Why I'm a New Democrat:

[mdguss]

I am a new Democrat because I don't believe that all corporations are evil. Many happen to do work that saves peoples' lives, helps the poor and protects the environment while happening to make a profit.

I am a new Democrat because I believe that free trade has the potential to allievate the world of poverty. It will not happen over night, and there will be growing pains, but free trade has the potential of making sure that workers abroad and in America are both paid good wages. Free trade has the potential to increase environmental standards in the developing world.

I am a new Democrat because I believe government can help lift people up, but it is not the final answer to many problems.

I am a new Democrat because I believe that our party should be inclusive of moderates. We need moderates that advocate balancing budgets through cutting spending and raising taxes on the upper class.

I am a new Democrat because I believe that the Democratic Party needs to offer sensible solutions for our country.

I am a moderate and I'm proud of that.

[Jim Sagle]

1. .

:boring:

[wyldwolf]

2. I'm with you

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America's basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.

We believe in free enterprise to stimulate economic innovation and growth and in public activism to ensure that everyone can share in America's prosperity.

We believe that government's proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.

We believe in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.

We believe that global markets demand global rules and institutions to ensure fair competition and to provide checks and balances on private power.

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

We believe that education must be America's great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.

We believe that all Americans must have access to health insurance in a system that balances governmental and individual responsibility.

We believe in preventing crime and punishing criminals and that America's criminal justice system should be rooted in and responsive to the communities it serves.

We believe in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.

We believe that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.

We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.

We believe in replacing top-down bureaucracy with more flexible public institutions that enable citizens and communities to solve their own problems.

We believe government should harness the forces of choice and competition to achieve public goals.

We believe in enhancing the role that civic entrepreneurs, voluntary groups, and religious institutions play in tackling America's social ills.

We believe in strengthening environmental protection by giving communities the flexibility to tackle new challenges that cannot be solved with top-down mandates.

DAMN PROUD TO BE A CLINTON DEMOCRAT!

[enkidu2]

19. clintons best environmental moves were top down

local rural communities often want to develop at the expensive of their local environment (viz brazils rain forest or alaska's wildlife reserve) if no more macro-oriented force opposes this the world will be transformed into a continous strip mall

[Nederland]

58. Thank You!

Sometimes I feel like DemocraticUnderground is actually SocialistUnderground!

[AirConditionedGypsie]

3. I am with both of you

on all points but just a few.

I hope I don't get banned for saying so.

[wyldwolf]

4. You won't get banned for saying so...

Express yourself.
Welcome to DU!

[enkidu2]

12. why I am an old democrat

because i believe that it is the fault of human nature and not of political systems that socialism does not work. capitalism and american democracy are the best one could hope for for a narrow minded, greedy and selfish species such as homo sapiens americanus

because i believe corporate do-gooding is an epiphenomenon; a drug company spends millions of dollars to polish its television commercials saying how wonderful and compassionate it is but a government funded organization would not waste money doing that (or servicing its shareholders) it would simply develop drugs.

etc and so forth

[Taeger]

125. New Democrat is like ...

New Democrat is like New Coke. It might have seemed like a good idea. It might have polled well. But ultimately it's a failure.

No thank you. Give me the "Democratic Classic: Red White and You". Ditch Clinton, give me Truman and FDR.

[LincolnMcGrath]

138. Give me the "Democratic Classic: Red White and You".

lol Funniest post yet.

[Ardee]

5. I am amazed

they are coming out of the woodwork propagandising like hell thinking that the same old tired platitudes woill gain them followers. The DLC has abdicated any leadership by failing to lead for three years now.
Your programs are empty words your actions are to support Bush at every turn. Bah!

[wyldwolf]

8. On the contrary...

There have just been so many vitriolic anti-DLC posts lately, some of us have decided to respond.

[Tinoire]

144. And then some will pretend the overall tone isn't shifting to the right

Boggles the mind. The DLC is a war-mongering, Bush-enabling, right wing infiltration of the Democratic Party that stands AGAINST everything the Democratic Party stood for.

You really have to take a deep breath when you see them signing PNAC letters to Bush as they help beat the drums of war in the interests of empire-building.

No thank you to their hollow lies and empty words.

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI, sets policy for the DLC) and former Policy Director for the DLC and James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, both on board with PNAC. No thank you.

Statement on Post-War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm


Nope, No, No thank you. I'm sticking with PNOC.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

7. point by point

I am a new Democrat because I don't believe that all corporations are evil. Many happen to do work that saves peoples' lives, helps the poor and protects the environment while happening to make a profit.

So, regular Democrats are all anti-corporate? You should let them know...they probably have no idea what you're talking about.

I am a new Democrat because I believe that free trade has the potential to allievate the world of poverty. It will not happen over night, and there will be growing pains, but free trade has the potential of making sure that workers abroad and in America are both paid good wages. Free trade has the potential to increase environmental standards in the developing world.

"free trade" is like "free market" in that it ends up serving those who are in charge of the money more than it serves people, especially at the lower end where the help is needed the most.

Again, why do you think regular Democrats are against Free Trade?

I am a new Democrat because I believe government can help lift people up, but it is not the final answer to many problems.

That's good, but once AGAIN, how does that make you different from other Democrats?


I am a new Democrat because I believe that our party should be inclusive of moderates. We need moderates that advocate balancing budgets through cutting spending and raising taxes on the upper class.

OK, there's a problem...other "New Democrats" don't believe in the "class war" Raising taxes on the "upper class" would suggest you're anti-capitalist. So...which is it?

I'mm a new Democrat because I believe that the Democratic Party needs to offer sensible solutions for our country.

And....the old Democrats didn't offer sensible solutions?

I am a moderate and I'm proud of that.

Many Democrats consider themselves moderates yet they aren't "New Democrats" and they don't want to be.

[wyldwolf]

11. I believe his post was more of a response to the anti-DLC posts at DU...

..and not as a commentary on Democrats in general. But that was just my impression.

For example, many anti-DLC'ers on DU are also anti-corporations. See post #10 in this thread as an example.

[Terwilliger]

20. many DLCers are anti-liberal too

so...

[Terwilliger]

21. and just because corporations aren't all bad...

doesn't mean theres no reason to keep a strict eye on them AND we should end coporate personhood

[wyldwolf]

25. First you have to define liberal

...then give examples of DLC'ers who are anti-liberal and why they are.

Then, you have to prove why it is anything more than your opinion.

[Terwilliger]

26. well, what do you think of people who want to get rid of unions

are unions liberal? why is NDOL anti-union?

[wyldwolf]

30. Are they? Proof?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

54. they aren't trying to get rid of unions

From has just said that in the New Economy, workers will CHOOSE not to join unions, since they tend to interfere with wealth creation. Unions are old economy, and we need to be moving towards a New Economy.

[wyldwolf]

56. Must have missed that one! Care to provide a link to see it in context?

[Eloriel]

151. AFAIC, that's a fancy ("nuanced" if you prefer) way of saying

We definitely want to get rid of unions.

Unions are among the "special interests" that the DLC was formed to counter. They have nothing but contempt for "special Interests" -- like minority rights roups, women's rights organizations, unions, environmental organizations, the like. All these SPECIAL INTERESTS groups bug them. More difficult to get corporate cash when all these damned special interests are floating around, controlling parts of the agenda, mucking up the works.

[Ardee]

154. things I never thought Id see...

High up on that list would have to be an anti union stance from a democratic organisation......hard to believe how far that once proud party has fallen.

[Kanary]

96. I'll continue being anti-DLC, and proud of it

Clinton was a good example of being influenced by the DLC.

His anti-welfare bill hurt many women and children, many of whom are now invisible.

If the DLC gets its way, many of us will be disappeared.

So, you see, there is no way I can embrace you.

Because you'd do away with me if you could.

We've all been smiley and warm and cozy for long enough. It's time for the real lines to be drawn. While some of us still have the breath to do so.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[SaddenedDem]

9. Not free trade - FAIR trade

free trade has the potential of making sure that workers abroad and in America are both paid good wages

Not without restructring NAFTA and ALL trade agreements currently in place. All the current trade agreements do is bring down the wages of American workers. The corporate mantra is "work for slave wages or we ship your job overseas."

That alone is why "new Democrats" are all wet and need to re-think what they are doing to our country. When they come for YOUR job, you'll be screaming - ask any IT professional.

[Taeger]

126. Arguments for NAFTA

The arguments for NAFTA are essentially the same as arguments for slavery.

Look, they're all working like ants. They're happy.

Poverty makes Americans MORE PRODUCTIVE. SEE THEY'RE MORE COMPETITIVE. And of course, if we're more competitive, we get to keep our jobs.

No thank you NAFTA dick heads.

[lastknowngood]

10. corporations are at their core evil because they have no soul

no conscious and no accountability. The people who run the major corporations throughout the world are motivated by greed only and nothing else if a corporation believes it will make them one dollar more profit and they can avoid culpability they would be perfectly willing to kill millions of people because they only care about the bottom line. If you believe otherwise you are living in another world.

[mdguss]

13. Yes my favorite local deli

,which is a corporation, is evil. Its owner sits in the back of the seating area an "conspires" to "exploit the world."

Give me a break. There are millions of companies, some good, some bad. Does my favorite local deli owner care about the bottom line? You bet. Does he employ lots of people and give them good wages? You bet. Does he pay taxes? You bet.

You know that grocery chains support national health care, don't you? It would eliminate a competitive disadvantage with Wal-Mart. Yes, Wal-Mart is bad. But there are some others that are quite good.

[eaprez]

14. Repubs in

....DLC Clothing.

[wyldwolf]

17. I do hope you are being sarcastic...

insinuating a DU'er is a republican is a grave offense here.

[cosmicdot]

15. 2 NDOL/DLC posts within about 46 minutes of one another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1098709

should I don a :tinfoilhat:

?

DLC = sorry, that dog don't hunt

[mdguss]

18. I thought the other one got locked:

And had some issues for some reason. So I decided to post why I am a new Democrat. Sorry if that gave anybody a headache. (You know it's all a secret plot of New Democrats who are alligned with the Skull and Bones society to increase the stock price to Advil:) (JOKE, sorry I couldn't resist).

[wyldwolf]

22. It did...

Officially it was locked as flamebait.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. I am a new New Democrat too

Corporations aren't all evil - the people who are successful at running businesses should be rewarded for their hard work. We are Democrats, not Communists, remember!

[wyldwolf]

24. You're absolutely right! We aren't communists

[salin]

111. since the word communist is getting

thrown around ... it seems fair to request at what point on the liberal spectrum within the democratic party the label communist is being thrown? Ted Kennedy? Russ Fiengold? Hillary Clinton?

[stepnw1f]

27. Welcome!!!

Some like vegetables...some like meat. Get over it.

[lastknowngood]

29. The classic repug line if we disagree with enron/halliburton

and other corps we must be communist. If you can come up with a responsible corp I can come up with 100 which aren't as they become larger and more disconnected they become amoral and greed is there only motivator. Small business which is accountable to the community is good. When they get to big it's like the sugarcane magnets in the 1800's they lived in unbelievable condtions while slaves died each day. Capitalism is probably failing as it did at the turn of the 19th century when government had to install controls to save the country.
Now the corps own our government and the government responds only to them. The definition of fascism is that it should better be called corporatism for it is the use of government to extend business concerns at the expense of the people.

[Q]

32. I'm getting a bit tired...

...of you DLCers throwing the word 'communist' around as if it applies to anyone to the left of you. Certainly you don't believe that liberals are communists? That is indeed the implication of several of your posts.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

72. I AM an official, contributing member of the DLC and the NDN

YOU are stating a falsehood - of which you have NO, ZERO, proof.

Here is my confirmation email from the DLC. Wyldwolf, feel free to apologize anytime...




Subject: Thank you for supporting the DLC. View Full Header
View Printable Version
From: Democratic Leadership Council <[e-mail]>
To: <WhoCountsTheVotes>
Priority: Normal



Dear <WhoCountsTheVotes>

Thank you for your generous contribution to the Democratic
Leadership Council (DLC). Your support and involvement are
critical as we seek to expand the political dialogue and
carry New Democrat politics into this new century.

I hope you will continue to find the DLC to be a great
investment -- both financially and intellectually. Again,
thank you; I am grateful for your support.

Sincerely,

Al From
Founder and CEO

Donation Information:
================================
Transaction ID: XXXXX
Donation Amount: $XXX.00
Campaign: Join The DLC!
Name: <WhoCountsTheVotes>

Address: xxx
City: New York
State: NY
Postal Code: 10019
Country: United States

Credit Card: * * * * *

If you would like to update your account information, please
visit your subscription management page for Democratic
Leadership Council at:

[wyldwolf]

76. oooh... transaction made about 1/2 hour after I said you weren't DLC

So you contributed $1. to get that e-mail to "prove" you were DLC AFTER I said you weren't. LOL!

The measures some will take to "prove" their case.

Bwahahahahahaha

(screen shot of your post so you won't edit time on your reciept)

[mdguss]

78. That buck will go to:

Know that that buck will go towards printing up material that is critical of Ralph Nader, may warn against Democrats taking extreme positions, and support free trade.

I personally hope they put that buck towards defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That would be truly ironic. Welcome. I guess.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

80. I am a member - are you?

Are you REALLY DLC, wyldwolf? Do you have any proof that you are REALLY DLC?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

93. it's growing everyday! And thanks for your donation!

[salin]

110. wow - if one believes in some restraint

to ensure that the conditions are such that maximizes capitalism ala descriptions of Adam Smith... one is a communist?

Darn if Rush et al didn't blur the definitions of basic economic and political systems so that everything to the left of Ayn Rand now equates to communism. Such a one-dimensional description, not to mention a misleading one.

[gate of the sun]

114. Your a defender of the corporations...... Yeck

I see once again if your not for capitalism no matter how insidious your a communists.New Democrat??????? You guys are scaring me dude. W

[ulysses]

23. why I'm not.

I'm not a New Democrat because, while all corporations are not evil, corporatism is.

I'm not a New Democrat because "free trade", as currently practiced, has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating poverty in the world and everything to do with the further transfer of wealth upwards.

I'm not a New Democrat because, while government may not be the final answer to many problems, neither is the market.

I'm not a New Democrat because, although I believe that the party should be inclusive of moderates, I do not believe that a stance that devalues actual policy positions in favor of nice-sounding, but meaningless, phrases is good for the party either electorally or policy-wise.

I'm not a New Democrat because I believe that the Democratic Party needs to offer real alternatives to the right wing.

I'm a liberal, and very proud of that.

[Terwilliger]

28. nicely said

:toast:

[ulysses]

31. thank you, good sir

:hi:

[Djinn]

35. mmmmmmmmm

I don't believe that all corporations are evil. Many happen to do work that saves peoples' lives, helps the poor and protects the environment while happening to make a profit.

"happening" to make a profit, I think you have that backwards they make a profit while maybe "happening" to help others. Also I have to take issue with the saving lives part, atleast in the pharma field the vast majority of life saving or improving drugs come out of government funded research at Universities/colleges it is then SOLD to a corp who make a killing. Also your "local deli" is unlikely to be a corporation - not all companies are corporate. Very few of us think they are "evil" but we do think they are increasingly unnaccountable and in control of budgets that are larger than that of many countries - UNELECTED power is dangerous.


I believe that free trade has the potential to allievate the world of poverty. .... has the potential of making sure that workers abroad and in America are both paid good wages. Free trade has the potential to increase environmental standards in the developing world.

please see maquiladoras to refute all of this.

[Nederland]

62. On the Contrary

Also your "local deli" is unlikely to be a corporation - not all companies are corporate.

Actually most companies, even small ones, are corporations for reasons of reducing liability and gaining tax benefits.

[Terwilliger]

65. I'm sure the local deli is allowed to incorporate in the Cayman Islands?

oh, that's right! Small "corporations" wouldn't have enough money to create those shelters.

[CatWoman]

84. oh, gawd

these two with their male bonding :P

[ulysses]

89. just wait until I've got another sheetrock issue.

:D :hi:

[Eloriel]

152. I'll second that

In fact I'll go farther. I think you've done a splendid job of revealing (in awfully close to their own words) the DLC's agenda.

[Stephanie]

34. And because these "new" corporations but Profits above Life Itself

They will pollute us and bankrupt us right off the planet without a qualm, if it increases their profits. They will put the cash in their pockets and leave their grandchildren no safe place to live. They would rather see the icecaps melt and the new ice age begin than sacrifice a cent.

[BillZBubb]

94. Here, here!

I will support any Democrat against Bush, DLC or otherwise. And enthusiatically.

But, my preference would be a Democrat doesn't buy into the easy, but flawed logic of free trade. It is a fundamentally disasterous policy. Why? Because it represents an inescapable race to the bottom in wages. Either the jobs move to the low wage area, or local wages fall, or both. There is no upside for the working people in the high wage country--except they can buy their stuff at WalMart a little cheaper with their unemployment money, while it lasts.

My preference would be a Democrat who realizes that regulation of corporations is a very good thing in most cases. There is nothing wrong with making a healthy profit. There is much wrong if doing so destroys the environment, lessens competition, harms the national economy, endangers workers, or beggars them.

My preference would be a Democrat who knows that a progressive tax system is by far the fairest and best for the country.

[Armstead]

100. Yer just a commie Ulysses

[ulysses]

101. shhhhhh!

You'll spoil the surprise!

[LincolnMcGrath]

139. GOOD SHOW!

[PVnRT]

140. Damn straight

n/t

[delhurgo]

33. There are alot of 'moderate' republicans who would like...

...to vote democrat. Millions in fact. They can't stand the religious right, but the alternative is the big gov't, tax and spend, socialist democrats. All democrats have to do is keep their positions on social issues: church/state, abortion, censorship, etc... but become more of a pro-business party. This is how Ventura and Arnold created bi-partisan support and got elected - and of course Clinton as well. Its the 'third way', and I believe the wave of the future - fiscally conservative/socially liberal. Whichever party realizes this first will dominate in the years to come. Despite his voting record, I believe Kerry knows this. If he runs as a DLC, New Dem, he should have a good chance to win.

[ulysses]

37. no, the alternative is already

a business-friendly party. Socialist democrats? Yeah, right. If all those millions of moderate Republicans were itching so badly to jump parties, why haven't they yet?

[wyldwolf]

39. Not saying I agree completely with delhurgo BUT...

...if there are some republicans ready to jump ship, they haven't yet because the election is in November.

[ulysses]

40. this is not the first electoral opportunity

for the DLC to show its worth.

[wyldwolf]

44. They showed their worth in '92 ,'96, and 2000

Lost seats in '94 based on a liberal agenda (that I still agree with): Univeral healthcare.

Lost seats in '02 based on, well, several things if the people of DU are to be believed:

Rigged voting machines
Republican faux patriotism smear tactics

[ulysses]

46. no, Bill Clinton proved his.

The DLC likes to trumpet Clinton's successes as their own, and BC is obviously a New Dem, but without his unsurpassed political skills and a little help from Perot and the economy, '92 would've been a loss.

And I'd attribute '94 to the fact that the GOP didn't roll over and die when faced with a Democratic government.

[wyldwolf]

47. Here is where we differ...

The DLC likes to trumpet Clinton's successes as their own, and BC is obviously a New Dem, but without his unsurpassed political skills and a little help from Perot and the economy, '92 would've been a loss.

1. Clinton ran and governed as a moderate with DLC policies. He was the right DLC'er at the right time.
2. There is no proof whatsoever that Perot helped Clinton or hurt Bush in '92. In fact, analysis shows the opposite.

And I'd attribute '94 to the fact that the GOP didn't roll over and die when faced with a Democratic government.

You might attribute '94 to that - and there may be some truth to it - but the rallying cry among Republicans to voters was "univeral healthcare" - a liberal policy.

[ulysses]

52. the rallying cry among Republicans will always be

whatever they can spin to their advantage, and as long as any Democratic stand, liberal or moderate, is not perfectly in line with the Republican stand, they will do this.

As to this:

1. Clinton ran and governed as a moderate with DLC policies. He was the right DLC'er at the right time.

For what purpose? Throwing people off welfare five years later when he was out of office and a recession was beginning?

[wyldwolf]

55. OK, only one point to make...

The purpose in '92 was beating the GOP. I'll never agree with any candidate 100% but must vote for those who best represent me and my beliefs as well as having the best shot at defeating the GOP.

IMO, at least for now, DLC dems fit that bill.

[ulysses]

60. the purpose in '92 was incomplete, then.

Beating Bush the Elder was necessary, but the ensuing eight years did somewhere between nada and squat to repair the damage of the previous twelve. It left us in roughly the same place we were in 1992 and Bush the Younger was able to pick up where daddy left off. Even if we win this year, another couple cycles of us giving ground and gaining none back only delays the slide.

[wyldwolf]

61. Clinton's record speaks for itself

And was a major improvement over Bush the elder. You can't let your disappointment with some things from the Clinton era cloud that fact.

[mdguss]

63. Without Clinton's Balanced Budget:

We'd be in really, really bad fiscal shape today. Interest rates would probably be at least 10 percent; maybe 15. Inflation would be higher than is good for the country. And it is quite possible that the government's bond rating may be close to being downgraded.

[wyldwolf]

67. Let us not forget...

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

The Crime Bill also punishes criminals by expanding the number of offenses eligible for the death penalty and implementing the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision.

And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[ulysses]

71. indeed, let us not.

More cops, the waiting period - fine. Expanding the death penalty and three strikes? No.

[wyldwolf]

73. and these...

Issued a new executive order to require polluters to disclose information to the public and expanded the public's right-to-know about toxic releases.

Launched "reinventing environmental regulation" to cut red tape and better protect public health.

Issued a new standard to cut pollution from chemical plants 90% by 1997.

Signed executive orders to increase recycling and cut pollution in federal buildings.

Signed the California Desert Protection Act, October 31, 1994.

Issued a new standard to cut pollution from incinerators 95%.

Introduced comprehensive Safe Drinking Water and Superfund reforms.

Developed a plan to restore Florida's Everglades.

Ended decades of conflict over the allocation of California Bay-Delta water.

Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, February 5, 1993.

Signed a comprehensive Child Immunization Plan.

Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.

Increased Ryan White CARE Act funding for outpatient AIDS care over 100% in first 3 budgets.

Put the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) on a full-funding path.

Increased funding 65% for breast cancer research.

As part of the balanced budget plan, introduced health care reform initiative which strengthens Medicare and expands coverage.

Proposed a $1.3 billion increase in veterans' benefits -- of which $1 billion will be directed to the VA health system to provide treatment for 43,000 more veterans.

[mdguss]

75. More on the Environment:

Clinton's using of line item vetos (when constitutional) and vetos/veto threates to stop Republican "riders" (crap that gets tacked onto appropriations bills) that destroyed the envrionment. Clinton was a good president.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

81. don't forget all the jobs that NAFTA created

Bill Clinton was the father of "Free Trade" and no one else could have passed it. The economic benefits of free trade with Mexico are evident to all.

[wyldwolf]

87. And don't forget all the non-NAFTA jobs created...

almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

[Taeger]

128. No George Bush Sr

... is the father of NAFTA. Reagan was the father of Free Trade.

[ulysses]

66. not disappointment.

"Disgust" is more the word. NAFTA? Welfare "reform"?

Was he an improvement? Sure, but then the much-ballyhooed ham sandwich would have been by way of omission.

[wyldwolf]

70. I see your anger over two issues...

...I'll never agree with a candidate 100%. Neither will you.

[ulysses]

74. it didn't stop there.

Besides which, the "you'll never agree 100%" is a canard - I'm aware that there are no perfect candidates. I've been voting since I was 18 (I'm 35) and have never found the perfect candidate. Still, I suspect that most of us do have a breaking point, a line beyond which we withdraw our support. If not, why even keep up the charade of two parties?

The welfare bill in 1996 was what broke this particular camel's back. You don't have the same breaking point.

[wyldwolf]

77. You are correct.

I don't have the same breaking point. His many other accomplishments outshine his failings.

[ulysses]

79. and here we are.

His many other accomplishments outshine his failings.

Couldn't disagree more if I tried.

Here's a question - is it possible for progressives and moderates to coexist more or less equally within the Democratic Party?

[wyldwolf]

83. To answer your question - yes...

...as long as one doesn't make demands of the other.

For example, I would accept Dennis Kucinich if he was the nom. I wouldn't threaten to withhold my vote.

[ulysses]

91. there's a trust issue involved here.

The Christian right votes GOP because they trust the Republicans to pay attention to their agenda after sounding "kinder and gentler" on the campaign trail. The DLC's program has damaged the mirror of that trust between progressives and the Democratic leadership. I'll in all likelihood be voting for the Dem nominee in November (not that it matters either way, being in Georgia), but it won't be with any expectation that he'll do much at this point.

[Kanary]

121. And whether people died because of that lack of line

makes no difference?

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[charlie]

88. "The right DLCer at the right time"

If being the most gifted politician Democrats have produced in over a generation is the right DLCer, then yeah, he was the right DLCer. One thing I've never seen From acknowledge is how fortunate the DLC was to have Clinton as their standardbearer. Imagine Dukakis making his first run in 1992 with the same New Democrat platform. Think he'd win?

Perot helped the Democrats. He threw Papa Bush off his game. The little twit didn't like Clinton, but he hated Bush, and wasn't at all worried about hitting him in ways Democrats were afraid to -- in one debate he brought up the April Glaspie affair and demanded papers detailing what she said to Hussein! And check out this bit:

Let's go back in terms of accepting responsibility for your actions. If you create Saddam Hussein, over a 10-year period, using billions of dollars of US taxpayer money, step up to the plate and say it was a mistake. If you create Noriega, using taxpayer money, step up to the plate and say it was a mistake. If you can't get your act together to pick him up one day when a Panamanian major has kidnapped him and a special forces team is 400 yards away and it's a stroll across the park to get him, and if you can't get your act together, at least pick up the Panamanian major, who they then killed, step up to the plate and admit it was a mistake. That's leadership, folks.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/92debates/3prez3.html

You'll never hear such concentrated no-bullshit charges leveled in an ordinary Dem/Repub presidential debate. Getting tag-teamed made it harder for Bush to full-bore Atwaterize Clinton. (and another thing, Atwater was gone. Baker's an effective reptile, but he's like a stiletto to Atwater's chainsaw)

[wyldwolf]

92. Here is a response

Imagine Dukakis making his first run in 1992 with the same New Democrat platform. Think he'd win?

Without making the same missteps Dukakis did, yeah, he would have won.

And again, absolutely no proof Perot helped Clinton by hurting Bush. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.

[charlie]

99. Dukakis' mistake

was that he was a tepid, flaccid little drone. I can't see him overcoming that.

Are you going to cite electoral analysis over the vote split as proof Perot didn't help Clinton? I'm not talking about who drew what votes, I'm talking about Perot whacking Bush with a two-by-four so Clinton could look like sunshine, and Bush could look in turns, testy and guilty. Perot siphoned off some of the Republican attacks that ordinarily would've gone fully to Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

117. electoral analysis over the vote split is the only measurable proof

You may believe Perot drew the republican's ire, but the facts show the amount of voters who voted Perot were almost equally Dem/Rep.

[charlie]

118. Ha. No.

I know flopsweat when I see it. Bush dominated Dukakis, was unfailingly the aggressor in every debate. Not so in 1992. Perot put him on the defensive time and again, and Bush was flighty and strained. Remember him checking his watch? He was clearly wishing he was elsewhere in the debates. Perot was a major pain in the ass -- he helped the Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

119. Ha. Yes

Those are your interpretations of the events.

However, the electoral analysis clearly shows an almost even split among Dems/Reps in losing votes to Perot.

[charlie]

122. And?

I've never said otherwise. I said the stage had two guys with some weird theatrics going on between them, one needling the other with some serious freaking charges. Bush was jangled and often panicky. He once jumped up and interrupted Perot out of turn, earning a reprimand from the moderator. Perot had lobbed the April Glaspie charge and Bush freaked, blathering about national honor being impugned, with that goofy nervous chuckling of his. Remember, Perot believed Bush had sent disruptors and black helicopters to his daughter's wedding, he wanted Bush's ass bad. Clinton was rarely caught betwixt them and came off looking like the only sober and reflective politician on the stage.

Perot did the heavy lifting, so Clinton didn't have to. He diminished Bush and it helped the Democrats.

[mot78]

90. My analysis

'92: Perot helped, but it's possible we coul've won without him. Where the DLC DID help was in states like California and Illinois, which hadn't voted Dem since LBJ, but are now Dem strongholds. Look at how many states we won in '92 because Clinton was cast as "moderate" and compare that to 1988. This is probably the only time when denouncing "liberal" policies was needed, because the Dukakis, or Jerry Brown liberalism was leading us to be non-viable on the Presidential level.

'94: Due to a stronger Repug activist base (ie. Limbaugh) and because a lot of Dems were upset over some Clinton proposals like NAFTA and stayed home. I heard that CLinton's healthcare plan was more Conservative than a plan that Nixon had. Is this true?

'96: Somewhat due to triangulation, more so because of an improving economy. Not to mention uber-insider Bob Dole.

2000: The DLC really didn't do anything, and Al Gore's sucess was by riding Clinton's coat tails.

2002: The DLC and our leaders lost their spine and ran away from national security by letting * set the debate on Iraq. This helped make the war inevitable. If they had just stood up to * in early 2002, and said something like "we have other wars to fight" * wouldn't been able to move us to war. I'm glad Dean is forcing our Congressional leaders to fight back. If Dean hadn't entered this race, Kerry would be as weak as Dukakis in terms of fighting back.

The problem with the DLC is that they're purely a reactive group (in reaction to the Reagan Revolution of the '80s). The last time, in my opinion, that we had a pro-active Democrat was during the '60s, when we had LBJ and two Kennedys. The DLC doesn't care about who's setting the ideological table. Their view of politics is overly pragmatic and short-sighted.

[wyldwolf]

95. My counter analysis

'92: NO EVIDENCE Perot helped! Where the DLC DID help was in states like California and Illinois, which hadn't voted Dem since LBJ, but are now Dem strongholds. Look at how many states we won in '92 because Clinton was cast as "moderate" and compare that to 1988. This is probably the only time when denouncing "liberal" policies was needed, because the Dukakis, or Jerry Brown liberalism was leading us to be non-viable on the Presidential level.

'94: Due to a stronger Repug activist base (ie. Limbaugh) BUT NO PROOF Dems were upset over some Clinton proposals like NAFTA and stayed home.

'96: You blame Clinton for '94 but blame Dole for '96?

2000: The DLC really didn't do anything, and Al Gore's sucess was by riding Clinton's coat tails. Clinton and Al Gore were both DLC.

2002: If you listen to others on DU, republican smears and rigged voting machines were to blame for 2002.

[delhurgo]

45. No, not necessarily change parties - at least not right away.

But they will vote democrat, especially in the pres election, if the nominee is seen as being moderate enough. Thats how Clinton won. Twice. Look back through history at all the pres democratic candidates. All the candidates which were seen as being liberal lost: Stephenson, Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern,... And all Dem candidates considered moderate won: JFK, Carter, Clinton... Kerry? He will have to run as a DLC type Dem though if he wants to have a chance.

[Nederland]

64. Response

If all those millions of moderate Republicans were itching so badly to jump parties, why haven't they yet?

Because people with positions like yours scare the hell out of them.

[ulysses]

68. what positions are those, Nederland?

And of those positions, which are being followed by the party leadership?

[ulysses]

85. and while we're on the topic,

wouldn't it be logical to draw the conclusion, from your statement, that people with "positions like mine" should leave the party so that we stop scaring the poor dears so badly?

[Nederland]

133. Maybe

or you could behave more like the far right does--recognizing that getting part of what you want is better than getting nothing.

[kitkatrose]

135. But is the liberal section getting its part of the agenda? n/t

[Nederland]

137. As much as the far right is getting (nt)

[ulysses]

147. no, it's not, and that's the point.

The far right may not get everything it wants, but they can have a well-founded trust that the GOP will not take them for granted after sounding the "compassionate" bell during a campaign. That trust between the left and the Democrats is damaged, and that damage needs to be repaired if the party is to rebuild anything like unity beyond beating Bush.

[Eloriel]

153. pro-business does not a synonym for fiscal conservative

Except at the hands of the likes of Tom DeLay and other rabid rightwing conservatives.

Look, the bottom line is this: corporate America (and I'm talking about BIG corporations) already has way too much power. Period. They OWN the Congress, they OWN the White House (and this White Hosue owns them back), and people's rights to a decent living wage, to an environment that doesn't kill them, to untainted food supply, to healthcare, etc., etc., etc. have been trampled on.

In most of my posts on the subject of corporations at DU, you'd find me what you and others might call "anti-business." I'm really not. I'm anti-exploitation, and most of the exploitation going on in the world today is due almost entirely to the huge multinationals.

That the pharmaceuticals and HMOs wrote the Medicare bill is UNCONSCIONABLE. That our tax dollars are going to pay THEM and not for better prescription help for seniors is UNCONSCIONABLE.

One doesn't have to be anti-corporation to see the inequities that exist, the stacked deck against the common American worker and family, and to realize that serfdom lurkes around the next corner if we don't rebalance things, and fast. Corporations are fine as long as they either behave (which is not in their nature, tho) or are MADE to tow the line and play fair.

As Gov. Dean put it: capitalism without rules (or enough rules of the right kind, enforced, I'd add) is like hockey without rules.

The current crop of radical and extremist Republicans in power want absolutely unfettered capitalism. (Well, actually the George Bush variety wants more than that: they want to use government as their personal kitty and benefactor -- they want to use government to fund them, reap tax dollars on them, exempt them from taxes, give them tax breaks galore, privatize everything, outsource with impunity and better yet tax breaks, etc. -- ALL at the expense of regular Americans, American workers, and the environment.)

Unfettered capitalism is inherently exploitative. If Democrats get any more pro-business than they currently are, we're done. Period. You can hang it up. Iin order for there to be ANY balance, Dems have to start representing The People again against the exploitation of unfettered capitalism.

The DLC is against this. The DLC is my enemy -- and (pointing around the room) and yours, and yours, and yours, and yours.

[Ardee]

155. at what cost do you gain those votes, if indeed you do at all?

At the cost of the heart and soul of the democratic party. We see ,in the hyperbole of the DLC supporters the same relentless hammering at the left as we saw from Joe McCarthy, with as much truth as well!

[metisnation]

38. Only anti-buisness

when talking about Halliburton, Enron,Etc. Most Buisness help Americans.

:kick:

:dem:

[earthman dave]

41. Is "New Democrat" anything like "New Labour"?

Or New Feudalism :)

[ulysses]

42. heh - Naomi Klein

calls New Labour "the Labour-scented party". :D

[Djinn]

51. Uk'ers also call Tony Blair

Phony Blair or Tory Blair

New Labour or New Democrats = Old Conservatives

[earthman dave]

57. We call him a lot of things

:evilgrin:

[JanMichael]

43. I take it that you aren't a former textile worker?

Or tech worker? Sorry, that's not terribly fair, or is it?

Try substituting "Fair" for "Free" on the trade issues and maybe your environmental and wage ideals will be met.

[camero]

48. Hey Mr. DLC

How about alleviating American's poverty and not make it a race to the bottom? Thanks. :eyes:

[union_maid]

49. I'm with the DLC on progressive taxation

Most of the rest of it sounds pretty much like what you hear coming out of very, very conservative mouths. Most big corporations are pretty evil. They serve their purpose, but most of them put no value on anything but money. That's just the truth. Free trade might benefit the world, but the "growing pains" are well on their way to eliminating the American middle class. People who talk about pain that way are usually not feeling the pain.

I don't see why families without a full time worker should necessarily live in poverty, either. I'm not saying we should fully support those who are able to work and don't, but there are many people who are truly too disabled to work who are living in poverty in this country right now. That seems wrong. I also know a lot of people who have not been able to find jobs since theirs were outsourced in the name of a global economy. They want to be fulltime workers again, but it's not always so easy. I think that government should not only lift people up, but should provide a real safety net for people so that they can go about their lives knowing that neither they or their families are going to be hungry, homeless or without medical care if life hands them a lemon. It was once a lot closer to that than it is now and I think it was a lot better that way.

As far as being inclusive of moderates, well, it depends on how you define "moderate". Conservative is not moderate.

[fearnobush]

53. I'm a new democrat because I believe in Protectionism.

I believe the bullshit lies we hear about Free trade are just that, lies. I believe Free trade leads to free slaves, we are slowly becoming free slaves. A free slave is someone who can compete freely for any $5.25 an Hr job.

[bpilgrim]

69. and you're an old dem when you look beyond the slogans for results

theres certainly nothing wrong with those ideals and anyone can get behind them and they do work well in our sound byte culture but when you start to look at the results, of some of the programs implimented and alledgedly inspired by these nobel ideals, it is quite shocking and quite the reverse of its acknowledged goals.

i just hope the 'new' and the 'old' can get together to stop the RADICALS currently running the show ;->

:hi:

peace

[welshTerrier2]

97. why I'm NOT a NEW democrat

i am not a new democrat ... i am not a moderate democrat ... and i do not believe all corporations are evil ... but i do believe far too much of our democracy is controlled by powerful corporate interests ... i do believe that far too many laws are passed for the benefits of the "corporate elite" ... i do believe that far too much of what passes for defending the country is actually a taxpayer giveaway to large defense contractors ... and i do believe that Enron and other powerful multinationals have turned our democracy into garbage ... too often, moderates see views like these as "anti business and anti corporate" ... it's just not the case at all ... i am not opposed to legitimate corporations seeking to earn a reasonable return ... but when it crosses the line into having highly paid lobbyists distorting our legislative processes that should have the best interests of all the American people, not just a select few, in mind, count me out ... and I'll tell you i never see a focus on issues like these from the DLC ...

you say you're a "new" democrat because you don't think government is the "final answer" to many problems ... well, i agree with that ... but that's only true as long as government does ensure that our institutions play on a level playing field ... government needs to act as a check on corporate abuses ... if the DLC would like to claim President Clinton as one of their finest examples, I would ask you to explain what role the federal government failed to play during his administration (and others of course) that allowed the corruption at Enron and so many other companies to flourish to the extent it did ..

finally, you say you're a new democrat because you believe in balancing budgets by cutting spending and raising taxes on the upper class .. i trust you are not speculating that the left advocates irresponsible budget deficits ... i for one, do not ... balanced budgets are just sound fiscal policy in most (not all) circumstances ... and I would be surprised if most on the left didn't agree with you on higher taxes for the wealthy ... as to your point about cutting spending, the devil is in the details ... i would like to see significant cutbacks in excessive military hardware systems ... i would, however, like to see far more spending on America's human beings ... we just spent $200 billion on an insane pack of lies ... it pains me to think that some of that money could have been used to help the neediest among us ...

i'm not fond of labels ... i think they do a disservice to really understanding other people ... but if being a new democrat means you are only calling for spending cuts to balance the budget without regard to spending priorites, count me out ... if it means you don't acknowledge the tragic abuses of our democracy that certain powerful corporations have caused, count me out ... if being a new democrat fails to recognize the devastating effects on our country of the military-industrial complex count me out ...

and one last point you didn't mention ... if protesting the invasion of Iraq was being done "by a bunch of nostalgic baby boomers who are only protesting to bring back the days of their youth", you can tell Al From to go fuck himself ..."

[Kathy in Cambridge]

105. Excellent Post!

:toast:

Yeah, my Dad is a real commie and he protested the Iraq invasion. Korean war Vet, career Air Force guy and lifelong liberal Dem. I think DLCers have no idea about the Democratic legacy.

[cprise]

134. Al From said that?

What an *sshole!

[welshTerrier2]

146. not directly attributable

the line came from a post on the New Democrats website ...

i actually did think it came directly from Al From but the author of the actual line is not indicated in the article ...

source: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember.

it seems that the "New Democrats" have a little to learn about holding on to and inspiring their base ...

oh, and btw, the article also contained the following gem on just what the "new dems" thought about the IWR:

And it's the tradition that was reflected in a Congressional use-of-force resolution that demanded the Administration take its case against Saddam to the United Nations while preserving America's right to enforce international law against Iraq alone if necessary.

i guess the message is that they (the DLC) were right to trust bush with a congressional authorization to go to war and those nostalgic, misguided baby boomers should not have warned the country not to trust bush ... ok, Al, I'm waiting for my apology ...

[Jose Diablo]

98. Tell more about which part will be cut in the spending

To quote:

"I am a new Democrat because I believe that our party should be inclusive of moderates. We need moderates that advocate balancing budgets through cutting spending and raising taxes on the upper class."

If you propose cutting the military, then we agree. If the social programs on the block, then we disagree.

Redo the income tax. You bet. More brackets, a 1% spread in the brackets going to $145K with the bottom rate starts at >$20K and cap rate set at 30%. Let me see, that gives about $4000 between each bracket.
No deductions. In other words the poor do not pay and the very wealthy pay %30. Thats fair and I think it will produce the revenue needed to support the social programs. The wealthy can still stay wealthy and the poor get a chance to bring themselves out of poverty. Actually, this was the way it was before inflation indexed most everyone up into the upper brackets.

Not only that, this plan motivates our fine folks in Washington to have programs that do indeed lift people out of poverty.

[mdguss]

102. I Don't Think ICBM Sheild Works:

So I'd cut that. I would also cut domestic heavy weight programs like some highway spending; I support using block grants to the states. I'd support increasing the age on social security to 70. I'd support eliminating the prescription drug benefit on the grounds that it is too expensive and gives too much to HMOs. I'd substantially reduce air-welfare for the airlines. There's more, but that should be enough to get a general idea of where I'd go.

So we disagree.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

103. private retirement accounts would go a long way to saving Social Security

Younger workers, especially, will do better by investing in the private sector instead of relying on the old FDR-style pay as you go system - which will be bankrupt very soon.

[ulysses]

104. big fan of seniors, are you?

What do you think of education? Vouchers?

[welshTerrier2]

112. just curious

you didn't mention your position on Iraq ...

and you also didn't really respond to my comments about corporate lobbyists distorting our democracy ... silly me, i used to think what these people are doing was called bribery ...

regarding prescription drugs, how do you reconcile the "it's too expensive" with watching grandma and grandpa trying to balance their food budget with their medication budget ... what's your answer to people in real need?

i really have to wonder whether this country could have an adequate defense if we cut our military hardware budget by 50% or more ... what country do you think would then have a superior military capacity to the U.S. ?? i'm 100% for having all the defense we need ... but when we overspend to line the pockets of industry and cater to their campaign-contributing lobbyists, we weaken the fabric of our country ... and grandma and grandpa and little kids don't do so well ...

btw, you also didn't really discuss Clinton's laissez-faire attitude toward American business that might well have contributed to Enron and many of the other abuses we've seen in corporate American ... instead of peddling a "new" Democrat label, why not acknowledge that you can be "pro-business" without tolerating the kind of crap we've seen going on with the exploitation by the wealthy and powerful of our democracy ...

i agree that the medicare bill was an atrocity (my words) and gave away far too much to HMO's (you didn't mention the pharmaceutical industry) ... i'm sure the DLC would be received much better, at least somewhat better, if they were quicker to acknowledge the endless abuses of many large, American corporations in prostituting our democracy ... your mention of HMO's and the heavily subsidized airline industry is a good start ... the bush "occupation" has been energy focussed ... i'll bet if you did a little digging, you might find that there are many giveaways to oil companies ... and to auto companies with the pathetic turning down of CAFE standards which could have protected our air, reduced global warming, and set us on a path towards energy independence ...

you may find more common ground with the left than you think ...

[mdguss]

120. I opposed the war:

And, given the politics where I live, that has been pretty costly. I would've supported the war had Bush simply said he was going on Human Rights' grounds. I opposed the war because why we are going--which is essential to mission--wasn't clear.

Now that we are there, I support staying and I would've voted for the 87 billion request had I been in Congress.

I don't think that corporate donations (through bundles) should be banned. Corporations have interests that the government should consider. I do think there should be limits on campaign spending (which would reduce the need for donations), but there's nothing inherently wrong with a company making a political donation.

Substantial development on a Hybrid engine was done by a race car team that is owned by a former CEO of a pharmacutical company. The use of the car, the Panoz GTR Q9 at Le Mans showed Hybrid technology could work. The investment for that car came mainly from money the owner made while running his prescription drug company.

The Ford corporation made a major step by putting a Hybrid engine into an SUV. This will help to develop hybrid engines, and also reduce the pollution levels of SUVs. Once Ford makes it work--and with gas at a $1.60 a gallon, they'll be a market for it--GM and Dailmer will follow.

BP, an oil company, has a reasonably good envrionmental record. With them taking over Amaco, they have more stations and are in a position to make more of an influence in the country.

The Steel Manufacturers have what you would term as a progressive record on free trade. They are simply put out of business without protection and to broaden their coalition, they agree to advocate both labor and environmental standards.

Grain companies, like ADM, support aid to help starving populations. Yes it helps them sell surplus grain, but it also feeds people who are very hungry.

Freight train companies generally lend support to Amtrak. Yes that is because they get a certain set fee for use of their tracks. But it keeps a low cost, ground travel that is useful for families and also for people with hearing loss.

Companies do lots of great things, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with large corporations. Are there bad apples? Yes, but that shouldn't diminish what other businesses do.

[Taeger]

131. ICBM shield working ???

It doesn't matter. ICBM is the LEAST likely method that a terrorist would use to disseminate a tactical weapon. Rather, they would sneak it in and detonate it on site. Another method is simply to launch it with a medium range missle (scud) from the deck of a cargo ship.

It is USELESS as a strategic weapon. Mutually assured destruction keeps ICBMs in their Silos.


But it's so nice to know that Bush was so obsessed with missle defense and Iraq that he didn't pay ANY attention to anti-terrorism and "nukular" proliferation.

The man sells himself as a "defense" president. The truth is that he dropped the ball on defense. He's a shitty president on defense. He's a shitty president domestically.

He's just a shitty president.

[Armstead]

106. I don;t like the DLC because I'm a moderate

My views are not radical. I believe left and right need to be balanced.

But what we have been moving towards over the last 25 years is radical cirporate conservativsm that is anything but moderate or balanced.

The DLC/New Democrat Voodo has helped get us here.

I'm for Mom, Apple Pie and the American flag too, but that isn't an agenda. And it's not the agenda that's going to rescue democracy and a truly free enterprise system from the corporate monopolists.

The DLC represents a politics that has no soul. That is not what is needed to challenge the Right Wing Corporate GOP Machine.

[ulysses]

113. yes and yes again.

[leyton]

107. I agree 100%

and I'm tired of seeing the DLC vilified around here, as if people who aren't far-far-far left have no right to call themselves Democrats.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

108. exactly! the far far left doesn't represent the Democratic Party!

DU isn't really in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

109. Well, the moderates on DU represent the mainstream Dem party

[Jose Diablo]

115. Actually the term moderate is a relative term

What could be termed the far left today, could be the moderate tomorrow.

The moderates today sound like the far right I saw 20 years ago.

One thing I see today though, the people are really pissed. The American dream has been stolen because unchecked greed from you know who.

[leyton]

150. You make a good point.

It is all relative. I guess I don't think people should be angry that the party isn't as far to the left of the independent bloc of voters (those who would have voted for both Clinton and Reagan). We have to make small steps, even if our ultimate goal is further to the left than what someone like Kerry presents.

[salin]

116. please define

moderate, vs. a little left, vs. left, vs. far, far left, vs. (as was thrown out before) "communist".

I was a new Democrat in the mid eighties - back in the Gary Hart days - but it moved further right. I am in the same place. Have new deal roots but a pragmatist analytical mind that recognizes that the burden of regulation by the late 70s had become smothering... a balance was needed (moving to less and more sensible regulation). But the pendulum has swung to the other direction where there are fewer and fewer protections for citizens and consumers... and a move to prevent civil redress in the rare cases of corporate conduct that causes serious injury.

So because I seek wise balance, well thought out policy rather than ideology (which the statement that all regulation is bad, or all regulation is good would be more about ideology rather than sound policy.) I also believe in fiscal restraint - but I don't buy that privatization always is cheaper than governmental services - again a situation by situation evaluation rather than a kneejerk reaction to one way or the other - is more sensible.

On this thread where the terms left, far far left are used disparagingly (the gratuitous use of "communist" gives the indication of the disparaging/condescending tone) - so where are the dividing lines - those of us who were moderate left in 1986 and haven't moved - while the center of the "new democrat" movement has - where do we fit in this spectrum being described?

[PVnRT]

141. True enough

It's only fair though, as the Democratic Party makes no pretense anymore to represent us progressives. But they sure as hell expect us to vote for them all the time!

[hedgetrimmer]

123. Why I am New Democrat...

I am a new democrat because I once wasn't. I at one point was a libertarian and then a green but basically to go that road is pretty much a no show. There are times that I do vote in those parties when the candidates differ from the democrat's in a people friendlier way.

I am a new democrat because I believe the party can be reshaped from within by it's members. Sometimes it requires it's members to vote hard ass style and pull the life of the party from it's roots and let that flow of nectar seep into the flower. The neo-con friendly democrat party needs a little kick in it's ass and brought back into line with the people.

I am a new democrat because I believe the views of that which is considered left can all fit under an umbrella called the Democrat party. A party that can re-find and redifine this political landscape, a party that can hold capitalism, corporatism, FAIR trade, FAIR elections, living wages, the evironment, the rights of man etc and still function with giving good life and opportunity to the masses.

I am a new democrat because I believe we have the power to create and re-create the prowess of this party, to once again ignite the passion of civil responsibility not just for survival but because we are all men, women and children that all equally hold the responsibility for ourselves and our fellow man... for we know that as each of us lives well it improves the lives of our fellow man and that each of our fellow man lives well it improves our lives.

I am a new Democrat because I believe that the Democratic Party can offer sensible solutions for our country.

I am a me and I'm proud of that.

[Taeger]

124. WHAT IS EVIL

If you knew a person whoes sole motivation in life in making money, you would say they are evil.

If they put ALL concerns aside for the sake of MORE money, you would say they are evil.

Even if they did a nice thing here and there, you would STILL say they are evil.

If they had NO responsibility for the things they do, you would say they are VERY evil.



Well guess what. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money on behalf of it's shareholders. It has ABSOLUTELY NO repsonsibility to it's employees, it's communities or it's neighbors.

That my friend, is Evil. Every single action need not be evil. But overall, the goal is to put ALL considerations aside for the sake of profit.

YES, ALL FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS ARE INHERENTLY EVIL!!!!


We need to lasso corporations and make them responsible.

[IronLionZion]

127. I'm with you man!

Clinton and Gore were a million times better than Bush and Dick!

[salin]

129. I am a progressive democrat - a 'new democrat' of the 1980s

cut my teeth on political interest when Gary Hart ran in 1984.

I have stayed about the same - but the country (and the new dems) have moved a bit to the right of me.

And thats okay. We may not agree on something - and I want dialogue with your part of the party on those issues so we find common ground - and maybe on some issues find different ways of thinking about them.

I do not always agree with the strategies, policies, or at times even the "world view" (eg overall perspective) of some of my more moderate democrat colleagues. Heck in a few cases (eg at my own Senator) I may sometimes vent a bit. But I don't think you are republicans - and I think that when we (progressives) ratchet up our own rhetoric - we push the walls that preclude discussion.

I am never going to cheer on a post suggesting that Zell Miller be a VP choice, but few of you are ever going to ask me to do so - even in the name of pragmatism. Heck - the only times I have seen such a suggestion, it didn't seem to be a serious poster or post. Point being - there will be times I get worked up, as I have seen my moderate coposters at DU do as well. We have different views - that happens.

But even in those anger - and even if we feel it towards a few democratic office holders - snidely refering to moderates in a blanket dismissive way as republicans, republican lite, fascits... is just as obnoxious and unhelpful and uncalled for as others refering to liberals as commies (or comsymps), socialists, left fringe, etc. Can we just cut it all out? I am not saying... lets not debate these issues. Lets rather debate issues lets try to listen to each other in those debates... and when we lose it = because the other view is just at the moment so irksome (as is wont to happen when we disagree)... we can express it without getting into the knee-jerk diatribes that lead to some of the silly rhetoric (including the satirical /snide silly rhetoric) that does nothing but insult, hijack, and make us more hostile.

[Dr Fate]

130. I respect anyone with strong, sincere beliefs...

...as long as we know defeating Bush is the goal for 2004, we can work out the rest of our differences from the seat of power!

[Selwynn]

132. Hi! I disagree with you and everything you stand for. :)

Nice to meet ya! :toast:

[IronLionZion]

136. how about fair trade?

If it is completely free, it will be abused. Trade is damn well necessary but should have some regulations to force companies to be responsible. Like taxing the traitors who move their headquarters to Bermuda and their jobs to Asia.

Everything else is good. I'm a moderate too.

[Q]

142. What the hell IS a 'new' Democrat?

- It's looks like someone ashamed to call themselves a plain old Democrat. Why would they be ashamed? Because they have adopted much of the ideology of the Right but don't want to call themselves Republicans.

- The DLCers want to TAKE OVER the Democratic party rather than working from within to make changes over time. They know the base of the party won't accept their 'pro-corporation', pro-war, anti-union agenda...so they mask their true intentions in faux Democratic rhetoric.

[bloom]

143. With Democrats like this...

we are all one party, anyway....


"We have a tendency to focus too much on our differences, but when it comes to national security and protecting our country, there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans: only patriotic Americans." Evan Bayh (Chairman)


While that could be a nice unifying quote if what the government was doing made any sense. In light of what the congress has been helping Bush do, however, I think it's a pretty sad commentary.

[Tinoire]

145. Thanks Q. I'm with PNOC through thick and thin.

Thanks for calling it like it is!



PNAC- When good old-fashioned Democratic values are good enough!

[Tinoire]

148. Whoops!

Make that

PNOC (with an O!)- When good old-fashioned Democratic values are good enough!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

149. AMEN!

"When good old-fashioned Democratic values are good enough!"

:hi:

[cosmicdot]

156. 1. Where were they when Al Gore was fighting for his votes

Democrats should have been standing shoulder to shoulder with Gore ... couldn't do that ... this miscarriage of our Constitution helps to open the door to my rising star and ambitions ...

heck, I think the other half of the ticket was knitting and pearling in CT ... do-nothing ...

poor Al ... he was sold on the DLC power himself ... the probably bribed him ... threatening no support without one of the own on the ticket ... then, Al began to see this operation for what it is ...



2. Where did the DLC get its start up funding; and, who contributes big bucks to them today? Is its books open. Who contributes to the adjunct think tank PPI.org???





3. Why set-up a separate shop? Why not work within the DNC?

The Clinton is DLC is over-stated imo ... he likely, being the shrewd politician that he is (I mean I have to believe that there is something to Slick Willie) ... he used the DLC to help him get there ... he carried the DLC, not the other way around ... but, they felt important and vital ... and, now, they are still looking for that big-shot role ...

I wonder when the Big Dog did lunch with Al From, self-proclaimed CEO of NDOL/DLC?