Rockridge Institute: The Trouble with the DLC

[Totally Committed]

The Trouble with the DLC
Glenn W. Smith, of the Rockridge Institute, examines how a strategy pursued for decades by advocates of "centrism" has suppressed appeals to progressive values.

Excerpt:

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces (1)the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests – oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

These industrial authoritarians figured out how to dominate Democratic messaging. When DLC chairman Harold Ford lost his cool in his (2)Meet the Press encounter with Markos Moulitsas on Sunday, it was clear just how determined they are to continue their domination. Most of the messages delivered to voters were delivered in the course of elections, not between elections. It took a good deal of money. They had money. So their movement aimed at influencing those messages, making sure no alternative visions or values were discussed. Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine – think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks – that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.

Their campaign model intentionally inverted the logical plan, in which you would maximize your base vote and get just enough votes from outside the base to win. The centrists wanted to win with just enough base voters and the largest possible number of votes from outside the base. With the centrist strategy, the base got a little mail and a few GOTV phone calls, the "swing voters" got messaged.

(1) Thinking Points Discussion: Model of Left and Right Falls Flat
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/13/2007/08/01/thinking-points-discussion-shifting-political-discourse-part-1

(2) Meet The PressVideo
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005066/

Entire article:

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/13/the-trouble-with-the-dlc


The results, the article points out, are:

:graybox: The rise of the progressive movement in the early years of the 21st Century challenges this monopoly. The movement is listening to progressives of all kinds and colors, and it's driving new messages of hope between and right through election cycles. MoveOn, Huffington Post, DailyKos, new think tanks like Rockridge, growing local and state progressive organizations, all of them influence the opinion environment outside the old monopolized vehicles.

:graybox: The core values of progressives are appealing to Americans of all kinds. It turns out that many of those so-called swing voters share these core values. They were longing to hear them expressed just as those formerly identified as the core progressive base were.

:graybox: Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. If they don't, they may face the creation of truly universal health care, for instance. And then what in the world will their friends in the insurance industry do? Why, they won't have the money to keep the industrial authoritarians in power.

TC

[Totally Committed]

1. I also Recommend the following threads:

I just took a quick look at the board, and if you liked the above OP, you'll also want the information in the following threads:

DLC in a Nutshell
by babylonsister

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3449652&mesg_id=3449652


RAW STORY:Kucinich: DLC agenda "indistinguishable" from neocons
by antigop

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3449668


Hillary Clinton: More Disappointing than Liberal
by babylonsister

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3449699


TC

[loudsue]

32. Is there a clip on YouTube of the exchange between Ford & Kos?

My 'puter doesn't like me to see any movie clips that are on any other video medium.

Thanks, in advance.

loudsue

[welshTerrier2]

2. not "centrism"; call it "selloutism"

it's funny you should post this now. I was just sitting here pondering what we call left and right and center.

I suppose there are two distinct ways one might look at what's called "centrism." One way would be ideological; the other strictly political. I hold no disrespect at all, though I disagree with them, for those who are genuinely moderates. If their view, for example, was that because the world has grown so hostile to the US, we should increase the defense budget, I accept the idea that at least they are basing their argument on "reason." Again, I disagree but I accept that disagreement and respect it.

The other kind of "centrist", however, has no particular viewpoint on any particular issue. They are called "centrists" because they believe the center of the bell curve is where most of the votes are. This, in my view, is a despicable way to look at the world. It is advocating "following" rather than "leading." It does nothing but reinforce the status quo. It argues that we should advocate "popular" positions rather than positions that are best for the country.

It leaves us with a situation where the public has been inundated with corporate lies and propaganda by the MSM. We then seek to campaign on those very distortions and misunderstandings held by the public. When our candidates do well in the polls, we post the results over and over and over. What we should understand is that those poll results are built on the propaganda campaigns of the greedy right wing. Each success in a poll is NOT an indication of success; it's an indication of our candidate's complicity with the lies.

What is called centrism is, in reality, selloutism.

The intra-party battles we fight are not really between left and right and center at all; they are between fundamental right and wrong. Those we call centrists are wrong because they stand for nothing other than "winning." And if we empower them with our support, we will never realize the vision and values we hold within ourselves.

[Totally Committed]

3. "selloutism" ... Good one!

Ever since I saw that disgraceful performance by Harold Ford on Meet the Press on Sunday, I've been wanting to write a post about my feelings, but as you know, the DLC is something that riles me, so most of what I'd written came out shrill and pointless and angry. Not bad, but not great. This morning I found this article, and thought it said it all.

So, voila! Here it is!

Seems to be a theme on this page today.... ;)

TC

[jaysunb]

4. recommended for all Hillary supporters...

although it probably won't do any good...

[Totally Committed]

5. Nah.... they can't understand why a lot of us are so dead-set against her and the DLC.

They'd just poo-poo what was said, anyway.

But, thanks for the thought!

TC

[Totally Committed]

6. From BlogSpot's "Anti DLC Coalition" Blog:

Bush allied Democrats must go; Wiretap sanctioning is the last straw.

Once again the "new" Democratic majority collectively failed to do what it was elected to do. It once again caved into the wishes of George W. Bush. What are these Democrats afraid of? George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents of all time with poll numbers hovering just below 30 per cent. Thanks to the Democratic majority George W. Bush now has congressionally sanctioned powers to wiretap American citizens at will. Until those Democrats who continue to support unconstitutional Bush actions are shown that there are consequences for their actions they will continue to do what they having been doing.....becoming the silent partners of the morally challenged Bush administration. With the previous do nothing congress Democrats could always say "We were outnumbered" They can say that this time because they are in control of both houses. They have to be made to feel the heat. Every progressive voting Democrat should write to his or her representative in the Senate or House and express his or her outrage at Democratic inaction. What does King George have over them? Did he threaten them? Did he tell them "If you don't vote the way I want you to you the same thing that happened to Paul Wellstone will happen to you? I am really suprised at those Democrats who supported unconditional wiretaps (Webb, Inouye). This type of betrayal and complete disregard of the constitution by DEMOCRATS as well as Republicans can't continue. Something has to be done about it immediately. Bush cannot continue to have a rubber stamp Congress. The only was to stop this is to replace the Blue Dog/DLC Democrats with progressives. This will not be difficult because the Democratic/Progressive wing of the party is estimated to be at least 40%. I have always admired John Conyers. He has been on the right side of so many issues. I don't understand why the man who wrote a book on impeaching Bush is not backing off from doing so. The wiretap issue just shows the urgent need for the Impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales etc. NOW because they can do considerably more damage in the remainder of their lame duck term. Initially I was pleased to see Nancy Pelosi become the Democratic Congressional leader. I don't feel that way now. She continues to coddle this dangerous president. She is NOT reprensenting the will of the people who supported her. Most US citizens want impeachment. How can she be so compassionate with a tyrant when the Democratic presidential predecessor WAS IMPEACHED for one personal matter. George Bush's offenses are just too numerous to mention in this article. This why people around the country, and especially in California MUST support the candidacy of Cindy Sheehan when she runs against Pelosi. We cannot continue to financially support these people when they continue to forget us when the time comes to vote on issues crucial to the average US citizen. Of course we do have many progressive Democrats who have voted correctedly, but we need more of them. Democrats in this and the preceeding Do Nothing Congress have dropped the ball when it came to 1) The Iraq War 2) Supreme Court Nominations 3) Insurance 4)Abortion 5) Electoral Disenfranchement 6) The Environment 7) Partisan firings of Districts Attorney and now Unwarranted Domestic Surveillance. It's time to let the DINOS know that we're fed up and we're not going to take it anymore.


Democratic Congress Gives Bush a blank check for the Occupation

It seems hard to believe, but the Democrats have once again embarrassed themselves and their constituents by giving George Bush billions of dollars to be squandered on this fruitless illegal occupation. 86 Democrats bowed down to King George and said yes master we will give you everything that you want. We will not permit any time restrictions of withdrawal. The progressive wing of the Democratic party(which also happens to be the majority of the Democratic party) will remember this in November. I just thought it would be different this time with Democrats in the majority of both houses, but this cowardly submission only shows that even with a Democratic majority it is still business as usually. The vast majority of the Democrats of this Congress was elected to put and end to this occupation, yet they have not done so. Money that should go to education, infrastructure, healthcare and natural disasters that happen within the United States (i.e Katrina and the Kansas tornados) will be squandered on death and destruction and more profits for the war profiteers. I am so tired of hearing that lame excuse "We had no choice, if we didn't go along with what the president wanted he would tell the American people that we Democrats don't support the troops" This is not only stupid and cowardly it is also illogical. The overwhelming majority of the people of the United States are opposed to this occupation. Who in his or her right mind would think that "this" administration supports our troops. This president to my knowledge has never attended the funeral of one fallen soldier. This administration sent our troops into illegal combat poorly equipped. This administration has worked feverishly to limit benefits our troops are entitled to. Those coming home injured were not adequately cared for at Walter Reade and other hospital facilities. How can it be said that this president supports our troops when mercenary outfits like Blackwater have contractors do the work of soldiers and get paid thousands of dollars more. There IS money available to give to the troops if Democrats decided to resist Bush. This president is peddling fear by saying "If we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here" That is a LIE! The Viet Nam war ended because Congress decided to end it. We were able to make a safe exit. If that happened in Viet Nam it can happen in Iraq.
"THEY" don't want "US" there! The Iraqi parliment voted for the exit of US troops, that is further evidence that we are "not" welcomed in Iraq as Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney would have us believe. Democratic leadership MUST be challenged on this issue, which is just as egregious as anything done by Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Wolfowitz or Mr. Bush. These Democrats have become the co-signers of an illegal aggressive occupation and must be dealt with at the polls


The Return of the DLC DC Democratic Party

By mid-2006 it looked like the DC Democrats had learned their lesson. It appeared they had finally realized that the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC's) political playbook, was little more than the perfect recipe for becoming an irrelevant political party. During the last election cycle the once spine-challenged DLC smitten Republican wannabe DC Democrats, had actually embraced their base and began confronting the GOP's failed anti-working class policies. The result was electoral victory.To their credit, for the first two or three months, the DC Democrats governed the nation with the enthusiasm that they had co-opted from their thriving political base. Democrats opened meaningful investigations into the Bush administration's many illegal activities; they fashioned and passed a minimum wage increase; Reid and Pelosi worked together to close holes in domestic security; Democrats formulated legislation designed to reduce corporation representing lobbyist influence; and they formulated plans to end the Iraq War.One by one the Republicans managed to stall the passage of the Democratic agenda and the Democrats immediately reverted to their inside-the-beltway, guaranteed to lose DLC playbook. Instead of continuing to confront the administration over Iraq, Democrats entered negotiations that will eventually yield them nothing and bring the wars end no closer than the day it began in 2003. Instead of continuing to pressure the White House and Republicans to end the war, Pelosi and Emanuel hitched their political fortunes to the DLC inspired "free trade" agenda and immediately went about the business of selling out the American worker. That single act, selling out the American worker in favor of enriching corporations, is proof that the DC Democrats have sidled up, again, to the failed approach and agenda of the DLC. Incredible as it may seem, it appears to have taken the Democrats all of five months in power to forget that it had been the DLC's failed policies that had kept them in the political wilderness for all those years. And, too, Democrats seem to have forgotten that following their base had returned the Party to political power. The Democratic Congressional leadership would do well to be rid of the DLC and, perhaps, have Senator Webb of Virginia school them on something called "populism". Senator Webb understands the wave of discontent that is sweeping across America. He understands that the American worker is sick and tired of always getting the short end of the stick and that more policies designed to benefit corporations, won't win any elections for the Democratic Party. Corporations, if the Democrats hadn't noticed yet, have a Party...the Republican Party. Webb senses that Democrats could, if they had the courage and wisdom to align with the working people, establish a political dominance that would last into the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, DC Democrats have no interest in what Senator Webb might have to say. The DC Democrats have already turned their back on the base - on the working American and have realigned themselves with the guaranteed-to-lose DLC. The proof of the DC Democrat re-conversion can be found in the recent corporate coddling and selling out of the American worker - eh-hem - "fair trade bill" that Congressional Democrats secretly negotiated with the Bush administration.

These and more at:

http://www.cch092775.blogspot.com/

Educate yourselves about the DLC!


TC

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Kick -

We may not be able to convert the DLCers, but maybe the info here will keep some rail sitters from throwing themselves overboard at their behest.

[Totally Committed]

8. Thank you.....

We can only hope, huh?

TC

[Totally Committed]

9. WAPO Op-Ed: How We Won the Mainstream

How We Won the Mainstream

Three years ago things looked bleak for the Democratic Party. George Bush had just won a second term while his party consolidated its grip on Congress. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay crowed about a "permanent Republican majority," and Beltway Democrats acquiesced as Republicans built their unchallenged (and lawless) unitary executive.

Democrats appeared to be on the run, disorganized and demoralized. But outside of Washington there was hope. Grass-roots Democratic activists had seen the future of our politics in Howard Dean -- plain-spoken and unapologetic. His presidential candidacy had come up short, but its fresh, optimistic approach -- predicated on offering clear contrasts between the two parties -- was poised to redefine the party.

>snip

Last week, at the YearlyKos convention, all these players came together to celebrate our newfound unity and to organize for the coming battles in 2008 and beyond. The DLC was nowhere to be found -- unless you looked in Nashville, where its members continued to preach, in empty halls, about the "vital center." Even the Democratic presidential candidates have figured out where the heart of the party now lies: with the new, unashamedly progressive movement.

The DLC had two decades to make its case, to build an audience and community, to elect leaders the American people wanted. It failed. Its members number in the hundreds, compared with the millions that the people-powered movement can claim, and they are reduced to attacking our movement from the studios of right-wing Fox News and pleading that in the next election they'll really prove that the mushy, indistinguishable "middle" is where the American people want to be.

Their time is up. The "center" is where we stand now, promoting an engaged and active politics embraced by significant majorities of Americans.

Entire Op-Ed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/10/AR2007081001690.html

TC

[welshTerrier2]

13. "Even the Democratic presidential candidates have figured out where the heart of the party now lies"

man is that wrong !!!!!

almost all of us have correctly asked how it has been possible for our own Congressional majority in Congress to do such hideous things as giving bush totally unrestricted funding to continue the occupation of Iraq, passing a bill to give bush warrantless wiretapping and remaining absolutely silent on the Iraqi Oil Law.

ask yourself this: if you were a DLC triangulator, which of those positions would you want your "favorite daughter" presidential candidate to have to defend in the general election? these policies have a distinctly Clintonian odor. Clinton voted against the Iraq funding bill only after it was clear the bill would pass. Then, to give herself "plausible deniability" when challenged on this in the general election, she challenged the Pentagon to provide a clearer exit plan. She can now say she voted against the funding only because the Pentagon failed to provide any clarity. "I couldn't vote to fund the unknown." The pressure on other Democrats came from Clinton and the DLC. These decisions have a distinctly political tone to them. Clearly, it is not what most in Congress, and certainly not the party's base, actually believe is the right policy.

And then ask yourself what happened with the warrantless wiretapping. Sure, the Blue Dogs believed they were voting correctly. But they never would have gotten the go ahead if the okeedokee didn't come from the party elites. Again, the okeedokee was a political choice. And who would make a "play it safe" choice like that? Yup, the Clintons and the DLC.

They are laying as low as they possibly can. The game is to exert pressure without alienating the left. Clinton could even come out publically and complain about these decisions or even vote against them. Don't kid yourself. If she can survive the primaries, she doesn't want to have to defend anything "progressive." The further right, the happier she'll be.

And the more confident she becomes in getting the Dem nomination, the farther right you'll see the Party move. Clinton may have "figured out where the heart of the party now lies"; if she has, she'll do whatever she needs to do to benefit herself politically by exploiting and deceiving the party's base.

[Totally Committed]

14. Tell me about it!

F*CK the DLC!

LOL!

TC

[Totally Committed]

10. From Stan Goff at HuffingtonPost:

Unmasking the DLC
Stan Goff

Few things will be as important between now and the election primaries of 2008 as making sure the public knows about the Democratic Leadership Council. Teaching the public about the role and methods of this powerful clique of Democratic Party operatives could easily be the difference between a Democratic Party that calls for an end to the war in Iraq and one that doesn't.

A strategic imperative for the antiwar movement must be to push for the defeat of any and all DLC supported candidates, and to expose and eviscerate the power of this ruling class committee. This is possible using the communications media available to popular forces through the internet, and combining this networking capacity with aggressive grassroots education efforts.

Black Commentator editor Bruce Dixon:

The DLC is the corporate-funded right wing of the Democratic Party. It was founded in the mid 1980s by a small group of mostly white, male, largely southern Democratic politicians, corporate lobbyists and fundraisers. The original clique included Tennessee Congressman Al Gore, Senators Chuck Robb of Virginia and Sam Nunn of Georgia, and Al From, a former political operative from the Jimmy Carter Administration. To them, the Democratic Party had become too open to the political voices of African Americans and Latinos, too respectful of the rights of working Americans and the labor movement, too responsive to the justice, peace and environmental movements.

Joseph Kay writes:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) held its annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend, outlining its program for the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections and the presidential election in 2008. Speeches at the meeting and documents published in advance indicate that the Democratic Party plans to run an extremely right-wing campaign, particularly on the issues of "national security" and the war in Iraq.

Sean Donahue wrote in 2004:

Most of the major contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign are corporations or employees of corporations that have ties to a network of organizations dedicated to moving the Democratic Party to the right. These organizations, which include the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, and the Progressive Policy Institute, are dedicated to pursuing a policy agenda that includes support for high levels of military spending and an aggressive role for the U.S. military around the world. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.

Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?

>snip

These pieces of corporate shit boast 40 members in the US House of Representatives and 20 members of the Senate; and a bunch slid in during the 2006 anti-Republican vote against the US aggression in Iraq. Now that one message has been sent in 2006, another has to be prepared for 2008. If you're in the DLC, you won't get a vote from me.

It will be hard, because the DLC - with its head firmly up Wall Street's ass - can raise enormous sums of money for political campaigns. That's why the control all but 6 members of the US Senate's Democratic "majority."

Right Web has an excellent profile of the DLC and its Vichy-"progressive" think-tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.

The DLC sees its main task in the coming period as marginalizing other Democrats who are not DLC-obedience-trained.

For many of us, telling the public about this front for the transnational corporations is our task for the coming period.

NNDB has a list of these turds for those who need to check out their own "representation."

STOP THE DLC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html

TC

[Totally Committed]

11. New Democrat Movement

New Democrat Movement

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

The New Democrat Movement is sometimes referred to as the Dixiecrat movement due to the DLC's origination in the southern states, their desire to get rid of affirmative action, and their membership's overwhelming whiteness.

" shift the primary focus from racism, the traditional enemy without, to self-defeating patterns of behavior " --Chuck Robb, 2nd DLC Chairman, Governor & Senator of the Great State of Virginia, White Man, 1986.

"I'm from the democratic wing of the Democrat Party" --Paul Wellstone, progressive Democrat, criticizing the New Democrat Movement.

"Democrats for the Leadership Class" --Jesse Jackson, progressive black Democrat, describing the DLC.

Official Website:
http://www.ndol.org



TC

[Totally Committed]

12. From The Black Commentator:

TC

[frylock]

15. kick

[lyonn]

16. Don't want no corporatist leading our country anymore.....

As someone who registered repub in approx. 1960 and voted for the first time for Kennedy this subject trips my trigger. How the public looks at politics. Not a black and white issue. Voted for Clinton and was so damn glad to be rid of Reagan and Bush I. Even picked my birthday to change my political party officially. On some issues I'm a centrist but mostly left, in fact I like to call myself a yellow dog democrat. What I concluded the problem was for years with the Dems was their wishy washy ways. It is now apparent that it was more a matter of thoughtful explanations rather than weak explanations. I realized the repubs lied a lot! That is why we must have Dems that are more concerned with getting the msg. out than winning. Straddling the fence won't cut it. Bill Clinton was not a disappointment. He failed in a few areas but basicly did his job very well considering how he was hounded from day one.

Do we want out of Iraq Now or not? Let us know your opinion and beliefs on how to accomplish that and not leave Iraq a huge disaster. We must leave Iraq as quickly as possible and no permanent bases. This is a tall order for any new President.

Do we get our rights back, especially in the courts? Strip corporations of their "people" rights. Do we once again acknowledge all agreements we have entered into with foreign countries, including respecting the U.N. and showing a willingness to work with other nations. Our candidates need to give us a clue as to "how" they will accomplish the things they think are important.

How can our heath care issues be fixed without the unwanted advice from corporations? Health care and prescription cost our obscene. Hillary once had my attention and support when Bill was in office. Now I'm not so sure. She and Bill have been politically slapped around for so many years she may be trying to "play the game" to get elected. The repubs play rough. We need to play tough and smart.

[LWolf]

17. A key point!

They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly.

Their opponents are the progressives and liberals, not the republicans, the conservative right-wing.

[Totally Committed]

18. A very key point, indeed!

And, about this, you are completely correct:

"Their opponents are the progressives and liberals, not the republicans, the conservative right-wing."

TC

[truedelphi]

30. So this allows them to blame Nader for the loss of the

Presidency in both 2000 and 2004 - despite the fact that maybe in 2004 if Hillary had not been so busy chiding Edwards for "Grandstanding" over the possibility that something was wrong with the election - and if her guy Carville had not been whispering to Kerry that there simply were not enough ballots to give Kerry the election (The same boldfaced lie that the Repugs were spewing)
perhaps the Dem candidate Kerry would have persevered and won.

oops but that would have meant Hillary would probably not have a chance in heck of occupying the
WH in 2008.

By the way, it was the independents Nader and David Cobb who anteed up the money for the recounts in Ohio and who brought attention to the crime. But the independents are the ones who got smeared (referring to my emails from one Andy Stephenson of early 2005)

[LWolf]

35. Good points, all.

Let's see if your post stays in the thread, now that you had the utter gall to mention Nader and Cobb in a flattering light.

It's what too many Democrats and DUers do to boost their self-esteem when something doesn't go their way; attack/blame/smear independents and 3rd parties.

[Totally Committed]

19. Noam Scheiber's Blog: Goodbye DLC

Goodbye DLC
Noam Scheiber responds to the Democratic Leadership Council attacks to his New York Times op-ed. I have my own issues with the DLC.

The DLC (1)attacks against teachers unions are something I'm against on many levels. Only the DLC would be stupid enough to attack one of the party's strongest bases. The Democratic Party has ideologically supported unionation has an effort to give better wages and worker rights. The DLC bitches about unions. It is because their whole dog and pony show is being against what the majority of the party supports.

Another classic example is the (2) DLC attacks on critics of the Iraq war. Scheiber show how out of touch the DLC is with young progressives (the Democratic Party's future), America and reality.

Finally, From also mischaracterizes my critique of the DLC on the war. I did not accuse the DLC of "blindly supporting the President's position on Iraq," as From alleges. I wrote that the DLC had spent much of 2006 "attacking opponents of the war"--a fight that seemed quaint (to put it mildly) by that point in the Iraq fiasco. Again, this charge is simply undeniable. For example, in the summer of 2006, Marshall Wittmann and Steven Nider, two DLC officials, took to the pages of the Hartford Courant to proclaim that "far too many Democrats view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the nation than Osama bin Laden." Set aside the possibility that this view may be right. The line was clearly intended as an epithet against war opponents.

Finally, the DLC seems more concerned with picking fights within the party than holding Republicans accountable. They made so many enemies within the party and progressive movement that they are laughed at when they attempt to (3)label themselves the "progressive center."

Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

There is no such thing as a progressive center movement. The DLC are rebranding themselves because neoliberal has outlived it's usefulness. Unfortunately the DLC doesn't realize the same can be said about them.


(1) Teachers Union Flunks a Test
By Andrew Rotherham

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=110&subid=135&contentid=3640


(2) Iraq's Coming Democracy
After tyranny, democracy is Iraq's only political choice. Achieving it will be difficult. But, anything else would be a disaster.
By Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=158&contentid=251480


(3) What, Exactly, Is The "Progressive Center?"
by: Chris Bowers

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=629


http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2007/08/goodbye-dlc.html


TC

[Totally Committed]

20. Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt

Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt
by Ari Berman, The Nation

After dominating the party in the 1990s, the DLC is struggling to maintain its identity and influence in a party beset by losses and determined to oppose George W. Bush. Prominent New Democrats no longer refer to themselves as such. The New Democratic movement of pro-free market moderates, which helped catapult Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992, has splintered, transformed by a reinvigoration of grassroots energy. A host of new donors, groups and tactics has forged a new direction for Democrats inside and outside the party, bringing together vital parts of the old centrist establishment and the traditional Democratic base. The ideological independence of the DLC, which pushed the party to the right, has come to be viewed as a threat rather than a virtue, forcing the DLC to adapt accordingly. Corporate fundraisers and DC connections--the lifeblood of the DLC--matter less and less: Witness the ascent of MoveOn.org and Howard Dean's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). "It's not that the DLC changed," says Kenneth Baer, who wrote a history of the organization. "It's that the world changed around the DLC."

> snip

After Kerry's defeat, the DLC promised to "avoid the circular firing squad" mentality but then quickly broke the promise, reverting to its favorite target: the Democratic base. Instead of labor unions and feminists, the DLC fixated on MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. "We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. "What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon," the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. "Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." The DLC continued this vitriol into March.

Such attacks put the DLC back on the front page--a fact that speaks to one of its ongoing sources of strength. For Washington journalists, the DLC is an ideal organization, frequently critical and readily accessible. Privately, DLC staffers complain that only controversy will bring coverage. A fat Rolodex, the product of years spent mingling with journalists, gives the DLC an illusion of real power. The New York Times and Washington Post mentioned or quoted the DLC 200 times during the electoral season, forty more mentions than the Club for Growth, a leading player in the right-wing movement.

The DLC's media savvy has helped it build a wealth of connections. The organization now claims hundreds of state elected officials in the New Democratic directory published on its website. Some, like Bayh or Lieberman, are true believers. Others are happy for the free publicity gained from attending a conference or being named "New Democrat of the Week." And for politicians in red states, joining the DLC offers political cover. "It's the easiest, cheapest way for a politician who wants to be equated with a 'different kind of Democrat,'" says former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, who endorsed Rosenberg for DNC chair. "It doesn't mean anything anymore."

Entire article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman



TC

[Totally Committed]

21. Highly Recommended... Please read!

Muzzling The African-American Agenda with Black Help: The DLC's Dollars of Destruction
by Bruce Dixon, Editor, Black Commentator

Republicans have nothing on the DLC when it comes to slinging code words. In truth, this "rump faction" has no soul. It's just a big, white corporate pocket. The only masses that count for the DLC are massed dead presidents, stacked high. The From-Reed crowd operates on a cash for favors basis, only. When a corporate deal is brokered for hungry Democrats, the DLC considers the agreement binding, on pain of later impoverishment.

The DLC's mission is to erase the last vestiges of social democracy from the Democratic Party, so that the corporate consensus will never again be challenged in the United States. Acting as a Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery, the DLC claims the "real" party lives somewhere off to the right, where George Bush dwells, and that minorities, unionists, environmentalists, feminists, men and women of peace - virtually every branch of the party except corporatists - must be purged or muzzled.

The Take Back America agenda, which would have seemed mild not so long ago, is too radical for the DLC:

:graybox: investment in sustainable economic growth

:graybox: leaders who protect the environment

:graybox: enforcement of civil rights for all

:graybox: the right to join a union to be a civil right

:graybox: women to get equal pay for equal work

:graybox: everyone to be paid a living wage

:graybox: help for American families and children

:graybox: universal health care and retirement security for all

:graybox: to revive our cities and end poverty

:graybox: privacy and reproductive choice protected

:graybox: an Apollo project for energy independence

:graybox: America's young people to have a future

:graybox: government to be on your side

:graybox: American to be a force for peace and freedom in the world

Dreyfuss laid out the "New Democratic Network" fund-raising process in his American Prospect piece, "How the DLC Does It."

NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria ..."

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, the DLC interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support.

It is a textbook model of 21st Century political accountability - not to voters, but to corporations that spend most of their dollars with Republicans. The DLC is, at root, a candidate shakeout mechanism for big business, a clearinghouse for betrayal. Candidates must agree to support the "narrowly defined criteria" of the boardrooms, rather than the needs and aspirations of their constituencies. Every candidate that embraces the DLC has signed off on very specific points of the corporate agenda - a kind of political receipt for services rendered.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html


This is a really long, but really good article. It has lots of info, and pulls very few punches. I highly recommend it!

TC

[Totally Committed]

22. Did you know that the DLC's Tax Exempt Status was revoked by the IRS?

From Forbes:

Does the Democratic Leadership Council--the centrist policy factory whose founders in 1985 included an Arkansas governor who later wound up in the White House--benefit mainly Democrats or the whole country?
Some left-wing Democrats might say it does neither.

Now, in a previously unreported action, the Internal Revenue Service has revoked the DLC's tax exemption on the grounds that it primarily benefited a private group--Democrats, and particularly "New Democrats" running for or holding office--rather than the community at large. The DLC has sued in federal court to overturn the decision; the outcome could affect the spreading use (abuse?) of tax-exempts by politicians and those seeking to influence them. Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is just one character who has used money from tax-exempts to get the attention of legislators.

At the very least the DLC's tax woes will make an intriguing footnote in the annals of strange bedfellows. For example, the DLC's chairman during the years the IRS alleges it wasn't bipartisan enough was Senator Joseph Lieberman, now running as an independent after Connecticut's Democratic primary voters rejected him for being too pro-Bush. The Justice Department has hired a researcher from Public Citizen, the watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader, to help make the case against the DLC. And the DLC has enlisted an aide to former President George H. W. Bush to vouch for its commitment to ideas over party.

:graybox: The DLC isn't a 501(c)(3) charity like the United Way. It won exemption in 1986 under section 501(c)(4) of the code, covering civic and social welfare groups. Contributions to civic groups aren't deductible. But 501(c)(4)s are allowed to lobby more than charities and to even get involved in partisan politics. The National Rifle Association, MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee are all 501(c)(4)s.
What's the practical value of a (c)(4) designation if it doesn't generate writeoffs for its donors? A (c)(4) isn't taxed as a for-profit business would be and doesn't have to disclose its donors, as a political action committee does.

:graybox: The IRS has made sporadic efforts to draw some line. In February 1997 it tentatively turned down Jack Kemp's Empower America for a civic exemption, finding it was too closely aligned with the Republican Party. But the agency relented after the group broadened its originally all-Republican board and submitted evidence of nonpartisan activity, such as sponsoring a conference featuring Lieberman and DLC Chief Alvin From. Then, and later in 2000, when the Christian Coalition had IRS woes, conservatives groused that the DLC benefited from a double standard.

:graybox: The IRS began auditing the DLC in 1999 and in 2002 revoked its exemption for 1997, 1998 and 1999 (all the years audited), hitting it with a $20,083 back tax bill. The government doesn't claim the DLC got involved in elections. Rather it cites the DLC's founding by Democrats; its training workshops held exclusively for Democrats; and From's stated goal of coming up with new centrist policies that would make "our party" the majority.

The DLC responds that its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for--e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements--got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress. The DLC also points to other issue-flavored (c)(4)s--Empower America, the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Main Street Partnership--whose founders are identified with one party. And it says the Democrat-only workshops ate up less than 5% of a $4 million annual budget while 70% went for publications available to the public.

The case is not an easy win for either side. The IRS itself, in its regulations and rulings, has held that a 501(c)(4) can provide a substantial (but unquantified) private benefit to its members so long as its primary activity is promoting the common good, says George Washington University law professor Miriam Galston. So, for example, a tax-exempt gardening club that promotes horticulture in the community can also hold socials for members. If his schedule weren't full, maybe Jack Abramoff would like to attend.

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1002/048.html

TC

[Kurovski]

23. K&R. (nt)

[bleever]

24. My K&R.

Why would someone attack Howard Dean right after the 2006 victories?

I believe that progressive ideals are American ideals, and that the need to "triangulate" has never been weaker, given the way that the Republican brand has been spoiled like a lead-painted infant teething toy made in China.

Don't just depend on the fact that we have better ideas. Make sure the public doesn't lose that awful taste in their mouths when they hear the word "Republican".

[Totally Committed]

27. "Make sure the public doesn't lose that awful taste in their mouths when they hear the word

'Republican'".

Now THAT is something even I never considered! How can we keep that bitter taste of Republicanism in the mouths of the American public if our Party just mimics their issues and strategies? Great point. Thank you for making it!

TC

[Donna Zen]

25. Ah...I needed this thread

This evening, for some unknown reason, I got involved in a discussion with a poster at Kos who kept going on and on about how the Democratic leadership would make the FISA vote all better. We just have to keep our powder dry. BTW, the word being used by that leadership is "temper." They intend to temper the worst parts of the bill. Damn, I'm still waiting for the return of Habeas Corpus.

So I needed to read this diary and assure myself that there really are sane people left in the world.

Kevin Phillips points out that the swing voters, the ones that get all of the attention, have never been more than 7%; however, that vote now stands at about 2%. Turning off the base to go after 2% hardly seems worth it given what happened in 2000. When GHWB lost to Clinton because the base stayed home, the GOP vowed never to make that mistake again.

Senator Clinton is absolutely DLC. As your documentation proves, this organization has little in common with the Democratic Party. Let's hope that we actually have a Democratic nominee or else the DLC will rise from their ashes and venture forth to screw us over once again.

[Totally Committed]

26. The only thing the DLC make's "better" where votes are concerned

is the Republican tally when it's all over.

NO more DLC. Not ever.

TC

[Forkboy]

28. K&R

Enough of the soulless swine.

[truedelphi]

29. Do we even need elections?? It's a one factory town and the two store outlets

Are both owned by the same group. Different store logos - but otherwise the same.

Elections give these shills, ie the candidates of either party, a chance to capture even more money - under the guise of campaign chests needed to defeat the opposition.

But the true Republican base is dissatisfied with the Rep candidates, and the true progressive Dems are dissatisfied with ours.

[sybylla]

31. Kick for an informative thread. nt.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Totally Committed]

34. Kick for the GROVELBOT

:kick:

TC

[slipslidingaway]

36. Bookmarked! n/t