The "Third Way" - An Albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party

[Q]

Clinton's and the DLC's Third Way claims to find the 'progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism'...but when all is said and done it's just political opportunism, pandering and selling out of traditional Democratic principles and values for private and political gain. There is nothing 'progressive' about the Third Way...although that word is used to describe an agenda of corporate greed, deregulation and warmongering. The Third Way may have worked for Clinton and the DLC in the 90s...but it has been the Democratic party's albatross ever since...especially after 2000 and 9-11.

You can see the Third Way at work in everything the Democratic leadership does these days. From Hillary pandering to the 'religious' Right to Kerry trying to have it both ways on the Iraq 'war' to the strategy to 'soften' the party's stance on separation of church and state, Social Security and abortion. While it may be great for the political careers of some Democratic politicians...it makes the party look weak and ineffective. The Third Way touts a 'contract' with the middle class that completely disregards the poor and the working class...leaving literally millions of Americans without any kind of meaningful representation.

But have you noticed that the Right doesn't have anything resembling the Third Way? That's because the DLC's Third Way works to their advantage in so many ways. The Right doesn't need to compromise on any issue or work together with Democrats as long as the Third Way is there to give them what they want.

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

Overview | June 1, 1998
About The Third Way

America and the world have changed dramatically in the closing decades of the 20th century. The industrial order of the 20th century is rapidly yielding to the networked "New Economy" of the 21st century. Our political and governing systems, however, have lagged behind the rest of society in adapting to these seismic shifts. They remain stuck in the left-right debates and the top-down bureaucracies of the industrial past.

The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.

Starting with Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labour party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Shroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold. --- http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895

[Mark E. Smith]

1. Sick Of Clinton Bashing

Sorry.

[Q]

3. Don't be sorry about that...

...but what you SHOULD be sorry about is the lack of critical thinking on this subject.

The only reason Clinton is mentioned at ALL is because the 'third way' is his and the DLC's idea to 'reform' the Democratic party. If you put this in the context of Democrats now being in the neutered minority...isn't it relevant to ask how the Third Way Agenda influenced party politics?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Q]

28. I defended Clinton for eight years...now he's on his own...

...and I'm more concerned about the future of the Democratic party. The problem is that Clinton is STILL trying to influence party politics and thus is relevant to this discussion.

The DLC uses Clinton as a model for their 'third way'...so let's not pretend he's not involved.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. Clinton was at his best when he leaned left

If you look at how he ran in 1992, he really did run on a very progressive platform. He really preached a lot of progressive values like healthcare for all Americans and ending discrimination against homosexuals.

It's REALLY hard to gague Clinton's support because of the Perot factor, but I'd argue that his victory in 1992 is more significant than his victory in 1996 because beating an incumbent President who at one time had approval ratings in the 80's and 90's is a much bigger accomplishment than beating an old senator that looks and talks like a zombie and has like a thirty year voting record. It's almost laughable that they were able to bash Bob Dole for voting against Medicare when it was proposed. At one point I thought they would say that he voted against social security :P.

[Mark E. Smith]

112. "...and I'm more concerned about the future of the Democratic party."

Then why are you working so hard to divide it? In the face of the threat posed by the extremist right in this country nit-picking over nonsense such as the stuff you're posting here is far more of a danger to the affairs of this party.

[hippiechick]

2. Some compromise is a good thing ...

... but compromising for the sake of staying in power - as the Clinton's have done - is not.

[AP]

7. We lost in '68, '72, '80 and '88, which were all winnable. Labour had

a hard time winning two consecutive terms throughout the 20th century and almost disappeared in '84 completely. In '84, one of the Labour planks was state ownership of the means of production. Actually laborers didn't vote for labour because they saw that plank as a threat to their jobs. If getting rid of that plank is the "Third Way" then the Third Way was what it took to get elected.

I'd rather have anyone to the left of RW'er win then a RW'er and if you're so left wing that you can't get elected and not getting elected means the RW'ers are entrenching their power so deeply that it's ruining society, then I embrace Clinton and Blair.

Furthermore, if Clinton is consdered a conservative Dem, then what the hell do you call the Dems he ran against in the primary? Jerry Brown wanted a flat tax and early favorite Tsongas didn't believe in Keynes -- he didn't believe in defecit spending in times of trouble.

If either of them won, we would have seen the middle and working class gain much less (and possibly lose much much more) than they did with Clinton. Clinton was, without a doubt, the most progressive candidate running in '92 if your measure is how much political, economic and cultural power is going to flow down to the people.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. '72 and '80 weren't really winnable

Nixon was pretty popular amongst everyone except the anti-war people and Carter was faced with such a crappy set of circumstances that it would've been almost impossible for him to win that one.

'68 we could've pulled out a win of Bobby Kennedy had been the nominee. Kennedy was probably actually more conservative on domestic issues than Humphrey but Humphrey was more or less pro-war and the protestors at the convention really didn't help.

'88 is an example of bad marketing. The Willie Horton thing as well as the tank stunt, amongst other things were horrible blunders that cost Dukakis the election. Dukakis should've properly linked Bush to the Contra affair and asked the country is THIS the man that you want as your commander in chief? Dukakis was beating Bush by 19 points at one time and he could've won the election, and amazingly we would've had a Massachusetts liberal in the white house.

Hey at least we got the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" out of that election.

[AP]

123. Nixon was incredibly unpopular, the way Bush was. A good candidate

could have defeated him.

Carter was leading the polls until October.

[Warpy]

10. Agreed. One thing you can say about the old tired liberalism

is that it WORKED for the greatest number of Americans. You can't say that about Clintonism and you can't say that about anything on the DLC websites. Their policies are yuppie policies that won't work for most of us here in workaday land.

Heh, I'd suggest a question for the 2008 campaign that will resonate with a lot of us who have been ground down under 25 years of failed "trickle down" economics: Where's MINE?"

The DLC won't be able to ask that question, but a progressive economic populist sure can, and a lot of people will hear it and realize they're still waiting, too.

[acmejack]

4. Agreed!

DLCers are nominally better than the Repugs. They have done harm to the progressive movement by blurring the line between the parties.

[kentuck]

6. The "Third Way" permitted the right to move even further right...

in my opinion.

[AP]

8. Without the Third Way, the right would have won every election.

And if Clinton was the Third Way, then where was the left way in '92? Tsongas was anti-Keynes and Brown was a flat-taxer. They both would have destroyed the working class with those policies. Clinton was the most progressive person running. He may have wrapped himself in a moderates clothing, but there was nobody more liberal running in '92.

[ProudDad]

30. And now for some facts

1992 Election:

Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 pledge against raising taxes, the economy had slowed, and his best strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton successfully capitalized on these weaknesses by running as a centrist New Democrat and won the presidency.

It is also possible, however, that almost any Democratic candidate would have won the Presidency, because of the spoiler effect of the Ross Perot candidacy. Although he became President, Bill Clinton only took 43 percent of the vote in 1992, 3 percent less than much more left-wing Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis had taken in 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

As for the most progressive running?

I'd say that

Douglas Wilder of Va.
Larry Agran of CA.
Jerry Brown of CA.
Tom Laughlin of CA. (see below for link)
Eugene McCarthy of MN.
Tom Harkin of NE.

were ALL more "liberal" than Clinton!!!!



http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=69

[AP]

40. Jerry Brown was definitely not as liberal as Clinton. He's a flat taxer.

I'll give you Harkin. But Tsongas was the early favorite and he was anti-Keynes, which means conservative in my book. Clinton was to the left of the early favorite and to the left of Brown who was perceived as the most liberal.

As for the spoiler effect, google Condorcet. Clinton would have won with Perot in the race.

[wyldwolf]

41. now for some real facts

the Perot factor is myth.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

[Q]

48. Thanks for your response...

...but Clinton didn't run as a 'new democrat'. Even today...most Democrats don't even know what a New Democrat is or what the DLC is all about. They have kept a low profile for many years and really didn't stick their neck out until Gore told them to take a hike in 2000.

Clinton's promotion of equal rights for Gays and National Health Care could hardly be called 'centrist'. In fact...his DLC advisors at the time were against Clinton taking on these issues at all.

The DLC's legacy in the Clinton administration was WELFARE 'REFORM', NAFTA AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL OF 96 that opened that door for the corporate takeover of the media.

[wyldwolf]

50. Really...?

but Clinton didn't run as a 'new democrat'.

After losing a re-election bid in 1980, he came to win four more terms as governor gaining a reputation as a centrist, pragmatic ‘New Democrat.’ In October 1991, Clinton announced that he was a candidate for the democratic nomination for president.

http://www.pitara.com/magazine/people/online.asp?story=33

He insisted on pragmatism and moderation in government programs, a centrist platform that emphasized opportunity, jobs, law and order, and responsibility. This meant that the government should provide opportunities for all citizens when the free market failed, but individuals had to accept the responsibility to work and to contribute to the common civil order. This linking of the time-honored American enshrinement of work and individualism to a progressive view of the role of government became for Clinton a "New Covenant" -- the philosophical perspective behind his reference to himself as a "New Democrat."

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/biography/lifebeforethepresidency.common.shtml

Would you like to see more that refutes your claim?

most Democrats don't even know what a New Democrat is or what the DLC is all about.

You have a Gallup poll on this?

They have kept a low profile for many years and really didn't stick their neck out until Gore told them to take a hike in 2000.

What exactly did Gore say???

The DLC's legacy in the Clinton administration was WELFARE 'REFORM', NAFTA AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL OF 96 that opened that door for the corporate takeover of the media.

The DLC's legacy was Clinton's economic policies.

[MontecitoDem]

9. What I disagree with is the idea that the Right

doesn't have this stuff going on. They do. Christy Todd Whitman is a good example. They have shown better party discipline, sure, but they have factions which they consider moderate (who still look rabidly Right Wing to us!). Their cracks are just beginning to show.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Bill Clinton didn't win because of the DLC or the "Third Way".

He won because 1) he was Bill Clinton, master politician and 2) Ross Perot's help.

The DLC did not win in 1992 or 1996. They lost1988, 1994, 2000, and 2004.

We cannot allow them to lose 2006 and 2008.

FUCK the DLC.

[Q]

14. You're right about Clinton...

...and the 'third way' went ahead without him after 2000. They moved too far to the right and now they have to be stopped before a nominee is chosen in 2008.

[wyldwolf]

17. wrong on all counts

1. The DLC's PPI worked closely with Clinton in development of his economic policies.

2. Ross Perot was NOT a factor in Clinton's 1992 win

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

3. The DLC won back control of the Senate in 1986 after Al From actively recruited mostly Southern candidates. The neoleft McGovernites lost it for six years from 1980 to 1986

4. 1988's Presidential defeat came from the neoleft McGovernite wing of the party you cling to.

5. I thought 2000 was stolen. Either Al Gore (DLC) won and it was stolen or he didn't. Which is it? ... and then there's the matter of the neoleft/green voters and Nader...

6. John Kerry (DLC) got more votes than any Dem in history in 2004

[rman]

110. also because Repubs tried to run on "moral values" which were

way to extreme for many republican voters.

[cestpaspossible]

12. So what else is new?

Aren't you preaching to the choir?

[Q]

13. But the size of the choir isn't yet large enough...

...and you can bet the farm that the 'third way' will rear its ugly head again in 2008. They will 'choose' our candidates and run their campaigns. They will do to the 2008 candidates what they did to Gore and Kerry.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an even playing field for once? To give the Deans and Kucinichs of the party the same chances as the DLC favorites to get the nomination?

Isn't it time to call the DLC out and tell them that we WANT real progressive candidates running the party and calling the shots?

2008 WILL be a repeat of 2000 and 2004 unless we can regain control of OUR party and take it away from the corporate whores.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Q]

29. The DLC literally wrote the 2004 Democratic Platform...

...so how can you call them 'irrelevant'? And...as you'll soon see...they'll be relevant again as we approach the 2008 campaign?

[bvar22]

32. Maybe before 2008, like 2006.

Does the DLC have a controlling voice in allotting national funds for local races?

Do liberal (PRO-LABOR) candidates enjoy the same level of National Party support as those who are more Corporate oriented ? (Wellstone 2002)

Can the DLC use its Corporate connections to supply funding to Primary challengers to liberal Democratic incumbents? (McKinney)

[wyldwolf]

42. really? How so? Proof?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[adwon]

21. Jim Wright and Tom Foley

The scandals that developed on their watch, especially Wright, did far more to grant a GOP Congressional majority than anything Newt ever said or did.

Always nice to see that history isn't foreshortened by everyone :P

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

33. No. not really a freeper.

Just someone that really believes the Democratic Party should be more like the Republican Party.

[wyldwolf]

38. no, someone who believes the Democratic party

doesn't need to be hijacked by the neoleft fringe.

[bread_and_roses]

116. Exactly what is the "neoleft fringe?"

Is it supporting Universal Health Care? Most people poll in agreement. Is it supporting choice? Again, widespread agreement. Is it supporting fair wages? Strong environmental protections? Same. These are not unpopular ideas.

If Neoleft fringe means anti-war left, then you have a point - seems most people arn't "there" yet. Those of us for whom that is the first issue will continue to act, vote, and speak to it, however little support, because it is a moral imperative.

I have a litmus test for legislative votes: who is hurt? All too often, Dems are voting FOR law that hurts people with low-incomes, promotes corporatism at the expense of workers, increases the ever vaster income inequality between the top 1-5% and the rest of us, and most particularly the bottom 10% and people of color,damages the environment, and murders children.

When Democrats don't even support popular ideas, when they run with the Neocons on critical economic issues, what difference does it make to me what they call themselves? They don't have to do this to win, so why are they doing it? Examine Maurice Hinchey's record and then look at the deomographics in his district for one example.

[wyldwolf]

37. 9,969 posts and you call me a "freeper."

Why not speak to what I posted instead of the attack?

[LatePeriduct]

111. There's lots of problems with the corrupt DLC....

However attacking everything about it, and making remarks like a freeper about how the left needs to be more "republican" all the time doesn't do anything and doesn't help anyone.

The last thing anyone needs to be is more republican right now, its moved all the way off into the extreme fascist territory. Nobody in the left needs this.

Liberalism is healthy for most society waking up from this....Anything less is just a bold fake lie. Liberal comes in show especially in times of crises.

It should be repeated alot more often, being a liberal or believing in liberal is not a bad word, period.

[wyldwolf]

122. who has done this?

making remarks like a freeper about how the left needs to be more "republican" all the time

[Lexingtonian]

95. Uh, no.

Seriously, go have a look at the DLC roster. Well, actually, you have to know that they've lost a quarter of the names off of it in the past two years-retirements, defeats, etc. There are remarkably few first or second tier politicians on it, and those that there are are (1) incorrigible and close to retirement (e.g. Lieberman), (2) need the money because the Party and their districts can't provide it (mostly the Southern black House Reps), or (3) Hillary Clinton (because they helped Bill when he needed it, in '91-'92).

The Third Way is not really the same thing as the DLC. And I don't see why anyone takes either of them seriously. The DLC served its primary purpose in 1992, in Clinton getting elected, and since it has been- secondarily- a cover/defensive organization for keeping Southern Democrats in elected office. Gore probably got all the rest out of the organization.

They can't really get anyone elected, as far as I can tell. And, to be blunt, the Gephardts and Kuciniches and Deans are only slightly less obsolete (stuck in the mid/late Eighties as opposed to the Seventies) than they are.

They're not going to be a force in '08. Beating a dead or dying horse does no one any good.

[wyldwolf]

15. wow, Q! It took you longer than usual to get a new anti-DLC diatribe post

Clinton's and the DLC's Third Way claims to find the 'progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism'...but when all is said and done it's just political opportunism, pandering and selling out of traditional Democratic principles and values for private and political gain.

And, of course as we've discussed before, who sets the definition of "traditional Democratic principles?"

Name them, and give examples.

Further, you just describe the political process as a whole. Remember, it was the voters' rejection of the Neoleft McGovernite wing of the party in 1994 that put us in the position we're in today.

From Hillary pandering to the 'religious' Right to Kerry trying to have it both ways on the Iraq 'war' to the strategy to 'soften' the party's stance on separation of church and state, Social Security and abortion. While it may be great for the political careers of some Democratic politicians...it makes the party look weak and ineffective.

How has Hillary pandered to the religious right? How has anyone tried to 'soften' the party's stance on separation of church and state, Social Security and abortion? The meme of Kerry wanting it both ways on the Iraq "war" has been taken up here so many times already. I've always thought liberal saw nuances.

So let's take up the "separation of church and state, Social Security and abortion" assertions you've raised one at a time, shall we?

The Third Way touts a 'contract' with the middle class that completely disregards the poor and the working class...leaving literally millions of Americans without any kind of meaningful representation.

Wrong. Under Clinton's economic plan, we had the lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That was the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics was at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Under the Clinton administration, every economic class faired better.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Q]

44. I think you know what I'm talking about...

...when I say 'traditional Democratic principles'. The DLC has outright stated that they're trying to distance themselves from the people and groups that promote these values.

Labor

Women's rights

Separation of Church and State

Anti-war and civil rights movements

This leaves millions of Americans without representation from either party.

[wyldwolf]

47. misrepresentation

You base your opinions on labor, for example, on policies such as NAFTA. But many more non-DLC Dems voted for it.

The DLC is very pro-women's rights.
The DLC is very pro-church/state separation.
The DLC is very pro-civil rights.

The Dem party has NEVER been anti-war.

Every anti-DLC thread reveals just how misinformed many people are.

[FightinNewDem]

51. Might I add a few more items

Don't forget a major expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the AmeriCorps national service program (which features an educational payment or debt repayment), and federal support for Individual Development Accounts, which allow the working poor to build assets for education, home ownership or small business start-up costs.

Damn, that guy hated the poor...

[QC]

86. Ah, just as the arrival of the swallows in Capistrano heralds the spring,

so does the latest variation on this venerable thread announce that the weekend is finally here!

[wyldwolf]

93. he skipped last weekend

[eridani]

94. Homelessness dramatically up

Jail population dramatically up. Food bank use dramatically up.

[wyldwolf]

96. actually

The homelessness rate increased in the 90s in part due to the decline in federal government housing assistance in the 80s under Reagan/Bush. State and local governments compensated to some extent by increasing their level of financial support for affordable housing programs, but the economic recessions that started and ended the decade made their task especially difficult.

During the Clinton Administration, HUD substantially increased federal support for state and local government homeless programs and for non-profit service providers that assist homeless people, while requiring the streamlining of public and private intervention through more comprehensive and integrated strategies that ranged from transitional and long-term affordable housing, to job training and placement, to a wide variety of health, education, and human services activities. While the federal government budget for addressing homelessness increased three-fold during the Clinton Administration, the number of homeless people being served expanded by 14 times during the 1990s, largely through the increased efficiency of the Continuum of Care approach to coordinated housing and service delivery.

http://www.pragueinstitute.org/housing_us.htm

This included food bank.

See... Clinton again financed a solution to a Republican mess.

[eridani]

107. I'll give Clinton credit for blocking some of the worst Rethug--

--initiatives, but still, in the 90s things got worse for the majority. Economic benefits of such growth as there was was confined to the top 10% of the population.

[wyldwolf]

121. the facts simply do not support your assertion

Nor have you provided anything resembling evidence.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

22. I don't think

that Q is trying to change your mind. :D

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

24. I don't see "centrist" anywhere in his post.

:shrug:

Even if he is, seems to me like it's a bit late for the DLCers to start singing "Kum Ba Yah" and trying to hold hands with the left, especially with Al ramping up his rhetoric.

[thebigidea]

25. ya don't think Al From's wedge-driving rhetoric causes reactions like this

[ulysses]

35. no, they don't. n/t

[thebigidea]

99. what a thorough, well-considered argument. I guess that settles it then.

centrist engaging in divisive rhetoric = great
leftist engaging in divisive rhetoric = monstrous abomination

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Placebo]

34. And who was the last Democrat elected President?

A member of the DLC.

What an evil organization it is. Just evil. By golly they don't get more nasty than that DLC. Scum of the earth, they is. Might as well be Republicans. Purge them from the party now! PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRGE THEM!!!

ZEIG HEIL! :patriot: DOWN WITH THE DLC! :patriot: ZEIG HEIL!

[ulysses]

36. aaand this has been answered more than a few times.

Nice addition of the Nazi imagery, though. That's new.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

54. ...

YOUR organization has NEVER been the Democratic party.

Sounds to me like that invitation to the left to get the hell out, but one can never be sure. Is that what you mean?

[wyldwolf]

57. Of course not

what would give you that impression?

[ulysses]

59. oh, I don't know.

YOUR organization has NEVER been the Democratic party.

[wyldwolf]

63. I think your post title is correct

[ulysses]

65. nice dodge. n/t

[wyldwolf]

67. dodge of what?

Oh, I know.

Your going to claim I didn't address your point when in fact I did, just not in the way you expected or wanted me to.

[ulysses]

69. I would never accuse you of such a thing!

You've simply attempted to change the subject.

[wyldwolf]

72. no. That is what you did

when you said "nice dodge."

[ulysses]

74. no, no. you tried to change the subject.

Thus my point.

[wyldwolf]

77. no, no, YOU did with "nice dodge."

[ulysses]

78. I refer you

to the post to which "nice dodge" replied. You tell me who dodged whom.

[wyldwolf]

81. I refer you

..to your post #54: Sounds to me like that invitation to the left to get the hell out, but one can never be sure. Is that what you mean?

My answer to your question, post #57: Of course not what would give you that impression?

So, like I said, I answered, just not the way you wanted me to.

[ulysses]

83. I didn't *want* any particular answer.

I simply don't believe you.

[wyldwolf]

85. Your choice

[ulysses]

88. so it is. n/t

[ulysses]

52. squabbling elitists?

Al would be proud. :D

[wyldwolf]

56. I'm sure

Don't you have a DLC thread of your own to kick to the top again?

[ulysses]

58. just preparing to start a new one, actually.

:)

[wyldwolf]

yeah, I've noticed that about you

Whenever a long one gets going, you start another one and keep kicking it to the top.

[ulysses]

61. maybe, but you know what?

I've been talking about the DLC on DU since 2001, and I don't need someone else to start a thread on the topic. It's a subject I think needs to be discussed openly.

And I wouldn't need to kick my own threads as often if you folks would actually answer my questions more often.

[wyldwolf]

64. hmmm

... your threads just don't seem to be as popular.

So kick it again and see if anyone (yawn) notices.

[ulysses]

66. but see, that's the difference between us.

I don't give a rat's ass whether or not my posts are popular.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

70. of course I want them to be noticed.

I don't post on DU for the simple satisfaction of typing. Yes, I want them to be noticed. Noticed and popular are not the same thing.

[wyldwolf]

73. noticed and popular. The same

I mean, a few people noticed. It helped when you kicked it a few times - hoping it would get noticed more. You want it to be popular.

[ulysses]

75. perhaps we're working with different definitions of "popular"

I consider it to mean "well received". I have no problem with my threads being poorly received, as long as the point comes across.

[wyldwolf]

79. but to get your point across...

... you have to try to make it get noticed.

Take your pick on the definition:

Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort.

Liked by acquaintances; sought after for company: “Beware of over-great pleasure in being popular or even beloved” (Margaret Fuller).

Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large: the popular vote.

Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at large: popular entertainment; popular science.

Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general: a popular misunderstanding of the issue.

Suited to or within the means of ordinary people: popular prices.
Originating among the people: popular legend.

Either way, that is your goal.

[ulysses]

80. I'm impressed.

I'm even more indebted to you for helping me get my point across. :D

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

82. you should be - I just showed that your actions was an attempt at being..

...popular. :D

[ulysses]

84. ok. I'm desperate for my threads to be popular

insofar as I would like for what I write to be read. Freak, I am.

:D

[wyldwolf]

87. and you get bummed when what you write doesn't get read much

...so you kick it to give it the impression it is being read.

Hey, you're not a freak. Like everyone, you just want to be accepted and loved.

[ulysses]

89. *snarf*

Yeah, that's all I want. :D

Keep trying - you probably *can* be more condescending.

[wyldwolf]

90. I'll keep trying.

[ulysses]

98. of that I'm certain.

:)

[wyldwolf]

101. as you should be

hey! Way to get a thread locked :)

[ulysses]

103. it happens.

Stick around for four years, it might happen to you. It's certainly not my first. :)

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

102. as you should be

hey! Way to get a thread locked :)

[FightinNewDem]

55. The latest count

Number of posts bashing Republicans and/or the Republican Party: 0
Number of posts bashing Democrats: 3,632,849

Way to build the party...

[Q]

60. Funny...but while we were busy bashing Republicans for the last decade...

...some group called the DLC was busy taking over the party. And please stop implying that we're only interested in 'bashing' Democrats. Loyal Republicans and true Conservatives were probably accused of the same thing as they objected to the Neocons and religious Right taking over their party in the 80s and 90s.

[wyldwolf]

62. correction

While Democrats were busy bashing Republicans for the last several decades, neoleft McGovernites were voting third party and giving the presidency to the GOP, getting voted out in vast numbers in '94, losing Presidential elections in landslides in 72, 80, 84, and 88, and complaining that the DLC was keeping them down.

[Q]

71. Talk about living in the past...

...with that 'Neoleft McGovernites' comment. Don't you know that 'everything changed' after 9-11? What about the theft of the 2000 election? How does that fit in your equation? Oh, that's right...the DLC won't acknowledge that Gore's populist campaign actually WON in 2000.

You still don't seem to quite get it. This is not about winning or losing. It's about a Democratic party that has become more beholden to corporate interests than the people that vote them into office. It's about honesty and integrity and oaths of office.

Stop living in the past and realize that everything has changed.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

91. The Dems and the GOP are NOT the same

But the DLC and the GOP are.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

97. I load 16 Tons and what do I get...

Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter don't ya call me cause I can't go!
I owe my soul to the Company Store!

Bring back the good ole days.
Support the DLC!

[wyldwolf]

100. yes bring back the good ole days!

When the neoleft McGovernits lost presidential elections by landslides in '72, 80, 84, and 88.

Lost the Senate in 1980.

Lost the House and Senate in 1994.

Now I know what you mean when you say you want to "take the party back!"

[bvar22]

105. Actually,

the correct term would be paleoMcGovernites, and no I'm not one.

However, I AM a Wellstone Democrat, and one of his MAIN concerns was the amount of Corporate Cash that was buying votes in the Democratic Party.

[Q]

117. Although I loved Wellstone...

...I'm still a plain old 'Democrat'. I don't feel the need to attach the names of politicians to clarify my position on the issues. But I understand what you mean and the need to bring Wellstone and Corporate Cash into the discussion.

It's sickening the way it has become acceptable in both parties for politicians to scoop up corporate change in exchange for voting a certain way or writing legislation favorable to the donor's industries. They don't even TRY to hide it anymore. And when we as concerned citizens try to do something about it...we're accused of 'helping the other side win' or worse.

No Democrat should be satisfied with the simplistic role of cheerleader for any politician or party. It's our duty and obligation to get involved and keep all politicians honest...even those in our own party.

[bvar22]

106. "Lost the House and Senate in 1994."

Moi??? The left???? Lost the House and Senate in 1994.

You ARE joking.

Lets see:
You want to CLAIM victory in '92 for the DLC,
but BLAME losing in '94 on "the fringe Left"?

Actually, the most sense you've made all night.

[wyldwolf]

120. 'tis true

An article in the Boston Globe took up the issue of Democratic losses a week before the last presidential election. When a party holds power for too long, Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, said in the article, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he pointed out, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

The more common explanation for the 1994 Republican Revolution, though, is that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans. According to Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, the danger for the dominant party isn't ideological bankruptcy but ideological drift. "Certainly you can make the argument that, if a party's far enough away from the mainstream, if they don't lose they don't get enough impetus to correct their behavior."

Interesting that the point in the Democratic Party where the more liberal elements of the party held the most sway – the post McGovern era to the late 80s – is the time described by Wooldridge as our “fat, happy, and corrupt” period. Even more interesting is Teixeira, who has solid Democratic credentials, states the party had moved too far away from the mainstream during the period of massive electoral losses for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.

more...
http://www.liberalresurgent.com/dlcmyth1.html

The Court and Country section is particularly revealing - how the American electorate lost faith in the Dems from the late 60s on...

[eridani]

113. If McGovern was such a fringe lefty--

--how was it that he kept getting re-elected as a Senator in a red state?

In what sense could Mondale and Dukakis be considered left at all?

[bread_and_roses]

119. LOL, too perfect.

My Dad - a Steelworker - used to sing that. It about sums it up.

Just a note on Clinton: income inequality continued to increase during his Presidency, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. But what matter a slight slowing down in their march to our Corporate Masters, as long as they still progress? And for those talking about how much better everyone did, talk to the poor souls who've had to rely on Welfare since his "reform." a

[d_b]

114. True that.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

124. Bravo and you are correct

"...admitting that Gore actually won would mean that a Democrat running a populist campaign was able to win without towing the DLC line..."

Do you remember how with in days they were dissing Gore saying it was the fault of his populist message that caused him to "lose"?

Then all the democrats who spoke in public saying Gore couldn't win and shouldn't run were also DLC.

[wyldwolf]

125. Cheswick, provide some documentation

[Moderator]

126. Locking, flame war

Please people! this is not productive.