What Bugs You More about the DLC

[bryant69]

Poll question: What Bugs You More about the DLC

I sometimes wonder how much disdain for the DLC is related to their tactics and how much is related to their stance on the issues. The DLC are moderate Democrats. I am a moderate Democrat. On many issues we agree. And yet I don't want to be associated with them, because of their tactics.

The DLC Democrats are sell-outs. They are pushing a moderate agenda, true enough, but they are pushing it to get along with the Republicans. I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. It makes us look weak, and it makes us look like, well, sell-outs. Rather we should be stressing the differences between the extremism of the Republican Party and the moderate Liberal position.

In other words we should, generally, be fighting the Republicans rather than getting along with them. And this is where the DLC misses the mark. Or one area, at any rate.

I also don't like the tactic of beating up fellow Democrats/Liberals to score political points, a tactic they have used repeatedly. It's one thing to have strong disagreements among ourselves; it's quite another to use those disagreements so blantently to reach out to what you suppose the American People want. "See America. We can attack Dean too - now won't you be our friend?"

So my question is what do you find more offensive about the DLC - their tactics or their stances on the issues. I suppose I've messed up this poll by posting my opinion right off - but oh well. You'll just have to resist my over-powering rhetoric, if you wish to disagree with me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cynatnite]

1. The DLC doesn't mean anything to me

it has no impact on my life that I can see. It don't hate it, love it or anything. It's just...there.

I can understand your position on the DLC, but in the grand scheme it gets little attention on my radar.

[Bryan Buchan]

2. The DLC is

the devil. If you are not aware what they are doing to everyone's life, then you are not paying attention.

[cynatnite]

6. Please, educate me...

Their site seems innocuous and states the same old positions the dems continue to hold. I've heard more complaining about the DLC here, but nothing real specific. Then again I haven't read all the posts in regards to the DLC.

So if anyone has proof that the DLC is the devil, please educate me.

[Warpy]

11. Read those "same old" positions very carefully and then

consider HOW they became the party positions and HOW they managed to lose us all three branches of government.

A careful reading of their site will turn up platitudes without programs, and where they do put out programs, those programs will do nothing for the working class base of the party.

No wonder those conservative old boys have us shut out of power. People aren't as stupid as they think they are, and nobody will vote a party that promises to do nothing for them.

Business as usual isn't a winning campaign slogan.

[cynatnite]

16. Oh, I'm supposed to read between the lines...

:eyes:

Anyway, I certainly don't look to the DLC for much of anything. They don't mean a hell of a lot on my radar and never will.

When politicians like Hillary do eventually run, and I believe she will, she'll have plans and programs just like Kerry did. The Dems and repukes all come out with this stuff during election season to woo the voters.

[Warpy]

28. That's why you need to read their platitudes carefully

Kerry was saddled with DLC "handlers" and forced to take the DLC platform, word for word, and post it as his own.

THAT is how much power they've been weilding and THAT is why they're a problem.

[Coexist]

18. The DLC is the devil? I am no DLC fan, but come on.

I never ONCE saw them barter for anyone's soul.

Oh - well.

You know what I mean.

[Minnesota Libra]

3. Most people seem to forget our country's forefathers ensivioned........

.....two main political parties, more if necessary, ALL COMING TOGETHER for a concensious on how the country should be run. That is why on a scale of 10 (being far left) to 1 (being far right), most American fall within the 3 to 8 range.

[bryant69]

5. Well it also depends on what scale you are using

First of all America is pretty conservative on any international scale. Secondly we have a situation where on party is at like 5 and the other is at -3 - it creates the illusion of shifting the center.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Minnesota Libra]

9. My original point .......

.....of our forefathers envisioning a coming together of all political minds still stands though.

edited to add: The sad part is that the far left and the far right doesn't ev seem to want to entertain that "coming together" idea.

[bryant69]

12. The Far Right has been talking about eliminating the left wing

Moderates and Extremists alike, since the 1950s when they made a pretty good go at it with the Red Scare. The far left has some problems too, but nothing like that.

How do you expect us to make friends with people who have as one of their goals our elimination?

Bryant

[Minnesota Libra]

23. Check out.........

.....my post #20 - - as I state there I haven't got all the answers because if I did I'd be making millions right now. First thing we need to do is get rid of the neocons but in their place we don't need the far, far left either. That is a major concern of some people I think. The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle and they don't want either extreme.

[cynatnite]

13. It seems like they envisioned the opposite

With how they wrote up the constitution it seems like they prepared for the times when the political parties didn't come together. Everything from getting laws passed to judicial appointments, terms and so on seems to show they saw party squabbling ahead.

I'm no expert on the constitution, but I do believe the founding fathers were experts on the human condition.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. Well, that's a given, look at all the squabbles they.......

.....went through just to get a Constitution that all stats would sign. So ys, thy foresaw squabbles but THEY WORKD IT OUT. That is my point. I'm NOT talking just about the Dems here, or just the neocons, the Libratarians (far, far right), or whoever (far, far left), I'm talking about all of them trying to find common ground.

I know that isn't easy if the neocons are in control of everything but at some point that will change and then what?? Are we going to have a reverse of roles in the form of Greens or whoever is further left than that??

In the meantime, I'm no expert, if I was I'd be making a whole lot more money than I am now.

[cynatnite]

26. Maybe it was hope for the best and prepare for the worst...

They hoped the politicians would work out their differences and come to a consensus in order to serve the American people.

One thing I loved about Clinton was his ability to find the common ground. He got so much done by reaching across the aisle.

And if I was an expert, my book would be out by now ;)

[T Wolf]

4. Their tactics are despicable, but understandable because of the values

they hold. They really are repukes.

It is the ideas they support that is the worse of their evils.

[sheelz]

7. Their Stance on the Issues

And I like to vote. Did you hear that Diebold!

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. They're DINOs, repuke lite and their stance on the issues

are right with the repukes.

[The Magistrate]

10. Your Proposition, Sir, Contains A Fundamental Error

The D.L.C. has no interest at all in getting along with Republicans; their interest is to defeat them. They believe a set of tactics different from those that appeal to you will best serve that end.

The D.L.C. believes that the Democratic Party leaves itself open to certain lines of attack from the Republicans that demonstrably do resonate with a large bloc of voters who, on calculation of immediate self-interest, really ought to be voting against Republicans. They believe that by not emplying certain sorts of rhetoric, they will strip the Republicans of one of their chief weapons. Whether or not that calculation is a good one is another matter, but whether or not it is correct, it is far from a desire to get along with Republicans.

The D.L.C. also believes that extreme partisan activity and obstructionism are unpopular with the people, particularly with so called "swing voters", and so takes the view that pressing action on such lines will back-fire. They believe it is more popular with such groups of voters to get something done that Democratic politicians can take credit for, and so demonstrate to the people that Democrats can accomplish something. They view co-operating with some Republicans as a necessary price to pay on occassion for this gain. Again, whether or not this calculation is correct, and in my view it is not, is immaterial: it is far from a desire to get along with Republicans and collaborate with them.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bvar22]

14. The same people who fund the Republican Party...

...also fund the DLC. Both the Republican party and the DLC have a common agenda in preventing the election of Democrats who favor regulation of Corporations, protections for LABOR, and limits on Free Trade.

[The Magistrate]

17. Most Corporations, Sir

Donate to both sides; there is no particular signifigance to it. Someone is going to win, after all, and there is no point to making an enemy you do not need to make, from the businessman's view.

What you are really assailing here is the modern conventional wisdom of economics, which holds that "free trade" is the key to national prosperity, and that anything which impedes it is against the economic interest of the country and its people. That view is a false one, but it is the conventional one, and conventional people have conventional views. The strategists of the D.L.C. are nothing if not conventional people, and believe accordingly.

[bvar22]

24. True that Corporations donate to both sides,

but the DLC is solely funded by the Corporations. Though it sells itself as a "Think Tank", the DLC is in reality a powerful Pro-Corporate/Anti-Labor Lobbying Group with deep pockets and much influence in the Democratic Party.

While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

A key member of the event committee for the 2000 annual fall dinner was Mike Lewan, who runs a boutique lobbying house that has represented clients such as Oracle and BellSouth. In the late 1980s, Lewan, who joined the DLC because he was "one of those disaffected Democrats," went to work as Lieberman's chief of staff--and promptly introduced the Connecticut senator to the DLC. Today, Lewan helps recruit support for the DLC on K Street. "It's astonishing to me how much support the DLC is getting from the professional Washington people, the lawyers, the lobbyists," he says. "There's a relationship and a trust level that's been built up."

Joining Lewan on the event committee were several dozen of Washington's elite lobbyists, including representatives from the Dutko Group, Greenberg Traurig, the Wexler Group, Verner, Liipfert, and SVP Kessler and Associates, all with blue-chip clients, along with lobbyists for Chevron, Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, and others. One was Arthur Lifson, vice president for federal affairs at Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers and a company that stands to gain enormously if, say, Medicare were privatized along the lines proposed by the DLC and by one of its founders, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. "The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."

Oh so much more, do check it out: http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/drey...

The DLC has no grassroots support, and tirelessly work for the interests of less than 2% of the American population.
The strength of the DLC's voice (bought with Corporate money) FAR outweighs the population they actually represent.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[The Magistrate]

27. Most Political Think Tanks Are So Funded, Sir

It demonstrates nothing in the matter of either conspiratorial collabration or vast influence within the Party.

[bryant69]

15. Means and ends.

On point 1, the end result is the same. We take the issue away from Republicans by giving them what they want, so they can't bitch about it any more. And the only people who suffer under this policy are the working poor, gays, immigrants, women and . . . well you get the point.

On Pointe 2, what the DLC considers "extreme" I consider showing a bit of back bone and acting like the opposition party.

Bryant

[The Magistrate]

19. You May Well Be Correct In That View, Sir

There is plenty of room to argue the tactics favored by this organization may be futile or even counterproductive. But that remains something different from what you charged initially, namely an active desire for collaboration. Even an ineffective opposition is far short of that.

[bryant69]

22. Yeah but I don't give them a lot of points for that

to me it's a little like making a lot of the difference between these two statements.

"Hey I want to stab my buddy in the back."

and

"Hey I want to defeat my enemies by stabbing my buddy in the back."

I mean yeah those are two different motivations - and I suppose if you could convince the speaker he could defeat his enemies without stabbing his buddys in the back, well, yeah. But at the core is an action that isn't very excusable in my mind.

Bryant

[wuushew]

21. The DLC is pro-war

But as Sen. Hillary Clinton noted in a speech earlier this week, it's time now for the United States to strike while the iron is hot with a tough new strategy to encourage the now-galvanized international community to push Tehran to change directions.

"We cannot and should not--must not--permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said in an address at Princeton University. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations." Clinton also bluntly suggested the ultimate threat of force should be maintained and made credible. "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."


:nuke:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253688&kaid=131&subid=207

[riona]

25. does "moderate" mean what it used to?

there seems a theory that whole political spectrum has shifted to the right. so, is a moderate a bit right of center now and a liberal not as far left?