Third Way sets policy for Dems. Says not to defund the surge.

[madfloridian]

I will make you a bet this is exactly how it will go down. The Third Way which is tied to the DLC is making policy. Here is Al From talking about it:

Who Owns the Third Way

I wrote about how this group is setting the policy for the Democrats, and why I think it should be questioned. They have too much policy making power for the Democrats.

About the DLC, its goals

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational.

Here are their policy talking points about the surge. Heard any of them lately?

http://www.third-way.com/products/69

Abstract
A short memo outlining an idea for Congress: demanding that the President provide a plan for ending America’s combat operarations in Iraq.

Description
The President has offered up yet another in a long line of “plans for victory”, but he has never told the country exactly how or when the United States would end its involvement in the Iraq War. Rather than fighting over troop numbers, we recommend in this memo that Congress demand such a plan from the President.

The full statement is in pdf version. Here is part of it.

http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/69/Pressing_the_President_on_Iraq.pdf

Third Way supports the idea for a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the escalation. But going further, with legislation barring the troop increase, would be a mistake, for both substantive and political reasons. First, we do not believe that Congress should use the imprecise mechanism of appropriations to dictate the management of an ongoing military conflict. There is simply no way of ensuring that funding restrictions would not compromise the safety of the troops already in the field, and it is generally a bad idea for Congress to be dictating the details of military strategy. Moreover, continuing to argue over troop numbers keeps the debate on the President’s terms: the tactics of an open-ended commitment to combat operations in Iraq.

We therefore recommend that Congress take up – either by free-standing legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution or by a rider on the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq – legislation requiring the President to submit to Congress within three months a plan laying out precisely when and how American combat operations in Iraq will come to an end. Members should put a limit on the length of the President’s plan for an end to the war – we suggest 18 months or two years. Congress also should press the President to lay out the details, both through hearings and in his report – how the United States would begin to disengage militarily in Iraq. This includes the phases and manner of military redeployment and how American strategic interests in the region will be protected, etc.

Iraq is now second only to Vietnam in the length of US involvement in a foreign conflict. In the elections of 2006 and in subsequent surveys, Americans have spoken clearly: huge majorities now believe it is time for Congress to require a genuinely new direction in Iraq, one that leads to an end of this nation’s combat there.

I agree that it is time to have a new direction....straight out of there. Talking to Bush is useless, and they know it. Democrats were elected to do something.

The DLC arm of the party also set policy in 2003 by declaring Howard Dean not fit to be the nominee. This group is a 501...they are not supposed to advocate for or against candidates.

DLC says Dean not fit to the nominee in 03

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

As founder of the DLC, From has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right for nearly 20 years. He was in tall cotton, philosophically speaking, when an early leader of the DLC, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. As Clinton's domestic policy guru, Reed pushed New Democrat ideas -- such as welfare reform -- that were often unpopular with party liberals.

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

They should have been held accountable for that, but they weren't.

[madfloridian]

1. PPI's Will Marshall says almost the same thing....defunding is "a bridge too far"

The PPI is the foreign policy arm of the DLC, another part of the triangle...DLC\PPI\Third Way.

http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254171&kaid=124&subid=307

TNR Online | Article | January 12, 2007
What Should Democrats Say About the Surge
By Will Marshall

After the electorate gave his Iraq policies a massive vote of no confidence in November, President Bush faced a pivotal moment. He could persist in his stubborn and increasingly lonely pursuit of an ill-defined American "victory" in Iraq, or he could try to broaden the base of political support behind an orderly reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group illuminated a bipartisan path forward.

In Wednesday's address, a somber decider-in-chief decided essentially to stay the course. The puzzling thing is why he bothered to build up expectations for a major shift in U.S. strategy. After all, he could have quietly increased troop levels without sparking a polarizing new debate over today's burning question: To surge or not to surge. (Senator Jim Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, rightly called the surge into proper perspective: "It's very marginal; it's tactical," he said after the speech.) So how should Democrats react?

They should use Congress as their bully pulpit -- to pass a resolution expressing their lack of confidence in Bush's new plan, to subject his new Iraq team to tough questioning when it comes to testify, and, above all, to hold the Bush administration accountable for achieving the progress he promised Wednesday. (Accountability could come in the form of more hearings and resolutions, as well as investigations.) Democrats could also usefully press the White House to start planning for the worst -- large scale ethnic cleansing, refugee flows, and regional intervention -- should Iraq spiral deeper into chaos.

Some Democrats would like to go further -- by withholding funding for the additional troops. For a variety of reasons, however, this is a bridge too far. First, where Democrats (joined by some Republicans) would unite behind a resolution disapproving the Bush plan, many will be loath to cut off funding for troops that have already started deploying to Iraq. Why put the party's disunity on public display

I think it may be past time to show the party's disunity.

And more about the Third Way, its founding and purpose...at the PPI website which ties to the DLC website at the tabs on top.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=128

[welshTerrier2]

2. wait wait ... don't tell me ... where have i heard this before?

the Third Way sounds an awful lot like the bush way ... quoted from the OP:

"First, we do not believe that Congress should use the imprecise mechanism of appropriations to dictate the management of an ongoing military conflict."

sound kind of familiar? it does to me ... it sounds like the abdication of Congressional responsibility! what Constitution is the above derived from? how can anyone so blindly turn their back on the clear intent of the country's Founders? did they not provide the cut-off of funds DURING WARTIME as a remedy against presidential abuse of power? I'll choose the country's Founders over these Third Way clowns every time ...

so, the Third Way clowns want to let bush keep going with his war and occupation ... sounds like language we've seen before ... what a tragedy the last time was ... from the IWR that led to this catastrophe in the first place:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

[madfloridian]

3. Does sound familiar.

Very familiar.

[madfloridian]

4. The Iran policy.

Never mind...too much fodder for right wing. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

5. Just one more thing before this disappears...

The GOP allowed special interest and policy gurus to take over, and look what happened. I have a fear that is what is happening to our party all over again.

I notice there is not much interest in it, so best it drops. But perusing that site will let you see where the words are coming from that our Democrats speak on TV.

And I did find a response Dean made to this press conference back in 2003.

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003/05/media-noticing-inspiration-primary.html

"NEWSWEEK: Two leaders of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, Al From and Bruce Reed, criticized you on May 15 as an elitist McGovern liberal. What’s your reaction to that?

DEAN: I really think this is mostly the old Democrats, not the New Democrats talking. These are the guys that want to protect the inside-the-Beltway folks and it’s not going to work. Inside the Beltway doesn’t win this election.

NEWSWEEK: How do you combat this?

DEAN: I don’t worry about it. Bill Clinton and Jim Jeffords have already done more than I could ever do.

NEWSWEEK: Did it surprise you that the DLC would come after you like this?

DEAN: It was stunning. I couldn’t believe it. I only thought Republicans treated other Republicans like this … I’ll tell you something. I was in Seattle last night. We had a crowd of 1,200 people. I asked at one point, “How many of you have not been involved in politics in the last 10 years,” and half of them raised their hand.

NEWSWEEK: That’s the Democratic dream, to bring in new voters.

DEAN: That’s right. That’s the Democratic dream, and the tired old folks from inside Washington can’t do that."

[wyldwolf]

6. Here we go again... Think tanks do not set policy

[madfloridian]

7. Maybe you need to read my post.

The Third Way has the very words coming out of their mouths.

[wyldwolf]

8. Really? Where? I see "recommendations" and "ideas"

For example, I would recommend to DU that posts like yours be scrutinized for misleading titles and such. But I certainly am not setting policy for DU.

[madfloridian]

9. The Democrats are allowing them to set policy, then....better?

Our Democrats use the very words from that site. It is almost done without questioning, like it is by rote. I question that they are allowing a single set of groups to set policy.

If you don't like what I write, WW, contact the administrators. Or better yet, put me on ignore.

[wyldwolf]

10. If that is true (which it really isn't), then your problem is with the Democrats.

Maybe you should clean house - starting at the top?

[madfloridian]

11. The top of what? Our side is just getting started, my friend WW.

So the top of the DNC is fine. The top of the DCCC is better now.

[wyldwolf]

14. the top of the party, "my friend."

Our side is just getting started

Looks like you're stumbling out of the gate.

[ulysses]

13. if their adherents are in positions of power

they surely do set policy.

[wyldwolf]

15. but they're not.

[madfloridian]

19. Now wait a minute....

I was told the New Dems had the most power...and when I said progressives were gaining I was put down. Now you say they don't have the power...which is it.

[wyldwolf]

20. like many, you confuse "New Dems" with organizations like third-way and DLC

"New Democrats" hold many many elected positions, but not all are a part of an organization of such, and the organizations have no policy decision making power over the Democratic party.

[madfloridian]

21. The New Dems are linked from the DLC page.

http://dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103

And here:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=109&contentid=894

The New Democrat movement includes hundreds of elected officials, from the federal level to the state and local levels. Organizations active in the movement include:


The Democratic Leadership Council (www.DLC.org), a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization founded in 1984 -- the original home and leading edge of the movement. Under the leadership of its founder and chief executive officer, Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular political support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions. (Click here to learn more about the DLC's affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, www.ppionline.org.)

The House New Democrat Coalition, a group of 74 moderate, pro-growth members of the House of Representatives working to find mainstream, bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems. The NDC was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (CA), Jim Moran (VA), and Tim Roemer (IN). More About the House NDC

The Senate New Democrat Coalition, a group of 20 moderate, pro-growth members of the United States Senate, founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

The New Democrat Network (www.ndn.org), a political action committee founded in 1996, which gives financial support to New Democrat candidates and elected officials. The NDN's president and founder is Simon Rosenberg. The NDN is not affiliated with the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

no, the House and Senate New Dem Coalitions are. You do know the difference...

[madfloridian]

24. Oh, jeez Louise......you are playing games now.

.

[wyldwolf]

25. ..and you're showing you're not quite as knowledgeable on the matter as you think

[madfloridian]

28. See my post below.

Then tell me the difference. New Dems, New House Democrat Coalition, Senate New Democrat Coalition. Tell me the difference.

Explain with sources. Now or quit implying I am lying.

[wyldwolf]

29. I'm not implying you're lying. I'm stating you are misinformed.

A New Democrat is a Democrat with a political philosophy that emerged after Reagan won a second term - center-left on social issues and center-right on fiscal and foreign policy.

The Senate and House New Dem Coalitions are organized coalitions of New Democrats in the House and Senate. However, these don't include New Dems who are governors, mayors, councilmen, etc., nor do they include all Senators and Reps who are New Dems, like the Salazar and Biden.

[madfloridian]

32. So I am saying the same thing you are.

So why do you keep arguing?

[wyldwolf]

33. You're saying the entire New Dem movement is the same as the Congressional coalitions

... of New Dems. They are not the same.

It would be like someone saying everyone who is a peanut farmer is a member of the Federation of Peanut Farmers.

[ulysses]

37. semantics.

I guess that explains the need for so many related organizations, though.

[wyldwolf]

39. no it isn't. Can you be a plumber and not be in a plumber's union?

[ulysses]

40. sure. you can also be

a Blue Dog Plumber, or a Third Way Plumber (totally different organization, so semantically not to be held to the Blue Dog agenda), or a New Plumber (or a member of one of several New Plumber sub-groups; the same qualifier regarding agenda applies).

They still plumb the same shit.

[wyldwolf]

42. no, you can only be a blue dog plumber if you're an member of that coalition...

... otherwise, you're just a conservative Democrat.

[ulysses]

44. I never said otherwise.

Not sure what you're getting at.

[wyldwolf]

48. you said the distinction was mere semantics. I say it is isn't.

[madfloridian]

12. The Iran policy is talk tough, keep war on the table.

Do at search at the site above. And that is what the Dems are doing...talking tough and keeping war on the table.

[JNelson6563]

16. Publishing wish list

Hoping some winger disguised as a Dem can get this done. You will note how lame and criticism of your OP is by the sidestepping. No matter that this pap outta the "third way" is so horribly, horribly misguided, no, let's talk about how (thankfully) powerless these assholes are. That'll neutralize it, yeah, that's the ticket.

:rofl:

Julie

[madfloridian]

17. Hi, Julie...they have to "sidestep" because they can't address it honestly.

:hi:

Just read a few of the talking points on Iran. It is amazing. I will just post a link to their plans. I figure since Dean said on CNN that he would not answer a question about defunding the escalation because he did not want to hurt congressional plans....that he won't be any help on this now.

I figure that since they are nearly all talking like this...they must be paying attention.

http://www.third-way.com/search?query=iran

[wyldwolf]

18. maybe if it was FRAMED honestly...

...

[Generator]

22. I was watching Terry -oh what's his name

Terry Mclauflie (sp) on C-Span book notes this weekend. I WONDERED how I got a e-mail from him about his book, "What a party!" Anyway..

What struck me was his thinking the only way to end the war is get a Dem (Hillary, his gal) in the white house in 2008. Well of course. That's a certain amount of reality based thinking but it also means believing that nothing can be done to stop Bush/neocon agenda until 2009 because that is the mindset. Nothing can be done until a Dem is in the White House so nothing will be done.

So trust Hillary to end the war and nothing is going to happen until then. But should I trust a Dem that isn't that strong on ending the war NOW to do it then? Is that logical?

The third way seems to me a way to have your cake and eat it too. Get a pass for the mistakes of the past, do nothing of substance now, and then promises promises it will all be fixed when you elect me.

[Cascadian]

23. If you support the DLC, you support the war.

Not to mention the PNAC.


John

[harveyc]

26. If you fund a war, you bought it ...

This is all BS.

There are more than sufficient funds remaining in the FY 2007 supplemental to withdraw our troops from Iraq safely.

Also, Campbell vs. Clinton 1999, "Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces."

If the FY 2008 supplemental is passed, Congress won't have a leg to stand on with any further action on the Iraqi war.

[madfloridian]

27. Al From says the US version of Third Way is the New Democrats.

They call themselves New Dems, New Democrat Coalition...

And I don't like being told I am lying.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=901

Opportunity. Responsibility. Community. Those New Democrat themes rang out over and over at an extraordinary, historic forum entitled "The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century," hosted by the Democratic Leadership Council on April 25 in Washington after the close of the NATO summit. The participants were President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Netherlands Prime Minister Wim Kok, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema -- the leading figures of the global Third Way movement.

Progressive political leaders created this movement to deal with new social and political questions posed by economic change and globalization. It seeks to strike a new balance between the imperatives of economic dynamism and social justice.

This politics goes by different names in different countries. It's New Democrat in America, New Labour in Great Britain, and the New Middle in Germany. Whatever its national label, Third Way values, ideas, and approaches to governing are modernizing center-left politics around the globe. The Third Way uses innovative ideas and modern means to advance fundamental progressive principles

And here are the words of Bill Clinton while president, claiming ownership of the Third Way.

The President best summarized our progress in his speech to the DLC last December. "These words -- opportunity, responsibility, community -- came to identify and embody a new approach to government and politics, tying our oldest, most enduring values to the Information Age," he said. "We said we were New Democrats, and we called our approach the Third Way.

"These same ideas are reviving center-left political parties throughout the industrialized world as people everywhere struggle to put a human face on the global economy," the President continued. "And it all started with the DLC ... Today, less than 15 years after we started, the ideas pushed by the DLC are literally sweeping the world."

[depakid]

30. These people are nothing more that far right enablers

who've cost the Dems 12 years worth of election losses.

The faster their ilk is run out of positions of power, the better.

[wyldwolf]

31. standard challenge... must be the 200th time...

PROVE the DLC has cost the Dems elections. There is no evidence to even suggest it.

[madfloridian]

34. If the Democrats follow this "tough and smart keep war on table" talk....

about Iran, I am fearful of what will happen. Are they willing to go along with bombing Iran, even with surgical strikes while our troops are in Iran?

http://www.third-way.com/products/43

What will happen to our military who are already in harm's way? I hate to use the word hostage, but if Bush bombs Iran lets be real. There are about 135 thousand plus a little more maybe of our guys there. In Iraq alone there are over 20 million, and they are in disarray.

Our Democrats seem to be adopting this theme of keeping war on the table. They seem perfectly content to let this group set the policy. It is easy to be a TV talking head, or stand behind a podium and spout these tough and smart words.

Why are they doing it? It sounds even worse and even more obvious than before Iraq was invaded.

While they are posturing with Bush at a week-end retreat, the soldiers are dying. Bottom line.

[wyldwolf]

35. Yeah, I saw them all lining up for advice from Harold Ford at the winter meeting.

NOT!

:eyes:

MF, no matter how many times you say it or bump your own thread, the DLC does not set policy for the party.

[madfloridian]

36. I hear them talking "tough and smart" all over TV.

I think some would rather be ugly to others than care about the dangers of our party going along. It is all fun and games to some.

[wyldwolf]

38. show me where the DLC has called up Reid, Pelosi, and Dean and said "talk tough and smart."

[derby378]

41. I have no use for Third Way...

Sheesh.

[bread_and_roses]

43. Won't impeach, won't defund, seem timid on investigation....

won't support true universal health care, support free trade, virtually silent on now repeating Rep Iraq manipulations re: Iran...despite the polls, despite the public being out ahead of them....makes one wonder, yes.

[madfloridian]

45. Good points.

:hi:

[Daylin Byak]

46. Intresting points

We need to kick special intrests out of DC for good so that our elected officals can govern clearly.

[madfloridian]

47. I am sorry you see hate. I don't feel that way.

When we controlled congress in 02, and we voted to let Bush have his war...it was like someone poured cold water on my head. It made no sense. It took a while but during the primaries things began to sink in.

I was agreeing with what this poster above me said. Democrats should not be acting like this.

"won't support true universal health care, support free trade, virtually silent on now repeating Rep Iraq manipulations re: Iran...despite the polls, despite the public being out ahead of them....makes one wonder, yes."

It does worry me.

[wyldwolf]

50. we didn't control congress in '02.

[madfloridian]

53. Should have said one part of congress.

I was going by this...I thought we held the senate by a slight majority of one until Nov. then even lost that.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/elec02.main.day/

Looking strong by giving Bush the power he wanted did not really help us win.

[wyldwolf]

49. how many points are you wrong on here?

Pelosi took impeachment off the table.
DLC does support universal healthcare.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Senators involved with the Third Way:

Our Honorary Senate Chairs

*
Blanche Lambert Lincoln
U.S. Senator, Arkansas
*
Evan Bayh
U.S. Senator, Indiana
*
Tom Carper
U.S. Senator, Delaware

Our Honorary Vice Chairs

*
Mary Landrieu
U.S. Senator, Louisiana
*
Mark Pryor
U.S. Senator, Arkansas
*
Ken Salazar
U.S. Senator, Colorado



Res ipsa loquitur...

[AtomicKitten]

52. They do not set policy.

They are part of the Democratic Party and, as such, have a voice and are entitled to express it. That's how democracy works. I guess disagreeing with them isn't enough; your continued demonization of them appears to be in a quest to silence them which isn't particularly democratic.

[wyldwolf]

54. the funny thing is...

... on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the DLC is "dying," "irrelevant," "not important" according to various voices on KOS, DU, etc. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays the DLC "sets policy" just by suggesting things.

[AtomicKitten]

55. I'll mark my calendar.

:)