" n/t

[karynnj]

21. Kerry has a solid liberal record, voting with Kennedy most of the time

(unlike Dean who was a moderate Democrat in Vermont). This Democratic infighting is ridiculous. When the DLC was controlling the party wouldn't you want some of the more liberal members of the party at the table?

[Q]

24. You should talk to the DLC about Kerry...they see him differently...

Transcript
2004 Democratic National Convention
Al From
Democratic Leadership Council CEO
Monday, July 26, 2004; 2:30 PM

Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, was online Monday, July 26 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the Democratic Convention, the Kerry-Edwards ticket and the 2004 election.


Al From: John Kerry and John Edwards are good, reform New Democrats. Don't believe those voting record analysies. The Democratic Party is very different today than it was when it lost three straight landslides in the 1980s. On the key issues that redefined the party -- fiscal discipline, welfare reform, crime, and trade -- John Kerry voted with Bill Clinton even though large numbers of liberals voted the other way. Zell Miller is not a New Democrat in the progressive center; he's a virtual card carrying Republican. For a complete analysis see our website www.ndol.org. We analyzed the National Journal voting record. Kerry only cast 19 or 63 votes counted -- the DLC agreed with him on almost all of them. So'd we'd be a liberal senator by their standards.

Al From: A centrist, New Democrat who can win both core Democrats and swing voters is the only Democrat who can win the White House. John Kerry is such a Democrat. He's running on a platform of national strength, expanding the middle class, and duty and responsibility. His platform is similar to 2000 but the tone of the campaign is aimed more at critical middle class voters.

Al From: I believe voters know why they're dissatisfied with George Bush. They don't need Democrats to stridently tell them over and over again. John Kerry just needs to introduce himself to the voters so they know who he is, what he believes, what he stands for and what he'll do as president. That's what he needs to tell them this week at the convention. That's why he's instructed speakers not to attack Bush personally.

Al From: John Kerry is a New Democrat. He's running on a new democrat platform of strength, opporunity, and service. He -- and John Edwards -- are strong advocates of expanding the middle class, not just their tax burdens. We did a New Dem Daily on the Kerry-Edwards ticket. You can find it on www.ndol.org. John Edwards was a terrific addition to the ticket. His message -- as you saw in the Wisconsin primary -- is powerful and compliments Kerry's. --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9666-2004Jul23.html

[whatever4]

7. Not to pick, but

I have to take exception to the grouping of pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and screw people who need welfare. Not to discuss those issues, I just don't agree with the grouping. Most folks who are anit-abortion are pro-gun, not pro gun control, but even that generalization is too wide. And hardly anyone really believes in screwing over people who need welfare, not really, but I'd say a lot don't have a clue what it means. Not until they're in a position to need. Like when their kids need food or medicine. It's one thing to take care of yourself, or to not be able to take care of yourself. It's a whole nother ballgame when other people are in the picture, dependant people who have real needs.

People think we spend money on welfare and handouts, when in all reality, much more money is spent on tax "incentives". Corporate welfare. When I learned that, I stopped thinking negatively of welfare. To anyone who needs it. It's not too much. It's NEVER too much. It's not anywhere close to enough. For all that we do with welfare, we might as well not have it at all, in the ways it keeps people down to a very low acceptable level of income, levels that guarantee strife. Anyone that has sunk so far down as to need welfare ought to have every benefit in the world, but these folks are required to keep income down, in order to maintain benefits. So, once you're down, you have to stay down, or risk losing what little you get.

What little you get to SURVIVE. Food. Heat. Housing. Bare essentials that can only be afforded in the poorest of areas, the cheapest foods, the cheapest housing, cheapest health care. And STAY there.

As if it would be some kind of tragedy for those in need to manage, somehow to pull themselves up far enough to even COMMIT welfare fraud. It's as if THAT would be a greater evil than what might happen to that person if they can't manage well enough. And as if it benefits ANYONE to make those most in need jump through hoops. Monitoring their pay. Drug testing. Facilities they have to travel to, then wait in line, nevermind how difficult just getting transportation might be for them.

Welfare mothers? I say bless them every one; at least they go about getting the assistance they need for their children. It's so sad, how they're put down, because I imagine...for a lot of women, just staying home and taking care of house and kids really IS what they want to do. As if it isn't a full time occupation. Their natural drives and abilities and desire to nurture, and maybe do nothing else, isn't exactly appreciated. It's condemned, condemned as something less worthy. Having children and devoting your life to them, above all else. Our society decided you'd better make a paycheck first.

Sure, it works for survival of the fittest - if you believe only fully grown human beings are worthy of survival. If you believe children are a inexhaustible resource. Healthy children to grow up and take care of our world. Think they're a dime a dozen. Healthy able children, "average American workers" all, in the eyes of the Admin. A cheap resource. I think time will prove they were not.

People put down those in need. They just don't have a clue what it's like. And I think others on this board are right; they just seriously don't want to.

[renie408]

12. Did you READ what I wrote??

Or just jump straight to the knee jerk reaction?

That was a lot of effort put out because you skimmed. I agree with every word of it, but find it completely irrelevent in the discussion at hand.

And before you type another essay, NO, I didn't just say that welfare mothers are irrelevent.

The reason I chose the grouping I did was specifically because of the father of one of my friends. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, but feels that just about any form of welfare is socialism. He also feels that the GOP has left him. THAT is why I chose that example.

[whatever4]

20. Sorry, didn't mean to rant all over your post

Don't know what else to say, I veered off topic, but I don't usually get slammed for long comments. Especially when we don't disagree. Knee jerk, well maybe, but to me it was more ranting. I thought I was keeping loosely within the theme. Essays are what I do, I guess, lately all I feel like I can do. I'll be more careful to rant where rants are being called for, I suppose.

And, unlike you, be more charitable in my criticisms, because I obviously wasn't attacking you or your post.

Editing to add, I think I merged the topic of your post and this other thread. I just kept on going with it, sorry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4442165&mesg_id=4442576

[bonzotex]

9. not a dumb question

Good point about the GOP voters being cut out of their party. Do you feel like the leadership of the Democratic Party is representing you?

Good for you! Ask questions! Too many people just parrot what others say on this issue. Yes, read the DLC website. Sounds like level-headed Democratic politics. Keep your eye out for DLC press releases and policies and some of their actions make it more clear why more liberal Dems don't much like the DLC. Lets see if I can summarize without flaming them.

The DLC was formed in 1985 to counter what they perceived as failed left wing dominance of the Dem Party. Mondale had just got his ass handed to him and Democrats were depressed. They argue that old school "big government" liberalism is a losing philosophy.

They fancy themselves New Democrats or Third-way Democrats who reject traditional liberalism for a centrist consensus. Bill Clinton joined and used the DLC and The DLC likes to point to Bill's success as validation of their policies. Many prominent Dems are DLC members and the DLC has been successful at funneling large contributions from big donors and corporate donors to favored DLC candidates.

The DLC has become a power broker within the party and generally tries to steer policy debates toward more conservative, business friendly positions.

Critics generally charge they are sell-outs to Big Business and basically too similar to Republicans in economic and social policies.

Supporters look at the DLC as pragmatists who can keep the party from veering off into a wasteland of unelectable left-wing wackiness.

As far as why people have been mad at them lately? The DLC operatives are a little too willing to attack progressive Democrats and activists.
Here's a link to the Daily Kos concerning the most recent DLC rant against anti-war progressives.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/22/41845/1251

As far as what I think? DLC bad. Grass roots progressives, good. I could really go off on the DLC, but I'll refrain. Suffice to say, I think their actions speak for themselves and they are a dead end in Democratic Party politics.

[renie408]

13. Thank you

That is EXACTLY what I was looking for.

I will check it out for myself, I usually do. I just needed an idea for what I was looking for that was upsetting people here so much. I have a strong feeling that I am not going to fall squarely for'em or agin'em. Though I think ANY public infighting is a mistake. A BIG mistake.

[bonzotex]

15. you are welcome!

I don't think all public infighting is a mistake. During the slack time between elections is the right time to have public arguements about policy and direction.

Even if the debate gets heated and the different factions say some nasty things, I think it gets people thinking. When the going gets hot, is when you see people's true colors. Unfortunately, I think the DLC's true colors are the problem, not the solution. If they were as vitriolic toward the Republicans as they are toward Democrats on the left, I might take them more seriously. Of course you make up your own mind.

As we get closer to the 2006 elections, We'll see more closing ranks and less dissention. I'm not worried at all about the Democratic party being split. If the Repugs think that's the case, that's great. They'll be more upset when we kick their asses.

[renie408]

16. Republicans win because they campaign 24/7, 365

They do not recognize any off time. They are rarely (to just about never) off-message and they never let up. I don't think Dems can afford to point fingers at each other until we are in the driver's seat. Until then, every time there is ANY dissent amongst our ranks, it offers the other side the chance to paint us as chickens running around with our heads cut off.

Part of the appeal of the GOP to the average guy is that they are solidified and their position easily indentified. At least, Billy Bob thinks so because the messages are all the same. If Billy Bob were a critical thinker, he would see that the messages never really SAY anything. "Stay the course." WHAT course?? I am not belittling the Billy Bob's of this world (Ok, I am some), but they are busy trying to make a better life for their middle class family in a world, ironically, being made more hostile to the middle class by the party they are supporting. There is a REASON that no matter how shitty a job he does, the President could probably still get elected again even if we held an election today. And it isn't Diebold.

[bonzotex]

32. I'm with you in general

A shorter version of your analysis might read:

Republicans win because a significant number of Americans are too stupid or pre-occupied with daily survival to pay attention to anything but endlessly repeated and unchallenged slogans.

You may be right. For my own sanity, however, I have to believe that a majority of Americans can understand the issues and given truth and choice, they will take the progressive side.

What you tout as a Republican strength I see as a weakness. They are inflexible and will stick with a bad plan and a ridiculous message way past the point of absurdity. Even Bubba, Daisy and Billy Bob can see through that eventually. When they do, they look at the Democrats and say, "So what you gonna do instead?"

You say we need more discipline as Party? Possibly. I say we need a better message. Then we can hammer it home. Part of the debate in our party is what that message should be. We can have this debate without flaming each other, but we do need the debate.

[renie408]

36. This is very true

At first, the ability to stay on message appears to be strength of purpose. But as the situation changes and the message doesn't, people can begin to see that it really is JUST a message...no substance.

I really hope that enough people will realize this as time goes on.

[bonzotex]

37. you, me and 70,000 DUers can keep opening eyes

Keep thinking, Keep fighting, never forget, never give up.

You probably do this already but don't let Republican lies stand... not at work not with family, not with friends. Be a proud liberal. Expose the lies and plant one seed of truth with each person who doesn't get it yet.

We've been talking about Democratic unity and messages. Just from a few posts online I bet we would agree 90%+ on a Democratic platform. The differences in our Party makes us stronger and help us find better solutions. I'm just sick of big name, big dollar Democrats thinking it's more important to compromise with Republicans than Liberal Democrats

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Thank you very much for your post. I, like the OP, am not up to

speed on the DLC. I do have a couple questions for you, if you don't mind:

(1) Do you think, as others have posted after the election, that there was a deal struck between the BFEE and Clinton? A deal that the BFEE would rig the election, if they needed to, and the Clintons would keep their mouths shut in exchange for an open door for Hillary in 08 ?

(2) Do you think, that DLC senators orchestrate voting and take turns voting with Repugs?

[bonzotex]

33. short answer, No....

(1) That Hillary/Repug Cabal conspiracy theory is right wing crap. we can talk all day about what the Clintons may be thinking, but I don't buy the New World Order style conspiracy.

(2) DLC members tend to be go-along-get along compromisers. They call it being pragmatic, I call it selling out Progressive values. As far as taking turns to pass votes? No, but each Senator or Representative trades votes on all sorts of issues to get things passed they want. It's a fact for both major parties.
It looks like DLC members trade votes to ensure Republican bills pass, but the even worse truth is that in many cases the Republican bill is more or less fine with them (Think CAFTA). Another tactic is sticking horrible nasty little bills in giant omnibus spend bills like for defense (Real ID Act for example). To vote against it means you vote against all of it and many Democrats, not just DLC are afraid to do that.

The DLC members seem to have the same attitude that the Republicans have, which is that their constituents are basically stupid and it doesn't matter what they do as long as the bring home some bacon to their States and districts. Stying in power, or at least in office, is the end goal. Fuck principle and what's best for the Country. Keep the big donors happy and they get to keep playing. Unfortunately there is some truth to that.

I think it's changing though. If it is going to change, however, it has to come from the bottom up. The elites who are used to calling the shots in DC ain't gonna do it. Bear in mind that once upon a time the DLC was nothing and nobody. Democratic activists and politicians created it to fill a perceived need. What are our needs now?

[flpoljunkie]

10. "How the DLC Does It" by The Prospect's Robert Dreyfuss

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

How the DLC Does It

Robert Dreyfuss

Representative Gregory Meeks, an African-American lawyer and assistant district attorney elected to Congress in 1998 to represent a middle-class black neighborhood in Queens, New York, was undecided last year on the divisive issue of trade rights for China. Lobbyists for big business were battling the AFL-CIO and environmental groups on Capitol Hill for every vote, and Meeks, who'd previously voted against granting fast-track negotiating authority to President Clinton, was a prize.

Sensing an opportunity, Representative Cal Dooley, a moderate California Democrat closely allied with that state's high-tech sector, moved in. As co-chairman of the House New Democrat Coalition, a bloc allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), Dooley was targeting fence-sitters to vote aye. Along with fellow New Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., of Tennessee and Bob Matsui of California, Dooley hooked Meeks up with a stream of corporate officials from Silicon Valley and the New York financial district. "My boss made sure there'd be support for Meeks from the business community," says a Dooley aide. "He spread the word, through groups like the Business Roundtable, that here was a guy who deserved their support."

"Congressman Dooley helped bring in businesses who otherwise Congressman Meeks would not have known, and didn't have a relationship with, to knock on his door. As a result, scores of meetings were held with the congressman," says an aide to Meeks, citing sit-downs with the CEOs of American Airlines and New York Life Insurance Company. High-tech executives helped ensure that Meeks would be one of two undecided members to accompany President Clinton on his high-profile trip to China before the vote, the aide said; and Meeks also won significant backing from industry political action committees, which ended up nearly matching labor's donations to Meeks's campaign treasury. Included were $5,000 PAC contributions from American Airlines and New York Life. And in the end, Meeks voted business's way.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

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

more..."A Business Led Party"

[jonnyblitz]

11. they are right wing DEMS who don't like liberals and call

anti-war activists unamerican.

[renie408]

14. Really?

If true, that is pretty bad. I just have a hard time imagining any Democrat being stupid enough to call anybody anti-american. Especially when that is such a catch phrase for the other side.

[rman]

26. "From the DLC website and their own words"

" ... the DLC and the New Democrats have offered the most durable and sustained effort to oppose the dominant liberal faction of their party.

~snip~

"Ultimately, it is success in winning such offices, plus a continuing hold on the presidency, that will institutionalize the New Democrat philosophy further. And with each victory, it will be harder and harder to return to the liberalism that preceded it."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955



From the DLC website and their own words
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4414517

[Mich Otter]

27. The DLC takes credit for Clinton's' popularity

While the DLC takes credit for Bill Clinton's wins, I think Clinton could have won without them. But, now we can see how Bill is reaping the profits of his DLC relationship as he makes millions from corporations.
Most Americans are still believing that corporations and capitalism are to the benefit of humanity. In the short term, standards of living can raise for many with capitalism. Over the long term, we will be polluted and cast aside to make a few people fabulously rich. The pollution will ruin the health of all of us, even the rich.
I'd rather see the wealth spread around, while protecting the environment that we, and all generations to come, live in.

[renie408]

28. Which leads me to my next question...

what the heck is 'liberalism', then?? I am confused. I was under the impression that being liberal is a GOOD thing. At least, I have always been proud to be called liberal.

[rman]

30. Apparently the DLC doesn't like liberalism

I don't think it is likely the DLC used a distinctly different definition of liberalism then the rest of us do, otherwise they'd unintentionally alienate much of their supposed base.

[bonzotex]

34. I'm with you!

My bet is you can define being Liberal yourself very easily.

I'm a proud card-carrying Liberal. I'll stand toe to toe with anybody to defend Liberalism. That's why the DLC needlessly pisses people off. They don't want to defend Liberalism. They've bought and repeated the right wing lie that there is something wrong with being a Liberal.

[karynnj]

23. cite a link, please

also more specificly, find a link where John Kerry says he doesn't like liberals and finds anti-war activists unamerican.

[jonnyblitz]

25. the links to the DLC writings stating this have been posted

here this weekend and many times over here at DU. you have a star, use your search engine. i personally don't care if you think I am lying. Most people who have been following the DLC know what i say is true. :eyes: and WHO said anything about JOHN KERRY? the stuff i cited in my post was in DLC writings that somebody provided links to this weekend and other times over and over...

[democracyindanger]

31. Not one of those DLC fanboys

has yet disavowed what Marshall wrote. Not one of 'em. Says a lot, huh?

[CWebster]

19. start here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=