Right-wing Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

[Bluebear]

via Americablog: This week, Koch Industries is in the news again following an expose by Jane Meyer at the New Yorker titled, "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama"...

But, here's a key piece of information: the Kochs haven't just given to right-wingers. Back in April of 2001, The American Prospect's Bob Dreyfuss reported that the Kochs also funded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC):

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.

Fitting, isn't it? The entity that tries to undermine the progressive agenda from within the Democratic Party was getting funding from the guys who are trying to destroy the Democratic Party from the outside.

Just a side note: The DLC's long-time CEO, Bruce Reed, is now the Executive Director of the Obama administration's Debt Commission, a.k.a. the Cat Food Commission.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-dlc-and.html

[mmonk]

1. Thanks.

[mmonk]

2. Send it to Rachel.

[Bluebear]

6. Done.

Great idea :)

[mmonk]

11. The narrative that the powers on the right have influence in the

Democratic Party as well is never discussed. I think some should be made aware. The dialogue in this country is not deep and just deals in partisanship. Glad you did it.

[eleny]

3. Color me surprised

K&R

[DJ13]

4. Yep, we have been infiltrated by the right

We've known this since Bill was President, which was why so many who supported Obama are disappointed that he campaigned as the anti Hillary (ie: NOT a DLC'er), then governed like he's the leader of the DLC.

[Vincardog]

23. Bingo got it in one. I am disappointed that he campaigned as the anti Hillary (ie: NOT a DLC'er),

then governed like he's the leader of the DLC. We don't have to worry about CORPORATIST polices when we have the DLC running the show.





OH yeah
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[bvar22]

29. Pretending to distance himself from the DLC was a brilliant piece of marketing.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

[Bluebear]

41. Yes indeed.

[Jim Sagle]

62. But...but...but THAT would mean Obama (gasp!!!!!) was LYING!!!!!!!!!!

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::rofl:

[mod mom]

91. yes sadly Obama was smart to deny use of his name thus

allowing many of us to believe the messages in his speeches. His team speaks volumes doesn't it?

They don't even care if they lose seats in November because the agenda remains pretty much the same.

[earth mom]

125. Isn't that called a bait and switch?

Some of us tried to warn people around here during the primaries but few would listen.

[MineralMan]

5. Bruce Reed? Isn't his son a famous motocross champion?

Or something...

[Subdivisions]

19. Yea, that's him ...

:eyes:

[cliffordu]

58. Yep - I think he had to step away because he

hurt himself, something about bananas, or something.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. OK, you remaining DLC lovin' DUers --

Seriously, what the hell else is it going to take to convince you the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dog Democrats are not your fucking friends

Christ on a cracker -- we have foxes in the hen house, people!

If you sit there and let them slaughter you, go right ahead, but this Hen is going to kick the ever lovin' shit out of some fox ass until she can kick no more.

[bluesmail]

8. Just like arming both sides of wars wars wars. They fund both sides in our so-called

democracy. HA! Yes, I'm so shocked. Glad this is coming out now rather than after it's too late, although I believe we've been taken over by fascists. I don't know how long because they are super shhhhhh secretive shhhhhh. At least from the late 1800's when some idiot court made an idiot rule.

[Nite Owl]

9. And we wonder why this administration

seems to enjoy dissing the left? Search no more.

[Me.]

10. There You Go

What so many have contended for so long. Plausible deniabilty is no longer plausible.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. Where are our resident DLCers?

Is this embarrassing to them? Is it not news?

[Arkana]

26. I didn't think we had any--anyone who supported the "DLC" either left or got banned after 2004.

[Roland99]

71. I wish. They're here and they're here in large numbers.

[Bluebear]

28. No flaming blue links so far. nt

[Enthusiast]

68. No embarrassment! Remember, we must

follow a sensible path.

[MineralMan]

13. 2001? What the current make up of the Executive Council?

I can't find any corroboration for this other than various blogs all quoting the Bob Dreyfuss reporting. It could be true, but this is very old information, without any backup. Could even be disinformation. That's been known to have happened, you know...

Why not see if you can corroborate this somehow.

[TheKentuckian]

14. When you plant an apple seed there is no reason to expect a redwood to spring up

Nothing has changed in the DLC dynamic other than ever increasing power and incremental rebranding of the party at large.

[MineralMan]

16. That's real folksy-like, there, but...

what is the current makeup of the Executive Council or Board of Trustees of the DLC? The information is from 2001. I remember 2001. Lots of stuff has happened since then.

Tell me about today. Who's on the Board now? Who are the Trustees, or the Executive Council. Organizations change over time. Many change dramatically. Many others become stagnant and no longer have any influence.

So, don't tell me about what happened 10 years ago. Tell me about now...Is Koch still involved in the DLC? What person from Koch was on the board of trustees or Executive Council in 2001? That information wasn't even in the orginal article.

Old news is not even news at all. Get some current information and bring it back. We'll discuss it.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe there has been a change in philosophy with these folks?

Magical thinking is operative.

[MineralMan]

32. So, you don't know who the current trustees or Executive board

is? Never mind then. If you think that organizations do not change over time, I can't help you. Go find out who's running things there now, if there's actually anything to run there any more. Based on what I've seen on the site, the organization is essentially defunct at this time. If you have some actual evidence that is not the case, now is the time to trot it out. Stuff from 2001 is irrelevant.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Things can change in any direction. Were you under some impression that they had had turned over a

a new leaf?

You're a solid researcher check it out for yourself and you'll likely find the names have changed but its the same old old town and if you really look around you'll see some old faces too. If not you can allay any fears folks might have and put it straight.

All this older article is doing is giving you a peek at the kind of people that we are dealing with.

These aren't our friends, for the most part these are the very scum that are the black holes dragging us down.

You can believe all the organizational Saul on the road to Damascus moments you please but on balance you're hanging on minutia to create a perception barrier.

I wonder if it is for the benefit of the audience or yours.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

84. Present some evidence of your claim. I'm paid by nobody.

It's easy to make accusations. Lame, too.

[Jim Sagle]

107. It's not a claim, it's a joke.

[MineralMan]

124. Hard to tell the difference. Sorry if I misunderstood. I didn't

get your joke, apparently. I've had the same thing said to me very seriously. It's not true in either case.

[Shining Jack]

126. Nobody ?

http://www.whoisnobody.com/order/win_kit.html

[girl gone mad]

66. Just put him on ignore.

He's intentionally wasting your time.

[MineralMan]

83. I don't really have any interest in the DLC, so I'm not going to

spend time doing the research. As far as I can tell by visiting the DLC website, it is out of business. Nothing new posted there for a long time. That's the sign of a defunct, inactive organization. Why should I bother? Let those who keep bringing it up do the research. I'm just saying that condemning an organization for its leadership almost 10 years ago, without investigating its current leadership, is sorta lame.

After all, who'd have thought that Ted Olson would be fighting to overturn Prop. 8 in California? Lots of things have changed since 2001.

So, you can count on me to point out that the data being presented is almost 10 years old, but you'll have to do your own research.

[KoKo]

87. Thomas Frank wrote about Koch Bros. and DLC in "What's the Matter with Kansas" in 2004!

Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won ...
Published on November 3, 2004 ... What's the matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank has done a good job of explaining it. Take decent God-fearing, ...

---------------------------------------

The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC
Submitted by Ted Kahl on February 9, 2006 - 10:44pm

* Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
* Republicans & Conservatives
* Tom DeLay

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations. As for the rightwing, journalists such as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons uncovered that the "vast right wing conspiracy" -- or the New Right network of think tanks, media outlets and pressure groups -- was marshalled under rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife for his Get-Clinton campaign. Prior to the work of Conason and Lyons, Russ Bellant extensively documented in "The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

A Washington Post interview with Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?", touches on this question.

In the concluding chapter of "Kansas," Frank assigns "a large part of the blame for the backlash phenomenon" to the "criminal stupidity" of the Democratic Party in abandoning its commitment to labor and economic justice in pursuit of white-collar votes and corporate contributions. The DLC in particular, he writes, thinks that "to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies," Democrats must stand firm on issues like abortion rights while making "endless concessions on economic issues" such as NAFTA, welfare, privatization and deregulation. The result? Democrats become Tweedledum to the Republicans' Tweedledee on the laissez-faire economy, leaving their opponents free to woo blue-collar voters with backlash issues.

Earlier in the book, Frank takes his anti-DLC rhetoric to an even higher pitch. He notes that generous contributions from the Kansas oil billionaires who run Koch Industries have propped up numerous institutions that champion laissez-faire economics, from the Cato Institute to Citizens for a Sound Economy. And he includes the DLC on his list of Koch-funded "hothouses of the right."

"That's crazy," says Ed Kilgore, the DLC's policy director. "If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Republicans, you're not paying attention."

Sure, the DLC took some Koch money, Kilgore says. But it has never advocated abandoning the working class or taking economic issues off the table, and it is proud of Clinton's economic record. "If you have to be self-consciously and vocally anti-business in order to be considered a legitimate Democrat or progressive," he says -- well, sheesh: That would rule out the party's current presidential nominee.

Informed of this return fire, Frank seems uncharacteristically exasperated. But his fundamental stance remains: Bring 'em on.

Has the DLC taken economic issues off the table? "Of course they haven't taken them off the table -- they've just become Republicans."

Does a Democrat have to be anti-business? "I don't think I'd call myself anti-business. . . . I'm critical of the species of capitalism that we're living under today."

Is that Koch money innocent? "Okay, it is Koch that funds right-wing organizations. And it's the Democratic Leadership Council that's been working hard for years to push the Democratic Party to the right. Not to the left. To the right."

But isn't that where the American mainstream has been heading for decades? And hasn't he positioned himself way outside it?

Frank concedes this last point, but nothing more.

The Koch brothers also fund "Triad Management", which was at the center of a Republican money laundering scandal back in 1996. In fact, this was the very first Tom DeLay scandal -- and Koch money was present back then as well. For more on "Triad", here is a PBS report on the affair.

In a related thread, Democrats.com member Bill Harding writes:

The following quotes are from today’s NYT Letters to The Editor section. They underscore how Democrats are perceived by a cross-section of readers, under our current “centrist” DLC, stand-for-nothing “leadership.”

[MineralMan]

90. I moved to Minnesota in 2004. Now, six years later,

I feel right at home here.

[KoKo]

93. What does that have to do with the article I posted? Did you bother to read it?

?????

[stevenleser]

103. The article you provided did not give any new information. It did not say post 2001 that money was

donated. There is a lot of innuendo and very little in the way of fact in what you posted.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. Somebody shoved a rock that started an avalanche -

you are demanding proof that he's still pushing the rock in order to hold him accountable for the avalance?

[stevenleser]

140. Neither the rock nor the avalanche are in evidence. Start with either one. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

152. Troll tool #1 - deliberate obtuseness.

The evidence is the documented connection between the Koch brothers and the DLC - which is what this whole fucking thread is about.

The Koch brothers, who have an avowed goal of destroying American progressivism, donated to a nominally 'progressive' organization, which has for the past 30 years contributed to the furthering of RW causes and policies to the expense of progressive policies. At the same time they were creating the Cato Institute, they were on the ground floor of the creation of the DLC.

Two phrases come to mind - There is none so blind as he who will not see, and, A person can fail to see a lot when his payched is dependent upon not seeing it.

[Bluebear]

155. Thank you

for dealing with whoever "ignored" is :)

[Catherina]

154. Don't waste your time. n/t

[Lost4words]

94. sweet

:hi:

[Raineyb]

89. What difference does it make? Their PHILOSOPHY hasn't changed one fucking bit.

To pretend that the DLC of today is any different ideologically than the DLC of 2001 is just plain fucking stupid when their actions clearly shows that they are not.

[stevenleser]

104. Like what?

I don't concern myself with trumped up boogeymen unless someone proves there is a reason why I should be concerned. In order for someone to do that, they would have to provide me a list of people with verifiable ties to the DLC who are having a direct impact on policy and that impact would have to be negative.

In the case of your comment, Raineyb, you would have to prove this for 2001, and prove it for now and show that the actions are virtually the same. Are you prepared to do that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Rahm. nt

[Raineyb]

138. Thank you RaleighNCDUer.

Short sweet and to the point. Amazing how easy it is for some to miss the bloody obvious.

[stevenleser]

139. Wow, we need another term that goes beyond "Epic Fail" for you guys. You really have nothing.

Just as I thought

[Raineyb]

141. The fact that you can't see because you have your head firmly ensconced in your rectum

does not constitute an epic fail on anyone's part.

[stevenleser]

143. You couldnt even offer the slightest bit of evidence for what you assert to be this massive bogeyman

It's pitiful to watch. It really is.

[karynnj]

115. I think you are right - the last I ever heard was that Vilsack took over the leadership

from Hillary Clinton (back in either 2006 or 2007). As a member of the Obama administration, he is likely not also head of the DLC. Yet I heard nothing here - in a place obsessed with the DLC on anyone replacing him.

[stevenleser]

142. Yeah, these folks have to have a bogeyman I guess. It's like a reverse diety

I dont think they would know what to do if they couldnt rail against the DLC anymore, so they keep asserting its existence even though its pretty obvious it is all but defunct at this point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. The first rule of fight club...

They are learning the lesson that the C Street house learned - never talk about what you do or who is in your little club, or the people will be all over your ass. Why would ANY political organization not have membership lists available to the public unless they don't want anyone to know who they are? And why would they not want anyone to know who they are if they were on the up-and-up?

This is the fucking DLC, not a local writers' group that meets every other tuesday. It doesn't just fade away for lack of interest, particularly when it has been so successful in placing it members in very powerful positions.

[mzmolly]

31. B

ravo! :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. Is Koch still involved in the DLC?

What, have you heard anything about a hostile left-wing takeover of the DLC in the last ten fucking years?

The DLCers have heen distancing themselves from their own organization since the 2004 disaster that showed them for what they are. But that doesn't mean they've changed. Rahm still thinks we are fucking retards.

The DLC was born from a desire to destroy the progressive movement in this country - and now, surprise surprise, we find it is originated and funded by RW fascists. They sucked a lot of people in who were taken in by their disinformation campaign, but as those people recognized it for what it is - Gore, Edwards, among others - the DLC turned its efforts to destroying them.

How about YOU give us some indication that they are NOT what they were ten years ago.

[stevenleser]

109. No, it doesnt work that way. If you are asserting the existence of a boogeyman, you need to prove it

We dont need to prove that it doesnt exist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

110. Wrong - we know it exists. What is postulated is that it is dead.

Where's the fucking body?

[karynnj]

118. The DLC exists - but it is not clear it has any influence or that any elected officials

are involved. The new President is Ed Gresser, who I have never heard of - even though he was there since April. Harold Ford Jr apparently joined the leadership council.

[stevenleser]

144. I think that is even in question, see the thread started by Mineralman below.

Its basically gone.

[karynnj]

116. You are making up conspiracy theories here

Gore was as close to a charter member of the DLC as you can get. He was the first person they endorsed to run for President in 1988. They also pushed Bill Clinton, who they endorsed in 1992 to take him as VP. (He was not even on the 10 names that Time magazine speculated about.) He was the Democrat, who pushed other Democrats to accept NAFTA. He was also a very conservative Democrat, who voted the DLC line.

As to Edwards, he likely had no political philosophy when he started to run for the Senate and he voted as a very conservative DLC Democrat. He moved to the left for 2008 for one major reason - there was no room to run to the right of Hillary Clinton.

As to the 2004 disaster, what are you talking about. Given that Bush was at 60 percent in December 2003, the risk was that the Democrats would lose in a landslide that would absolutely demoralize them. Instead, to win, the Republicans needed to cheat in Ohio (not putting adequate voting machines in Democratic areas), use gay marriage as a wedge issue, use the likelihood of picking 2 or more Supreme Court Justices to get the Catholic church to weigh in on their side, and to get the media to assist them in a character assassination that ignored that there was an intact official record 100% on Kerry's side.

The fact is that Kerry is the most liberal nominee the party has fielded for decades - far to the left of Edwards and Gore. Not to mention, you might have noticed the Clinton wing of the party (DLC ?) for the most part sat on its hands - doing just enough that they couldn't be easily blamed.

[Ignis]

117. You can't find this information for yourself?

Google, unlike the DLC, is not classist; anyone can perform a search.

[MineralMan]

130. It's not my assertion, is it? It's up to those making the assertion

to demonstrate its truth. I choose not to do the research for them. I have other issues to follow.

[Ignis]

131. That's untrue. You brought the current DLC makeup into the conversation.

So I'd say it's your assertion that requires support.

[MineralMan]

135. You may say whatever you wish. I will decide what I will do.

Thanks for your interest.

[Ignis]

136. How kind of you to grant me permission. But the facts don't lie:

Here's your opening salvo post in this sub-thread, in which you raise the issue of the current makeup:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9014275&mesg_id=9014581

Why is it the OP's responsibility to answer your questions? If you have a question about the current makeup of the DLC, why not find out for yourself?

[mzmolly]

22. +1

I too await more information on current so called support for Democrats that comes even close to staring fake political movements with MILLIONS of dollars, etc.

[MineralMan]

34. I don't even think the DLC is active. I looked on their site, and all

the stuff there is at least a year or more old. Active organizations keep their websites updated. I think this is all bogus. Stuff that happened in 2001 has pretty much no relevance today, and nobody even seems to know who the current directors, trustees, or executive are at the DLC today. The information sure isn't on their site, and a Google search doesn't reveal anything.

So, I am figuring nobody's home at the DLC any longer. It's an organization that may have had some relevance in 2001. Today...not so much, perhaps.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. I actually agree with you about the DLC

having no revelence today. Mostly because the country AND the rank and file of the Democratic Party is not as RW as they were back then.

However, I WILL disagree about things in '01 having no revelence. Did all those Koch backed "Democrats" just go away? Did they join the Republican Party? Or did they just call themselves "New Democrats" and push the same agenda as they pushed in '01. Or maybe I should say, they were PAID to push in '01.

The better question to me would be, "Who was DLC in '01 and are they still in positions of authority in the Democratic Party?" Because I seriously doubt if they're pushing a DIFFERENT agenda than they pushed in '01.

[MineralMan]

38. Well, that sounds like a good research project for you to take on.

I have campaigns to work on. The November election will be here before you know it. If you're interested in the history of the DLC, then, by all means, go research it. Bring back what you find and post it. We'll all be interested.

But, a snapshot of an organization that is no longer particularly active, from almost 10 years ago seems pretty irrelevant to me. I'm not particularly concerned with the board of any organization from 10 years ago. It's almost certain that none who were on the board then are still on the board today...if there even is a board any longer.

If you're asking those questions, then I encourage you to go do the research and find out. I'll look forward to what you find out...after the November election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. And I'm sure you will do your damnedest to get a dem elected,

and if that dem is historically a DLCer who is sworn to undermining progressivism and advancing predatory capitalism, well that's no nevermind to you. It's the "D" that's important, not what they stand for.

How about you doing your own fucking research and finding out WHO it is you are supporting?

[MineralMan]

97. Yes, I will.

When the alternative is a Republican, then I'll support the Democrat every time. Every time. Wouldn't you?

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Do you truly believe that we will be better of if Republicans win elections. Even the worst Democrat usually votes with the Democrats on individual measures. You can count on the Republican to obstruct those measures.

So, yes, I absolutely do support Democrats in every election. Who do you support? Uff da!

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. If I have an enemy with a knife, I want him standing in front of me where

I can see what he's doing. I don't want him covering my back. That is suicidal.

Yes, I would rather see a real republican win than a Democrat who is a covert Republican. The real republican has no power to move my party to the right, while the covert republican does, and the country will not benefit from having two right wing parties.

Stand by progressive principles, even when they might lose, and the pendulum will swing back eventurally. A right wing democrat stops the pendulum.

Why do you think the fascist Kochs have been funding the far right of the democratic party? To force Democrats into the position of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. But every time a RW dem is elected over a non-RW funded progressive dem it weakens the progressive side and strengthens the right. And every strengthening of the right wing of the Dems, strenthens the Repubs.

What is the great strength of the repubs today? They don't have the numbers. They don't have the ideas. What they have is solidarity against the progressives AND non-progressive dems who give them what they want. When we stop electing RW dems, the repubs may win a race or three but then they have no buffer between their bad policies and the public. We didn't regain congress in '06 by putting up candidates who wanted to be republicans. We regained congress because the public was FED UP with republicans. There were few races where a progressive candidate would not have done just as well - and in places, better - as any blue dog, because the public, which cares a lot less about politics than the afficionadoes here, simply wanted the "R"s gone.

Every fucking blue dog and DLCer needs to be primaried. It is the only way to protect the party. And I'll tell you now, if the only "D" on my ballot is a blue dog, I will simply leave that line blank.

I've been a Democrat since before my first vote, and my first vote was for McGovern. But I don't recognise the party anymore. Pro-business, pro-war, anti-labor, anti-education, anti-civil right...wait...I DO recognise it. We are the Republican party of 1964.

[South End Liberal]

121. Great post. I agree.

I worked to get Obama elected, only to watch him load his administration with DLC types. I figured out then that we'd been duped.

Question is, what do we do now to get control away from the DLC and get the party back on track, supporting the working people?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

86. Even in 2001, the DLC did not have a membership list that ever seemed to be updated

with people leaving. The fact is that in the late 1980s, even Democrats like Gary Hart and Tim Wirth joined. This is when Howard Dean joined the DLC and John Kerry joined the New Democrats, which was part of the DLC in some way- yet both were not favorites of the DLC leadership. Al Gore was the first DLC endorsed candidate in 1988 and Bill Clinton was their 1992 candidate. In 2000, they pushed Gore and in 2004, they pushed Lieberman and (the Clinton wing) Clark. They backed Kerry only when he was the near certain winner - and their support was not even lukewarm.

If you look at those that at any time had leadership positions within the DLC, you will find many in the Obama administration. Part of this is that the DLC likely sought to include anyone they thought of as a potential leader. For the politicians, joining likely meant another way to influence the party's direction - which would not happen if they stayed out. You can't really influence the group if you are not there. But, I wonder, after that wing of the party was not all that engaged in 2004, if Obama saw that he had to bring in that wing - in fact, wasn't there soem quote about birds needing two wings to fly. But, it is still Obama who has the final say.

[PassingFair]

102. Here's a 2006 membership roster.

http://mydd.com/users/illinois062006/posts/dlc-membership-and-the-ideas-dlc-members-endorse

It got DELETED with my above post.

WTF?

I have no idea why my post was deleted.

[karynnj]

106. I can't imagine why it was deleted - it shouldn't have been

The fact is that is NOT a 2006 roster. It is MY DD listing all members of the DLC list who were still in Congress in 2006. The DLC did NOT have a current list. This meant that ANY Senator or Congressman still in office in 2006 that had at any time been part of any DLC group is listed there.

Two obvious examples are Kerry and Dodd. In 2006, Al From said that the DLC members potentially were Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh. Now, Kerry was still considering a run and polled higher than anyone but Clinton on this list. Dodd polled poorly, but better than Vilsack or Bayh.

Now, why was that list created - looking like an early 2006 update to the DLC list? That list was contentious in 2006 and many of us noted that it was just because people not in office were culled that Edwards, Gore and Dean were not listed there. Dean and Gore actually voted the DLC line, unlike Dodd and even more, Kerry, who were far to the left of the DLC. This was a dishonest way then to claim that Edwards was not DLC, while claiming Kerry was - at a point where Gore (who was saying "no" to running), Kerry and Edwards were the people most likely to run against Clinton. This in spite of Kerry's record being FAR more liberal than Edwards' and Kerry not having done anything with the DLC since 2004, when he - like any nominee would have - spoke to their gathering.

[PassingFair]

137. It gives people the general idea.

Harman, the Nelsons, Landrieu, Lincoln, etc. etc. etc.

I remember the parsing wars of who was/was not DLC,
and I remember that Kerry declared he was NOT.
Dean DEFINITELY was completely unaffiliated with
them and actively being ATTACKED by them before
2004.

Gore also left the fold, after his disastrous
dance with them in his campaign.

I wonder HOW Lieberman got that far.

I wasn't paying much attention until AFTER the
theft in Florida.

[Ignis]

119. The truth is inconvenient, and must be buried.

[mzmolly]

44. Good point.

But they still make a great bogeyman eh? :hi:

[Change has come]

52. And you make a fantastic remora fish!

"The host they attach to for transport gains nothing from the relationship, but also loses little. The remora benefits by using the host as transport and protection and also feeds on materials dropped by the host".

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

:hi:

[mzmolly]

53. I had a great recipe in 2001.

About the time the DLC was relevant.

"Change has come?" Need a new user name?

[Change has come]

57. Did your recipe include Mineral Man Ass?

Of course you are right. Please call me "unfortunate user name"

Thanks in advance!

[mzmolly]

148. I believe it was Jane Hamshire's ass.

Oh wait, that was your recipe. Pardon me.

[mzmolly]

151. By the way, I agreed with Mineral Man because I hold the same position on the DLC and it's

lack of relevance. I've said so many times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8679034&mesg_id=8679787

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8679034&mesg_id=8679912

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8679034&mesg_id=8684330

[Dr.Phool]

45. They're all sitting in Obama's cabinet.

Not hard to find at all.

[chill_wind]

56. DLC-- PPI, Third Way, NDN ("New Democratic Network")

Their webs and the conservadems they love aren't hard to find, either.

[KoKo]

77. Yep...New Names for same policies...they just morphed...

but then some of us knew that.. Others either wish to remain clueless or have a stake in the new groups with the same funders controling...in the background.

[karynnj]

113. Both PPI and NDN have web sites - and they are think tanks

There are other Democratic think tanks as well - Center for American Progress, which Podesta headed and where many Clinton administration people went and the American Security project which Gary Hart started and John Kerry was involved in starting are two others.

All have different positions, but they all have one similar goal which is to research and write the detailed, long term position papers that they hope will help inform or influence Democratic politicians. They very likely do provide some ideas for Presidential platforms, which will be structured around the beliefs of the candidate.

[chill_wind]

47. They're active between primaries with their think tank org (Progressive Policy Institute)

which has been all doodied up and moved to ProgressiveFix.com

The old PPI site is still there-- all of it is still the Will Marshall show.

[Jim Sagle]

65. If you looked on their site, how did you miss this?

DLC | Trade Fact of the Week | August 25, 2010
Tariff Bill for Back-to-School Shoppers -- About $5 Billion

The National Retail Federation predicts that parents will spend about $55 billion, or $606.40 per family, on back-to-school supplies this year. Trade policy is a larger part of this bite than most realize. The tariff system likely accounts for $3 billion to $4 billion of this total, or about $40 per family.

Why? American tariffs are usually zero (or sometimes minimal) on high-volume imports like computers and DVD players, oil and natural gas, coffee and tea, metals and wood, airplanes, toys and furniture. The overall average tariff rate is about 1.1 percent - $21 billion in tariff revenue divided by $1.95 trillion in merchandise imports in 2009. But tariffs on lots of popular back-to-school goods are much higher. Some examples:

Link

Mad research skillz on your part, haw haw haw.

[Ignis]

120. You're assuming the first assertion was true.

I wouldn't. It's much easier to claim the earth is flat and contend your opponents must disprove your claim.

[Jim Sagle]

128. I was being polite - giving the mods a break, as it were.

;)

[Ignis]

129. I hear you.

Some posts that accuse other DUers of lying are quickly deleted/locked.
Others, not so much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8974366&mesg_id=8977131

In such an environment, it's probably best to err on the side of caution.

[stevenleser]

147. LOL, OMG, you are so right! Its horrible! Horrible..., wait... a paper on back to school taxes?

That's the evidence of the horrible dastardly group you assert, huh?

[Jim Sagle]

149. I was responding to a guy who said the site's been inactive since 2001. Clearly it hasn't.

Whatever point you're trying to make, if any, is irrelevant. Do try to keep up.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. I find their funding to the Tea Baggers and the like more concering...

if the Democratic Party was anything like Tea Baggers and such, then I would be worried, but that is not the case nor has it ever been. The Koch brothers currently fund some of the most fucked groups around, with the hope of making the Obama Presidency as difficult as possible.

[Vincardog]

24. And the Obama Presidency wants all real PROGRESSIVEs to sit down and stop proposing real changes to

the rigged game they have agreed to,
The GOP wins we get Corporate policies and rabidly RW SCOTUS Judges
The Democrats win we get Corporate policies and moderately RW SCOTUS Judges

[Barack2theFuture]

17. It is always good to know your enemies.

[asdjrocky]

20. It's a puppet show.

That's a list of the string pullers.

[mzmolly]

21. No comparison between trying to appear impartial with a 25K crumb to the DLC

a decade ago, vs. putting millions into front groups who have been trying to take down ALL Democrats for decades. *ehem

[mmonk]

27. The 25 grand is the fee to be on the executive council of the DLC.

[mzmolly]

30. Again, no comparison.

:hi:

[liberation]

48. Who said there was a "comparison?"

Let the red herrings fly I guess...

[mzmolly]

50. Feel free to believe there is no

comparison of any sort, being drawn in the OP.

[mmonk]

51. Maybe this will help.

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.

[mzmolly]

55. Not really. The DLC apparently suckered the Koch family into contributions?

This is not the same as funding a movement for decades to take down Democrats - including Clinton and Obama.

[mmonk]

61. I know the DLC very well.

They are an organization that wants to dissassociate with the traditional coalitions that held the Democratic Party together. So those people are more than people that want to sucker a few donations from these corporate sources that are traditionally right wing. These entities get to play both sides for their narrow interests. They may be trying to oust Obama, but in the end, they are playing a dual game with one beneficiary in mind.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. Only, who has suggested the DLC is trying to oust Obama?

What, exactly, has he done that is at odds with their corporate agenda?

[socialist_n_TN]

36. I thought it said that the contribution

to be on the board was MORE than 25k.

[DCKit]

25. DLC = (D)- Corporate, Democrats in name only.

It's why I never considered voting for Hillary.

[Dragonfli]

39. I prefer to call it Republican (D)rag. They look pretty in that Democratic dress but ... nt

[democracy1st]

33. great post

[deminks]

37. DLC = US Chamber of Commerce

Al From works for Tom Donahue.

http://mydd.com/2006/12/13/tom-donahue-the-gang-of-6-and-red-america

(snip)

Donahue is really smart, and the Chamber isn't going away. If you read the full article, you'll see that he hired Al From, head of the DLC, to make sure that right-wing policies succeed in both parties.

(end snip)

[annabanana]

40. Sorry to say I'm mnot surprised.. . . n/t

[Joe Fields]

42. Of course. And you are surprised?

[pleah]

43. No surprise here. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

46. Just try to tell us that corporate lobbies don't hold sway.

How do you get to be one of the wise heads that advise the DLC. Just give money. Your politics don't matter. Your morals don't matter. Your money is all that matters. They own the republican party and are buying the Democrats a handful at a time.

[laughingliberal]

49. K & R nt

[OnyxCollie]

54. K&R. nt

[Frank Booth]

59. Why was there no disclosure that Obama was the DLC candidate?

They must have figured a shadow candidate would work out better.

[Marr]

64. They ditched the "brand" once people became familiar with it.

Not unlike notorious corporations that change their names after PR disasters. *Exactly* like that, now that I think about it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Yep. The infighting (some here might remember it) of the 2004

elections revealed the DLC for what it is, with the result that the DLC actively worked against the Democratic candidate, and we lost the election. After that they couldn't toddle on like nothing happened - particularly after Dean became Chair of the DNC - so they started playing down the brand.

I'm starting to think that is the only reason Obama publicly disavowed the DLC in his campaign.

[Enthusiast]

67. This explains a lot. nt

[ozymandius]

69. Bruce Reed, successor to Al From

Al From remains clueless to this day on how to win an election. He gets paid millions to be a consultant yet his first victory seems forever out of reach. Oddly, the DLC website calls him one of "America's premier strategists" at election planning. It would seem that the DLC junta has worked very hard to make sure Republicans win elections. Their donor rolls look very similar.

Bruce Reed, similarly, seems to have an audience only in Washington. His audience is the "centrist" assholes who have a greater interest in making the Republicans look not so villainous with their race to the "center," carrying water for the oligarchs.

[upi402]

70. meet the new boss

same crew as the old crime family. makes some wonder...

[cate94]

72. It just figures

doesn't it? On the board of the DLC? That explains a lot.

[DailyGrind51]

73. As I say, the "DLC" means Dump Liberals for Conservatives!

[dotymed]

74. I know ( and apologize)

that we are not supposed to post any "create another party" posts, but what alternative is there? There is no way the DLC will allow a progressive movement to happen within the Democratic party. Already the DLC is not funding our best and brightest hopes for any real change in our government. They are not helping Alan Grayson, and I am sure that any Democrat who is progressive cannot expect any help from the DLC. Does anyone see an alternative to creating a viable Progressive party as a separate entity?

[mod mom]

75. Bill Clinton was initially financed by Jackson Stephens (financed BCCI)

Jackson Stephens rivals Bath in his role as conduit between high-level factions. A Little Rock, Arkansas tycoon who attended the U.S. Naval Academy with Jimmy Carter and staked Sam Walton to found Wal-Mart in 1970, Stephens was owner of the notoriously toxic WTI Incinerator in East Liverpool, OH, and a munificent contributor to the campaign warchests of both Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr. He was also embroiled in the BCCI affair through his association with BCCI satellite Union Bank of Switzerland—UBS, in turn, contributed $25 million to the moribund Harken Energy Corp.

http://www.wburg.com/0202/arts/lombardi.html

and don't forget the DLC's ties to the NEOCON organization PNAC:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

for all the grief Bill Clinton received from the right, he sure delivered for them

1. repeal of Glass Steagall (banking de-regulation)
2. Telecom Act of '96 (allowed media consolidation)
3. MFN status for China (which allowed the mass exit of middle class jobs to China)

to name a few prominent favors.

[peacetalksforall]

101. I hear 'third' plus 'way' and I think Bilderberger. Anyone who thinks

they are a citizen who knows quite a bit about what is going on - needs to read about Bilderberger. These are the richest people in the world who invite those who can keep a secret about the plans of those who are a part of and a guest of Bilderberger when they meet and as they communicate and carry out their plan. Example: Goodbye Canada, Goodbye Mexico. Welcome to everyone from North America. There is now one military command. And the same for the rest of the world.

Of the names above:
Dennis Ross - guest
James Woolsey - mainstay. Here's one of his quotes: Foreign Affairs (journal) January/February 1999: "The underlying goal of the U.N. force in Gulf War 1, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to petroleum."
Hillary Clinton - leader (I doubt that there was ever ANY doubt about how she would vote for Iraq War II and Patriot Act and now I see her doing the work towards the agenda of the Bilderberger set)
Bill Clinton - leader

The truth hurts.

DLC - Democratic Party Bilderberger enablers against all values and virtues of Democratic voters - voters who cling to their heritage of advancement of, by, and for the people and all people. All people includes teabaggers - but they don't know yet that they will be equal with their political opponents and hate targets. They don't know that their hopes and dreams are equally expendable with ours.

[Ninga]

76. Good work Bluebear, thanks even though you have reinforced my already

depressed state of mind. True Democrats are fast becoming extinct.

[KoKo]

78. It's depressing but also liberating. The "Truth" shall set us free..

is an old expression. Better to know the real situation. You can't work for change unless you can identify what needs to change.

So...it's a good thing this is getting out at this time. We on the left have been in dreamland for too long.

[Bluebear]

114. 'True Democrats are fast becoming extinct.' - Sad but a true realization. nt

[Capitalocracy]

79. Oh, but haven't you heard?

The ones trying to destroy the Democratic Party from the inside are us progressives!

[mistertrickster]

81. Well . . . THAT explains a few things, doesn't it. nt.

[peacetalksforall]

85. AT & T. Verizon. Now we know whycertain Democrats make me a

screaming scared citizen. Remember Feinstein? Schumer? Remember all the DLCers who voted with Republicans on the immunity?

How much pain did you feel when you heard them speak and vote in support of spying on us and getting away with it - in effect supporting the Poindexter database with all the citizen private and possibly inaccurate information?

We have to face the truth about our Party.

They are not Democrats.

This Party is not going anywhere FOR US if the leaders are nearly all DLCers. Same thing as Bilderbergers.

From above:
"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."

[Raineyb]

88. Surprise! Surprise! No wait, I'm not surprised at all!

Wolves in sheep's clothing the lot of them. Now can we put the bed the lie that DLCers are not DINOs?

[ensho]

92. kick

nt

[amborin]

105. they fund the global climate change deniers, too

[Poboy]

108. Your vote: +1

[Ignis]

122. K&R

It's amazing to see some DUers falling over themselves to defend these assholes, after all the harm they've done to the party and the country.

[DeSwiss]

123. Fucking DLC!

Well, well, well. Why am I not surprised?

DLC = Republicans

- K&R

Under God, with fees and compound interest for all

From the outset, capitalism was always about the theft of the people's sustenance. It was bound to lead to the ultimate theft -- the final looting of the source of their sustenance -- nature. Now that capitalism has eaten its own seed corn, the show is just about over, with the nastiest scenes yet to play out around water, carbon energy (or anything that expends energy), soil and oxygen. For the near future however, it will continue to play out around money.

As the economy slowly implodes, money will become more volatile stuff than it already is. The value and availability of money is sure to fluctuate wildly. Most people don't have the luxury of escaping the money economy, so they will be held hostage and milked hard again by the same people who just drained them in the bailouts. As usual, the government will be right there to see that everybody plays by the rules. Those who have always benefited by capitalism's rules will benefit more. That cadre of "money professionals" which holds captive the nation's money supply, and runs things according to the rules of money, can never lose money. It writes the rules. And rewrites them when it suits the money elite's interests.

Capitalism, the Christian god, democracy, the Constitution. It's all one ball of wax, one set of rules in the American national psyche. Thus, the money masters behind the curtain will write The New Rules, the new tablets of supreme law, and call them Reform. There will be rejoicing that "the will of the people" has once again moved upon the land, and that the democracy's scripture has once again been delivered by the unseen hand of God.

~ http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html">Joe Bageant, "Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball"

[Shining Jack]

127. K&R

Thanks.

[mod mom]

132. Must listen to interview: Jane Mayer on Fresh Air (NPR)

27 minutes long and very in depth!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9021895

[avaistheone1]

133. Now that is fucking scarey.

No wonder we are forced to elect Democrats who can't get anything done. It truly is by design of the DLC and their ultra conservative republican funders that it works that way.

[chill_wind]

134. Bottom line: With "friends" like Will Marshall, who needs the Koch boys?

Their money was nice, but it will probably just get replaced with more from wingers just like them.
As long as we keep saying SS is an entitlement and the entitlements (and not a word about Pentagon entitlement spending for 10-year permawars) is what's killing us.

If you're a lefty-hating neo-con chickenhawk Conservative, what here's not to love?

Undeterred by the flight of the GOP’s fiscal chicken hawks, President Obama today unveiled an 18-member special commission to tackle the nation’s budget crisis. Named to lead the panel were Democrat Erskine Bowles, chief of staff to President Clinton, and former Senate Republican leader Alan Simpson.

It’s easy to be cynical about such “blue ribbon” commissions. They are supposed to signal that political leaders are serious about solving intractable problems, but often convey the opposite — a craven desire to punt tough decisions to retired dignitaries who don’t have to face the voters.

And setting up a commission by executive order is distinctly inferior to enacting one into law, since the president can’t compel Congress to give his panel’s recommendations an up-or-down vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has offered distinctly unenthusiastic assurances that the House will consider the commission’s suggestions.

Still, such commissions are sometimes the only way to break a political impasse — recall the 1983 Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform, or the congressionally mandated military base-closing commission. Such action-forcing mechanisms give politicians just enough bipartisan cover to embolden them to vote for reforms everyone knows are necessary if unpopular.

In a bow to political reality, the president’s commission will report its recommendations after the midterm election, before the end of the year. Presumably, that will tee up the debate for the next Congress, while giving the economy this year to gain strength and whittle down the unemployment rate.

That’s the right timing, and it belies claims by Obama’s liberal critics that highlighting the urgent need to put America on a more sustainable fiscal course is antithetical to economic recovery. After all, only about $300 billion of Obama’s $800-plus stimulus package has been spent, and Congress is crafting a jobs bill intended to give a smaller but more targeted boost to employment.

But here’s what really irks Obama’s critics on the left: they see the commission setting the stage for an assault on entitlement programs. They are not entirely wrong: it’s the unsustainable growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that’s driving America’s long-term fiscal woes. But progressives ought to have more confidence in Obama’s ability to take a balanced approach to reforming the Big Three. It’s better, and safer, to do that now rather than risk handing off the job to some future Republican president who may be hostile to the idea of social insurance.

The president’s commission must do what lawmakers in Washington won’t — craft a balanced program of benefit cuts and tax increases to slow the growth rate of health and retirement benefits and move them toward solvency. Otherwise, those programs will consume the equivalent of every penny Washington now raises in taxes, necessitating unprecedented tax hikes, or borrowing at levels that will jeopardize America’s growth and fiscal stability.

But the commission shouldn’t just look at the Big Three, it should also look at the federal government’s massive spending on tax entitlements. Washington spends over $1 trillion a year on tax breaks and subsidies, including such popular items as the mortgage interest deduction and exclusion of employer-paid health benefits, crop subsidies, and a raft of special bennies for politically influential industries, aka, corporate welfare. There are also lots of important breaks for low-income Americans, like my own favorite, the earned income tax credit. All of these tax expenditures have rationales and constituencies, none should be regarded as sacrosanct.

from-

Obama’s Deficit Commission
February 18, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.


http://www.progressivefix.com/obamas-deficit-commission

Marshall:

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

(bold edit mine)

[mstinamotorcity]

145. Money will make

some people put their mother in prostitution.

[ProSense]

146. Wonder how this would have played

if someone in the DLC leadership (Hillary) had become President?

[L0oniX]

150. Kick ...rotten bastards.