Huffington Post piece tries to link Kerry to the DLC agenda through distortion

[ProSense]

Snip...

Joseph Kay writes:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) held its annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend, outlining its program for the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections and the presidential election in 2008. Speeches at the meeting and documents published in advance indicate that the Democratic Party plans to run an extremely right-wing campaign, particularly on the issues of "national security" and the war in Iraq.


Sean Donahue wrote in 2004:

Most of the major contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign are corporations or employees of corporations that have ties to a network of organizations dedicated to moving the Democratic Party to the right. These organizations, which include the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, and the Progressive Policy Institute, are dedicated to pursuing a policy agenda that includes support for high levels of military spending and an aggressive role for the U.S. military around the world. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.

Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?

In 2003, Ralph Nader wrote:

To the DLC mind, Democrats are catering to "special interests" when they stand up for trade unions, regulatory consumer-investor protections, a pre-emptive peace policy overseas, pruning the bloated military budget now devouring fully half of the federal government's entire discretionary expenditures, defending Social Security from Wall Street schemes, and pressing for universal health care coverage.

link

How can anyone write about the DLC and not mention Hillary Clinton?

The entire post is about the DLC and their agenda from the 2006 meeting, yet this writer doesn't mention Clinton once.

Instead of addressing the keynote speaker at the 2006 DLC meeting, that would be Clinton, the writer attaches Kerry to the DLC's agenda.

Kerry doesn't support their agenda, and what's that funky comment about the war and corporate money? It's like they took everything Clinton is about, including the DLC, and by distortion are attaching them to Kerry.

The claim that Kerry takes corporate money is bogus. How can anyone claim Kerry is conservative?

This is disinformation that does nothing for the progressive cause.

[SaveElmer]

1. Kerry is a member of the DLC...nt

[saracat]

3. Prove it.

He used to be as did Al Gore who actually created them.and Howard Dean.

[ray of light]

12. good point. the dlc is no longer relevant. It's a title like

"Stevenson High School" But just becuase there's a building with that title doesn't mean the same 1500 students go there.

[LittleClarkie]

4. I'd like current proof of that. At the least, right now, From treates him

as the redheaded stepchild. He's too liberal.

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering why the DLC doesn't post their directory of members anymore.

[Tellurian]

16. They don't have it posted but there is a list here..

http://dsco1.tripod.com/issues.htm

[saracat]

18. This appears to not be a real list or current.

[Tellurian]

21. The DLC has stopped publishing their members.. The link is as of 04'

and contains a record of how he's voted up to 04'..

Is he against NAFTA now or against Tax Cuts for the Rich?

I guess it would be a good idea to find an article stating Kerry resigned
from the DLC to get something more current. As of 04', he is still listed a member.

[MH1]

51. He is certainly against tax cuts for the rich, and he opposed CAFTA, and

has said NAFTA didn't do what it was supposed to.

He may still be a "member", but if so he is their most liberal member, and would be more likely to be there to influence them than to take instructions from them.

[Tellurian]

55. Sen Kerry was absent for the vote

against Tax Cuts for the rich.

see here:

http://dsco1.tripod.com/issues.htm

and according to that link, he fails miserably as it's most liberal member.

I don't mean to denigrate Sen. Kerry, by and large, we all like him. He just doesn't seem to surround himself with people that promote him to his best advantage.

His supporters on this board prefer to hit you over the head would rather draw and quarter you, if you dare to challenge anything they say questioning Sen. Kerry.

The topic of this thread is clear evidence demonstrating what I say is true.

Sen. Kerry needed to hire people talented in the art of persuasion. People with this skill able to get out in front of him, change in a kind and gentle way someone's way of thinking, to support him as their president.

The Kerry supporters on this board, I believe, have done him more harm than good.

They have a piss poor attitude, are not in command of the facts, and when challenged as you see right here, practically call you a liar. If I were part of Sen Kerry's campaign, I would have shut these folks down in a heartbeat. They certainly haven't made any progress garnering support for Kerry on this board.

Sen Kerry isn't rude, obnoxious, threatening, uncompromising, or the poster boy of a school yard bully. The theme they've been promoting, their only theme, is electing Kerry to office for the purpose of prosecuting former presidents to the fullest extent of the law.

Where is the vision of the future for the American people?

I would think he would want a segment of people representing him who are more like him promoting his agenda. There is a huge voting block on this board, over 100,000 strong. A pliable captive audience here for the taking waiting to be convinced, Kerry's their man.

Tell me, how hard would it have been for the Kerry contingent here to be up front about him being a DLC member. Instead, they chose to paint the DLC as a corrupt corporate organization as the primary reason for NOT voting for his potential opponents.

Last night, it was revealed to my satisfaction anyway, he IS a card carrying member of the DLC. I don't see anything wrong with him being a member. What I do see is another example of out of control supporters who haven't a clue in the likeability department. Who have alienated more people from Kerry's side than gathered him support.

This seems to be Sen. Kerry's greatest weakness. He consistently hires the wrong people to work for him just as he did in the last campaign. He can't win this presidency all by himself and it's too late to rebuild Rome. If he has future presidential aspirations, he has to start now to win the presidency in 2012.

I would hate to see him run a race he can't win, not because he is unworthy of the job. Simply put, it's because his base of support is seriously deficient in what it takes to be an effective insulating tool protecting as well as promoting him to his best advantage.

...for whats it's worth, we all supported him in his last campaign. The field he is facing this time around will be 10X harder to beat than Bush. It would be political suicide for him to even attempt a run.

Bigger and better of him to lend his support to a candidate of his choice and be part of the process rather than face a debilitating defeat the second time around.

[MH1]

65. I am not sure why you are asking me.

I do think the DLC is problematic. I do not know if Kerry is currently an official member or not. However, he is most assuredly NOT "DLC" in the sense that it is often used at DU - which essentially means "corporatist". Whatever else you want to claim, and however you may want to criticize for political decisions such as missing votes while running for President, Kerry is NOT a corporatist.

That said, I agree it is wrong to deny that Kerry is a DLC member if in fact he is, by some normal definition. (What would that definition be, though? Does he pay some dues to belong to the organization or something?)

However, in colloquial form it is essentially correct to say that "Kerry is not DLC" since he does not agree with most of their principles. I guess you will disagree on this point, but I'll stand by it - it is a matter of semantic precision (or not, in this case).

As for the o.p. of this particular thread, the point was that people like Hillary are "more" DLC than Kerry, so the referenced article should not have been disproportionately criticizing Kerry as a "DLC'er". That seems like a fair and accurate point to me.

For the rest, I don't think it is very wise to judge a candidate by the behavior of a few of their supporters. If you find an advocate of a cause abrasive, does that mean the cause is wrong? I would just go to another source of information, in that case. If I chose my presidential candidate based on the behavior of their supporters, right now I'd have to choose between Richardson, Biden, and Gravel out of the currently announced field - only because I haven't run across any of their supporters yet. But that seems like a dumb criteria to use. Maybe that's just me. :shrug:

[Tellurian]

77. I wasn't asking anything..

I made a statement. Then chose to elaborate on my statement.
The demeanor of genuine supporters of a candidate IS very important
and not really all that, as you say, dumb.

And if a candidate's supporter on a message board is read by 10's of thousands, maybe millions of people,
is overzealous to the point of being rude and less than exemplary of the candidate in question. I would think someone on his/her staff would pick up on it, nip it in the bud, by contacting that supporter expressing disappointment that their style of debating skills is not representative of the candidate they're supporting and suggesting, in a nice way of course, they be better off not directly interacting with the public on his or her behalf.

As far as the DLC is concerned. Any organization, no matter which, is representaive of the people running it. When you want to change an organization you run for office, get elected, and change policy to suit your style and goals. The DLC is not a stumbling block for me. It's no more than a vehicle for raising corporate money to be cash competitive with the opposition.

That said, thank you for your well structured informative response. Like many here, I enjoy unemotional well written repartee based in facilitating understanding rather than egotistical gamesmanship.

Peace..

[MH1]

66. "Card-carrying member" - where?? / Yet, OP is right - Hillary is on DLC Leadership Team.

This is a long thread, and so far every link I've seen that is supposedly "proof", is from a non-credible source.

But, it's a long thread and I may have missed the key post. Could you help me out and post the link?

Personally, I don't care about whether he is or is not a member of any particular organization - it's his political views and efforts that matter. But since everyone insists on making a big deal of it here on DU, it would be nice to know.

Meanwhile, back to the o.p.:

DLC Leadership Team (from DLC website):

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Link is to a photo of several people, with the following caption:

From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

[flpoljunkie]

163. DLC's Al From's "Candidates" now down to Clinton, Vilsack. Original 4-Clinton, Vilsack, Warner, Bayh

Al From said this in an appearance on Washington Journal on October 25, 2005.

[_dynamicdems]

161. First of all, it is unfair to generalize about an entire group of people.

There are many Kerry supporters on this board, some who rarely ever post. You have no right to attack an entire group of people by saying that the Kerry supporters at DU have a "piss poor attitude". A truly "piss poor attitude" is a prejudiced one. To berate and insult an entire group of people, many of whom you don't know and have never had a single exchange with, is not exactly taking the high road.

There are also Kerry supporters here who are afraid to say they are Kerry supporters because they will get flamed. In another thread, I recall an individual actually stating they liked Kerry but were always afraid to say so at DU because of attacks from the Kerry haters.

Secondly, Kerry does not have any control over me or my opinion. Yes, I support him. I'm a Kerry supporter, but my opinions are my own. And that goes for all the other Kerry supporters I know. We are just as entitled to our opinions as the Clark supporters, the Edwards supporters, the Gore supporters, the Kucinich supporters and so on. We are also as entitled to our dispositions as wide ranging as they are: just as entitled as you are to yours. Yes, the 2004 Kerry campaign had staffing problems. We all agree with that. How the Hell does that have to do with people who support Kerry at DU? Nothing whatsoever.

Are you allowed to criticize Kerry? Certainly. That is the point of a discussion board. But if you do, you have to be willing to expect rebuttal. That is also the nature of a discussion board. I do challenge you on your assertion that Kerry supporters don't have their facts together, however. I've followed the discussions here quite closely and I've seen post after post after post by Kerry supporters who provided numerous examples and links to back up their statements. They are well informed and use facts as opposed to emotional outbursts like I've seen from some Kerry bashers. For example: one individual kept posting "he quit" over and over again in a single thread, others have chimed in with "he's an elite, flip-flopper" using Republican talking points in an attack that was without substance or merit and certainly not germain to the discussion at hand.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that threads by Kerry supporters are always under constant attack. It may not be by Freepers per se, by the net result is the same as being Freeped. Think about how, say, a Clark supporter would feel if they posted about something good Clark had done and numerous individuals showed up in the thread with the express purpose of saying negative things about Clark. Sometimes the attacks on Kerry have nothing to do with the subject of the thread at all. He may have sponsored a bill and the subject of the thread is the issue that the bill dealt with. Yet, the bashers show up just to start bitching about 2008. This is ignorant, rude and it is Freeping. Anyone who does this reaps what they sow. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That is why they call it "flaming".

I've stated this in other threads: Kerry supporters take the high road when it comes to threads that promote other Democrats. You will never see Kerry supporters crash a pro-Kucinich or Edwards thread to start a flame war. Yet it happens all the time to us. We could start a thread about John Kerry playing with a puppy and someone would have to Freep it.

Kerry supporters don't go looking for trouble but will respond strongly, however, when either one or two things happen:

1. An anti-Kerry thread is started (this is usually blatant flame bait) and there will be rebuttal by people who disagree. It is a call to action that no supporter will resist. If you don't believe me, start an anti-Clark thread and see if you don't get an ass-kicking (and deservedly so) from the Clark supporters.

2. A pro-Kerry thread is hijacked or Freeped, usually by someone who has nothing productive to offer or anything remotely to do with the thread topic (to start whining about the 2004 campaign when the subject is the filibuster of Alito, for example).

All of this should be common sense and common courtesy.

Yes, there are times when Kerry supporters get hot under the collar. But this is always in response to an attack.

There are over 120,000. SUPPORT posts in the Kerry forum and there are also many Kerry supporters at DU who only post once in a blue moon. If the Kerry supporters wanted to be bullies and be as obnoxious as some of the anti-Kerry contingent has been, it would be far, far nastier than anything that you have seen thus far. Fortunately, we don't do that. We don't crash pro-Gore threads to say nasty things about him. We don't start "Why I'll never vote for Edwards" threads. We don't start "Clark will never run against Hillary because he knows he can't win" threads.

The bottom line is: courtesy begets courtesy.

[TayTay]

124. Sen. Kerry was never a member of the DLC

And it's a very complicated story. Sometimes stories are complicated and do not have yes or no answers. (See War, Iraq for an example.)

Sen. Kerry was in the New Democratic Network. This happened in the late 1990's, (I think 1998 or so.) This was a moderate group that was affiliated with the DCL, but they were not the same thing. Thiis occured right around the time that Kerry was coming up with a new program in support of Charter Schools and, as such, had taken on the Massachusetts and national Educational Unions. (Complication #1: Kerry's plan did not go off the reservation on using Union Teachers, which is why this didn't become a bigger and more controversial proposal.) At that time, Kerry was invited to join the NDN, the Senatorial group.

This is where it gets fuzzy. The NDN put him on their list of Senators supporting the organization. Sen. Kerry's staff, in an interview during this time, did not know about this and denied that he had joined. There is a great deal that Kerry has always differed from the DLC on, this would include some of the Trade bills that have come before the Senate and on some basic economic programs. (Kerry is not a Blue Dog Democrat.His voting record is too liberal or left for that.)

For many reasons, the DLC was not a fit in either direction. Actually, a lot of the NDN was not a fit for the DLC either as they broke off and became The Third Way group, which Kerry is not a member of, that I know of.

The feeling was mutual. There is this from the Boston Globe in 2000

DEMOCRATIC GROUP OVERLOOKS BAY STATE IN MAKING A LIST OF 100 POLS TO WATCH

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council is flying high these days. The group's main man is finishing two full terms in the White House - the first Democrat to do so since FDR - and the current Democratic ticket is a DLC twofer with Gore, a veteran DLC adherent at the top, and none other than the current DLC chairman, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate.

But the DLC upswing has been a decided downer for the Massachusetts brand of Democratic liberalism. Former governor Michael Dukakis's ill-fated 1988 presidential bid still gets prominent play as an example of wimpy liberalism to be avoided in national campaigns. And some think the state's indelible liberal stain hurt Senator John Kerry's chances in the recent veepstakes.

The latest indignity hits at the state's once-vaunted reputation as a proving ground for future Democratic stars. In conjunction with last month's Democratic National Convention, the DLC came up with a list of 100 rising Democratic state and local officials to watch. Making the grade are everyone from an Alaska state representative to the St. Louis city comptroller and a Nevada county commissioner. But in a total shutout, not a single Bay State Democrat landed on the DLC list.

And this one

That explains Kerry's recent alignment with the Senate New Democrat Coalition, which includes Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Bob Graham of Florida, and John Edwards of North Carolina. While not formally part of the Democratic Leadership Council, it is an outgrowth of the DLC's kind of centrist thinking and progressive message, which Bill Clinton embraced and came to symbolize.

In one way, it's inside-the-Beltway baseball; in another way it's not. Kerry's new Senate friends mean something very basic. He wants to cover all bases, because he's considering a national run. And after being passed over as Al Gore's running mate, partly because of the national perception of him as just another Massachusetts liberal, the bases Kerry most wants to cover are the ones in the middle. "It's a signal of where I am on certain issues," explains Kerry. "I consider myself a person who is trying to find the mainstream through compromise.".

The repositioning is slightly tricky. Kerry is up for reelection in 2002. While he is politically secure at home, with no strong opponents anywhere in sight, he does have to balance national ambition against local interests. In Massachusetts, he draws organizational support and money from traditional Democratic constituencies, including labor. He needs old Democrats to stay with a "new" one.

Actually, Kerry isn't nearly as "old Democrat" as many old Democrats would like. He embraced deficit reduction back in 1986, when traditional Democrats didn't even acknowledge a deficit existed. He took early positions in support of putting more police on the street; voted for welfare reform and the balanced budget act; and was one of the first in the party to talk about education reform. But those nuances are quickly lost in Washington, where the standard assumption is that Massachusetts Democrats all think alike - just like Ted Kennedy.

As of now, Kerry is definitely not invited to the DLC and the NDC (or NDN.) I am sorry that this is complicated. Sometimes things are. Anyone with a long history in the Senate is going to have changes and things that require explanation. As far as Sen. Kerry is concerned, consider two events that have occurred in his history: As Chairman of the DSCC in 1987, he recruited his old Yale classmate Joe Lieberman to run against Lowell Weicker for the US Senate seat from Connecticut. In 2006, John Kerry went to Connecticut to personally campaign against Lieberman and raised money for the Democrat who ran. Why did this happen? Well, ahm, as we should all know by now, things changed and it was complicated.

I have info on NAFTA and on the tax cuts proposals if you like. They were part of the record in every Senate race and in the last Presidential race.

[Major Hogwash]

10. No, he's not - he never was. He applied for membership and they took too long to approve him

So, he withdrew his application because they had treated him with so much disdain.

He was a sitting Senator when he applied to be a member and yet they treated him like he was applying for a busboy position at a country club!!

[noamnety]

13. That appears to be incorrect.

"Member of Democratic Leadership Council.
Kerry is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mission
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.
Who We Are
The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. The DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service. Throughout the 90’s, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton have helped produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history, the lowest unemployment in a generation, 22 million new jobs, cut the welfare rolls in half, reduced the crime rate for seven straight years, balanced the budget and streamlined the federal bureaucracy to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration.

Now, the DLC is promoting new ideas -- such as a second generation of environmental protection and new economy and technology development strategies -- that is distinctly different from traditional liberalism and conservatism to build the next generation of America’s leaders.
Source: Democratic Leadership Council web site 01-DLC0 on Nov 7, 2000 "

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Kerry_Principles_+_Values.htm

Do you have a source to contradict this?

[ProSense]

17. Source: Democratic Leadership Council web site 01-DLC0 on Nov 7, 2000

About the Senate New Democrat Coalition

“Kerry is neither a card-carrying New Democrat nor is he a card-carrying non-New Democrat,” Baer said. “He represents a synthesis.”

Maybe it's that the DLC is disingenuous.

[Tellurian]

19. You'll have to ck my link @ post #16 listing Kerry as a member..nm

[LittleClarkie]

22. To be clearer, I want to see from the DLC that he is a member

first hand source, not second hand.

[Tellurian]

25. Suggest you call his office or Fax him your question asking if he is still DLC

and let us know; if you dispute the link.

If you google the DLC and John Kerry, a plethora
of information is available mentioning he is a DLC member.

you might get a direct response that way.
Some of the DLC members insist their privacy respected.

[LittleClarkie]

26. That might be a good idea, actually

I'm just looking for something more current is all. I've seen lists where he was a member, but that was 2 years ago, and some say he only joined for the "help" with his election. Some help. Pffft.

[Tellurian]

29. Sounds good to me...Let us know... We need to share information

to be well informed..

[Tellurian]

32. Little Clarkie..I found a list on WIKI...John Kerry member DLC 07'

Scroll down a third of the way. Kerry is listed:

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

and the site is 2007

[LittleClarkie]

162. I just called his office. No, he's not.

FYI

[noamnety]

23. The DLC page you linked to doesn't give a full list.

It mentions some of the members, but says its expanded to 20 senators - which is, indeed disengenuous.

Here's how you can find his connection.

On the DLC page: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103 - note their organization: "Congressional New Democrats"

He's a member of that.

WASHINGTON, DC-- Leaders of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a prominent group of centrist, pro-growth Democratic members of the House of Representatives, today joined members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition in unveiling a bicameral education reform proposal aimed at refocusing federal education programs on raising academic achievement and providing more funding and flexibility to states and local districts.

The plan, called the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act ("Three R's") was introduced in both the House and Senate today by New Democrats. Sponsor of the House version of the bill include NDC Co-Chairs Reps. Cal Dooley (CA), Tim Roemer (IN) and Jim Moran (VA), NDC Communications Coordinator Adam Smith (WA), and NDC Members Reps. Ellen Tauscher (CA) and Jim Davis (FL).

Senate New Democrat Coalition members joined House NDC members at a bicameral press conference today to announce their introduction of a similar plan in the Senate. Plan sponsors include Sens. Joseph Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), John Breaux (LA), Bob Graham (FL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), John Kerry (MA), and Tom Carper (DE).

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca10_tauscher/012301_edreform.html

[bornskeptic]

87. The link you quoted is from January 23, 2001 n/t

[MH1]

145. My link is the current LEADERSHIP. Yours is a 2001 event participation.

I am not disputing that Kerry was once officially a member, and I do not have any problem with anyone being a member.

Yet, if someone is concerned about the positions that an organization espouses, I think the leadership of that organization is somewhat relevant.

Are you arguing that Kerry holds a current leadership position with the DLC? If so, please back that up.

[rinsd]

2. What a shock! Raving anti-DLCer has his facts WRONG!

[noamnety]

14. Which facts would those be? (nt)

[rinsd]

27. How about this

"Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda."

[noamnety]

31. Which part of that are you having a problem with?

Let's break it down:

1. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well,

2. he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign

3. the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.

Which part are you questioning?

[rinsd]

35. Numero 3!

"the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda."

[noamnety]

54. I think it's because he has neoliberal leanings

supporting NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, calling himself a "Davos" man.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0123-24.htm

Or it could be his stated position that he would not have gone to war in Iraq in the way that Bush did without the support of the international community, and quotes like this: "I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden."

While I appreciate that he would have spent more time looking for a diplomatic solution (to a nonexistent problem), the issue in Iraq isn't that the US is taking too large a share of coalition casualties, or that other countries aren't sharing the burden - it's that we're there at all.

[MH1]

67. If you think that the situation in Iraq in October 2002 was a "nonexistent problem"

then you are in some serious denial.

The problem was not as presented. But, there most certainly was a problem with Iraq. And you know damn well that John Kerry would not have invaded Iraq because he would have correctly determined the problem in the first place and dealt with it more appropriately.

[Selatius]

5. I strongly disagree with Kerry on his free trade stand and his stand on NAFTA.

I think NAFTA should be abolished and replaced with bilateral trade relations that help workers on both sides instead of creating a race to the bottom for workers to benefit corporations.

I favor fair trade instead of free trade. World trade should benefit everybody, not a few multinational corporations. The current order in the world is not socially just.

As a side note, I'm surprised this person omitted completely Hillary Clinton.

[karynnj]

46. Kerry himself said in 2004 that it needs to be fixed

When it was implemented there were promised side agreements on the environment and workers rights. They were never implemented.

On Cafta, Kerry wrote an AFL/CIO endorsed amendment that guaranteed this. It failed to get out of committee on a 10 10 vote (with chair Rep that killed it). Kerry voted against CAFTA.

At the time of NAFTA, Kerry also had an amendment defeated that would have made it better. His comments are incredibly insightful - and it boiled down to a belief that globalization was ongoing with and without it and with it you could legislate in some rules.

From Thomas:
In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.
To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.
From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.
Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.
Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.
Back then, we were the only economic superpower. American companies had virtually no competition and, since they produced almost entirely in the United States, their workers felt no particular threat from workers abroad. This was the era when `Made in Japan' meant something was cheap--not good, just cheap.
Throughout the 1950's and 1960's productivity was rising rapidly throughout the American economy, so that people could expect over time to work less, but earn more.
Back then, free trade for America meant more markets for America, not competition. We maintained the Bretton Woods rules, the GATT, and other treaty obligations not only to buttress the free world against communism, and not only out of the goodness of our hearts; we enforced a basic level of stability in the world because a stable world meant open markets for us, and we made the products people most wanted to buy.
Back then, large corporations and large unions set the pace for middle-class prosperity. Remember it was Henry Ford, no fan of unions, who created the mass production line to turn out cars cheaply--cheaply enough so that his own workers could buy them. When he finally capitulated to the United Auto Workers, he gave his workers the largest settlement of the Big Three.
In those days, Fortune 500 companies controlled well over 50 percent of our total economy, and employed three-quarters of our manufacturing work force. If the New Deal built the floor for personal security in America, the corporate economy put up the middle-class safety net, with pension plans and health insurance.
In those days, American families lived on one man's paycheck, from one job that lasted with one company for an entire lifetime.
If you were laid off, you were laid off for the duration, and you were called back when business picked up.
No more.
And two key words summarize the difference: globalization and technology. Each one feeds the other. Each one confronts American employers with a choice: Can I beat the competition by making a stand in America with my own workers, or must I beat the competition by going abroad? Will my workers join the ranks of the 70 percent falling behind, or will they join the ranks of the 30 percent--or fewer--who will get ahead?
The dynamics of this are familiar to anybody who works. Technology, particularly computer technology, makes it possible to move production anywhere in the world. Technology makes it possible for formerly large corporations to make do with drastically fewer people at home. Remember those bar-code readers.
Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy.
Two weeks ago an American Management Association survey reported that nearly half of the companies polled had reduced their work forces in the last year. A quarter reported that they will do so again in the coming year, some for the second or third time in 5 years, and experience shows that the number of companies that eventually downsize is twice the number that predict they will.
Workers who are downsized in today's environment are not out for the duration. They are out for good, and their ability to climb back into the economy is utterly dependent on the match between their skills and the needs of the small and midsized companies which now represent the pivot point for American economic success. Central to this division is skills: those that have them win, those that do not have them lose.
Workers with high skills can reap the rewards of the new technology, which is higher productivity. Higher productivity is not only the basis of increased pay, it is the ticket of admission to world markets, hence to growth, hence to new jobs and higher pay.
Recently Princeton economist Alan Krueger showed that workers who used computers on the job earned a 10- to 15-percent higher wage rate than otherwise similar workers. On the basis of this study, Microsoft Corp., the software giant, ran advertisements in Time magazine and elsewhere declaring `we make it easier to get a 15-percent raise.'
On the other hand, there is a growing disadvantage to not being well educated and flexibly skilled. Workers with lower skills find that technology either eliminates their jobs or moves them overseas. It is this disadvantage that lower skilled
workers face in the new global, high-technology economy that explains why they are faring increasingly poorly in terms of wages and incomes. It is these lower-skilled workers who are having the rug pulled out from under them. And it is no wonder they are scared by NAFTA .
Now, I do not come to this issue as some latter-day luddite, ready to smash bar code scanners in the supermarket and wall off our borders from foreign imports.
I believe that the change we are witnessing--whether we like it or not--is inevitable. What is not inevitable is our passivity, and our inability to make change work for, instead of against, American workers.
In the past few months I have visited any number of companies in my home State of Massachusetts that have made technology work for them and their workers. Through aggressive R&D, advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and involvement, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, a State where manufacturing is supposedly dead and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market, thanks to its constant innovation; and Modicon Corp., which brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded technology and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the high-technology, high-skill route, and you must export.
The question is, Are we going to learn from the Boses and the Modicons?
Other nations, notably Japan and Germany, have structured their entire economies around the goal of employing their citizens in well-paying jobs. This is the goal toward which government, industry, and individuals work together.
This happened in part because they were poor in natural resources and had small home markets. And so in order to become industrialized nations they were forced to export. At an early stage, therefore, international competition became their obsession. And economic considerations often dominated foreign and security policy. They were not afraid--in part as a result of cultural differences--of an economic model where big business and big government worked together to promote long-term job creation.
But in this country, Mr. President, we are still lacking a strategy that sends out an unmistakable signal to every American that the highest priority of the American Government and American industry is ensuring that Americans have the ability to get good
jobs--maybe not one job for their entire lives, but one or a series of jobs that will support their families for the entirety of their careers.
This strategy needs to address the insecurity that people feel for their economic future and in order to do so it must recognize the centrality of education and training--two priorities on which President Clinton rightly focused during the campaign.
In 1949, we spent 9 percent of our Federal budget on education. We now spend less than 3 percent. An estimated 83 million Americans have inadequate reading skills and the United States is the only major industrialized nation in the world with no formal system or structure to facilitate the school-to-work transition. Federal support for vocational education has declined approximately 30 percent in real dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, such competitors as Germany spend dramatically more on training the best educated and now the highest-paid workers in the world. American students attend school for 180 days per year while Japanese children go to school for 243 days and German children for 240 days. This means that our children attend school for 25 percent less time each year than their future competitors.
This is unacceptable. There is no question that our priorities have become skewed. The space station will cost us $2 billion this year, while the Federal Government will spend only $630 million on primary and secondary education. Over 80 percent of prison inmates are dropouts, and they each cost us between $15,000 and $30,000 per year to incarcerate. This situation is totally unacceptable.
We should be prepared to use any mechanism necessary to find more money to invest in our one true asset--our people. We can find this money in pork-barrel projects; in entitlement programs; we can reexamine the issue of the gas tax--surely Americans would be willing to pay a few more pennies a gallon to educate our children for the global competition they will face. There are many other places we can look for the resources--if we are serious and committed to the objective.
We need to begin by quickly funneling more money into our education budget. I strongly support Senator Jefford's suggestion that we add money to education spending in increments of 1 percent of the Federal budget until it accounts for 10 percent in the year 2004. I also agree with Senator Simon and Senator Dodd that we must abandon property tax supported education which leads to inequities among school systems.
Next, we need to quickly put in place the School-to-Work Program on which the President and Senator Kennedy have been
working. And we must not be shy about fully funding these, either. This is no place to be penny wise and pound foolish.
We must quickly enact the Worker Adjustment Program that Secretary Reich has been drafting--and I believe that we should attach it to the NAFTA as part of the implementing legislation to ensure that full help is available for all workers who need it. In addition to streamlining our disparate adjustment programs, this plan would make unemployment insurance flexible so that workers could use it as income support while they retrain--a need that did not exist when the UI system was designed to buttress workers who were temporarily laid off. It will also put the Federal Government in the business of smoothing out the labor market's information flows--so that displaced workers can find out where jobs are, what kinds of skills they require, and how they can obtain them.
And I believe, Mr. President, that we should go beyond the administration's current proposals and create an Incumbent Worker Training Program. During the campaign, President Clinton discussed encouraging companies to train their workers and I feel that we must return to that concept. We cannot wait to do this until our companies lose the global competition and our workers are downsized out of their jobs. We must help them retain the jobs they have by ensuring that they are the most technically adept in the world.
But it is not enough, Mr. President, to say `if we train them, the jobs will come.' Because the jobs may not come. A recent 2-year study of the American system of capital investment by researchers at the Harvard Business School raises the question of whether U.S. companies are sufficiently focused on the long-term to be competitive and to create high-wage jobs.
The report points out that leading American firms in many industries are outinvested by their Japanese counterparts; that the R&D portfolios of American firms include a smaller share of long-term projects than those of European and Japanese firms and that American firms invest at a lower rate than both Japanese and German firms in intangible assets--such as human resource development. The report relays the fact that American CEO's believe that their firms have shorter investment horizons than their international competitors. As a result, they sometimes confuse cutting back and downsizing with a solution--restructuring may give a short-term lift to a company's stock but unless the savings are invested in productive assets, it will not help the company compete better with its German rivals over the long run.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

6. We have to weed out corporate democrates,

no mater who they are.

[Tellurian]

8. That will never happen..

What will happen is the Right Wing will force the Democrats to kill each other
through news releases tossing Lies about in a he said, she said, fashion..

It's working already, just as they planned. And a Republican hasn't even opened his mouth yet.

[MasonJar]

7. So what if any of these great statesman is a member of the DLC?

These men (Kerry, Gore and Dean) have worth beyond any organization that they associate with through their continued assistance to the betterment of man and the earth.

[Tellurian]

9. Of course, they can make the organization into anything they want..

It's all about who's in control at the moment.

Making blanket statements about the big bad DLC is simply ludicrous.

[noamnety]

11. When did he quit the Senate New Democrat Coalition/DLC?

I'm seeing a lot of sources saying he's a member, including http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Kerry_Principles_+_Values.htm. If you have a source showing he ended his membership, I'd be interested to see it.

If he's still a member, it's a bit silly to claim he doesn't support their agenda. And it would be equally silly to claim there's no connection between him and corporate money, if he's a member of a group financed by Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

from: http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

Last May, at the invitation of the Democratic Leadership Council, elected officials from across the country met at Franklin D. Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. Their goal was to begin drafting a statement of New Democrat principles and a broad national policy agenda for the next decade. This manifesto, The Hyde Park Declaration, is the result of their work.

(snip)

signatories:

...
John F. Kerry, United States Senator, Massachusetts
...

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926

Boston – United States Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen will host a one day summit on the New Economy and its implications for New England in Boston on Saturday, April 1st, at the Fairmont Copley Plaza.

The conference, entitled, "Massachusetts and New Hampshire: How to Win in the New Economy," is sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), and cosponsored by Cerulean Technology Inc.

http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=181410

[sendero]

15. I'm no Kerry/2008 fan..

.... but Kerry is, in spirit anyway, not a DLCer.

[k_jerome]

20. please link to Kerry criticism of the DLC. nt.

[LittleClarkie]

24. Would DLC criticism of Kerry do? How about when From listed off

the DLC 2008 possible contenders and didn't mention Kerry?

[k_jerome]

28. Kerry likes and supports the DLC...what can I say? nt.

[LittleClarkie]

48. You can offer an article or something to support that

I'm having trouble finding the article I remember. Maybe I should search the DU archives, as I first read it here.

[MH1]

146. He does? That's news. Got a current (credible) link? n/t

[k_jerome]

147. got a link of him denying or criticizing them? nt.

[wisteria]

30. Kerry has not been a member of the DLC for a long time. He doesn't subscribe to their agenda. n/t

[Tellurian]

33. Kerry, DLC member 2007 (current list)

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

Geeze, wisteria...how can I trust anything you say?
Until I looked for myself tonight, I trusted your word.

[ProSense]

34. That's not an official list

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=252487

[Tellurian]

39. It's the official list in Wikipedia.. footnoted reference

Scroll down to the bottom where it says External Links.
Second link down is the official DLC List of members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Notice, Howard Dean's name is not on it...

The nndb link is extremely comprehensive and very current.
If you click on the member's name the info expands exponentialy.

I

[cadmium]

42. Note that this is a wikipedia topic

that they hedge their bets on the accuracy.

BTW. I may not care for the DLC at present, but they were not always all bad. THey had conservative Dem roots - like Al From but also were a tactical alliance to keep Democrats in the fight as union money support was becoming increasingly sparse compared with corporate money.

[cadmium]

44. have you looked at this nndb site? It looks like a thinly disguised hate

group or Moonie web site like "Jews Among Us"

I wouldnt trust them for updated content.

[Tellurian]

47. Click on John Kerry in the DLC list the links are awesome..

[noamnety]

53. "thinly disguised hate group"?

Um ... it's just a buncha profiles of people and groups, with tens of thousands of entries. Some examples:

Burt Bacharach
Executive summary: Incomparable composer of lounge music
http://www.nndb.com/people/300/000023231/

John Keats
Executive summary: English romantic poet
http://www.nndb.com/people/851/000024779/

John Kerry
Executive summary: US Senator from Massachusetts
http://www.nndb.com/people/512/000024440/

[cadmium]

61. I would bet anything. the site has

the earmarks of a hate group trying to appear legit (this is separate from the issue of the DLC)

note that they have special links to anyone's ancestry that is non-aryan: especially links to Jewish ancestry. I would bet that most of the rest of it is cover.

[noamnety]

64. Kinda like how they have a link

on the Cat Stevens page to his Swedish Ancestry, or to Julia Louis-Dreyfus and her French Ancestry, Pacino's Sicilian Ancestry, or Jessica Biel's French, German and Irish ancestry?

:eyes:

[MH1]

70. Loose with the facts, at best.

Who the hell produces this site? Why is that information not readily available?

http://blogs.cio.com/node/502

It's too bad that I can only post 4 paragraphs -

What about the fact that Ice-T's bio's "Executive Summary" says, simply, "Pimp, Cop killer" Does that mean he is a cop killer? A pimp? Even if the meaning of that "summary" is obvious to you, it's not to everyone and there's no other explanation of that phrase on the page.

I didn't get a chance to talk to the site's owners; there are no contact forms or names on the page at all. But here's what I'd guess (and it's only a guess) their defense is: They're only relaying already published information about people, most of whom are famous, which puts them at a different standard of law for invasion of privacy and libel than private citizens. But this is fuzzy. Is Terry Schiavo ("Executive Summary: Human vegetable 1990-2005") a famous person or private citizen. Eminem is certainly famous, but what about listing his brother's name and birthdate. (Eminem risk factors: "Homophobia, insomnia"). What about listing former Congressman Mark Foley's boyfriend's (or ex-boyfriend, it's not clear) name?

The attitude of the site to private information is as loosey-goosey as its standards for facts. Start with the outright errors: United States is not a nationality. Likewise, "Turkey" is an animal or something delicious you eat on Thanksgiving, not Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit's nationality. Mother Theresa's entry includes breathtaking lapses: "Ethnicity: White" (white more closely resembles a race, though technically it's not even that), "Nationality: India" and, this one is my favorite: "Executive Summary: Self-aggrandizing religious zealot." Hey, one person's saint.... (The soon-to-be-Saint Theresa of Calcutta only has one risk factor: Malaria).

For real fun, look at the bios of the deceased, religious and legendary (in the quasi-historical sense of the word). Take the Virgin Mary (Gender: Female Religion: Jewish Ethnicity: Middle Eastern Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Religion Nationality: Ancient Rome Executive summary: Virgin mother of Jesus Christ Date of birth: traditionally given as 8 September. Father: St. Joachim (tribe of David) Mother: St. Anne (tribe of Aaron) Husband: Joseph Son: Jesus Christ. Appears on the cover of:The Economist, 20-Dec-2003, DETAILS: Mary, star of both Bible and Koran). Billy the Kid's cause of death is listed as "justifiable homicide" and when you click on that link you find 16 others with the same cause of death, including Blackbeard, David Koresh, Sam Cooke, Pablo Escobar and Veerappan "India's greatest sandalwood smuggler."

If this article isn't enough to make the point...

[noamnety]

79. Perhaps you should check the accuracy/currency of your source

(Not that using the name of the country in its noun rather than adjectival form isn't a valid standard for determining whether something is a hate site or not.)

As far as the source you list, your first clue should be that they can't spell Mother Teresa. Second clue is that if you look at her executive summary, it's not "self-aggrandizing religious zealot" - it says: Missionaries of Charity.

Here's the real issue, though. Kerry has been a member of the DLC, and very much appears to still be a member of the DLC, and so far nobody who says he's no longer affiliated with them has been able to provide any evidence of him severing his ties. We've got some people in this thread claiming he NEVER was, which is clearly wrong. Some people seem to think there's no connection, none at all, which is also clearly wrong, since he's written for their website/paper, he's spoken at their functions, signed their documents, and he's listed on the .gov site as being part of their senatorial group.

So the deniers need to come to terms with that, rather than doing this "shoot the messenger" nonsense, refusing to acknowledge a fact they'd rather not admit by claiming a site is a thinly veiled hate site because they list people's demographics, heritage, military status, movie credits and memberships in various groups, sometimes with a bit of snark.

[MH1]

81. Perhaps you should check your conclusions.

Clearly, the Mother Teresa entry has been changed since the article was published in 2006. A check of the Internet Archive reveals the prior version, created 2/2006, has this:

http: //web.archive.org/web/20060211021519/http: // www. nndb.com/people/819/000027738/

Executive summary: Self-aggrandizing religious zealot

Personally, I don't care at all if Kerry is or is not a member of the DLC. However if someone is claiming a site to be reliable when in fact, it isn't, I have a big problem with that.

Who is behind NNDB? Have you found that out? (fwiw, I started searching for info on them via Google when I realized their site is not forthcoming with that info. Hmmm.)


Edited to add spaces to link - remove spaces to make it work - for some reason DU screws up the link if I just paste it in.

[noamnety]

106. I'll try this again

Here's the real issue, though. Kerry has been a member of the DLC, and very much appears to still be a member of the DLC, and so far nobody who says he's no longer affiliated with them has been able to provide any evidence of him severing his ties. We've got some people in this thread claiming he NEVER was, which is clearly wrong. Some people seem to think there's no connection, none at all, which is also clearly wrong, since he's written for their website/paper, he's spoken at their functions, signed their documents, and he's listed on the .gov site as being part of their senatorial group.

[MH1]

110. I am not one of the "some people" you refer to.

I am one of the "some people" who think it is usually unhelpful to judge someone based on whether they were at one time a member of a certain political organization.

Kerry's positions are far to the left of most DLC members, but more to the point, they line up with my own better than those of most other Dems.

A DU'er has done an interesting study of voting records (most liberal at the top, least liberal at the bottom):

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/1

So here is the complete list of numbers, decide for yourself:

Harkin (IO) 88.9
Lautenberg (NJ) 83.3
Boxer (CA) 83.3
Kerry (MA) -DLC 77.8
Kennedy (MA) 77.8
Feingold (WI) 77.8
Durbin (IL) 77.8
Sarbanes (MD) 72.2
Reed (RI) 72.2
Mikulski (MD) 72.2
Levin (MI) 72.2
Akaka (haw) 72.2
Obama (IL) 69.4
Wyden (OR) 66.7
Leahy (VT) 66.7
Dodd (conn) -DLC 66.7
Dayton (MN) 66.7
Biden (DE) 66.7
Bayh (IN) 66.7
Shumer (NY) -DLC 61.1
Reid (NV) 61.1
Inouye (haw) -DLC 61.1
Clinton (NY) -DLC 58.3
Stabenow (MI) -DLC 55.6
Murray (WA) 55.6
Dorgan (ND) -DLC 55.6
Byrd (WV) 50.0
Menendez (NJ)- DLC 50.0
Rockefeller (WV) 44.4
Kohl (WI) -DLC 44.4
Feinstein (CA) 41.7
Leiberman (CT) -DLC 38.9
Cantwell (WA) -DLC 38.9
Bingaman (NM) -DLC 38.9
Baucus (MT) -DLC 36.1
Johnson (SD) -DLC 33.3
Conrad (ND) -DLC 30.6
Carper (DE) -DLC 27.8
Salazar (CO) -DLC 22.2
Nelson (FL) -DLC 22.2
Lincoln(AR) -DLC 22.2
Pryor (AR) -DLC 19.4
Landrieu (LA)- DLC 16.7
Nelson (NE)- DLC 0.0

Of course, this reflects only that person's idea of which votes matter in such an analysis.

[cadmium]

138. maybe you don't believe me. This is how some hate groups

operate--classifying people on religion and ethnicity--There is as list for Jewish ancestry and another list for people who are Jewish. It is like child pornographers that bury their photos in sports or entertainment sites. You may not believe me and it could just be a couple disaffected teens in pajamas. My antennae are up -- I said I bet that this is a hate site (right of left I dont know). I didn't say I know for sure.

[noamnety]

148. Oh good grief

It's a site that classifies and crossreferences people in all kinds of ways.

"It mostly exists to document the connections between people, many of which are not obvious," notes the site's home page, with understatement. Yes, the pages listing every famous Skull and Bones member or every notable ever charged with pot possession may give predictable results, and even the revelation that Ann Coulter has second-degree links, via sex with Bill Maher, to black porn stars Heather Hunter and Coco Johnsen may strike some as only logical. But in the Dubya Nicknames page, the quiet encyclopedism of the NNDB proves itself an eye-opening tool of cultural critique—and a soothing alternative to the tub-thumping arguments of political bloggery. Sometimes you just want to let the data speak for themselves, and marvel."

From the village voice. http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0541,dibbell,68710,28.html

Honestly, I don't know why you're so hung up on the Jewish thing. They have lists of people who have won grammies, people who have gone to California State University, people who have had breast reduction surgery, people who have been on the Gong Show, people who have been on Air America, vegetarians, Born Again Christians - on and on and on. The idea is that it's an intelligence aggregator - you can sort people all different ways, based on open source information, and jump from person to person that way. It's like the Kevin Bacon thing.

[cadmium]

152. If that's true fine--At present I dont believe that because

there is premium emphasis put on religion, race, and ethnicity in the profiles. I am hung up as you say on the Jewish thing not so much because I am specifically worried about anti-semitism per se. It is a hallmark of hate groups to emphasise religion, race and ethnicity - with particular attention to Jewish backgrounds. Antisemitism isn't itself a hotbutton issue for me except as a surrogate issue for bigots looking for scapegoats. Look at the site www.jewwatch.com/ Ostensibly it is just a collection of data, but it looks to me like a database to give hate groups ammunition. The Village Voice article and banner is one thing that makes it seem more innocent, but at I'd have to see more to believe it. Do you discount the possiblity that hate groups use these data aggregators as I describe?

[noamnety]

157. I hardly think those are equivalent

A data base that links gong show appearances is not quite the same as a holocaust denier/jews are terrorists site that exists for the express purpose of compiling every negative story/nonstory that casts Jews in a bad light. Speaking as an ethnic jew here, btw.

Do hate groups focus on religion and race? Of course.

It takes a hell of a leap to get from that, though, to suspecting every group that collects and reports such demographics of being a hate group, in the absense of any other evidence. By your standards, CNN is a suspected hate group, as is the US census, the United Nations, and the Human Rights Campaign.

It's ironic to see someone trying to link the nndb to sites like jewwatch.com on the basis of them both collecting demographics, in the same thread where people are claiming that just because Kerry is a member of the DLC, writes for their journal, speaks at their events, and signs their position papers, that doesn't mean he has any connection to the organization at all.

[cadmium]

159. I told you what the site looks like to me

You see irony in that-ok - that's your right. We have gone from the topic of Kerry a long time ago from my end and I am considering this a sidebar about my sixth sense about this web site that obviously you don't share.

[ProSense]

41. It's not official

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.]

Find this list on the DLC's official website linked at that site:

http://www.ndol.org

[ShortnFiery]

38. The truth shall set us free!

"Kerry has not been a member of the DLC for a long time. He doesn't subscribe to their agenda." :thumbsup:

[mtnsnake]

36. So because they mentioned Kerry in regards to the DLC, but not Hillary, you're upset?

Such is life.

[ProSense]

37. No not upset,

calling it bs! A distortion is a distortion. What, do you think I should just chock it to a distortion shrug and move on?

If it's bs, call it bs!

[Tellurian]

40. PS.. it's better to face a Truth than to run from it..

What bothers me is no one double checked their information until now.

It was really a Blessing you posted the Huffington article..
Otherwise we never would have known. Kerry is DLC, like the Clintons.

[ProSense]

43. Clinton runs the DLC wing of the party.

I know you'd like Kerry to be to more like Clinton, but sorry, he isn't.

[Tellurian]

45. Accurate information is important to making informed decisions..

It seems the off putting negativity of the DLC was a major plank supporting the pro Kerry forum.
Tonight is just one of those nights that a major 'Truism' got debunked as a fallacy.

[MH1]

72. Yes, it is. Please see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3070546&mesg_id=3071930

[AtomicKitten]

49. well, there's this

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Kerry_Principles_+_Values.htm

Member of Democratic Leadership Council.

Kerry is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mission
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.
Who We Are
The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. The DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service. Throughout the 90’s, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton have helped produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history, the lowest unemployment in a generation, 22 million new jobs, cut the welfare rolls in half, reduced the crime rate for seven straight years, balanced the budget and streamlined the federal bureaucracy to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration.

Now, the DLC is promoting new ideas -- such as a second generation of environmental protection and new economy and technology development strategies -- that is distinctly different from traditional liberalism and conservatism to build the next generation of America’s leaders.
Source: Democratic Leadership Council web site 01-DLC0 on Nov 7, 2000

New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate.

Kerry adopted Third Way principles of the Democratic Leadership Council:

America and the world have changed dramatically in the closing decades of the 20th century. The industrial order of the 20th century is rapidly yielding to the networked “New Economy” of the 21st century. Our political and governing systems, however, have lagged behind the rest of society in adapting to these seismic shifts. They remain stuck in the left-right debates and the top-down bureaucracies of the industrial past.

The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. The core principles and ideas of this “Third Way” movement Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign in 1992, Tony Blair’s Labour Party in Britain in 1997, and Gerhard Shroeder’s Social Democrats in Germany in 1998.

1. The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none;
2. an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment;
3. and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.

The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces “tolerant traditionalism,” honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.
Source: Democratic Leadership Council web site 01-DLC1 on Nov 7, 2000

Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism.

Kerry signed the manifesto, "A New Politics for a New America":

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America’s basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.

* We believe:that government’s proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.
* in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.
* that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.
* that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.
* the Democratic Party’s mission is to expand opportunity, not government.
* that education must be America’s great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.
* that all Americans must have access to health insurance.
* in preventing crime and punishing criminals.
* in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.
* that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.
* in enhancing the role that civic entrepreneurs, voluntary groups, and religious institutions play in tackling America’s social ills.
* in strengthening environmental protection by giving communities the flexibility to tackle new challenges that cannot be solved with top-down mandates.
* government must combat discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation; defend civil liberties; and stay out of our private lives.
* that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
* in progressive internationalism -- the bold exercise of US leadership to foster peace, prosperity, and democracy.
* that the US must maintain a strong, technologically superior defense to protect our interests and values.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC0 on Aug 1, 2000

[farmbo]

50. WTF? The DLC's convention in Columbus was July 2005...not last weekend

This article is cut-n-paste from a variety of times and events. He seems to be bending over backwards to smeer Kerry.

:shrug:

[noamnety]

52. I think most of us got that.

1. "Last weekend" was quoting an older source, which most people could probably figure out from the phrase immediately following it: "the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections"

2. Yes, he cites multiple sources.

[Zodiak]

56. Kerry is DLC

That being said, he is the best DLCer in the Senate....th ONLY DLCer with a proveable progressive voting record.

[Tellurian]

57. Fine..

but the DLC paradigm has been used as a derogatory example for not voting for other DLC candidates running for president. Now, the dilemma they face is propping up a case for a double standard rebuttal that logic dictates could only suffice as damage control. See post # 55 and you'll know why.

[wyldwolf]

58. hysterical thread so far. You're in denial if you don't believe Kerry is DLC

[blm]

59. I have never had a problem with Kerry being in DLC because he represents the left

most often to that group who would be even further right if it happened been for lefties like Kerry pulling back from their excesses all these years.

SOMEONE had to be there to pull back. Kerry's still very left voting record is its own testimony. Kerry's amendments submitted to economic and trade bills were always in favor of environmental and labor protections. In the bully pulpit, he would be able to finally ADD those protections into trade bills.

I also see that some Kerry supporters weren't aware of the status of his membership in the DLC, but that goes more to the DLC's odd deceptiveness in the way they choose to list or not list publically, at any given time.

[wyldwolf]

62. My point is a matter of fact, not policy. The fact is, Kerry is DLC...

...and agrees with them on many issues.

also see that some Kerry supporters weren't aware of the status of his membership in the DLC, but that goes more to the DLC's odd deceptiveness in the way they choose to list or not list publically, at any given time.

1. Kerry has been a member since at least the early 90s. And until recently, his name appeared on a public list of members. Which can only mean "some Kerry supporters" are Johnny-come-latelys to the Kerry camp.

2. The DLC has no "odd deceptiveness in the way they choose to list or not list publically, at any given time." They listed publically until 2004. Now they only summarize. Nothing deceptive about it.

[blm]

73. The fact that you have to really search to find a current list isn't a sign of openness.

In my book.

[wyldwolf]

75. well, fortunately, everyone doesn't subscribe to the book of blm

[blm]

76. fortunately, not everyone believes that the DLC had purely innocent reasons for

making it difficult to search their lists for past and current members.

[wyldwolf]

82. But the fact remains. Kerry=DLC until there is a source that states otherwise.

It was really enlightening to hear him reference their "Progressive Internationalism" duing his campaign.

[blm]

86. It is a fact, as it is a fact that he is the furthest left of their group and is more liberal

than many Dems NOT belonging to the group.

It is also a fact that many DLCers loathe Kerry for sticking with his more left ideology and his dedication to open government and public financing of campaigns, that never sat well with the Clinton wing of the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

89. But STILL DLC. And provide a source for "many DLCers loathe Kerry..."

[blm]

102. You know it's true, just like I do.

It's in people like From's and Lieberman's voices and eyes whenever Kerry is the subject.

[wyldwolf]

104. No I don't. Give me a sourced example of "many"

[blm]

115. Like that sort of thing is publicly available - you know it isn't.

Care to explain why some of you DLC supporters certainly target Kerry with contempt here at DU?

[wyldwolf]

119. So you claim to have some inside information the rest of us don't?

How else could you state something as factual?

[blm]

129. You know there are those in the DLC targetting Kerry. You do, don't you?

And so do some of the other DLC supporters here. Why pretend otherwise?

Don't bother answering. Denial is more of your pretend.

[wyldwolf]

130. Like who? Name them, and give sourced examples.

[blm]

149. Just like we KNOW that Carville and Co targetted Dean. We have no certain proof

that it came from the Clinton camp, but we KNOW it did.

That's the way it is. Did you ever show proof that the DLC is NOT out to target Dems like Dean and Kerry?

[wyldwolf]

150. You got nothing, blm.

[blm]

151. You have no proof that they don't target Dean and Kerry.

Tuff sh!t, eh?

[wyldwolf]

153. you got nothing, blm. And you're changing the subject, too

[blm]

156. You got something - DLC apologistitis.

They target good Dems like Dean and Kerry and most of us know it and you deny it. Enjoy your gig. I think it sucks.

[wyldwolf]

158. LOL! And you've got "truthiness" syndrome

[Tellurian]

91. How can you propagate such LIES..

Time and time again your proven wrong.

yet you still insist facts are irrelevant
to your nuanced statements.

Check the graphic of Kerry's leanings compared to Edwards and Kucinich..

[MH1]

94. Well, there's this.

[wyldwolf]

97. How does that have anything to do with this....

that many DLCers loathe Kerry for sticking with his more left ideology and his dedication to open government and public financing of campaigns, that never sat well with the Clinton wing of the DLC.

Unproven. Completely fabricated.

[blm]

107. Kerry IS the furthest left of the DLC members in the senate - and if you really

want to go back to ratings of the 2004 candidates, Kerry's cumulative ratings were more liberal than Kucinich's because of DK's votes with Republicans on abortion and flagburning issues. As a longtime supporter of DK's I am pleased that he came around on those issues, but they still effect his ratings on some of those dumb graphs and charts that in no way measure other serious business in congress, such as investigations or attempted legislation.

And you should stop calling people liars. It's against DU rules.

The American Conservative Union rates candidates, too.


ACU Ratings for the Likely 2008 Presidential Candidates

Republicans
Name Lifetime Rating 2005 Rating
Representative Tom Tancredo (CO) 99 100
Senator Sam Brownback (KS) 95 100
Senator George Allen (VA) 92 100
Representative Duncan Hunter (CA) 92 92
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (GA) 90 N/A
Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) 86 96
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) 89 92
Senator John McCain (AZ) 83 80
Democrats
Name Lifetime Rating 2005 Rating
Senator Evan Bayh (IN) 21 20
Senator Joseph Biden (DE) 14 8
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) 13 N/A
Senator Russ Feingold (WI) 12 13
Former Senator John Edwards (NC) 10 N/A
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) 9 12
Former Vice President Al Gore (TN) 9 N/A
Senator Barack Obama (IL) 8 8
Senator John Kerry (MA) 5 8
ACU does not rate mayors (e.g., Rudy Giuliani) or governors (e.g., Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney and Tom Vilsack).

Ratings from 1971 through 2005 are available at www.acuratings.org.

[wyldwolf]

113. So? Where are those "many DLCers" who don't like Kerry you claim exist?

Are you running from that claim now?

[blm]

116. Go to your own post for your reply.

Your game is so obvi.

[wyldwolf]

121. I've never seem someone use incoherence as a defense until your post.

[ProSense]

131. Problem is you have no absolute proof of that!

All of this is based on Kerry speaking to the group and Al From trying to align his organization with the nominee to prove himself relevant.

Kenneth Baer, author of the book Reinventing Democrats, which chronicles the rise of the DLC, agreed that the organization still has relevance for the party, particularly with Kerry as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Kerry is neither a card-carrying New Democrat nor is he a card-carrying non-New Democrat,” Baer said. “He represents a synthesis.”

link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787618&mesg_id=2787618

[Tellurian]

60. You're right..

I think I was guilty of a teeny, tiny, smile when the Truth came popping up like a cantankerous weed in the Rose Garden.

[wyldwolf]

63. much like the DU state of denial back in '05 when Tim Kaine won in VA...

[Tellurian]

68. Whats wrong with Raising Kaine

and kicking Republican *sses to the curb?

[wyldwolf]

69. Nothing at all. But many on DU refused to believe he was DLC

[MH1]

71. Hysterical for the collection of bogus links so far posted.

NNDB? Give me a f***in' break. See my post upthread, or just go here:

http://blogs.cio.com/node/502

[wyldwolf]

74. how 'bout those links claiming otherwise? WAIT! There ARE none!

But here's one for you:

"...The DLC comprises three main clusters of New Democrats. The largest is a group of nearly 400 national, state, and local legislators and officials. This contingent includes a wide range of centrist and conservative Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts..."

September 1, 2006

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

(This is the source the Left always uses when referring to the DLC, so I guess it MUST be reliable.)

[MH1]

78. A better link, but still an unsourced claim. And demonstrably incorrect on one point.

Unless of course, your definition of "centrist and conservative" (which they are claiming Kerry is - lol) is very, very broad.

Look Kerry up on almost any scorecard (such as OnTheIssues.org and one that was posted on another thread) and he is well in the left part of the spectrum of current Congressmembers, not near the center. And "conservative" is just laughable, except perhaps to people who think socialism is too far "right" for their tastes.

[Tellurian]

88. Apparently, you haven't done your homework..

If you scroll down to the very bottom of your suggested site, OnTheIssues.org, you will find a RATING GRAPHIC pinpointing a candidates leanings.

Kerry above all stands BARELY to the Left of Center as opposed to the Left Leaning Edwards and Kucinich
shown in the ratings graphics.. Therefore, Kerry is more CONSERVATIVE than I ever thought. Thanks for the info though..




JOHN KERRY




JOHN EDWARDS




DENNIS KUCINICH

There is a rule though, in case you're unaware. The Rule states:

"That when your in a HOLE, the First thing you do IS STOP DIGGING!

[noamnety]

80. yes, bogus links

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca10_tauscher/012301_edreform.html

[MH1]

83. January 23, 2001.

btw, I am not one who cares about Kerry's DLC status. I am just pointing out that some of the sources posted above are laughable.

Yours is not, however it is a tad out-of-date.

[wyldwolf]

85. so where is the source stating Kerry is NOT DLC? Right. There ARE none.

[MH1]

99. Why does it matter? It's irrelevant to the OP. Hillary is a LEADER of the DLC.

Why is Kerry being singled out? That is the point of the OP.

[wyldwolf]

105. ...and Kerry is a MEMBER. Why deny it?

[MH1]

108. Where have I denied it? n/t

[wyldwolf]

111. questioning reliable sources is the same thing

[MH1]

114. Huh? Don't tell me you actually believe that apple = orange? n/t

[wyldwolf]

123. Here's a source! "It isn't reliable!" OK, here's another. "It's three years old..."

[wyldwolf]

84. Well, there ya go! A solid link that won't be good enough for some here

[Tellurian]

90. The graphics link from their approved site shows just the opposite..

Geeze, I feel like we're shooting Skeet here..

BLM argument just got shot down at 12 o'clock, MH1, is down at 2 o'clock..

[MH1]

92. Huh?

wwhat link are you referring to?

[Tellurian]

98. Repost from #88

Apparently you haven't done your homework..

If you scroll down to the very bottom of your suggested site, OnTheIssues.org, you will find a RATING GRAPHIC pinpointing a candidates leanings.

Kerry above all stands BARELY to the Left of Center as opposed to the Left Leaning Edwards and Kucinich
shown in the ratings graphics.. Therefore, Kerry is more CONSERVATIVE than I ever thought. Thanks for the info though..




JOHN KERRY




JOHN EDWARDS




DENNIS KUCINICH

There is a rule though, in case you're unaware. The Rule states:

"That when your in a HOLE, the First thing you do IS STOP DIGGING!

[MH1]

101. DUH! Not Centrist or conservative. As I stated.

You pick two other people to compare? Where is the list of the entire Congress, showing Kerry's relative position? (btw I am looking for that link, it was recently posted but I haven't found it yet)

meanwhile, there's this, if we want to take a handful of representatives (this graphic shows your "centrist and conservative Democrats, and shows that Kerry is not a member of that group):

[MH1]

93. And, oh, the irony.

Like many here, I enjoy unemotional well written repartee based in facilitating understanding rather than egotistical gamesmanship.

From your own post above.

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

95. Yes, you surprised me with great info disputing your own claims

Ck the grahics I linked from your source..

Thanks, again..

[MH1]

96. Edwards and Kucinich do not demonstrate the entire spectrum. n/t

[Tellurian]

100. They demonstrate they are LEFT of the Conservative, Kerry..

by national standards..

[MH1]

103. Sure, there are two people in the world "left" of Kerry, by one site's graphic -

And rather more Dems to the right of him.

Meanwhile, Edwards COSPONSORED the IWR - he helped write the bill that gave Bush authority for the war - Kerry preferred the other bill (Biden-Lugar I think). So, who was more "left" (or "DLC" if you will) in that case?

[Tellurian]

109. nope, nope and nope..You picked the site. I found the Truth..

The fact is, Kucinich is a Left leaning presidential candidate and so is Edwards.

Fantastic, perfect comparisons to the Conservative Kerry.

[MH1]

112. Love your "egotistical gamesmanship", dude. (your words!) n/t

[Tellurian]

117. Nah, the gamesmanship I was referring to is

(You're a good sport, even though you were misinformed.)

using the new block function, or the ignore feature, or telling you you're in violation of DU Rules when the goin gets tough! Thats what I meant by gamesmanship. Sorry, you weren't aware of what goes on here.

So, anyway..If Kerry decides not to run, I'd appreciate your support for Hillary.

How about it?

[MH1]

125. Hillary? No f******* way.

She showed her true colors when she chose to join a right wing smear instead of supporting Democrats. She is an unprincipled opportunistic ----- in my opinion. I wouldn't trust her to run this country.

She only gets my vote in the general if she gets the nomination and it's close in my state.

If Kerry doesn't run I will choose someone to back and work my ass off to make sure I don't face an awful choice in the general.

[Tellurian]

127. I'll be watching you work your ass off..

with me, because Hillary will WIN the nomination..

Unless you prefer another Republican president.
Then all bets are off..

:toast:

[MH1]

128. Depending on the republican, I might.

That's how awful I think Hillary is.

If she wins the nomination I just may give up politics, because I will know that the Democratic Party is unsalvageable.


JMHO though, obviously you think differently.

[Tellurian]

132. Well, then don't be such a stranger then..

Come here to learn more about how the Republicans have destroyed our country, namely in the name of GREED.
And hopefully, you will realize just how deadly Republicans are to govern this country.

regrets..

I'm off now..

next time under better circumstances..

Ciao! :hi:

[MH1]

143. Hillary has shown she is willing to help Republicans destroy our country.

She has made that abundantly clear.

By her actions she has revealed herself.

I used to advocate not "bashing" Hillary, as I thought she was a "good Demcorat". Well, she put herself in the Zell Miller category with me. She is by no means a "good Democrat" now, if she ever was, and I consider her untrustworthy and essentially a member of the corporatist cabal.

And if her current opportunism and undermining of other Democrats is not based on GREED (just like the republicans you refer to), then where is it coming from? (except I would say GREED FOR POWER, but that's me.)

[Tellurian]

140. One more thing.. I double checked your info and I WAS right.!

As a Leader.. regarding Kucinich..my graphic was 100% correct..

Left leaning...from the center.. That leaves Kerry off by his lonesome!

You must have clicked on another link..

Hmmm....I guess, I'll need to do a DiNero..."I.m watching you!"

The link: and scroll to the bottom..

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[MH1]

144. My mistake (I think) - Apparently the other link is no good.

So, I wonder why OnTheIssues.org has two different graphics for Kucinich? Did you go to the page I linked (http://www.issues2000.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm ) and note the graphic at the bottom was what I posted?

Apparently they have a new section for 2008 candidates and they updated the info there, but not on the old pages.

Meanwhile, if you check a variety of sites, you will not find Kerry "on his lonesome". And let's look at where Hillary is:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton_VoteMatch.htm




Compare again to Kerry:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm

[MH1]

118. Here's an example of the spectrum

Doesn't note Kucinich specifically, but there's no doubt he would be to the left of Kerry - that is something I would never dispute.

As for Edwards, I will have to look into the basis for the OnTheIssues graphic a little better. It doesn't make much sense, but it may also be that I am wrong about Edwards.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

135. And

Anti-death penalty

[MH1]

122. Holy cow, according to this, your graphic is WRONG.

Kucinich: http://www.issues2000.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

scroll to the bottom and this is what you see:





Kerry: http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm




They are the same image because they have almost the same scores.

Hmmm.

[Tellurian]

126. Thanks...for posting it..

It was an honest mistake for Kuchinch, then.

So, Kucinich is as Conservative as Kerry.. Thanks for the info!

That leaves Edwards as the most LIberal then..

I can live with that..

[Firespirit]

136. OK, that says it all

Kucinich is as "Conservative" as Kerry, and Edwards is more liberal.

According to a graphic that is known to be slanted towards the anti-government libertarian point of view.

Kucinich a conservative. Now I've heard it all.


:hi:

[ProSense]

137. I think the goal

is to get the thread locked since the OP shows Clinton as the leader of the DLC.

[noamnety]

120. More bogus links Aug 2005

by 2006, they'd scrubbed their member list. Aug 2005 is the last visible membership list on the DLC website in the wayback machine.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051103234405/www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[ProSense]

134. That proves nothing.

All of this is based on Kerry speaking to the group and Al From trying to align his organization with the nominee to prove himself relevant.

Kenneth Baer, author of the book Reinventing Democrats, which chronicles the rise of the DLC, agreed that the organization still has relevance for the party, particularly with Kerry as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Kerry is neither a card-carrying New Democrat nor is he a card-carrying non-New Democrat,” Baer said. “He represents a synthesis.”

link

The DLC has a long history of just listing people who they claim support their agenda. Kerry was the nominee so they latched on.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/15/205319/558

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787618&mesg_id=2787618

[wyldwolf]

139. Definition of "card carrying"

1. admittedly belonging to a group or party: a card-carrying Communist.
2. Often Facetious. dedicated to an ideal, profession, or interest: a card-carrying humanist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/card%20carrying

All of this is based on Kerry speaking to the group and Al From trying to align his organization with the nominee to prove himself relevant.

Multiple sources quoted in this thread show Kerry's membership in the DLC long before he was the nominee.

The DLC has a long history of just listing people who they claim support their agenda.

And then you proceed to name one. Just one.

[noamnety]

141. y'all are funny when it comes to blinders

"As a charter member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, Kerry has often rejected the stale left-right options that disguise the real choices facing the country -- choices that are rarely reflected in mechanical interest-group Congressional vote ratings, but that are in line with the real sentiments of the American people.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252427

If you want to say you don't care that he's a member because you agree with his views, that's fine. But the denial in this thread is stunning.

[cadmium]

142. That's not entirely what the concern is.

I don't care if he is or was a DLC member. I renew membership in groups with whom I have disagreements. It is the overall tone of the Huffington peice that suggests that he is on board with the most ugly sentiments right-wing sentiments. This quote for instance has no relevance to Kerry or Gore

"To them, the Democratic Party had become too open to the political voices of African Americans and Latinos, too respectful of the rights of working Americans and the labor movement"

I would certainly hope we would take offense to that comment--I would think less of us if we didnt

Now if you want to extrapolate that being in favor of NAFTA and GATT were somehow bigoted against African-Americans and Latinos -- I think that this is a stretch--;you may not.

[zulchzulu]

154. I'm a card-carrying member and financial contributor to the ACLU

Should I quit my membership because they stick up for the right of Nazis to express themselves or for Rush Limbaugh not to have his medical history released?

There are other cases that the ACLU stands by that I disagree with. Should I burn my card?

Whether Kerry is or is not a member of the DLC is one issue. There are lists saying he was a member and others that don't contain his name. There have been statements by him as well as by people who know Kerry who say that he doesn't agree with ALL of their positions...namely the war stance and other issues.

Should Kerry (if he is a member) of the DLC quit and not allow his opinions and voice to be part of the group?

Should I give up my Chamber of Commerce membership because I disagree with some of the other members' position on smart growth?

The answer, imho, is no.

Painting all members of the DLC as one binary, draconian, death-loving, warmongering "conservative" group is simplistic, sophmoric hogwash.

As for the post mentioning Nader (who has made lots of money of defense stocks) and the silly "Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?", that is pure dope-headed bunk. Kerry refused to oppose the war? There are plenty of speeches where he absolutely opposed the war that Bush was hell-bent on starting. We can all walk down the circular argument alley with the IWR, but Kerry was firmly against a preemptive strike on Iraq...

As for Huffington, shall we all really get down in the mud and ask her why she was a Republican up to very recent times? Surely, being a member of the DLC in the past is far better than being a registered Republican...no?

(on edit: added the last paragraph)

[cadmium]

160. you beat me to it. I'm a card-carrying

member of the Rainbow Coalition and over the years I have disagreed with them. Overall---I agree with them and feel they deserve support.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

155. in huffpo's defense

they posted a scathing critique of clinton by jeff cohen yesterday