So Gore "lost" because of decision to discard New Dems (ie DLC)?

[mod mom]

"A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996."

-snip
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=128&subsecID=187&contentID=3361

This was written by Will Marshall. Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

THAT'S RIGHT, THE GUY WHO SAID GORE LOST BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION TO ABANDON THE NEW DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT (IE THE DLC) WAS A SIGNER OF PNAC!

DO YOU THINK PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE DEMS IGNORED ELECTION FRAUD AND ALLOWED THE APPOINTMENT OF bu$h?

Al Gore had seen the light! This is just why our nation needs him to run for president!

Before you support a DLCer, please research just what they stand for.

[pocoloco]

1. There will be many who come in our name!

[Fridays Child]

2. How many new Congressional Democrats are DLCers?

DLC = Destroy Liberal Candidates

[Little Wing]

3. Gore didn't lose.

[mod mom]

8. of course not-notice the quotation marks. As an election reform activist, I

was appalled at the silence of the party after the thefts. I have learned so much since thn. Not all Dems are equal, but must be evaluated as individuals.

[Selatius]

4. The PPI is a DLC front.

The reason why Gore dumped the DLC was because it was straining his more economic populist outlook on politics. The Middle Way is not economic populism.

Do you honestly think the PPI and Will Marshall would ever contemplate the idea that Gore ultimately lost because he was carrying the dead weight of corporate free trade that has slashed thousands of manufacturing jobs???

[SaveElmer]

9. Front implies that it is trying to hide its identity...

There is a PPI link on the DLC homepage...

[Selatius]

12. Sorry, then replace "front" to "DLC think tank" then n/t

[mod mom]

14. Think tank is a better term, but all the same so few get involved of the esoterics

of the different Dem fractions as us DUers. To many a DEM is a DEM. This is why we need to reach out and inform the voters.

PNAC also has their agenda in the open, but few are aware of just who they are.

Before the election theft of 2000, I was very ignorant and voted straight party line. no more-I'm a DEAN/CONYERS/GORE/FEINGOLD/BOXER DEM.

[porphyrian]

5. The opposite is, of course, the truth.

The DLC tactic of pandering to corporate interests, targeted states and the pursuit of some ephemeral "moderate" vote that never manifested in the polls lost us three consecutive elections. Only Howard Dean was able to reverse the trend, by completely changing the losing strategy they inflicted upon the Democratic party. Al Gore lost the election because of republican vote tampering in Florida and the DLC's advice.

[helderheid]

6. I'm so glad you put the word lost in quotations.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Analysis flawed on many levels.

For example: '92 and '96 were both complicated by the impact of the Perot campaign. It is not clear at all that it wasn't the Perot effect that elected Clinton, rather than the center-right corporatism of the DLC faction.

[SaveElmer]

10. Virtually every independent analysis of the '92 race...

Shows Clinton would have won whether Perot was there or not...Perot did not swing a single state to Clinton...

And he of course, had even less effect in 1996...

[Selatius]

11. You have to also factor in Clinton's charisma as being the exception to the rule.

Note, for instance, that while Clinton was winning, Dems were losing in general and had fallen to their weakest state in the 1990s than they have ever been since the 1920s, and nobody really understood NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act except the big corporations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. If only he could have discarded the DLC,

with so many of them working for his campaign.

His campaign was undercut by the DLC, as was his determination to contest the election.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. President GORE did not lose

it was stolen from him

[charlie]

16. Gore was losing by double digits

until he turned his campaign back to populist themes late in the season. If Gore had won the electoral vote, Marshall would've penned a column claiming it was Gore's DLC credentials that did it.

[mod mom]

17. That's right Gore discarded the DLC to become a populist, which is where he stands now.

[saltpoint]

18. I hold with the theory that Gore lost because he was cheated.

In Florida.

By Katherine Harris, then the presiding elections official in Florida, likely with collusion with then-Governor Jeb Bush, and not least by the U.S. Supreme Court, which had been loaded up with right-wing kooks like Scalia and the daddy-Bush appointee, Clarence Thomas.

It was a multi-site right-wing hit job on democracy.

[Phredicles]

19. What most hurt Gore in 2000 was his choice of running mate:

DLC poster boy Joe Lieberbush. This gave the biggest opening to the Nader crowd saying there was no significant difference between the two major candidates.

[NYCGirl]

30. Except that at the beginning of the campaign he was 22 points behind and

ended up winning the popular vote by half a million. So how do you figure Lieberman hurt?

So you think Nader would've changed his tune with anyone else? No one ever votes for VP.

[Emit]

20. Thanks for this info -- very enlightening

Explains a lot for me.

More on him here:

~snip~
A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

Marshall helped establish the DLC in the wake of Walter Mondale's landslide defeat. The DLC has aimed to create a “New Democrat” movement to shift the party toward the center-right on domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues. Part of the DLC's success can be attributed to the agenda-setting capacities of the Progressive Policy Institute, which was often referred to as “Bill Clinton's idea mill.” The PPI was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives, including the national service agency AmeriCorps.

Marshall is also editor of Building the Bridge: 10 Big Ideas to Transform America (Roman & Littlefield, 1997) and co-editor of Mandate for Change (Berkley Books, 1992), PPI's best-selling policy blueprint for Clinton's first term. Marshall is also editor-at-large of Blueprint, the DLC's magazine of politics and policy.

~snip~

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[Emit]

21. More detailed connections from that link

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored “Progressive Internationalism”), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to “act alone if that proves necessary” and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to “maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning.” Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

And some info on the Socizl Democrats/USA:

The Social Democrats, USA (SD/USA) has its political roots in the Socialist Party. Its philosophical forefather was the intellectual Trotskyite, Max Shactman. Shactman, initially a Communist, became increasinging disenchanted with the actions of the Soviet Union under Stalin and developed a new genre of antiStalinist leftists. This group joined the Socialist party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas in the 1960s. (2) It was in this period that the SD/USA made its commitment to, and its first inroads into the organized labor movement. In 1972, the Socialist Party split into two factions; the left led by Michael

~snip~

In the 1970s, under the leadership of Carl Gershman, SD/USAbecame a supporter of Sen. Henry Jackson and his contingent of conservative, hawkish "defenders of democracy." As such, they gained a great deal of political experience and saavy, but little political power. It was not until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, that the SD/USA achieved positions of power and influence in both the labor movement and the government. (2)

~snip~

Today, the Social Democrats have an important place in the largest labor coalition in the U.S. , the AFL-CIO. Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, called SD/USA a "major force for good in America." He went on to say that SD/USA has "an understanding that defense of freedom in the world must go hand in hand with the continuing struggle for social and economic justice at home."(1) SD/USA belongs to the Socialist International and promotes its agenda within the U.S. , but it enthusiastically supports a policy of U.S. intervention abroad. (2) SD/USA proclaims itself to be the "Standardbearer for Freedom, Democracy, and Economic Justice."(3) In its domestic policies, the organization fights for the rights of organized labor and often protested the union-busting, pro-corporate policies of the Reagan administration. (3) However, in its foreign policy SD/USA is stridently anticommunist and supportive of the policies of the U.S. government. (2)

SD/USA is a small organization with fewer than 1,000 active members; however, its influence has been extensive in the "upper-middle" levels of government and organized labor. (2) SD/USA is the driving force behind the policies of the International Affairs Department of the AFL-CIO, and cooperates with affiliates of the AFL-CIO in "democracy building" projects around the globe. (4) Similarly, Social Democrats hold influential positions in the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental organization formally established by legislation introduced by the Reagan Administration in 1983. (4)

~snip~

Private Connections:

This is where the real strength and importance of SD/USA lies. The overlapping memberships between SD/USA board of directors and national advisory council and the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), Freedom House, the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), and the AFL-CIO and its affiliates are numerous. Between SD/USA and LID there are 20 overlapping board members; 13 between SD/USA and APRI; 6 between Freedom House and SD/USA; and 6 between SD/USA and the AFLCIO. (4,6,7) SD/USA also has close ties with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (4)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/gw/2810

[mod mom]

24. Thanks for this further info. Funny,"Saddam posed a grave danger to America"

has been de-bunked and we now release that although Saddam was a brutal dictator, he held the religious fanatics at bay, and was armed by the same folks who took him down. PNAC policies have failed. NAFTA policies have failed. Are we safer today because of PNAC and the DLC? I think not.

[Emit]

26. Iraq is their stepping stone so the story has not ended yet

I honestly believe, and your post confirms it, that this has been a plan in the making for some time and that "democratization of the Middle East" as Marshall defines it, is only the guise.

(Consider this from a 1958 declassified policy paper: "The Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance to the Free World. The area contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world and essential facilities for the transit of military forces and Free World commerce. . . . The strategic resources are of such importance to the Free World, particularly Western Europe, that it is in the security interest of the United States to make every effort to insure that these resources will be available and will be used for strengthening the Free World..." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3157011&mesg_id=3158297 )

The master plan will include wars in that region and elsewhere for years to come. Our childrens' futures are none too bright. The Powers That Be have ensured that their selection of POTUS will be in keeping with this master plan -- "...strengthening the Free World." It was just a matter of time. They have made their move and they have taken us all along with them, those bastards!

The forces have combined: Warmongering-WarProfiteering-Military Industrial (and complacent Congressional) Complex and the entire Corporate Matrix that benefits including our media; Neoconservatives, some who have a vested interest in Israel and/or who have their own ties to the MICC (Consider: "...if we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and to hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East"See "Issues Arising Out of the Situation in the Near East," July 29, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII); the Religious Right with their whacky end times Armageddon delusions; the philanthropic foundations who recycle their war profits to support the machine (see: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm ) ... oh, the list goes on.

And now we see what was once our side hijacked -- some time ago -- by these hawkish warmongers. I appreciated your post because it is, for me, one more piece of the puzzle; one more thing that makes a connection and that upon reading it, I say to myself, "Of course, dammit! That makes perfect sense now...arrgh!" Not that I am really surprised...anymore.

We can't look at it as rational realists, which we're inclined to do because we want to understand it all. But, we can't see their big picture... because their plan is not completed... yet. It has only just begun. They know that. The other side knows that, too. The other side, sadly, will not reject that master plan, either, IMHO. Especially now that the other side has been infused with the same twisted ideologies.

[mod mom]

27. Wow thanks for this additional reading. I have to think GLOBAL WARMING changes

everything, though. We need, as a world and especially as the largest nation consumer, to break away from the fossil fuel mentality that promotes this "endless war" agenda. The middle east will diminish in importance once we break away from the polluting oil. We have no choice for both environmental reasons as well as supply reasons, so why prolong the agony? Profits by the oil and military industrial complex. The sooner we can break away from having our "elected" leaders support the goals of the profiteers, the better. I also believe once we stop meddling in other cultures, we will see a significant drop in terrorism. Cleaner planet, less wars, less profiteering and less terrorism-that sounds good to me.

This is why I support Gore. I believe he gets it. I believe he can help make our planet habitable for my children's future as well as ours.

[Emit]

28. Agreed!

Now if we can just get him to RUN!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. We can, baby!

Everyone, please if you would like to become active in the draft Gore movement, please email me at:

[e-mail]

We are growing every day and you can pool your efforts with ours to build the viral grassroots movement that will insure his entry into the race!

[Emit]

29. Btw, mod mom

I don't know if you caught this in any of those rightweb links, but the DLC receives funding from one of the most prominent rightwing organizations, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MliHpm-Xl9QJ:rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463+Democratic+Leadership+Council&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

More on Bradley: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1

Here's an Kos diary with more info:

The DLC - Call them Neocons or Neolibs, it doesn't really matter when it comes to war profiteering
by One Citizen
Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 02:46:42 AM PST
Connect the dots to war profiteers: DLC closely tied to Neocons through the Progressive Policy Institute

One Citizen's diary :: ::
Media Transparency's website lists The Progressive Policy Institute as receiving nine grants totalling $350,000 from 1997 to 2002 originating from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

The conservative Capital Research Centre database lists PPI's funding as comprising:

Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation $100,000 2001
AT&T Foundation $40,000 2001
Eli Lilly & Company Foundation $25,000 2001
Prudential Foundation $15,000 2001
Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation $10,000 2001
That's a LOT of pull. Obviously warmaking is serious business with certain Democrats.

PPI is THE think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), founded in 1985 by PPI's President, Will Marshall, and counts among its past chairs Bill Clinton and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

Why will Iraqmire continue for years to come? Likely because both Republicans AND Dems are sponsored by the Bradley Foundation - major manufacturer of weapons of war.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/...

These neocons not only make Bradley tanks, the profits they make from cluster bombs dropped in Lebanon by the Isrealis allows them to generously finance the following influential think tanks:

American Enterprise Institute
American Spectator Educational Foundation
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Family Research Council
Federalist Society
Free Congress Foundation
Freedom House
George Mason University
George Mason University Foundation
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution
Hudson Institute
Independent Women's Forum
Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Institute on Religion and Public Life
Landmark Legal Foundation
Madison Center for Educational Affairs
Manhattan Institute
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Center for Policy Analysis
New Citizenship Project
Pacific Legal Foundation
Philanthropy Roundtable
Third Way Foundation which funds the Progressive Policy Institute
Reason Foundation
Rockford Institute
Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/1/52221/7678

[mod mom]

35. Excellent Info! I HOPE EVERYONE READS YOUR POST!

HERE FROM YOUR LINK WE FIND MANY OF THE CORPORATIONS-Chevron, Amoco, Dow, DuPont-who have done such damage to our country, and lets not forget GE whose network NBC continually praises many of these DLCers and uses them as "expert" pundits:

"The DLC and its close associate, the PPI, receive grants from many Fortune 500 companies and various right-wing foundations such as the Bradley Foundation. According to the a 2002 study by the Capital Research Center, corporate contributors to the PPI have included the AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to John Nichols in the Progressive, the DLC has had funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon (Progressive, October 2000)."

THANK YOU EMIT FOR THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION. I WILL PASS IT ON THRU MY NETWORKS!

[cool user name]

41. There's nothing progressive about the PPI ... n/t

[mod mom]

42. Kinda reminiscent of bu$h lingo isn't it? Represents the exact opposite of what it says. hmmh...

coincidence?

[cool user name]

43. I think not!

It's Orwellian ... neo-fascists, the whole lot of 'em!

Off with their heads!

:D

[Fovea]

22. Now let me get this straight.

Al Gore lost because he refused to triangulate the puggie platform, which had already gotten everything they asked for from Clinton, but still impeached him?

Oh, yeah! Of course he did Will, you little turd. Maybe you should convince the DLC run Joe LIEberman in 08! What say?

Get out of my party, you Quizlings.

[Robbien]

23. Just the old consultants trying to keep hold on the huge paychecks

Hey you dumb dems we got Clinton elected in '92 and '96, keep paying us!!!
Don't look at the fact that we lost you both the house and the senate and kept you out of the house and the senate for a dozen years or so.

Keep paying us! We are relevant!

[xchrom]

25. the dlc represents a threat to the future of this country.

they are simply a political wing of the corporatists want the most leverage money can buy.

[madfloridian]

31. kick

:kick:

[Time for change]

32. Very important point mod mom

Perhaps if Gore had done what Will Marshall suggests, he would have really lost the 2000 election, rather than creating the need for 5 so-called Supreme Court Justices to commit treason by taking the election out of the voters' hands.

[mod mom]

36. Thanks TFC, perhaps the right was assisted.

:hi:

[lostnotforgotten]

33. DLC=PNAC - Does Not Equal Progressive Democrats - Wake Up People!

eom

[DianaForRussFeingold]

34. PNAC And Other Top Neocon Think Tanks

:crazy: :crazy: Spheres of influence

Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents.

Top neocon think tanks: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html

:kick:

[tavalon]

37. A touch of bullshit

DLC are a bunch of losers at best and closet republicans at worst. But you clearly know that from your last few sentences. I have supported a few DLC associated candidates but it was despite their association not because and I did with great trepidation.

[struggle4progress]

38. Willy M didn't notice that "triangulation" cost us more and more seats in Congress?

[AtomicKitten]

39. The only thing Gore lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court judicial coup d'etat.

[nashville_brook]

44. big KnR -- thanks mod mom!