DLC-supporting DUers, here's what you've been waiting for...

[derby378]

As many of you know, I've been known to jump on the DLC from time to time. I'm one of those guys who credits Howard Dean and his campaign with turning me into a full-fledged Democrat instead of an "anyone but Bush" guy. And I still think Al From did Dean wrong, and I do have some issues with DLC members such as Feinstein and Lieberman.

But I know the average Democrat who supports the DLC wants many of the same things that I do - a Democratic Congress, withdrawal from Iraq, a return to Clinton-era health care and environmental responsibility, etc. No disagreements here.

So...uh, well...you know I have a big mouth, which probably would have served me well in the Republican Party, but I don't play that. Not anymore. Not since the crucifixion of Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky. Fellow Democrats, I'm on your side until the bitter end. That includes the New Democrats, too.

We'll bicker about some stuff from time to time. Can't be avoided. But from now on, if I feel the need to bitch, I'm going to try and bitch only about certain people's ideas and initiatives, not about entire organizations. I can't promise I'll be 100% successful, but I've got to start somewhere.

Friends? :loveya:

[BootinUp]

1. What a nice thought

:hi:

I know, I must have just been targeted or something? :D

[xultar]

2. I'm all about the Democrats too. If we fight on the bench we'll miss

the game.

I'm not going to fight my own. I refuse to fight my own. Blacks have done it for decades and it has gotten us ZERO! Whites have gotten us to fight amongst ourselves to keep our eye off the prise.

I don't agree with the DLC. But there are Dems in the DLC and I'm all about Democrats. I don't like Joe but I'd hold my nose and vote for him over any Rethug any effin day of the week.

I'm all about Democrats. Democrats. Democrats. Democrats. Democrats. Democrats.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

Thanks for understanding that though we aren't all in lockstep on all issues there is ONE issue where lock-step is required.

Winning 2k6 and 2k8 elections in LANDSLIDES.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. That's the attitude...

I am a so called New Democrat so you are either with us or against us!! JUST KIDDING!!!!!!! :+ :+ :+ :+ :+ :+ :silly: :silly: :silly: :crazy: :crazy:

Seriously, we don't needed critizism between progresives and I believe we can all learn from each other (at least, i am still learning and that is why I keep coming back to DU).



:hi: :hi: :pals: :pals:

[iconoclastNYC]

4. "New Democrat" is bullshit.

There is nothing wrong with traditional democrats except that we won't put pushing the Corporate Agenda above an agenda that benefits all.

"New Democrat" reinforces the frame that there is a problem with Democrats.

[derby378]

5. Lemme put it this way...

I don't cater to no corporate agenda, either. I'm a big fan of Joel Bakan's The Corporation, which I credit for getting me on an organic milk kick.

But together we can still do great things. We'll just hash out the differences once we take over Congress.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. It depends how you see the DLC

They want to take the party over for thier corporate masters and I don't think they will compromise with us.

[derby378]

12. For many DLCers, that may be...

...and I would so love to see a few corporate wings get clipped. Starting with the idea that you can patent the building blocks of life, or even an actual lifeform. That still chills me.

But any meaningful discussion on rolling back this aspect of legal copyrights will not be achieved as long as the Republicans control Congress, even moderate ones. Steve Forbes may be a nice guy, but can you see him working to negate patents on human genomes? I sure can't.

[iconoclastNYC]

14. I had the thought the other day

How many of the DLC Dems, the ones who vote with the Republican majority on votes like CAFTA, how many of them would just switch parties so the Republicans could keep the leadership.

I'm sorry but I don't trust the DLCers in Congress who vote like Republicans. People like Liberman and Bill Nelson.

[derby378]

16. Neither do I

And I'll keep up my criticism of Lieberman and Nelson if they keep screwing us.

You might not know this, but there's a DUer (Dr.Phool) running against Bill Nelson for his Senate seat down in Florida.

[SaveElmer]

49. So I imagine...

You will be giving Hillary props for opposing CAFTA then!!!

[wyldwolf]

19. No it isn't

"New Democrat" was a shortened version of "New Kennedy Democrat." Traditional in every since of the word. A call to return to the pre-McGovern era party before the late 60s, 70s and 80s. It was during that Democratic tenure that the party was hardly "traditional."

[iconoclastNYC]

21. Oh really?

Google Search

Your search - "New Kennedy Democrat" - did not match any documents.

And even if that were true, it's STILL BULLSHIT to associate your party with something that needed improvement.

[AtomicKitten]

6. you're on the right track.

The DLC sucks ass most of the time, but they are Democrats, and it is flat-out wrong that some seek to purge them from the Democratic Party in toto.

All that matters IMO is that we wrestle the reins of this country away from the Republicans. I have no interest in fighting those left-of-center.

I appreciate your effort at focusing.

[derby378]

7. Hey, you're welcome

Eyes on the prize, as xultar said. Congress, blue. White House, blue. SCOTUS, that'll sort itself out after the first two turn blue.

[iconoclastNYC]

22. Moderate and Center are bullshit terms.

They tell you nothing. Same for left and right.

It's the votes that count.

DLCer's votes show that they pick the Corporate Agenda over the people's agenda, and that's why they need to be replaced in the primaries with candidates that support the right policies.

[AtomicKitten]

24. quack, quack, quack

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. "I have no interest in fighting those left-of-center"

So much for that concept.

[iconoclastNYC]

26. I think someone is regressing to kindergarten

Cows go Moo.

Dogs go Arf! Arf!

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Well I haven't been called an Insignificant Little Twerp yet.

I guess that is a good thing. :shrug:

[iconoclastNYC]

28. That's why I call them DLC Sycophants

If you aren't suckling corporate America's teet you are insignificant!

[AtomicKitten]

32. make you a deal

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. Aww! You need a hug don't you?

:hug:

[AtomicKitten]

34. aaaah, so sad.

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. One more hug coming up

:hug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I think it would be more productive that when we do argue

We try to intelligently debate the good and the bad of policy proposals and that everyone on all sides avoid the same old cliches; whether it is "far left" or "fringe" on one side or "corporate whores" or "right-wing moles" on the other.


If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

[derby378]

9. When it comes to conservative Democrats...

I have to remember to think Lila Lipscomb, not Zell Miller.

Think rightdemocrat.com, not Dixiecrats.

[stray cat]

11. Definitely friends

Thanks for a nice letter. I'm a Dean and Feingold fan myself but also Bill Clinton, Kerry and Edwards. Bottom line if we can't work together in the midst of disagreements we will never get back any control of the government.

[radio4progressives]

13. What do you have against the Working Class?

enquiring minds would like to know...

[derby378]

15. Who, me?

Could you 'splain a little further, please?

[AtomicKitten]

20. I wonder if inquiring minds want to know too

[wyldwolf]

17. Deal!

As is should be (IMO)

[MrBenchley]

18. Thank you....

On to victory in 2006 and beyond.....

[Rowdyboy]

23. The only time Democrats win is when they put aside differences and unite..

In FDR's day, he had to unite labor, farmers, intellectuals, progressives, southerner conservatives and business while fighting the Depression and then WWII. Every subgroup within the party thinks they deserve to run the whole deal and bristle when anyone suggests they compromise.

I don't care for some DLC policies and tactics but people need to remember the a sucessful political party is a coalition of interests tolerating each other so they can achieve power. Once power has been gained, there will be plenty of time to jockey for power and position. Until power has been gained, the jockying is silly and meaningless.

I'll work with anybody, anywhere, anytime who shares my goal of putting as many Rethugs as possible out of the House and Senate and back into the private sector that they claim to love so dearly!

[iconoclastNYC]

29. Right.

We were united in 2004 if you hadn't noticed.

The CONSERVATIVE revolution in the Republican party really hurt them, right?

:sarcasm:

[Rowdyboy]

30. Kerry lost against a "war president" incumbent with BBV on his side

Perhaps you could point out the last time a bold progressive without ties to the center was elected. You know as well as I do, it hasn't happened and it won't, not in America.

I voted for George McGovern the last time "progressives" took over and drove out the center. I hope never to endure another nightmare like that. Some people enjoy going down in flames, but doing so virtuously. I prefer winning by inclusion, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

[iconoclastNYC]

31. When was the last time one was on the ballot?

[Rowdyboy]

36. Only once (McGovern in 1972) am I aware of the left taking over the party

McGovern's 37.5% electoral humiliation was a lesson well learned when we suffered through Nixon's second term. Likewise, when labor and the party establishment flexed its muscle at the anti-war left in 1968 by forcing Humphrey as nominee, the left refused to follow and we were blessed with Nixon's first term.

When Kennedy (representing the progressive wing of the party) ran against Carter for the nomination in 1980, he split the party giving us Reagan's first term AND a Republican senate (1980).

Progressives alone aren't enough to win a national election in America. Some progressives who are open to opinions other than their own, and are flexible in their ideology if not their principles, can sauced in forming a winning coalition though. A man like Russ Feingold could pull off both the nomination and a general election win, with a little luck. Wes Clark also has the military creds to push a progressive agenda and yet project a moderate, reasonable image. I think John Edwards is moving to wards a populist/progressive platform that could make him viable also.

I would like to see more progressives in the Democratic party, more like the party of my youth with Mike Mansfield, Birch Bayh, Vance Hartke, Phil Hart, Fred Harris, Wayne Morse and Harold Hughes just off the top of my head. I want to see a more progressive Democratic party because todays party is a pale shadow of the party I came to love in the 1960's. However, I sincerely believe the way to reach that goal is through building a broader coalition, not purge the party of those who aren't in total agreement with some specific agenda.

There has to be room for people of good faith but very different views if you ever hope to achieve majority status again.

[eridani]

38. Would that have happened without the Dem establishment--

--actively working for Nixon?

[Rowdyboy]

50. And that's my point......

Had the McGovernites not alienated the Dem establishment, he could have been a real threat. Nixon was by no means guaranteed a victory when the process began in New Hampshire.

In 1972 the party establishment wouldn't support the nominee and we all lost
In 1968 the progressives refused to support Humphrey and we all lost
In 1976 progressives by and large held their noses and helped elect Jimmy Carter-we won
In 1992 and 2000 the party was substantially united following primaries and we won both years.

The two sides must work together if they are to have a CHANCE to succeed. Without progressives, the establishment is screwed. Without the establishment, progressives are screwed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. that's is a good thought

I myself consider George McGovern a great man. Unfortunately though, his 1972 campaign was not prepared to unify the Democratic Party as a whole. Undoubtedly some of that was the fault of the McGovern campaign. Much of the problem was the fault of those in Democratic Party on the other side who didn't want to accept the McGovern primary victories and his legitimate claim to the nomination. Since 1972 progressives have suffered unfortunate marginalization within the Democratic Party.

However, I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to the long-term agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

Let's compare the voting records of even Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Clinton with that of one right-wing Republican and one so-called "moderate" Republican.

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
_______________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95
percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
____________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.


2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[BootinUp]

42. I was really too young at the time '72 most of

what I know is from various sources long after. And I was worried that a Dean candidacy would turn out similar to '72.

On the reshaping of the party. I think you have to be able to identify the voting block you want to form a coalition with. What is the motivation. Then go after it. The repukes did this very well of course back in the sixties and seventies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. yes they did

One of the most insightful books I have read about the rise of the radical right-wing of the Republican Party is actually written by a Richard Perlstein, the political editor of the Village Voice; Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. Although the author is clearly on the left, the book is highly praised by conservative Republicans.

It gives a great deal of insight as to how the radical right was able to emerge out of the 1964 Barry Goldwater defeat (38.4% of popular vote) and to go on to dominate the entire political landscape of America.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0809028581.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809028581/qid=1141105161/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6697879-7603040?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[MrBenchley]

46. Worth noting that the reason McGovern got tne nomination

was that Nixon's plumbers ratfucked the other Democratic campaigns....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/documents.htm

[tulip]

37. Great Attitude

We're all in this together. I agree with some of what the DLC stands for but certainly not 100%. To me it's all about getting the job done. How we do it may differ but we MUST get the job done.

[eridani]

39. Members of the DLC want withdrawal from Iraq?

When did that happen? Despite all my disagreements with Clinton, I'd take him back in a New York minute, but I'd still rather have real universal health care than a complicated compromise that enables thievery by insurance companies.

[mdmc]

40. Go America!

God Bless the DLC and the GOP! In the end, we are all in this together. With God on our side, who can oppose us! God Bless the USA!

[Shizaad]

44. I favor a DLC purge.

DLC is gangrene in the Democratic party. It's the sell-out wing of the Democratic party. DINOs. Our party lost it's identity to these soul-sucking wraiths. The DLC makes me ashamed to call myself a Democrat, and just like Republicans, they make me ashamed to call myself American. They have Iraqi blood on their hands.

[Douglas Carpenter]

45. We cannot even purge the Lyndon LaRouche gang. How are we going to purge

one of the most powerful groupings within the Democratic Party?

I don't like the DLC's endorsement of neoliberal economic ideology and their embrace of a modified form of the ideology of global military dominance. I don't like it one bit. For one thing they are just too ideological. That they share with some of us on the left.

But more good would come if we concentrate on what is possible--not things that are impossible.

I for one am convinced that more good would come if those of us on the left concentrated on winning converts than excommunicating heretics; especially if such a purge is just plain impossible.
______________

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

[SaveElmer]

47. This isn't the Soviet Union...

No idealogical litmus tests or purges are possible. Vote for whom you want, but talk of purges is ridiculuous...

[SaveElmer]

48. Sounds good to me...

I cannot think of a Democrat being remotely talked about for the Presidential nod that I would not be glad to vote for...DLC or not!