Short of tar-and-feathering them, what's the best way to get rid of the DLC?

[brentspeak]

The same question can also be extended to ALL beltway corporate lobbyists.

[RandomThoughts]

1. A Thought

[foxer]

93. What's wrong with Tar and Feathering them????

[Occam Bandage]

2. By voting for liberal primary challengers?

You know, the way we do things in a democracy?

[TahitiNut]

3. Drag a large campaign donation check along the edge of the Grand Canyon?

:shrug: Dunno. :dunce:

[brentspeak]

5. Heh, heh!

I picture Will Marshall falling off the Grand Canyon like Hans Gruber at the end of Die Hard.

[blm]

28. heheh...you win. I was going to say EXPOSE their connections to BushInc's corruption over the last

2 decades.

[mod mom]

63. good one-that'll work!

:rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

4. Amending the Constitution

In the House,

Instead of apportionment based on the Census, instead award seats based on how many movies and TV shows have been set it.

Example - Spider-Man 3 gives NY, and specifically NYC an additional seat.

In the Senate,

Eliminate the 2 per State rule. Replace it with a 7-11 "cup-election." Award Senate seats accordingly.

[SwampG8r]

10. in the house that

would be bad
we have had a lot of tv and movies shot here in florida
unfortunatly we also have a lot of "doh"in our voters
we would pick up seats but they would probably have dumbasses sitting in them

[antigop]

6. One of the best things you can do is educate other people

I am amazed at the number of long-time Dems who have not heard of the DLC.

[harun]

7. Move to a different country

As Cramer says... "We have a gov't by, of and for the CORPORATIONS!!!".

I would say 99% of non-DU people have no idea what the DLC or the Blue Dogs are and why they are different from other Dem's. Starts with education, especially education as to why non-DLC ideology is the better way for them to go.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Do you think Obama has an idea what DLCers are?

He seems to have hired a few of them.

[harun]

24. I think he has hired them because instead of fighting against them

he will use them to implement better policy. If the DLC'rs joined forces with Repukes blocking an Obama agenda he would be stifled. To avoid that he has employed the key players on his side.

[QC]

30. Or maybe he generally agrees with them.

That's a far more likely explanation.

[harun]

31. Only Obama knows, but my opinion is he is as appalled by them

as we are.

[Laelth]

37. I agree.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Shiver]

33. He is not DLC, and has said many times...

...that he does not agree with their positions, but he's willing to listen, an offer he extends to all sides.

I don't have a link to the letter that says this, but I know someone must...

And for what it's worth, he's hired quite a few progressives....

[wyldwolf]

38. want to do a comparison of his positions with those of the DLC?

[Billy Shears]

39. in Obama's own words:

"I read with interest, and some amusement, Bruce Dixon's recent article regarding my campaign, and his suggestion that perhaps my positions on critical issues facing this country are somehow being corrupted by the influence of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Given that Bruce worked together back in 1992 to empower communities through organizing and the ballot box, I wish he'd taken the time to give me a call and check out his facts.

To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC since I began this campaign a year ago. I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list beyond filling out a three line questionnaire asking me to describe my current political office, my proudest accomplishment, and my cardinal rules of politics. Since my mother taught me not to reject a compliment when it's offered, I didn't object to the DLC's inclusion of my name on their list. I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform."

So, Obama sees the DLC as a potential corrupting influence, he claims no connection whatsoever to them, and he does not endorse their platform,
yet you try to besmirch him with association to that foul group.

Anyone can see what your agenda is, Mr. DLC.

[wyldwolf]

41. In Obama's own words

"It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

So, I ask again (and maybe you'll accept) "Do you want to do a policy comparison of the two, Mr. Proooogresssiiivve?

[Billy Shears]

48. why don't you show a little effort and prove Obama's connection to the DLC?

Obama himself has rejected any association with that troop of fools. I provided this rejection.
And you come back with an unrelated quote on Bill Clinton with no mention of the DLC.

You are the one who has the burden of proof here. You imply that Obama is publicly lying about his association while privately carrying out the DLC agenda.
Prove it, or shut your glory hole.

[wyldwolf]

49. Why don't you show a little effort and accept the challenge I issued first?

:shrug:

Are you scared? I think you are.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Billy Shears]

57. yet again, you avoid actually having to prove the case you claim

I proved my case that Obama has rejected all association with the DLC.
You have shown nothing to support your claims.

But here's a start for you:

DLC = Cluster of Warmongers

Obama = Anti-Warmongering at its finest

Oh, wait, they are already at opposing ends of the spectrum?? I thought they were in lockstep?

[wyldwolf]

58. 6th dodge of the question and counting. Or should I take your dodges as an acceptance?

[Billy Shears]

64. nth time you have made the challenge without providing any evidence of your claim

noone is going to do it for you.
you have designed a nice little mechanism for enabling your adherence to a twisted position.
You make a claim. Then, rather than providing any evidence, you dare others to go do all the work to disprove you. When noone wants to do that, you claim your weaselly little victory.

I can do the same thing:
"God is a Spaghetti Monster! If you don't believe me then prove he isn't"
See how ridiculous that is?

why don't you just blow us all away and prove what you claim?
or are you too lazy?

[wyldwolf]

65. despite all your dancing around, I'll assume you have accepted the challenge...

So, issue #1 - FACT: Barack Obama shares the same policy belief as the DLC on welfare reform.

“conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.” The Audacity of Hope, pg. 256

Disagree?

[Billy Shears]

67. False. He actually dissapproved of Clinton's 1996 legislation on Welfare.

But if we really want to get this over quick, I suggest a new issue #1

Barack Obama shares the same policy as the DLC regarding War. True or False?

Answer:
False, in the most extreme manner

If Obama's policy differs from the DLC on such a major issue as War,
how can he be carrying out their agenda??

Answer:
He isn't

QED

[wyldwolf]

69. We're not done with the first issue. You're saying Obama lied in his book "Audacity of Hope?"

because in his book, he agreed with Clinton's welfare reform.

[Billy Shears]

71. no, he didn't.

"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."
...
During a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Obama could not conceal his disappointment in his fellow Democrat. "Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign’s fascinating to a student of politics. It's disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically, it seems to be working," said Obama.

That's a damn fine quote, Barack. "Bill Clinton, disturbing to someone who cares..."

I think we're done with that issue now.

Care to comment on WAR?
Or is it too soon for us to demolish your entire claim?

[wyldwolf]

72. So you're picking an older quote over a newer one in his book? So he was lying in his book?

:eyes:

:rofl:

No, not done with this issue as long as your responses defy logic.

While campaigning for president in 2007, Obama refused on two occasions to say if he would have signed the same welfare-reform bill approved by the husband of his top rival.

After addressing the International Association of Firefighters on March 14, 2007, Obama told ABC News, "I tend not to look back to what would have been done 10 years ago. We’re talking about what I’m going to be doing for the next 10 years."

When ABC News posed the same question four months later, Obama again refused to answer.

"I’m not going to re-litigate what happened back in the 90s," said Obama at a July 17, 2007, press conference in Washington, D.C. "I'm talking about what's going to be happening going forward."

"Bill Clinton isn't on the ballot," he added.

Once he had become the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, Obama signaled that he had always backed the 1996 welfare reform.

Asked if he would have vetoed the reform measure, Obama told The New York Times in a story published on April 11, "I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing." - ABC News

[Billy Shears]

75. have you even provided a quote? or are we supposed to just take your word for it?

See folks, this is a perfect example of Wyldlc logic:

I provide evidence with direct quotes supporting my claim.
Wyldlc says we should just take his word for it that I am wrong.

Who is defying logic here?
How can I have a rational discussion with someone who expects me not only to prove my own points, but to prove theirs, as well?

[wyldwolf]

79. yep, in post 70.

:rofl:

You're ignoring the quote I provided from his book AND the ABC news story. :eyes:

[Billy Shears]

84. so because he refused to attack Clinton later, that somehow negates his lack of support for the Bill

I like how you go back and edit posts after they have been responded to. How DLC of you...

Talk to me about the WAR.
Until you plug that hole in your theory, it will never hold water.

or are you going to stick to Earth-shattering policies like Welfare Reform?

Let me know the next time Welfare Reform results in the deaths of a million people.

[wyldwolf]

85. oh, because he contradicted your quote later, you'll just go with the 11 year old quote

:eyes:

[Billy Shears]

90. he didn't contradict anything

the quote you provided isn't even a direct reference to the Welfare Bill.

I'll go with the quote that Obama made that directly refers to the bill in question and states his lack of support for it.

You can hang on to those quotes taken during a Presidential Campaign where he refused to detract from the former Democratic President as your evidence, but they really make no statements regarding Obama's policies.

If you think that Obama is going to strip Welfare as the DLC would like, then you are sadly mistaken.

Care to move onto WAR? or is Welfare Reform your sole bit of evidence?

[wyldwolf]

94. yes he did.

[Billy Shears]

97. still avoiding any smidgen of discussion regarding WAR

I think I understand why.

You would not be able to continually use this line of attack against others if we ended it once and for all right now.

Yes, I can see why you avoid it like the plague.
Hell, it might even lead to you questioning where your own loyalties lie, and we can't have that, can we?

[wyldwolf]

98. still trying to skirt the current discussion

I think I understand why.

You would not be able to continually use this line of attack against others if we ended it once and for all right now.

Yes, I can see why you avoid it like the plague.
Hell, it might even lead to you questioning where your own loyalties lie, and we can't have that, can we?

[Billy Shears]

102. wow! I am eviscerated by the sharp edge of your wit.

:puke:

My loyalties lie with Obama, can you say the same?? Doubtful...

Let me know when your discussions here actually matter to you.


Until then,
Infinity!!!

[wyldwolf]

106. but I'm not eviscerated by your ability to dodge and spin

[scarletwoman]

8. Call them out, never give them a moment's peace. Rouse the citizenry to taunt them & pelt them with

genetically modified produce. Make their political lives hell every day in every way.

Seriously, rousing the citizenry is THE essential action.

sw

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Vote every last fucking one of them out in the primaries.

Or sooner, in places with open seats.

[cali]

29. No. Just no. I'm fucking delighted that Tom Udall won in NM

For fuck's sake, the guy has a progressive record in the house. He voted against the IWR. He's strongly pro-environment. He's replacing the corrupt right wingnut Dominici. He ran against another corrupt wingnut.
And, Udall is a member of the DLC. It's vital to look at an individual's record before making a judgment on whether they should be primaried. I have no use for the DLC as an organization or for their vaunted third way politics, but there are individual members that I very much support.

[paulk]

11. post a thread about it on DU?

:shrug:

[Starry Messenger]

12. I use vinegar.

I hear spreading mint around works too.

[happychatter]

17. best of - nt

[happychatter]

18. wrong location - nt - sorry

[stray cat]

13. Don't vote for them and send money to challengers you prefer

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. oppose the DLC policies that one strongly disagrees with and are unpopular

Whether or not the DLC organization plays a role in the Democratic Party is of minimal concern to me. I would however be deeply concerned about reactionary policies regardless what organization supports them.

My biggest concern regarding the DLC is that certain strong elements of the DLC along with some people who are clearly not DLC at all support a foreign policy worldview that is neither centrist or moderate, but extremist - a somewhat modified form of foreign policy neoconservatism. Now this ideology has been completely discredited by facts on the ground and is extraordinarily unpopular. If these ideologues, whether DLC or not, succeed in their agenda - America will find itself in a state of permanent and self-destructive war and there will be no resources left to rebuild the economy and the national infrastructure - much less implement new programs that benefit ordinary people. Fortunately a number of sane and rational people even within the Defense and Intelligence establishment recognize the utter folly of this dangerous and destructive worldview. "A bunch of dangerous Kooks", to quote Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr.'s former National Security Adviser - hardly a lefty.

As far as getting rid of ALL beltway corporate lobbyist. I'm afraid that would require a total social revolution. As someone more eloquent and more learned than me once said, "government is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie." I doubt that any of us are up to the task of a social revolution at this point. And there is certainly no mass political will for such an all encompassing adventure.

It might be possible however to push massive draconian legislation that could clip the wings of lobbyist just a bit. For such legislation to pass, it might also impose equally strong controls on progressive lobbyist. Still reducing the relatively weak influence of progressive lobbyist might be a reasonable price to pay in exchange for reducing the very strong influence of corporate lobbyist.

[Dragonfli]

19. There is a method that would discourage the selling of policy

Unfortunately it is barbaric and I am beginning to feel that the corporations have already won.
They have already purchased our government and are unlikely to give it back without a revolution.

[happychatter]

20. I've been thinking about it for years and not coming up with a whole lot

well, maybe a few hundred pages and man hours

probably nothing you haven't thought of

this is the 2nd time you've posed this question in a top post in the last day or two

I thought about sending a message because I really dislike mixing it up with some of these MF's up in this house, frankly

I'm trying to mind my manners

send a note if you want my thoughts

[mtnsnake]

21. For starters, you won't get rid of them by whining about it all day

Get out and do something about it like confront them and tell them what you think. At the very least write your congressman.

[liberaltrucker]

22. Firing squad?

:shrug:

[Uzybone]

23. Whine about them.

eventually the DLC will hear you and leave.

Or you could find good "non corporatist" candidates and defeat them in elections. Whining on the internet is not a good way to find those candidates.

[wyldwolf]

25. Short of tar-and-feathering them, what's the best way to get rid of the whiney progressives?

[wyldwolf]

26. ooh! I'll answer that! Put them in a round room and tell them there's a clue in the corner!

[mtnsnake]

34. lol, MrB would have loved that one!

[Billy Shears]

40. There is no such thing as a non-progressive Democrat

anyone who claims to be a 'Conservative Democrat' is just a shame-filled Republican who knows there is no future in that doomed Party,
so they tie themselves to the winning team.

[wyldwolf]

43. of course there isn't

But there are certain levels of progressive and any one claiming to have a definitive definition or measure of the word's meaning is just a shame-filled naive "progressive."

[Billy Shears]

50. awww, don't feel bad. this Country is just moving away from the Right

you can come with us, if you like, but you'll have to leave the DLC behind.

[wyldwolf]

51. aww, don't feel bad. Centrists keep getting elected.

[Billy Shears]

59. eLet's see how many Centrists are left after 8 years of a Progressive Obama Administration

What is a Centrist, exactly?
Someone who finds it difficult identifying right from wrong?
Someone who feels they can get more if they never have to take a stand on anything?
Someone who really agrees with the Conservative position but is rational enough to know that that position is unelectable?

[wyldwolf]

60. All of them will be left after Obama's Clinton-like Third Way Presidency

[Billy Shears]

68. why can you not just let the World move on?

we have had enough of Republicanesque Democrats.

That's why we chose Obama.

[wyldwolf]

70. that would be up to the electorate, not you or I, and currently...

... the electorate is picking centrist Democrats and not socialist-like "progressives."

Thats why we chose Obama.

[Billy Shears]

74. you just cannot accept that Obama is not of your ilk, can ya?

It must be hard for you. I suspect you are smart enough to see the pattern that is emerging, and that it does not favor Conservatives in the long run.
Demographically you are being bred-out. Ideographically you belong to the 20th Century.
You might be able to hang on a little longer than the GOP, but not by much.

[wyldwolf]

76. you must have a problem with the electoral process and the fact "progressives" don't win

As history shows, "progressives" are bunch of whiners who would rather have things (like elections) handed to them.

[Billy Shears]

81. Obama is a Progressive.

He will End the War.
He will address Global Warming.
He will enact Universal Health Coverage.
He will rebuild our Economy for the Middle Class.
He will defend our Civil Rights.

He is a Progressive. Have no doubt about it.

[wyldwolf]

82. he's a centrist

have no doubt about it.

[Billy Shears]

87. if he is the centrist you wanted, why was he not your Primary candidate?

oh, that's right. He's not the Centrist you wanted.

He's not even a Centrist. But if it really makes you feel better, tell it to the wall all day long. Maybe it will be convinced.

Community Organizers do not go on to become Centrists.
Progress is in their blood.

[wyldwolf]

89. umm.. because I had another preference?

:shrug:

[Billy Shears]

91. exactly. You wanted a Centrist, not a Progressive.

Now that you got a Progressive, you are working your hardest to convince yourself he is just like you.

NEWSFLASH:
He isn't.

[wyldwolf]

95. and I got a centrist

[Billy Shears]

101. we'll see about that.

you haven't exactly got a track record of correct predictions.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

126. we already have

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

27. Make them enlist so that they can truly support the war. If that doesn't

work invite them to a huge corporate fundraiser on the moon. Then tell them you forgot something on the space shuttle and take off.

:evilgrin:

[cali]

32. Tom Udall is a DLC member. He voted against the IWR and has

a pretty damned progressive record. I'm thrilled, delighted that he won in NM. He's replacing the despicable Peter Dominici.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. Yeah, it was a joke. nt

[brentspeak]

73. There are no official DLC "members" of Congress

The DLC is just a lobbying group, staffed by a few ex-congressmen (like Harold Ford) along with some beltway flunkies (Al From, Marshall Wittman, Will Marshall). It has a couple of senators who are listed among its "leadership team", like Tom Carper and Hillary Clinton, as well as a couple of active congressmen, but they're advisors, not official "members".

A "DLC Democrat" is really just any Democrat who votes and aligns themself repeatedly in accordance with DLC-advocated positions (or non-positions) -- positions which are almost always, ultimately, simply corporate-advocated positions: neoliberal economic policies (pro-lopsided China trade, NAFTA, privatization, etc.), pro-beltway-lobbying/anti campaign-finance reform, neo-conservative foreign policies, pro-Wall Street robber barons, etc.

[wyldwolf]

77. yes there is

:shrug:

This just show most of the antiDLCers don't have clue what they're talking about.

[brentspeak]

80. Prove it

Show us an official "DLC member" list from the DLC website.

[wyldwolf]

83. you didn't ask for an "official DLC members list from the DLC website."

You said there are no official DLC "members" of Congress.

And there are: The House New Democrat Coalition and the Senate New Democrat Coalition.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3869

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/Membership_textrich.shtml

[brentspeak]

86. Where does it say that the New Democrat Coaltions are "official DLC members"?

It doesn't say. Wrong, once again. And yes, I did ask you to provide an official DLC member list.

Your New Democrat Coalition lists mean nothing in the context of my posts, anyway: Carolyn McCarthy, for just one example, is a New Democrat Coalition member, but has absolutely nothing in common with DLC policies.

[wyldwolf]

92. ok... you're right. It doesn't say they are "official" DLC members... aw shucks! ya got me!

:eyes:

So when the DLC's website says members of the Senate New Dem and House New Dem Coalitions represent... opps, I better be 100% Greg Brady "exact words" precise... when the DLC's website says the Senate New Dem and House New Dem Coalitions are the ideological home in the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate for the New Democratic movement started by the Democratic Leadership Council, it doesn't really mean they're DLCers...

Got it...

And no, what you specifically said in post #73 was "There are no official DLC "members" of Congress." You did not ask for an official membership list from their website. :eyes:

[mvd]

119. I think you are correct in a way

I don't think there's an official list. Sometimes a member in called DLC because of a tenuous association, like with Hillary Clinton. The Blue Dogs would be a better term. And I oppose some of the DLC policies for sure, and also the attitude, which I find too wimpy. But if we got rid of all DLC members, it would decrease our majority. That's why the better way is to keep pressure on Obama for progressive causes, because you know he'll get it from the less progressive members. I don't think the cabinet means Obama will keep up policies like welfare reform, NAFTA, a hawkish foreign policy and deregulation (that doesn't go as far as the Repukes, but went too far under President Clinton.)

[Laelth]

36. Obama is doing it.

Get them out of positions where they can't be fired (House, Senate, etc.) and put them in positions where they can be fired if they don't toe the line. I hope Obama can find a job for Schumer.

:dem:

-Laelth

[wyldwolf]

42. LOL! Yeah, that's what he's doing (snort)

[Billy Shears]

45. He was not the DLC Candidate. That's why he won.

He marks the beginning of the end for Repukes in Democratic clothing

[wyldwolf]

47. he ran a better campaign, that's why he won. His policies mirror the DLC's

So - ready to accept the Obama - DLC policy challenge?

[Billy Shears]

53. you won't even accept it yourself. yet you consistently ask others to do so.

C'mon
show us what you got!

[wyldwolf]

55. is this the 4th of 5th dodge of the question by you? Yep! You're doing the chicken dance

[Laelth]

66. Let me put it this way.

Neither of us can be sure, but I hope I am right and you are wrong.

Thanks for the response.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Enrique]

99. ok, so explain his supporting Lieberman against Lamont

I'm looking forward to how this supports the delusion of Obama the DLC-slayer.

[Laelth]

100. Lieberman turned down the job he was offered?

(just speculation, of course, but I'd rather have Lieberman in the executive branch than in the Senate).

As I said to a poster above, you may be right. But I hope I am right and you are wrong about what Obama is doing with his cabinet picks.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Billy Shears]

44. feed them a massive dose of LSD and allow them to witness themselves unfiltered.

most would likely off themselves after such revelation.

[mmonk]

46. Hard to say. Whenever they get defeated politically, they think it's

because they weren't far enough to the right. Catch 22.

[Billy Shears]

78. or whenever they get defeated, they just say the winner was already on their team

they can never lose!!!
:sarcasm:

[Doctor_J]

52. Here's an idea. Why don't we get rid of the ultra-right instead?

:eyes:

[Sebastian Doyle]

62. We can do both.

You get rid of the DLC republicans in the primary, and the other republicans in the general.

[BzaDem]

56. How about instead of whining, convince others that their candidates shouldn't be voted for?

Enough with the "I-want-my-way-and-I-don't-care-about-the-voters" attitude. Convince enough Americans that their policies and candidates shouldn't be voted for.

[Orsino]

61. Stop voting for the ones that run. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

88. I suggest the utter destruction of the Republiscum

and letting the right wing of the Democratic party fill the vacuum. Then we hopefully would have a sane opposition with some differences on issues that actually believes in governance and at least has some consensus on social issues.

[awoke_in_2003]

96. My opinion...

government at all levels is corrupt. Yeah, we have maybe 4 or 5 honest politicians in DC, but that is it. We should handle this with the style of the French:

[JamesA1102]

103. The politics of exclusion

has no place in this country let alone the Democratic party. You're playing the role of thought police trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with your views 100%. Disgusting.

[brentspeak]

105. Uh, yeah

Try again.

[JamesA1102]

110. Why? I got it right the first time. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

104. I think it would first be prudent to identify what is reprehensible about the DLC

It is a fact that the President-Elect is not and never has been a member of the DLC. It is also a fact (as Wyldwolf correctly points out) that he champions many of the same third-way policies that the DLC does.

So is it the DLC as an organization that is reprehensible or is it third-way policies in general that are reprehensible?

[wyldwolf]

108. to listen to the netroots over the last 6 years...

... it's the policies.

[JNelson6563]

109. Outnumber them.

When there's a meeting pack a room with non-DLCers. Got a local Dem e-board? Get on it and and recruit your non-DLC friends to join you, but get the votes. In your Congressional District (or whatever particular District is the next important step up after county in your state's political structure) get your non-DLC friends--and yourself--involved. Put a slate together for elections if need be. When there's a topic where a motion will be made at the next meeting round up votes long before the meeting.

One needs to become a cog in the machine and bring lots of like minded cogs to the machine if one wants to change the machine. That is the truth of it. Blogging, posting on the internets, writing LTTE, bitching to friends and family, writing Congress, complaining to Corporate Media, etc. will accomplish absolutely nothing. Zip, zero, zilch.

So, now that we have that established, who's in?

Julie--who's gone down this path and succeeded but it cost much time and energy

[AtomicKitten]

111. Probably the best way is for Obama to effectuate a progressive agenda.

It'll be fun watching the DLC types around him carry that out!

[wyldwolf]

112. and when he doesn't, it will be funny watching heads explode here

[AtomicKitten]

113. it speaks volumes that hopes for a better America dashed would amuse you

[wyldwolf]

114. "speaks volumes" is such a cliche.

Having a better American doesn't mean not having DLC policies. We saw that first hand in the 90s. But what amuses me is the revolutionary tone people like you take.

[AtomicKitten]

118. If wanting do better than we did in the 1990s is "revolutionary," viva la revolution!!!

[wyldwolf]

120. that's the problem.. Nothing is ever good enough. Some people live to complain

[AtomicKitten]

121. So, what's up with your preemptive whine? The show doesn't start til 1-20-09.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

122. no whine here. What you here is amusement

[AtomicKitten]

123. Your smug 'tude is what's funny since your DLC candidate lost the election.

[wyldwolf]

124. sorry...

The DLC has always been about policies, not a membership card. We're happy with the New Democrat we got.

[leftofthedial]

115. I wish I knew

short of either the long, uncertain creation of a real progressive party to unseat them (by which time the damage they do will have destroyed the country anyway)

or a revolution to overthrow the corporatocracy,

I don't know.

[blueclown]

116. The DLC has become a boogeyman.

And dialogue about the positives and negatives of the DLC has become pointless. I highly doubt that many members of this forum even know what the DLC is, what their role is, and what impact they have on the Democratic Party.

[izzybeans]

117. I recommend a Third Way

from tar and feathering them that is. :)

How about they go back to school and learn to read, write, and do arithmetic? Because politics really isn't that hard an equation. You do right by people, bring them into the process, support their needs, win their support. Triangulation = alienation just as 2 +2 = 4.

[IndianaGreen]

125. The alien rectal probe!

Without lubrication!