How can DLC be neutered without short term damage to Dems?

[yurbud]

This is probably the biggest political challenge now and threat to democracy since the DLC is essentially the Chamber of Commerce tools in a Dem instead of GOP wrapper.

If the DLC persists in the Democratic party, the Iraq War could resemble the Vietnam War in another ugly way:

The White House could change parties and the war could continue.

I know we can be careful about what individual candidates we give money to, but I'm wondering what else we can do to begin to filter these parasites out of the system, and to get the party to stop preferring them over the more progessive alternatives.

[FlemingsGhost]

1. Stop giving money to DLC stooges!

Cut them off, cold.

And do not contribute to the DNC. Contribute directly to the opposing primary candidates.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Horse with no Name]

48. I thought I was the only one that noticed that....

brb...pizza in the oven...

[Cha]

88. Fucking Cheese Bubbling

OVER!

[FlemingsGhost]

113. Can anyone tell me what rule was broken here?

Anyone?

[AntiFascist]

10. Let's be clear then....

and talk about what a hawk Hillary is?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[AntiFascist]

70. Is the PPI silly, or just a kinder, more gentle version of PNAC?

Granted, public opinion may be changing since late 2001, but where exactly does HC stand on these issues?

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=450004&subsecID=900020&contentID=3916

But it's also time to ratchet up the pressure on Syria, Iran, Sudan, and other regimes known to sanction terrorism. Options include withdrawal of aid and diplomatic recognition, economic embargoes, expulsion from the United Nations and other international bodies, political and military support for insurgents, and preemptive strikes to stop terrorism or weapons proliferation.

<snip>

The attack on America has created some startling opportunities to realign global politics.

<snip>

Ultimately, the challenge facing the United States and the liberal democracies is to drain the global swamp

PPI is the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC think tank which promotes the "Third Way".

[bettyellen]

93. she's such a sellout, all the women i know are so dissappointed in her

when did she take such a wrong turn?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

108. Well, I'm NOT a woman, and I'm VERY dissappointed in Hillary.....

...as long as she believes we should stay in illegal and immoral fiasco in the Middle East, I won't support her for ANY office.

[me b zola]

12. Do you have an alarm on your computer that sounds

whenever the dlc is mentioned?

So you have come to hijack yet another thread? Why don't you just begin your own thread that says "raw-raw dlc" instead of hijacking everythread that you disagree with?

[William769]

22. So are you saying you are only suppose to post that you agree with?

Thats would not make for a very good discussion forum, now would it?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[me b zola]

30. The OP is not whether or not the dlc is good or bad

...it is an effort to brainstorm on how to get the dlc influence out of the party. Mr. whats-his-face is off topic and is notorious for hijacking good threads.

Debate is exactly what the poster I have responded to stiffles time & again.

[MrBenchley]

36. The OP is yet another "I hate the DLC" rant

and what debate did you want?

[me b zola]

44. No. The OP is looking for constuctive ideas

on how to best rid the Democratic Party of the dlc without injuring the party. Ideas to make the Democratic Party stronger and reflective of it's citizens.

If you wish to debate if the dlc is good for the party, that would be a different topic and you are free to begin your own thread.

[MrBenchley]

50. In other words, SSDD.....

"Ideas to make the Democratic Party stronger and reflective of it's citizens. "
Hahahahaha.....it shows.

[MrBenchley]

51. In other words, SSDD.....

"Ideas to make the Democratic Party stronger and reflective of it's citizens. "
Hahahahaha.....it shows.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. That's exactly the problem....that is YOUR opinion, and one that....

...is clearly in the minority these days.

Tell you what...if DLC starts publicly endorsing the long-held views of the Democratic Party instead of appearing to be a GOP mouthpiece, then they'll have something worth salvaging. Until then, and IMHO, they are NOT representative of the vast majority of Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

129. L:ike I said...

wish you guys would get your slander straight....

If I'm clearly in t the minority, why do you wowsers have to have a thread snivelling about the DLC?

"Until then, and IMHO, they are NOT representative of the vast majority of Democrats. "
Hahahahaha....

[Raksha]

142. Well, they AREN'T!

And you *ARE* in the minority whether you like it or not. I too hate the DLC and deplore their influence in the Democratic Party. Maybe I never said so before, but you just provoked me into doing it.

>>If I'm clearly in t the minority, why do you wowsers have to have a thread snivelling about the DLC?<<

Are you going to try to tell us what we can and can't talk about here?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[gordontron]

81. indeed good entertainment ;)

[fujiyama]

126. Do you EVER have anything constructive to say?

All I ever see is constant attacking of those expressing disappointment (justified that too) in politicians that we supported.

No, the DLC is not liberal. It's policies are inherantly RW. Maybe you have not read its attacks on liberals. The DLC has explicitly used RW talking points in claiming that liberals are not patriotic, are soft on defense, and they constantly claim that we should not attack the right in their agenda. I'll give you the link. I remember that it was authored by Al From and some other piece of shit.

Then again, I doubt you care. Go back to your defending of Lieberman, Al From, Will Marshal, and the like. It's humorous.

Better yet, I want to see your views on WHY the DLC is so great. I frequently notice that you and the DLC defenders are never around on threads which expose the agenda From, Marshall, and the like have.

And stop accusing anyone critical of the DLC as being a green party member. Most of us aren't.

[leftstreet]

3. Keep encouraging the Corp Media to cover Dean, Pelosi, Feingold, Reid, etc

People like the anti-corruption and out-of-Iraq messages coming from the DNC. While the DLC tries to stay under the radar by saying virtually nothing about anything - they may just slip off the screen all on their own.

[me b zola]

20. I agree.

And in addition, we should continue to grow grassroots candidates and our grassroots network that could propel such a candidate to national prominence.

[yurbud]

63. they still dominate party leadership

And corp donations.

[HereSince1628]

4. I'm not sure there would be short term damage.

We need contested primaries for all offices. With the available crop of activated Iraq veterans that is getting easier and easier.

[yurbud]

17. I hope you are right

[acmejack]

23. It would be the removal of a malignant, disfiguring, malodorous growth!

We'll feel so much better when it is gone! They can take their corporate money and beat it back to the Republican Party, where many, if not most, of their senior people came from.

[Cleita]

5. Ask them to take their ideology over to the Republican Party to

fix it. Our's doesn't need fixing. Ours has been proven to work.

[MrBenchley]

8. LOL!

"Ours has been proven to work."
Yeah, who can forget how that Kucinich for President bandwagon swept through the primaries (snicker)

[William769]

11. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MrBenchley]

28. Thanks....

You'll notice the Green Party has a pure leftist message untainted by things like common sense or voter appeal....

[Cleita]

33. Oh but I'm not Green Party. I have been a REAL Democrat

all my life and really resent these Republicans with their business agenda infiltrating what has always been the party of the working class and minorities, just because your party has been usurped by wacko dominionists. Go take your party back and leave ours alone. If you don't, we all lose.

[MrBenchley]

40. It shows (snicker)....

[KoKo]

60. It's not worth it to try to have a discussion about this anymore.

when posters are allowed to add "(sniker)" to their posts repeatedly...it's like watching MSNBC or Fox.

[LWolf]

143. Really????? Really??????

HAHAHAHAHAHA

<snicker>

One notices the irony evident in attacking 'progressive purists' and other DUers repeatedly, with impunity, for supposed lack of information, without much of significance to say. Your comparison is apt. Subtract the general nastiness, and there's not much left. Ah well. It apparently doesn't bother the mods, so non-response is probably the best solution.

[iconoclastNYC]

132. bashing the gays has great voter appeal.

So why don't we go in that direction?

[Cleita]

14. Really?

Who brought you the New Deal and pulled us out of The Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who brought us the war on poverty and Medicare, Lyndon B. Johnson. Although Clinton didn't sell us to China, he didn't do much in the way of social reforms because he is DLC or as someone once said the best Republican President we ever had. He promised universal health care and failed to deliver because he couldn't leave his corporate health care backers out of the equation.

Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean should have been our candidates, but of course we would still be stuck with Bush because of compromised elections.

[MrBenchley]

31. Democrats, like the DLC....

"Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean should have been our candidates,"
Except that they couldn't even convince their fellow Democrats to vote for them. Dean only won his favorite son primary...and hapless Dennis couldn't break 10% in his home state.

[Cleita]

39. BS they were both railroaded by the Republican thug machine and

the media who made sure that Dean screamed constantly for days after his orginal scream, and that Dennis looked like an elf. If the primaries weren't settled before we in the West even have a chance to make our choices known I think you would have seen a different result. Until the primaries are all held on the same day, we will never know whom the popular candidate really is.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

45. You know. I thought you could do better in making your

case than making snide remarks.

[MrBenchley]

49. What more was needed?

[Cleita]

52. Facts about what the DLC really stands for would be nice.n/t

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, it shows.....

You all can return to your dreary little hate fest now.

[Cleita]

57. Here's a link you might want to bone up on.

http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926

It's the DLC manifesto. Much of it makes good sense, for middle class white people, but it does nothing to address the needs of the least among us and has nothing much in common with the Democratic Party I joined in 1961.

This is actually what the Republican Party used to stand for, more efficient and leaner government and fiscal responsibility before they turned into a big Christian mafioso.

I have no problem if this is your political idealism, but puleeze don't call yourself a liberal, ever.

[yurbud]

76. those platitudes almost OK if acted on

Doesn't seem like they are, or that they fight for anything except the cultural issues which don't chafe business anymore than right wing cultural positions do.

[Cleita]

80. Like I said they would appeal to people who are comfortably

middle class. They are meaningless to the guy trying to feed his family when he lost his job that was outsourced and meaningless to a victim of Katrina, who found out that the government that was supposed to take care of them when disaster hit, wasn't anywhere up to coping with the challenge. They are meaningless to the person who doesn't have a health plan or whose plan is inadequate for his needs. They are meaningless to the old person who has to chose between their pills and food.

[MrBenchley]

128. Been there, done that

"it does nothing to address the needs of the least among us"
If you ignore the parts that do just that.

"puleeze don't call yourself a liberal,"
Fuck that shit, as threy say in Brooklynn. YOU don't get to say who is a liberal and who isn't. Especially if you've got that twisted a view of reality.

[Cleita]

139. You are getting very close to irritating me with your

right wing views that are not liberal. Facts are facts and there is nothing liberal about centrist positions leaning right. That's a simple fact. YOU have no right to say who has a twisted view of reality, unless you're talking about yourself.

You cannot serve mammon or what is the corporate oligarchy in place today and call yourself a liberal. It's as simple as that. In a liberal world business is subordinate to the needs of the citizens, not the other way around.

[MrBenchley]

141. As if I give a shit.

[Cleita]

144. Well, so much for debate with you.

You are right and everybody else is wrong. That is not a liberal trait.

[Usrename]

148. Aha!! You always get around to your only area of expertise.

Nice that there is a resident expert. It is all you know. It is what you are.

[onenote]

56. Let's all stand up and salute LBJ

I'll try to forget how I chanted "Hey Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today." Of course, the pay off was that I succeeded in driving out LBJ and ended up with Nixon instead. The impetuousness of youth, I guess. Now I'm older and willing to recognize that the "lesser of two evils" really is less evil.

onenote

[Cleita]

59. Well, onenote, I too protested the war but I still voted for

the Democratic candidates. That war was protested by all sides. It seems the right wing hadn't drunk the kool-aid yet and could see when something was wrong. Of course the right wing party operatives tapped into this to make protesting against LBJ seem like the right thing. It furthered their political agenda and yes you got Nixon for it. It was in the plans.

[onenote]

61. you must've been at different marches than me

Sure, by the time of the Moratorium march in 69 and the march in 71, a lot of repubs had begun joining the opposition to the war. But that was after Nixon was president. The protests in the mid 60s, while Johnson was still president were absolutely not widely supported. I'd like to see one shred of evidence that "right wing party operatives" made protesting against LBJ seem like the right thing. By the way, I still voted for Democratic candidates too. I worked for McCarthy and after Humphrey was nominated I worked for him. My point is that if we're going to hold up a Democrat as a model to measure against the "DLC" I'm not sure LBJ is the guy. He was great on social programs, sucked on Vietnam. Around here, a Democrat that is great on social programs and sucks on Iraq is considered a DINO, not a Democratic hero.

onenote

[Cleita]

62. No the marches protesting LBJ were the ones I went to but

I considered denouncing him for Vietnam not the same as throwing away the Democratic Party. I do believe in restrospect that we were manipulated by Republican Party operatives who seized on the movement to further their agenda, but when you're young you don't figure out these things until it's too late.

Remember the many Democrats who did the same like the Chicago eight (nine? don't remember), Abbe Hoffman, Tom Hayden (who was my Congressman for years) and the rest, who protested the Democratic Convention. The Democrats made some egregious mistakes then and we fell right into the trap.

[onenote]

64. but that's my point

We wanted to run LBJ out of town, just like some folks here want to run every DLCer out of town. Only when we succeeded in getting rid of LBJ, we didn't end up with someone better, we ended up with someone worse.

onenote

[Cleita]

65. Apparently the DLC is here to stay. That I am resigned to.

But all I want is that they don't interject themselves into real Democratic Party issues. They are too friendly with big corporate business and the global economy (read global slave economy). They are pulling us backwards, like the Republicans, from gains we made in the last century.

Companies are destroying unions by hiring contractors to replace union workers. Often the contracters are underpaid scabs that were hired during strikes. That our unions being weakened and destroyed is one of the reasons more and more people are sinking into poverty.

The DLC because it is business friendly seems to have no place in their ideology for unions. They are aiding and abetting the very system that is going to destroy the American middle class. This is why I am so against them and resent them in my Party.

This privatization of government and the military and contracting of workers from other companies in the corporate sector is destroying us and the DLC is going right along with it.

[onenote]

68. take a look at S. 832

The Employee Free Choice Act, which will protect workers' freedom to form unions and has been hailed by union leaders as critical step forward in the fight for workers' rights. THen take a look at its original sponsors: Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. REID, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DODD, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. BYRD, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. BAYH, Mr. CARPER, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. REED).

Notice something: there are quite a few DLCers on that list, including some of those who are most fiercly attacked by some DUers as being RINOs. Well, I don't see a lot of repubs on that list, so I'm thinking that maybe all of the assumptions and generalizations being tossed around about the DLC -- including yours (the DLC has no place for unions)-- might (to be kind about it) miss the mark a bit.

onenote

onenote

[Cleita]

69. I know who the DLC'ers are, Mrs. Clinton for one.

It would be a good thing for her political ambitions to back something like this, but this is only a small thing that needs to be done and I don't think those DLCers are ready for some really liberal laws to bring our unions back into power.

And the union leaders are right, it's a step, but not the whole staircase that will eventually be needed. I don't think any of those DLC'ers will be willing to climb to the top. Also, if jobs are contracted out, how can one form a union in that workplace? Just a thought. A better bill would be to prevent this contracting out for lets say 80% of the jobs in a company.

[onenote]

95. but you still need to take the first step

And there is solid Democratic support -- DLC and non-DLC -- for this sort of legislation. But it goes nowhere because the repubs don't let it go anywhere. So for those who say (and I'm not suggesting you're one of them) that a DLC'er is no better than a repub, if you eliminated every DLCer who supports this legislation and replaced them with a repub, would you be closer to getting it passed and starting that climb or farther away?

Too many folks here have a completely unrealistic picture of the world they live in. Attacks on Bill Clinton because he didn't do this or that. Well, guess what. The Democrats lost control of Congress during his presidency. There is this fantasy that there is a huge progressive majority out there. Well, there isn't. That's part of the reason why McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale all got their heads handed to them. Progressive reform is a process that takes time and those who insist on an "all or nothing" approach are going to get nothing.

onenote

[jsamuel]

77. aren't you assuming that if you did support LBJ instead of protest him

that LBJ would have beaten Nixon? Isn't that a pretty big assumption to be making?

without assuming that, your argument is baseless...

[Skidmore]

15. So what exactly has the DLC done for the worker?

I'd like to hear how you spin this one.

[onenote]

66. since you asked, here's a list

21 million new jobs
record low unemployment
two increases in the minimum wage
increase in real wages
over 5.9 million new businesses created

All of the above: accomplished during the Presidency of that fiendish DLCer, Bill Clinton.

And, let's add one more: Sponsorship of The Employee Free Choice Act, which would protect workers' freedom to form unions and bargain first contracts and has being hailed by union leaders as a critical step forward in the fight for workers' rights. Introduced by non-DLCer Teddy Kennedy, it happens to have, as original co-sponsors, quite the list of DLCers -- Lieberman, Biden, Dodd, Dorgan, Landrieu, Carper, and Stabenow, to name a few. Not a lot of repubs, though. Which is confusing, because aren't those DLCers the same as repubs?

onenote

[Cleita]

72. Well, Clinton was certainly a better Republican President than any

other of the last Century, but his middle of the road approach left many things lacking. Our crappy and corrupt health system is a result of his and Hillary's pandering to the for profit health industry instead of improving and extending Medicare for all, which was the way to go, but apparently too liberal and workable(Canada has this system) for the corporate friendly DLC. Instead nothing got done, except privatization of a lot of Medicare and the system spiraled downward into the deteriorating system we have today.

I would take Clinton in a heartbeat over the drunk we have now, but still for all his accomplishments, there were the problems left over because of his ideology. The welfare to work program isn't working so well and has impoverished many even more than they were before.

[depakid]

86. 'there were the problems left over because of his ideology"

Not the least of which is a consolidated media that has hurt the party AND progresive causes more than just about any one thing anyone could do.

Not only didn't his FCC do anything to alleviate the problem, but he signed off on the bill that killed radio AND appointed Micheal Powell to as a commissioner.

[onenote]

96. who was the last "Democratic" president in your view?

Since you're labelling Clinton as a "Republican" (in deed if not name), I'm curious who think was the last Democratic president. Or for that matter, who was the last Democratic presidential nominee.

onenote

[Cleita]

97. Jimmy Carter, of course.n/t

[onenote]

106. I love Jimmy Carter, but ...

when he ran for President, he ran not only as an "outsider" but as a moderate, putting himself to the right of other Democratic contenders for the nomination, such as Jerry Brown, Fred Harris, and Mo Udall and to the left of others, like Scoop Jackson. (In 1980 he ran for renomination to the right of Teddy Kennedy). He did many wonderful things (and has continued to do wonderful things since leaving office), but he also supported some policies, like the Cruise Missile, that weren't so wonderful. He also jumped on the "deregulatory" bandwagon, and in addition to the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries, started the deregulation of the communications industry (don't believe me? check a transcript of his 1980 debate with Reagan). In 1976, he barely eked out a victory over Gerald Ford despite Ford's pardon of Nixon. One of the keys to his victory was his appeal to Christian voters -- he was publicly and avowedly "born again" -- although not in the crazy-assed fundie way that we now associate that terminology. But by 1980, the mood of the country -- post Iran hostage, post inflation, post energy crisis -- well, where were the millions of progressives in that election? Did they stay home because Jimmy wasn't really liberal? Or maybe his election in 76 had less to do with his being liberal and more to do with his identification as a "New South" moderate Democrat.

onenote

[sandyd921]

79. yeah and he also gave us NAFTA.

"In the United States, as economist Robert Scott details, NAFTA has eliminated some 766,000 job opportunities-primarily for non-college-educated workers in manufacturing. Contrary to what the American promoters of NAFTA promised U.S. workers, the agreement did not result in an increased trade surplus with Mexico, but the reverse. As manufacturing jobs disappeared, workers were downscaled to lower-paying, less-secure services jobs. Within manufacturing, the threat of employers to move production to Mexico proved a powerful weapon for undercutting workers' bargaining power."

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_index

[mom cat]

101. And Welfare "reform"

[OzarkDem]

111. Not DLC accomplishments

those were Clinton's accomplishments and, as I recall, the DLC disagreed with many of them, particularly the increase in minimum wage.

Try again.

[onenote]

118. I'm not the one who needs to try again and your memory is really bad

First, let's deal with the idea that these weren't "DLC accomplishments" they were "Clinton's accomplishments." Well, since Clinton was a member of the DLC and, in fact, Chairman of the DLC in 1990, let's not go too overboard in drawing that distinction.

As for your recollection, there is this thing called the Internet and you ought to try using it to look stuff up rather than inventing memories to fit your predisposed, but utterly incorrect notions.
The 1996 minimum wage bill passed with every single Democrat voting in support. Every one. DLC members included. (Link to roll call vote: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=1094

Moreover, when the repubs tried to water the bill down, they were defeated, narrowly, because all 47 Democrats (again including all DLC members), joined by five brave repubs, opposed the repub effort. http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/96/07/09/wage.html

Finally, just to bring you up to date, since apparently you have short term as well as long term memory issues, this past March, Sen. Kennedy's amendment to increase the minimum wage was narrowly defeated. Not a single Democrat voted against it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00026

So, allow me to suggest to you: try again.

onenote

[jsamuel]

27. nice joke, but you suggest that liberals are wrong

why do you hate liberals so much?

[MrBenchley]

32. Hey, the DLC ARE liberals....

But don't let actual fact get in the way of your little hatefest...

[Cleita]

43. Really? Explain to me what you are liberal about. Every

time I go through the DLC website, there are a bunch of white people running it, like the GOP. They are pro-business, anti-welfare and social programs. About the only thing they do agree with liberals on is being pro-choice and for separation of church and state. Hey, that's my father's Republican Party, the one who put Eisenhower up as a candidate and who my father voted for.

[burythehatchet]

103. Cleita - don't even bother

I don't even have to guess who Ignored is on this thread. I can tell by the comments people have made responding to him. He is a simple-minded provoceteur and simply enjoys the thrill of getting under people's skin. He adds nothing whatsoever to the debate so please do yourself a favor and ignore his inane comments.

[Cleita]

117. You are right.

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

34. The DLC are liberals....

But don't let actual fact get in the way of your little hatefest...

[jsamuel]

41. they are "moderate" liberals who are trying to "fix" liberals' ideology

So, by supporting them, you suggest that the liberal ideology (not the DLC ideology) is wrong.


"moderate" liberals :eyes: - they use that as a self-declared catch phrase

[MrBenchley]

53. Rubbish....

[Cleita]

46. I don't think you know what a liberal is.

It isn't the DLC, I assure you no matter how much they may adopt the word to push through their pro-corporate agenda.

[librechik]

75. apparently they are liberals content to keep their nuts

in Bushie's pocket.

Seriously, these "liberals" are "leadership" They are by definition cautious, conservative, and sensitive to their success among centrists than the are to standing up for liberal principles. What good do "liberals" like that do us? Saving their fight for some other battle some other time? They haven't even managed to raise the minimum wage in 10 years. They are all talk, and boring, ChamberofCommmerce GolfGame talk at that. They are an exquisite minority in the party, and they seldom get elected anymore.

Why should we pay attention to them? Oh, that big lump in their wallets.

I believe we crushed that advantage with internet grassroots fundraising already.

But go on, stay in your little clique. I guess you feel in your comfort zone there, where everything is easy and NOTHING EVER CHANGES.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

116. "The DLC are LIBERALS"???? Bwahahahahaha!! Do you know why....

...the DLC was formed?

[yurbud]

19. good point--we actually need 3 major parties: business, progressive, and

Christian Taliban.

Then at least we could have truth in advertising.

[Cleita]

29. Yes, the third one would be the one the Bushistas would

have to run on.

[William769]

6. There are slugs in the Democratic party

But it's not the DLC. Be careful what you wish for.

[jobycom]

7. No need to, just use it for what it is.

The DLC is one branch of the Democratic Party. It raises a lot of money and pulls in some moderate to right-leaning voters who would otherwise vote Repub. They might even win a few Ds for us in regions where we would otherwise not have a chance. More Ds mean more chance for control of Congress, which means control of committees, legislation, Speaker, etc. Our whole problem now has nothing to do with the DLC or with non-Dem Dems--it has to do with having absolutely no power.

So let the DLC do what it does. It brings us more votes and more money, without being strong enough to control the party. They are a boogeyman spat up to frighten children and divert our energies away from the real enemy.

[yurbud]

67. true if they didn't undermine left and

Lie like GOP about who they represent.

They represent corporate America, and as we are seeing with Bushies, what's good for corporate America can be lethal for the rest of us.

It is one thing to be business friendly, but when business and average Americans interests conflict as they do with NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade agreements DLC types voted and lobbied for, Democrats should come down on the side of people.

Likewise, something like voting for that recent bankruptcy bill without some kind of credit card reform was indefensible for a Democrat. When Joe Biden appears in public, he should be pelted with gatbage and road kill.

[yurbud]

71. pro-DLC, contentless, bitchy posts

Tend to cofirm rather than refute people's concerns about the DLC.

Is it so hard to come up with your positions that distinguish you from both progressives and the GOP?

"Look at the DLC website" is not a persuasive argument unless you cite and quote specific positions and the legislative actions they have taken to follow through.

These snide, smarmy, contentless posts seem more like the stuff I've seem conservatives post on open boards like yahoo, which makes me wonder if the posters aren't stealth cons or PR shills who work for both GOP and DLC, AND just have a sheet of boilerplate responses they post like a trained monkey.

[jobycom]

82. Was this directed at me?

If so, I don't see why.

[yurbud]

91. no, but if you have some posts that

You think qualify, post the links and I'll let you know.

[jobycom]

84. Well, then, we agree that they are useful.

They don't undermine the left, they aren't strong enough to. And they don't lie about who they represent. They have a different, and IMHO a more complete, opinion on the economy than their opponents. Corporations aren't bad, they just aren't properly regulated. Some people have gotten so worked up about the DLC they carry their rhetoric way too far. The DLC is not Republican, not even close. Pull out a Phil Gramm or Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay speech if you need proof.

Biden--never liked the bastard. I'm still saving my battles for the Republicans. When we are solidly back in power, we can do some housekeeping. Until then, the DLC helps us more than hurts us.

[Al-CIAda]

136. They are a poison 5th column. -nt

[jobycom]

147. They are the winning edge. nt.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Give $$$ DIRECTLY to the candidates themselves, thru their websites.

This way, you bypass the DLC, DSCC and DCCC. And if the latter ask you for $$$, tell them to fuck off.

:kick:

[Skidmore]

16. Yes, sirree, Bob! That's the ticket.

[mom cat]

104. Yes, and to organizations that represent your position on issues.

I am no longer going to give blindly "to the party" but to those who stand the best chance of changing policies that are critical to me. That might be individual candidates or organizations. Ane we have to make sure they know that our financial support is contingent on real progress toward those goals. We showed last time that we have the spirit and the money to pull it off.If the DLC types are willing to not block progress, I have no quarel with them. We , however, can no longer keep placating big business and sacrifice our freedoms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Don't vote for them.

In the primaries or the general elections. They'll go home to their Republican roots.

[Warpy]

21. The damage is caused by keeping those bastards in power.

No contributions, no votes, no verbal support, nothing! A Republican with a D after his name is still a Republican.

However, some areas are best served by Republicans, like urban NY and western Connecticut. We just need to recognize what they are and keep them the hell away from the center of party power and the hell out of running for execitive office.

A party that has abandoned its traditional base can't win. That's what the Dems did when they allowed the DLC to run things. If they can't manage to reconnect with the base, to oust the DLC from the center of power, then they'll stay out of power.

[Cleita]

47. Amen, Shraby.

We need the real Democrats back to bring back the unions and the social programs the average American needs to prosper and raise their families.

[onenote]

58. McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale

These candidates not only lost, they lost big. Did they abandon the party's traditional bas? If they did, then who was the last Democrat to win that didn't "abandon" the party's traditional base? Was it in your lifetime?

onenote

[depakid]

89. 6 congressional election losses in a row

That's what pandering to the right and legitimizing and enabling thier policies has brought us.

Now, they're bucking for a seventh.

Hell, at this point, because of the DLC type Dems, the party isn't even relevant anymore in national politics.

Note: It was the party bigwigs that brought us Mondale- 1984's version of the DLC. Hart might actually have beaten Reagan. Dukakis might have won, too- had he not rolled over and let Bush pummel him, while he did nothing to respond. Exactly like Kerry and the swift boats.

Get your history straight.

[onenote]

98. You want history. Okay, isn't Kerry a DLC'er?

And Clinton? And all those DLC Senators. Seems to me they all won elections. So I'm trying to figure out how it is that the blame for 6 Congressional election losses in a row falls on the candidates that have won elections.

Y'know the Democrats controlled Congress for a whole lot of years. Of course a bunch of those years, a substantial portion of the Democrats majority were southern Democrats who make the average DLCer look like Mao. That's history too.

And as for whether Hart could've defeated Reagan? Well, we'll never know that. But what the history books tell us is that he couldn't attract enough support from Democrats to win the nomination. So its those doggone Democrats fault. If we could only get rid of them and the repubs everything would be peachy.

onenote

[depakid]

123. Problems with your anaysis

Obviously, Kerry isn't in the white house- and it was his failure to fight AND his enabling of right wing policies- as opposed to nationalizing the election and calling the Republicans out for what they are that cost him- and the rest of the Dems. Big. Would have been nice when Bush challenged him on the war for Kerry to have slammed him back- but that's water under the bridge

Clinton had Perot to help him at least have a two pronged assualt on Bush 1's failure. I don't want to go into another, long post mortem about that with poll numbers. My opinion is that he'd have lost without Perot in the race. 1996 was Bib Dole, and the incumbant won that one, basically by default.

So, we have a history of DLC strategy that's lost Congress every single time- and there's NO reason to believe that Republican lite will have any different outcome this time.

[onenote]

130. can you back up your assertion?

As I pointed out, DLC candidates that win can't be the reason we've lost Congress. So if there are large number of DLC candidates who are losing winnable elections, you would have a point. But I've never seen any analysis that shows whether the losing Dems are DLCers. Certainly when the House was lost in 1994, it wasn't because DLC candidates lost, it was because mostly non DLC incumbent Dems lost. If those incumbents lost, yet DLCer Bill Clinton won (after defeating incumbent GW Bush), well, let's just say I'm not sure the analytical problems are all at my end.

Finally, let's go back to the issue of where the "problem" lies -- my take is that folks who want to blame the DLC are really just blaming those darn pesky Democrats -- the ones who vote in primaries. Remember the primaries? The DLC candidates (Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman) consistently racked up sizable majorities. In fact, in most states, they captured more than 60 and as much as 80 percent of the vote. The more progressive candidates, Dean and Kucinich hovered in the teens and twenties in most races, with Clark (who may not have been a DLCer, but is hardly a Kucinich/Dean progressive either) often doing better than either of them.

So why don't you put the blame for the DLC where it belongs -- on the Democrat party voters who seem to prefer DLCers.

onenote

[depakid]

133. I think I have it figured now

You can't "wholes" or think in systems. All you can see are trees, and not the forest.

The only way the Dems are ever going to take back power is with a unified message in a national campaign. Piecemeal approaches with DLC types contradicting traditional Democratic values isn't going to work. It hasn't worked for the past 6 elections.

Take a few pages from a winning playbook. How is that the Republicans- as extreme and out of touch with the issues that Americans repeatedly- and by large margins- say they support? How is it that they energize their base- and win- repeatedly? How do they react to Lieberman's and Bidens in their party? Are they out front muddling up their message? Would the RNC be pleased?

Want to win- nationalize the campaign. Stand for something.

How many times do you hear people say- well, I don't agree with XYZ Republican, but I respect that he/she stands up for their convictions?

Mark my words- and you can look up similar words for 2002 and 2004 in my posts. Run a DLC style Republican lite campaign with mixed and wishy washy messages- and the Dems will lose a 7th election in a row.

[onenote]

140. Democratic voters are trees, not forests

The repubs have been successful in forging a "unified national message" that appeals to a sufficient number of voters to keep them in the majority. But keep in mind that the repub base: white and christian, is a big forest of voters. The Democratic party, on the other hand, is a collection of varying interests. Its not so easy to forge a single message that appeals to the existing Democratic base and enlarges it.

Put another way: in post 2004 election analyses, 21 percent of voters identified themselves as "liberal", 45 percent as "moderate" and 34 percent as "conservative." The self proclaimed liberal voters supported Kerry at around the same rate that self-proclaimed conservatives supported chimpy. And moderates tilted towards Kerry by a decent margin. But despite appealing to moderate voters, the Dems lost. Why? Because that 34 to 21 edge in conservative over liberal voters is a killer. Now I don't doubt for a moment that there is a substntial body of "liberal" minded voters out there who don't participate because they think that there isn't any difference between the Democrats and the republicans. So the trick is to get those voters to come out. Coming up with a unmistakably progressive unified national message might do that. But the bigger trick and the bigger question is, if you move the party's image farther to the left, will you end up pushing away too many of that big block of moderate voters so that your losses basiscally cancel your gains? Unfortunately, history suggests that the answer is that the moderate voters will flee from the Democrats if they feel the party is moving too much to the left.

So, we're left with the task of building a majority tree by tree. Some of those trees are stalwart liberals like Russ Feingold. And some, in places where a stalwart liberal may not be electable, are going to be DLCers. But at least they're all Democrats.

onenote

[depakid]

145. Chasing the ephemeral center

is a path to losing elections- that's what Dems have been trying to do for over 10 years now- and look where it's gotten them.

Republicans don't do that- and look where they are. Seems to me there's something we can learn from them. We can't keep playing the same tired old game and expect different results. Hopefully, enough Dems will figure that out.

Frankly, I'm with Cronkite- the Dems need a mid-term convention.

[AntiFascist]

149. great point you made....

After Bush, people will want considerable change, especially with respect to foreign policy.

[onenote]

55. you've got to find votes for non-DLC candidates

Y'know, if we 'filter' some of these DLC 'parasites' out of the system what we're likely to end up with in some instances is a repub victory not a more progressive Democrat in office. At least five of the states with DLC Senators also have a repub senator. Those states aren't likely to support a more progressive Democrat. And even some states with two Democrats, like Arkansas, North Dakota, or even Connecticut could easily end up in repub hands if the Democrats pick a candidate too "liberal" for the moderate electorate in those states.

onenote

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. Hold a HUGE "Get your ass out of our party" March at the DLC

headquarters. Wherever that is. They need to know there's MILLIONS out here who don't want them speaking for us and certainly don't want them representing the party. HOLD A HUGE MARCH. ANTI-DLC PROTEST MARCH.

[0007]

92. Love to see it happen.

[onenote]

99. where exactly are these "millions" of which you speak?

Apparently not in the states where DLCers get elected. There is a reason that DLCers get elected in some states, particularly those where the other Senator is a repub -- the electorate isn't that progressive. Even in a state where one Senator is progressive and one is a DLCer, like Massachusetts for instance, do you really think a big rally to drive John Kerry from the party would be viewed by the electorate in general as a positive thing?

onenote

[pinto]

74. fwiw, AFL-CIO rankings, Labor Issues, 2004, House and Senate:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003511M&sort=rating?q=print

<snip>

AFL-CIO

Year: 2004
Issue: Labor

Website: http://www.aflcio.org
Email: [e-mail]

AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education
815 16th Street. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

"The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement."

The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.

<listing follows at web site>

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003511M&sort=rating?q=print

[Geek_Girl]

78. Honestly I think it's hopeless

With 40+% of American's still supporting this administration after all that's happened and the dem party pretty much entrenched with corporate interests. I think the corporatist have won. They control the free press, the whitehouse congress, and the the supreme court. Progressives candidates really don't have much of a chance until the American public figures it out and I'm not holding my breath on that one.

IMO the choices are
a) vote and support progressive candidates even if it means they loose
b) vote and support DLC candidates and put a band-aid on a gaping wound
c) don't vote and let the Repugs continue control, and maybe if things get bad enough people will wake up.

[0007]

90. I agree! Then these mealy mouth hijackers come in with

their know it all attitude and throw snide remarks around like some omniscient god, while corporate interests are getting their nuts out of hock, and loving every second of the confusion.

We know big corporations will back who ever they can buy, to keep unions out and wages low.

[More Than A Feeling]

83. Is Rahm Emmanuel part of the DLC?

He seems to be the biggest problem in my neck of the woods, annointing Tammy Duckworth to enter a race where we already have a worthy candidate, Christine Cegelis (43% against Hyde last year).

I am sure the DLC is the cause of many problems, but has it also become a slur against any Democrat we don't like, whether they actually are DLC or not?

[Cleita]

85. Look at what I found at their website.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252835&kaid=126&subid=189

[More Than A Feeling]

87. Thank you for that. Apparently not only a slur on anyone we don't like

at least, not in the case of Rahm Emmanuel. Good to know that we haven't lost the ability to give blame where blame is due. Still, I have to be honest, I would like to see Harold Ford take the open Tennessee seat.

[bettyellen]

94. i think howards up to helping us retake the party...

one grass root at atime. look at reid, he's caught on and is hitting the road.
i'm proud of them both. can't say that about the dinos, that's for sure.

[Kralizec]

114. Yes, the last hope for the Dem Party is in Dean and the grassroots.

Bring back the true ole' Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

100. Stop referring to fellow Democrats as parasites.

That's something good Democrats just don't do.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

112. Okay. Then tell me how YOU describe the DLC....

...maybe good Democrats should start telling it like it is instead of being namby-pamby and turning the other cheek like a revolving door.

I've got thirty years as a registered Democrat, and I'm tired of apologizing every time a Republican whines about an issue.

Here, I'll make it as plain as I possibly can....until we start fighting the GOP toe-to-toe, and all of their fellow-travellers, we will continue to lose our liberties, and we will continue to live in a Fascist society.

[onenote]

131. and who elected you to define a "good" Democrat?

I have 30 (34 to be exact) years as a registered Democrat too. I think Bill Clinton is a "good" Democrat. And John Edwards. And Maria Cantwell. And John Kerry. And Herb Kohl. I also think Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are good Democrats.

I'm totally prepared to fight the GOP toe-to-toe. But its the GOP I'm fighting, not Kerry, or Clinton, or Lieberman or Nelson.

As I've pointed out in other posts, the reason DLCers get nominated is that Democrats vote for them in primaries. So I guess there just arent' enough "good" Democrats.

onenote

[Clarkie1]

102. Moderator: Please consider removing this thread.

It is my understanding that the purpose of Democratic Underground is to support the Democratic Party.

While we may reasonably disagree within the bounds of civil discourse, calling fellow Democrats "parasites" is in conflict with the stated mission of this site.

Thank you.

[cascadiance]

105. No it's about supporting the PRINCIPLES of the Democratic Party...

Something that DLC'ers seem to have forgotten at times when selling out to corporate interests. One principle is not to censor ideas and thoughtful discussion... Please don't advocate that here. You're not advocating Democratic Party principles then. At least the traditional ones we've had before the DLC took over. I want a party that's accountable to voters, not corporations. I want a party that will fight against the judicial activist notion of corporate personhood, not let it slide and let in those judge appointments that claim to be constitutional constructionists, but would do everything they can to be activist judges in supporting corporate agenda.

[onenote]

119. no leave this thread open

Its the only way some folks may ever find out some of the myths being spread by those who like to demonize the DLC. For example, there is claims (post numbers 111 and 65 for instance) that the DLC opposed changes to the minimum wage and that the DLC "has no place in their ideology for unions". Demonstrably untrue statements by people who care little about the political realities involved in recapturing a majority in Congress and even less about the facts.

onenote

[Clarkie1]

122. You have a vaild point.

I hope that leaving this thread open does lead to more truth-finding.

That said, I despise anyone on this board calling Democrats "parasites."

That's no better than a freeper.

[rman]

124. looks like you're quite alone in that opinion

[yurbud]

134. democratIC underground--see rules excerpt & LINK

If you haven't noticed the tone here isn't blind cheerleading.

Our country has a serious problem and part of correcting it is figuring out why our supposed opposition party has been largely quiet and sometimes even complicit.

Maybe that's a bum rap as Tom Daschle gave evidence for by saying Congress did NOT give Bush war powers at home.

Until EVIDENCE of a candidate or elected official standing up for us consistently is presented, there is no reason we should blindly praise them.

Will I hold my nose and vote for a DLCer over a Republican? Yes.

Will I argue why we should vote a progressive challengers in the primaries? Yes again.

If you think the DLC IS doing a better job of leading the Democrats than more progressive FDR types did, make your case.

Start a thread proving all the good things the DLC has done and you'll shame and silence the rest of us.

But they have a couple of stains on their record before you even start:

NAFTA & the Iraq War.

Both are about corporate greed at the expense of the American people and even other people in other countries, which tends to promote animosity which fuels terrorism, which you guys and the GOP pretend to care about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[AntiFascist]

150. On the contrary....

this is a very NECESSARY discussion for a Democratic forum. We need to discuss what damage the DLC is doing to the Democratic party in order to save the party.

[burythehatchet]

107. We cannot do much but here's an idea.

I view the DLC as a wife-beater. They continue to abuse real democratic principles over and over again. I think one step that may help is to set somesort of Anti-DLC organization, maybe something as simple as a web-site where true progressives can enlist and sign on to a pledge that says "we, the undersigned, will not stand for the abuse any longer. We will not enable the DLC to abuse our progressive principles any longer. We will not support, in any way, any candidates that are affiliated with the DLC."

[OzarkDem]

110. Ignore them...they're powerless

I could be wrong, but I really don't think they have much power to accomplish anything. Their candidates usually lose races.

[onenote]

120. not saying you're wrong, but can you support your claim?

I'm curious. Around 19 Democrats lost Senate races in 2004. Do you know how many were DLC members? I can't find that information anywhere. I do know that at least 5 DLCers won Senate seats (Salazar, Dodd, Bayh, Dorgan, and Lincoln). I think Daschle, who lost, was a DLCer, although I suspect its a bit of a stretch to think he lost because he was viewed by voters in South Dakota as too moderate. (The other SD senator, Tim Johnson, is also a DLCer, I believe and the state is otherwise pretty solidly repub, having not supported a Democratic candidate for president in 40 years).

onenote

[rman]

125. They have money power,

which buys them part of public opinion.

[DanCa]

115. We need to get Dems elected period even if they are not pure

Right now is not a time to thin the heard. The time to do that is when we start retaking house and senate seats and of course the oval office.

[blueinindiana]

121. DLC ...

is the worse thing that ever happened to the party.

[onenote]

127. worse than getting our asses kicked in 1972, 80, and 84?

[yurbud]

135. Carter was moderate to conservative, but 72 & 84 are valid points

[onenote]

138. I agree with you about Carter

Yet, elsewhere on this thread, its argued (by a DLC critic) that Carter was the last "liberal" Democrat. All of which goes to show that there are Democrats of all stripes and efforts to create litmus tests that define a particular Democrat as a repub in disguise or to characterize a particular Democrat as liberal or moderate or whatever are doomed to fail. Its hard for some people to accept, but its not that black and white, and it never has been.

onenote

[yurbud]

146. perception and maybe reality is most Dems stand for nearly nothing

when we have seen five years of them not only not objecting to most of the Bush program but voting for it, it's hard to cut them slack for being "moderate."

[yurbud]

137. Problem is not if people will accept progressive but corporate America

Howard Dean is not some fringe lefty, but he wasn't business owned either.

That terrified corporate America enough that they did their lamest character assassination ever--the scream.

In the past, those who didn't go along with the corporate agenda were handled less gently. If an anti-war candidate or leader got to close to the levers of power, they got a bullet, like MLK and RFK.


Maybe we have to make some accomodation to the corporations, but right now, it looks more like abdication on too many issues.

It seems that they will only tolerate a government that always defers to them when it really matters, like getting the rights to a country's oil no matter how many people have to be killed to do it.