The Truth about the Democratic Party and the DLC

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

The Democratic Party isn't the Greens - we win elections (or used to) and exercise clout in society. Greens like to make up wish-lists and run vanity campaigns. The Democratic Party is one of the most diverse social organizations in the world, with Americans of every race, every origin, every religion, every background, and every profession on earth. Greens are mostly college educated white middle class liberals. Some people here get them confused sometimes.

The DLC destroyed the party so much in the 1990s, since they were raking in the big bucks and their jobs seemed safe, the Republicans were able to take over the entire government step by step, branch by branch, while most rank and file Democrats were asleep. The DLC sold us out to the corporations every chance they could, and even picked up Republican rhetoric about "welfare reform", "free trade" and are now attacking unions!

The fact is the corporations prefer Republicans, and the Democratic "leaders" can't even get free dinners from the corporate lobbyists anymore. Dean raised more money than Terry McAullife at the DNC could, and the DLC has had most of it's bribe, er, contribution money cut off.

Here's a chance for progressives - and anyone else - to take a piece of the Democratic party for yourselves. It's not about principle, it's about clout. Organize, and learn to cooperate with other organizations. Enough of my ranting! Here's the addresses!

The Progressive Caucus.
The Main Progressives of the Democratic Party. The main opponent of the DLC. Home to the illustrious Dems like Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wellstone, Jerry Nadler, Bernie Saunders, Jesse Jackson Jr. and so many others. These are the best of the best:

http://bernie.house.gov/pc/

Democratic National Committee
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the Democratic Party National Headquarters. The DNC's objective is to elect Democratic candidates around the country, fundraise to assist their candidates to run for public office, to educate Americans in the ways of Democratic political philosophy, and to increase Democratic membership. The DNC's number one objective is to elect a Democrat to the White House. The DNC is made up of different departments such as: Campaign, Commincations, Research, Outreach, Chairman's Office, and Finance. Info on the DNC staff and structure can be found at: http://www.democrats.org/about Their contact information is as follows: Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capitol St SE, Washington, DC 20003. Their phone number is 202-863-8000. When inquiring about employment, it is best to address your letter to the Director of a specific department rather than the DNC in general. Their web-site is: www.democrats.org

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is the National Democratic Senate Campaign Headquarters. The DSCC's objective is to elect a Democratic majority to the U.S. Senate. Their contact information is as follows: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 430 South Capitol St SE, Washington, DC 20003. Their phone number is 202-224-2447. Their web-site is: http://www.dscc.org

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is the National Democratic House Campaign Headquarters. The DCCC's objective is to elect a Democratic majority to the U.S. House. Their contact information is as follows: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, 430 South Capitol St SE, Washington, DC 20003. Their phone number is 202-863-1500. Their web-site is: http://www.dccc.org

Democratic Leadership Council
The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders. (For more about the DLC, click here.) The DLC's address is 600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20003. Phone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. Web Address: www.ndol.org.

New Democratic Network
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community. (For more about NDN, click here.) NDN's address is 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20002. Phone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. Web Address: www.newdem.org.


21st Century Democrats
21st Century Democrats, formerly Democrats 2000, was founded by progressive Democratic officials to give progressive and populist candidates the support they need to win elections. Their contact information is as follows: 21st Century Democrats, 1311 L Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, Phone - 202-626-5620. The web-site is: http://www.21stdems.org/

[hedda_foil]

1. Addendum: DLC and New Democrat Network are the same animal.

NDN puts up the pre-vetted corporate-friendly candidates and sets them up with special "friends" to fund their campaigns in return for ... well, what do you think?

[Tinoire]

6. Addendum to your addendum- More about DLC = NDN

((Hi my friend! :hi:))

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10- to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

Want to know who founded the NDN?

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates.

Here's one example. We all remember this one!

==

The February 25th issue of the magazine (The American Prospect) had a cover featuring pictures of various politicians with the amount of cash they had received from Enron. Joe Lieberman was listed as having received $37,000.

Only he hadn't.

Lieberman received $2000 and the New Democrat Network received $35,000. (TPM said his piece about the NDN et al., part of it at least, here.)

The Prospect's rationale for including this extra thirty-five grand is apparently that the NDN was basically what pols call a "leadership PAC." Essentially another one of Lieberman's coffers, used for his purposes.

Lieberman's communications director, Dan Gerstein, seems to have written in to complain. And here's how the Prospect responded.

As noted, we included money given directly to Lieberman's own campaign committee ($2,000) plus the $35,000 in Enron money given to the New Democrat Network's soft- and hard-money PAC, which Lieberman co-founded in 1996. On NDN's Web site, www.newdem.org/leaders/, a posting dated February 2, 2002, heralds Lieberman as a current leader of the PAC. Enron, expert in filling the many pockets of a politician's coat, found this open flap.

This is either shamelessly dishonest or pitifully ill-informed, though perhaps it's a tour de force combination of both. (The writing style of the last sentence tells the tale. But that's another matter.)

<reluctant snip/ read the whole thing>


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001266.html

[wyldwolf]

2. huh?

The Democratic Party... win elections (or used to) and exercise clout in society.

Powered by the DLC, at least on a national level. Sorry. Facts are facts. Like them or not, it's hard to argue with the New Democrat success at the presidential level -- particularly given what had come before. Founded in 1985, a year after the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale and suffered a devastating defeat with a candidate who proved less than the sum of his interest group parts, the DLC picked up electoral steam after the party nominated another liberal -- and lost again -- in 1988.

Clinton's legacy as the first successful Democratic president since JFK should have put any lingering resentment about the DLC to rest. But this year the doctrinaire left has persuaded itself that a new, solipsistic paradigm obtains: One can win merely by energizing the base.

Actually, that's an old, discredited theory, the same argument once offered as a quadrennial losers' lament: The nominee could have won if only he had sailed more resolutely to port. The only difference is that this year, that argument is proffered not to defend an unwillingness to change course but as an excuse to revert to form.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/31/dean_errs_in_battling_the_new_democrats?mode=PF

Politicians have always "sold out" to business.

The DLC sold us out to the corporations every chance they could, and even picked up Republican rhetoric about "welfare reform", "free trade"

Links to show these ideas are "republican rhetoric?"

Democratic "leaders" can't even get free dinners from the corporate lobbyists anymore.

Laughable.

It always comes to this. People are so sure that the more left candidate will win until reality sets in. Then they blame the media, corporations, and everything else except the candidate who just wasn't appealing enough to a broad scope of people to actually win.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. You got one president and lost three branches and the states in 6 years

I think that's a lousy record. The Republicans now have the institutional advantage the Democrats did since FDR, from the Supreme Court all the way down to the state governments. The DLC paved the way, practically invited them in. You had one big win.

[wyldwolf]

4. Three presidential wins and, if the polls hold, a fourth on the way

Compare to landslide loses by Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis before...
And you know as well as I do that the midterm losses in '94 and 2002 were the result of GOP smears and faux patriotism.

Then there was '98, of course, where Dems did much better than expected...

Now, polls numbers...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were ALL "New Democrats"

Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were all the "centrist" "moderates" who would keep labor in line, remember? Clinton got more votes than Bush because of Perot and because Clinton didn't say he was going to pass NAFTA. Clinton sounded like a populist, that's why he won.

[wyldwolf]

10. Link to show Carter, Mondalem and Dukakis were "new democrats?"

..and if they were, when have your type EVER won?

No, not FDR and Kennedy. They were moderates.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. links to show Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were left?

Who ever called them left, besides Republicans?

[wyldwolf]

14. You made the assertion they were "new democrats" burden of proof is yours

Mine was already based on an article quoted above - though it is far from the only one.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Dukakis was NOT the choice of the "far left"

Neither were Carter or Mondale. Dukakis was simply a lousy candidate who blew an initial 17-point lead by running an inept campaign. The real leftists were for Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart (before he self-destructed). A lot of leftists disliked Carter because he is a Southern evangelical. Mondale blew it at the outset by acting gleeful about raising taxes. I knew it was over the minute he said that. Besides, he was a "leftist" only in comparison to Reagan. He's been part of the establishment ever since I can remember.

I'm so sick of this DLC line that Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis lost because they were such far leftists. It's--and I save this expletive only for the most extreme occasions--pure bullshit. Each losing candidate loses in his own way.

The DLC is able to get away with this lie because a lot of Dem voters are too young to remember the actual nomination processes for those years.

[charlie]

25. Yep

The initial coverage of Dukakis, before Atwater got ahold of him, was that the Democrats had nominated a non-ideological bureaucratic wonk, an antithesis of the "radical" Mondale. Which was true, the guy was a passionless pragmatist, more interested in process than ideals.

And Carter... I remember the Democrats being commended for floating up a candidate from their conservative wing. Naturally, the guy looks like a full-bore liberal in today's political clime, but at the time he was considered a "sensible centrist."

[Nederland]

42. Learn a little History

In 1976 the New Democrat in the race was Jerry Brown.
In 1980 the New Democrat in the race was Jerry Brown.
In 1984 the New Democrat in the race was Gary Hart.
In 1988 the New Democrat in the race was Al Gore.

It wasn't until 1992 that a New Democrat won the nomination.

[Democrats unite]

5. Thre are only 3 branches...

How could we lose the Supreme court? Democrats lost the Congress not the DLC. & the Presidency we know how we lost that. Please stay with the facts & not tripe!

[wyldwolf]

7. Democrats Unite, it really comes down to this...

...some who identify themselve as democrats hold fast and true to some sort of purity they've imagined was created in the past.

They loath seeing those not as "pure" win, and take glee when they lose - as though that proves that they didn't deserve to win.

Witness the mass "I won't vote for DLC" mentality here - even if it means the GOP wins.

Really, I'm off to bed. These DLC-bash threads are getting tiresome. I'm proud to be a DLC-democrat. Bill Clinton was my president.

Maybe I'll start a "The truth about the far left exteme in the democratic party" thread tomorrow.

[Tinoire]

9. Not to forget NAFTA, WTO, GATT, Welfare Reform, Plan Columbia

8 years worth of starving & sanctioning innocents in Iraq, a "humanitarian" intervention in Yugoslavia that left thousands dead and paved the way for pipelines galore. Oh yeah, and an ever-present thorn in our side, the DLC, that is overtaking the Democratic Party the same way the Christian Right overtook the Republican Party.

Pro-war. Pro-occupation. Peeing in my face and telling me it's rain.

[corporatewhore]

37. what tinoire said!!

[zonmoy]

12. seems to me

that all the democratic party is about anymore is to manipulate the progressive vote farther and farther to the neo-fascist right instead of actually standing up for progressive beliefs.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. the Democratic party isn't about ideology

Ideology changes. It's not about progressive or left or right. It't about organization and clout. If you want progressivism in the Democratic party, you have to organize with other progressives and start buying politicians. All the addresses have been posted! Forget the presidential primary and start influencing your representatives.

If you want to write a wish list there is always the Green party.

[Iverson]

16. buy politicians?

Not about ideology?

Look up "plutocracy."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. not about ideology

Yes, I know what plutocracy looks like. We're in luck, though, with organization and fundraising, we can adopt our own plutocrats. We can hire our own lobbyists. The addresses are above. Let's get to work.

What I am saying is don't try to find a politician that mouths the platitudes you want to hear - find a politician that will rely on your money and organization, then you tell them what to do.

Wouldn't you rather have representatives instead of leaders? I think we are perfectly capable of leading ourselves, we just need to delegate to politicians the jobs we want done.

[Iverson]

18. kinder, gentler plutocrats?

No thanks. I prefer to get representation through the democratic process, not through purchase.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. not kinder, gentler plutocrats - people that you hire

if you hire them, they work for you. If they rely on you for money and votes, you own them. The democratic process, such that it is in America, is voting on election day. It should be obvious to everyone that most of the action happens before election day. So we can either a) complain about it and lose gracefully, or b) take our democratic responsibilities seriously, and learn how to play the game.

You don't have the give up your principles to win - unless one of your principles is losing, of course.

[Iverson]

40. not me, but I can help you

One of my principles is never to confuse a closing bon mot with a coherently elaborated argument.

Another is never to confuse "free market" principles with democracy. I understand the impulse to cynicism disguised as avuncular wisdom, but this is too important. Democracy is not supposed to be a game with a deck stacked in favor of the Enrons of the world. Your advice, I'm afraid, makes a mockery of representation, already on its deathbed courtesy of those same players of the "game" that you have advocated.

Feel better soon.

[Mairead]

41. The difficulty with 'not through purchase' is that it's ALWAYS

through purchase. The only issue is who's doing the purchasing. And so far, it ain't been us.

Delegates --paid, if the work takes up that much time-- are the real socialist way to do it. They do our bidding, or they're sacked. Employees, not rulers. That's the real democratic way! And it's not only being used by perhaps a billion people in the world (700M+ in the co-op movement, and perhaps another 300M in small villages, everyday workplaces, etc), but it works quite well for them too!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. employees, not rulers - delegates, not representatives

Thanks, you said it better than I did. We obviously can't win a bidding war, but we need to put our people, from our organizations, in the ranks of the Democratic party, and we need to pay them so they are answerable to us.

[Iverson]

15. the necessity of stereotyping

"Greens like to make up wish-lists and run vanity campaigns. ... Greens are mostly college educated white middle class liberals."

Just about every party in the US is mostly white and middle class, including the Democratic Party. I question your report, though, since its purpose is to dismiss a group of people at a stroke. I wonder why it is impossible to make a case for the Democrats on their own merits.

If I believed that the "DLC destroyed the party so much in the 1990s," then I should not act as if I have allies to discard.

Perhaps enough railing against a despised minority will rally the troops. Such a good example!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Yeah, that's rich

As if the DLC isn't most white middle-class college graduates. :crazy:

It would be really nice to have a political party that wasn't devoted to screwing over everyone who isn't an outer suburban middle-class college graduate with stock options.

[Dr Fate]

22. I see a pattern...

DLC= middle class/rich whites

Greens=middle class/rich whites

Neither can win elections.

But a unified, diverse, DEM party CAN!!

You guys missed the point.

[Dr Fate]

21. Great! Taking BACK, not abandoning the party IS the right way...

thanks for this great post!

[IrateCitizen]

23. Boy, this is a blatant misrepresentation...

Greens like to make up wish-lists and run vanity campaigns.

Just like you present the Democratic Party to be a "diverse coalition", the Green Party is far from a monolith. In many instances (on the local level), it has stepped in to provide a progressive alternative to a Democratic Party that is overly compromised by moneyed interests.

Was the recent SF Mayoral Green candidacy of Matt Gonzales just a "vanity campaign" based on "wish lists", or was it an effort to provide a progressive alternative on issues like affordable housing and dealing with homeless persons when the Democratic candidate was joined at the hip with real estate magnates and corporate interests?

What about the successes of Green candidates in New Haven, CT in taking seats on the city council so that the issues of the largely poor communities actually have a voice at the table.

In New Paltz, NY, they recently elected a Green mayor. I guess that had everything to do with "vanity" and nothing to do with people wanting progressive policies to maintain open space and promote RESPONSIBLE growth policies?

Why must you drive such a wedge between yourself and groups of people who would be largely sympathetic and cooperative with your efforts to take on the corporatist influence of the DLC? It's no different than the way that Republicans drive a wedge between the middle class and the poor -- except that your strategy in this instance is completely self-defeating.

[John_H]

29. Absolutely a mischaracterization.

he most obvious common denominator among greens is that they are self-absorbed authoritarians who, if they're dome enough to run a presidential candidate, will also prove themselves to represent the ideals of less than one and a half percent of Americans.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Keep on drivin' that wedge, John_H

Obviously another person who needs a lesson in "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

In the words of Dr. Phil, "How's that workin' for ya?" :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

31. Interesting to note you did not address any of my points...

But instead chose to engage in gross generalizations and ad hominem.

So, I'll ask you again, how does this fit in with the SF Mayor's race? What about the Greens who have won seats on the city council of New Haven, CT? What about the other example I provided of the town of New Paltz, NY?

Do you care to address any of these honestly and thoughtfully, or is your sole goal to drag the discussion down into the gutter?

Intellecual honesty at its best with regards to the very mention of the word "Green" as usual, here at DU. :eyes:

[PVnRT]

32. Exactly!

They just need to shut up! Their opinion doesn't matter! Who cares what they think? Worthless bastards, they just need to keep quiet and vote for whatever DLC candidate they are told to vote for!

</sarcasm>

[redqueen]

33. Hubris, anyone?

Greens and people that belive more in Greens than our traitorous Dem leaders number far more than you and your Green-hating colleagues here want so desperately to believe are accurate. It's nice to see the mantra chanted so often, because it reaffirms the fear is there. :) I suppose the Chavez' situation in Venezuela has right-wingers and their buttboys everywhere shakin in their boots!

I know this has been said countless times, but apparently it needs to be explained again: people still vote for Dems, even though they believe more in Greens. Until we lose the two-party yoke, you will never see any hard evidence that you are so very, very wrong.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. If the Greens actually won elections, they would be corrupt too

The Greens work in Europe because of their parliamentary system, which we do not have here, and we won't until the majority party in the goverment (right now the Republicans) change it. How likely is that?

This seems to be a major misunderstanding here. Do Greens believe that by voting in "strong, principled progressive" politicians, they can effect change in the system? That's exactly what the Christian Coalition says too - they want to vote for "strong, principled Christians" - both groups seem to misunderstand how the system works,

If you want to "break free from the bonds of the two party system" the only way to do that is to take over one of the parties, get a majority, and change the law. The Greens can get some local offices and act as a spoiler, but it cannot win at the federal level, at least not any time soon.

Why not make the Democratic party more like the Greens? To do that, you have to cooperate and negotiate with people who probably will never join the Greens, like the majority of African Americans (remember, 90% vote Democratic), the majority of Latinos, the majority of women, the majority of the working class. The Democrats *are* the party, and I think it would be best if progressives started fighting it out in the Democratic party unstead of forming their own little club.

You can fight the DLC more effectively inside than outside.

[Terwilliger]

34. HEH! If Greens are self-absorbed authoritarians, what does that make Dems?

monied proto-fascists?

[IrateCitizen]

35. And the wedge drives in a bit deeper...

:sigh:

[Iverson]

36. a certain uninformed quality about that snipe

Those who are moved by evidence and their own experiences reach quite different conclusions than the one offered by so naked an appeal to ridicule.

Pardon me if deviating from the mandatory denunciation of Greens is too "authoritarian." I'm kind of quirky that way.

[Laughing Mirror]

24. Democrat or Republican, what difference does it make?

Whoever raises the most money for the most TV time will be the next president. This is corruption on a major scale.

[redqueen]

27. Yes but apparently the answer is

to spend enough money to corrupt it in our favor.

(which will never happen -- hello? corporations?)

[stickdog]

28. No. They need money for TV time, good ads and positive media coverage.

That's it.

Issues and ideology don't matter. Telling the truth is not an option.

[stickdog]

26. The Poop on These Groups

The Progressive Majority:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=471

Democratic National Committee:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&more=orgc&orgid=1826 (press on the top link within this link)

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&more=orgc&orgid=1927
(press on the links within this link)

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&more=orga&orgid=1790
(press on the links within this link)

Democratic Leadership Council & New Democratic Network:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=420

21st Century Democrats:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=629

Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=142