Will DFA = Dems' Club for Growth? [IMPORTANT]

[Finch]

I fear that DFA will simply be the Democratic Party’s version of the club for growth…

I fear that in a few years DFA will be actively supporting challenges to Democratic moderates such as Evan Bayh, Harry Reid and Jo Lieberman…

I think it is unadvisable that this should happen…what makes the Democratic party strong is that we have a diversity of views… I do not want to see my party torn between moderates and radicals as the Republicans have been… I do not want to see the partisan divide grow ever wider and bitterer…

I will level with you I agree with likes of Lieberman, Bayh and Breaux on a number of key issues on many economic issues I agree with Edwards… but I fear that DFA or a similar group will soon emerge as a tool for attacking moderate democrats, I do not want this to happen and I would urge you all who might be tempted by such a “crusade” to think again and be a little bit more tolerant and accepting of loyal moderate democrats such as John Breaux who when allegedly offered the position of sectary of state rejected it in an instant and went back to the senate and when praised by Bush non stop in late 2002 still campaigned harder than anyone for Mary Landrieu savaging Bush for his economic record…

…I write this to my more liberal comrades within the democratic party, I am a moderate democrat and only occasionally come here… but please don’t allow groups such as DFA to become ideological thought police for the Democratic party stifling any dissent…

[DaveSZ]

1. Go Dean!

Dean is a moderate/centrist.

:)


Click on:

"US Primaries 2004"

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[LittleApple81]

2. what is DFA? n/t

[NoPasaran]

6. Democracy for America n/t

[slinkerwink]

3. so what? LIEBERMAN, Bayh, and Breaux are DINOS

we should get rid of Democrats in Name Only!

[el_gato]

4. what are you talking about?

What is the DFA?

[DaveSZ]

8. He's

He's talking about Dean's new organization to take back Congress, Democracy For America:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

[Misunderestimator]

5. Yes, Go Dean! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

7. Why are you bashing DFA on heresay?

I'm a member of DFA and have heard ZERO, ZIP, NADA about them attacking Democrats. I think some people are spreading lies trying to destroy DFA. "Thought Police"?? I think you've been very, very misinformed.

[Finch]

12. No its not....

...what DFA is now but rather what they seem to be moving towards... the attacks on the DLC as "the republican wing of the democratic party" is all very similar to the kinda smears used by the CFG within the GOP... and this really worries me...and now a poster oh this board referring to me and the politicians who is support as DINO's a phrase that its self comes from the CFG... it would be a sad day if the two wings of our party came to blows...

...Dean was a moderate... he was a bi-partisan and a deficit hawk... these days he has become little more than a mouth piece for the Democratic party left, his talk of media regulation, expanding trade union powers, radically altering the basis of NAFTA (which i kinda agree with), eliminating the middle class tax cut, massively expanding government spending on health and education and promoting what for many my self included is a radically secular agenda can not be considered ceterism... Dean went into the primaries a moderate (when i supported him) and cam out of them a very solid liberal...

[RetroLounge]

14. what they seem to be moving towards?

And this post seems to be a complete pile of poop.

You sound scared. You and your DLC ilk should be...

RL

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

21. DFA will undo the damage caused by the DLC

thankfully. People power will outdo corporate power.

[NoPasaran]

9. I'm a moderate Democrat

and I'm a member of Democracy for America. Only the Rethugs and their apologists in our party need fear us. And they should quake in their boots.

Thanks for the flame bait, by the way.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Apologists.

Perfect.

[charlie]

10. Sporting a DLC icon

and you're bewailing the potential influence of an ideological interest group in the party? Kinda ironic, don't you think?

[IrateCitizen]

13. Another "Democrat" who doesn't like "democracy"...

I fear that in a few years DFA will be actively supporting challenges to Democratic moderates such as Evan Bayh, Harry Reid and Jo Lieberman…

I think it is unadvisable that this should happen…what makes the Democratic party strong is that we have a diversity of views…

Let me get this straight... you're AGAINST a group that might help invigorate grassroots, progressive Democrats and actually increase democratic involvement by increasing the number of primaries that actually mean something?

Please. Give me a break.

The Club for Growth is a big-money organization. DFA is a big-PEOPLE organization. If the moderate politicians have anything to fear from being primaried, it's because they haven't represented their constituents very well.

How ironic that someone sporting a DLC avatar would be bemoaning the influence of an interest group within the party.... :eyes:

[Finch]

15. Not so...

...it doesn't matter how the organization is supported with money or people power... it still worries me that it will be an attempt to label every non-liberal Dem a DINO and attempt to push us out of any positions of influence... the DLC is mostly a think tank for the souther wing of the party, the Blue Dogs are generally pro-life southernors... neither has a dominance over the party and i support both to varying degrees... the DLC has never declared war on liberals within the party and sought to marginalize and remove them... in fact it was Al From who was one of Clinton's most vocal critics during Bill's lurch to the right after 1996...what i fear is that a small group of well financed and motivated activists will attempt to drive a wedge between the party and its moderates and declare themselves to be "real democrats" and no one else worthy...that is why i worry, if liberals put forward some interesting ideas for the party then that would be good and i would and have listened and sometimes agreed... but the idea of making sure that all Democrats are ideological pure worries me and smacks of intolerance and closed-mindedness and that saddens me... we moderates never degraded or humiliated the views and beliefs of Liberals why do some Liberals think that it is their right to do this to we moderates... I am not saying the intentions of your average liberal democrat are not good...all i am saying is that this attitude of groups such as the CFG and many who are supportive of these "DINO Pogroms" is very destructive and would weaken our party enourmously...

[NoPasaran]

19. On what planet

are the mean, liberals waging a pogrom on the poor, defenseless moderates?

[Walt Starr]

20. They ARE DINOs

Dump 'em. It's the only rational thing to do.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Dear God, where to begin with this unadulterated rubbish?!?

First, I would tell you that proper syntax, punctuation and sentence/paragraph structure are your friends. You just typed a long-winded, run-on sentence that took me 2-3 read-throughs to figure out what you were even trying to say.

Now, on to the "hot air" of the argument, because that's all this is.

... the DLC has never declared war on liberals within the party and sought to marginalize and remove them... we moderates never degraded or humiliated the views and beliefs of Liberals why do some Liberals think that it is their right to do this to we moderates...

Bullshit. The DLC, particularly Messrs. From and Reed, along with Will Marshall of PNAC fame, has taken every opportunity to bash the liberal wing of the party as out of touch. HERE is an article in which they categorically disparage the candidacies of both Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich for not being "muscular" enough. And please take note of the lack of specifics that they offer, or how their plan is any different from the Bush plan.

I seem to recall numerous articles coming from NDOL, many of which have been linked by people on this site, that readily disparaged anyone within the democratic party who demonstrated the audacity to differ with the DLC line.

the DLC is mostly a think tank for the souther wing of the party, the Blue Dogs are generally pro-life southernors... neither has a dominance over the party and i support both to varying degrees...

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Please restate coherently.

what i fear is that a small group of well financed and motivated activists will attempt to drive a wedge between the party and its moderates and declare themselves to be "real democrats" and no one else worthy...

Ummm... the DLC is the organization with the money. They're the group seeking to work with the fat cats and corporations, remember? Last I checked, the idea of promoting policies that actually help the working class -- even if it's at the slight expense of corporate profit margins -- wasn't exactly a fundraising bonanza.

In short, another strawman.

but the idea of making sure that all Democrats are ideological pure worries me and smacks of intolerance and closed-mindedness and that saddens me...

Liberals and true progressives aren't largely interested in ideological purity. We just think that the litmus test of policy should be whether it really works for people. And in order to find this out, you actually have to get out AMONG the people, and TALK to them, rather than spending all your time in think tanks writing policy papers, as the DLCers seem to do.

all i am saying is that this attitude of groups such as the CFG and many who are supportive of these "DINO Pogroms" is very destructive and would weaken our party enourmously...

"DINO pogroms"??? You've got to be kidding. The DLC has essentially taken over the Democratic representation in the Senate, and holds a significant fundraising advantage. Groups on the "left" of the Party, like Progressive Majority and DFA are in their relative infancy. Considering the messages put out by the DNC trashing liberals, I'd say you'd be hard put to cite some sort of "pogrom" being carried out against the centrists. Your cries on this are similar to those of the GOP of being "persecuted" while they control all three branches of the Federal Government.

Furthermore, "enourmously" is the second "crown spelling" of a word I've seen you make. Are you even an American?

This post is pure rubbish. You'll have to do better than this to convince anyone that DFA is some kind of evil empire seeking to enforce ideological purity along the lines of Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red Book.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Do you fear this because the DLC did it last year?

Like when they were putting down Howard Dean and saying that activist special interests were deciding the primary? This couldn't cripple the party? I am pretty moderate myself, and might even agree with more DLC positions if I understood how they were supposed to be better, but that was a reckless and unwise thing to do that risked getting Bush* re-elected.

It seems to me that the DLC has at least one count of attacking candidates within the party so far, and DFA has zero.

[Walt Starr]

18. I hope your worst fears become reality

Lieberman, Miller, Breaux and the like are DINOS and should be drummed out of the party. I hope to hell DFA helps defeat them and if that's part of what DFA is going to do, I'm DONATING TODAY!!!

[MAlibdem]

22. a slight shift to the left wouldn't hurt

nor would centralized, energized fund raising backed by the best fund raiser we had this primary season...

[Christ was Socialist]

23. The party has already been hijacked by republican light <nt>

[blm]

24. I doubt it. Dean himself is a centrist, so why would he target centrists?

I don't think DFA intends to act to push out moderates and centrists from the Dem party. I think they just want them to be more vocal in opposing the GOP extremists in the public arena.

[Walt Starr]

26. I think Dean will target the corporatists

which would explain why the DLC is getting up in arms over DFA.

[blm]

27. Nope.

The reason the DLC was up in arms over Dean is that he was one of them as governor and was a leader for third way governance but acted like he wasn't one of them during the campaign. They acted like spurned lovers.

As a far lefty I have no quarrel with those who are moderates and pursue that agenda. I just don't want anyone to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Finch]

34. I cannot speak for all moderates...

...just as others on this board cannot speak for all liberals... nor is either side completely right or wrong neither the moderates or liberals are comprised of legions of saintly altruists (but we try ;-) )...

I promise you that this moderate, who at times will get "shirty" with some liberals for seeming unreasonable... and i accept at times i might be unresonable... but i digress (and throw grammar out of the window in the process)...this Moderate will attempt to never "piss on" your "leg and tell me it's raining." And I'm sorry if others have done that... I respect liberal views i just disagree... fair?

That all said I just don't get the bile that some uber-liberals on the board have thrown at moderates...ah well... nice to respond to someone who seems pretty reasonable...

PS:I Have no problem with DFA in of its self i just am worried that it might take to acting like the CFG and some of Dean's campaign rhetoric did worry me...

[bigbillhaywood]

40. The DLC are not centrists-- they are conservatives. n/t

[Pastiche423]

25. Go DFA!

Go DEAN!!!

[loudsue]

28. Finch: The DLC is funded by republicans...you need to understand

that their agenda is the SAME as the republicans.

You need to read about it:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=quote&Number=281198&page=20&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=
<snip>

"The DLC and the Chicken-Hawks
In the Dec. 2, 2002 issue of Blueprint, the magazine of the DLC/PPI, Dr. Barry Rubin was brought in to "sell" the Iraq War to the Democrats and neutralize their opposition, with an article called "Why Saddam Should Go First." The article was used to reinforce the lie that Democrats had been crushed in the 2002 Congressional and Senate elections because of their questioning of the Iraq War policy in the October Congressional debate. In the same issue, Al From, DLC's Chief Executive Officer, raved against Democrats who opposed the war: "Democrats need to get the big things right. That means national security.... The President's first responsibility is as commander-in-chief.... Our nominee in 2004 must convince voters that he'll keep them safe. If he doesn't, nothing else will matter."

Who is Dr. Barry Rubin? He is one of the leading chicken-hawks at the center of the scandal in London over forged and plagiarized information used by Blair to start the war, and a close collaborator of Richard Perle and other Pentagon operatives who "cooked" the Iraq intelligence on the American side.

Rubin came to public light in February 2003, when Blair's press spokesman, Alastair Campbell, released a ridiculously "sexed-up" dossier warning of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The dossier turned out to be cooked up at a right-wing think-tank complex run by Rubin, an American-born Israeli and radical Likudnik with links to the office of Vice President Cheney. EIR reported then ("Iraq Dossier Hoax Was Cooked in Israel," EIR, Feb. 21): "Two days before Powell's UN appearance, 10 Downing Street issued a 16-page paper, 'Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation,' purportedly based on high-level British intelligence data. In fact, at least 11 of the 16 pages were lifted, verbatim, from an Israeli journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs, whose sole proprietor is Barry Rubin. The 11 pages were drawn from two articles, by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Robert Rabil, that appeared in the September 2002 edition of that journal."

:puke:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3028neocon_dems.html

<snip>

"Nowadays, the CDM/CPD/CFW are associated with the Republican Party—particularly with those neo-conservative devotees of Leo Strauss around the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. But these organizations are the direct antecedents to the Democratic Leadership Council, and CDM's veterans maintain close coordination with the DLC to ensure that the Democratic Party does nothing effectively to stop the imperial policy of pre-emptive war—even pre-emptive nuclear war—that the Cheney/Rumsfeld gang has laid out. The DLC, and its affiliates—the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and the New Democratic Network (NDN)—are on a full-scale campaign to destroy every other faction in the Democratic Party, and silence criticism of the Iraq War.

The "missing link" between the "Democratic" DLC and the now-"Republican" CDM/CPD/CFW neo-cons, is the notorious Social Democrats-USA, (SDUSA), whose chairman, Penn Kemble, was the Executive Director of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in 1972, until he brought in Richard Perle's underling Stephen Bryen to take his place. Bryen, who created the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) in the early 1980s, when he served as Perle's aide at the Department of Defense, is another leading member of the neo-conservative gang that wants to go to war against the entire Arab world in the name of anti-terrorism. Providing daily coordination between Perle and Bryen would be Joshua Muravchik, a fixture at nearly every American Enterprise Institute event—but also a leader of SDUSA since its creation."

<snip>

"As EIR reported on July 4, Brazile—a member of the Democratic National Committee, which ostensibly makes all the major decisions about funding, policy, and program for Democratic candidates—has already forged a marriage with the Republican neo-cons at the think-tank called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Her colleagues there include the hard-core advocates of a "World War IV," such as James Woolsey and Newt Gingrich, both members of the Defense Policy Board.

Brazile's line was also pushed in a May 1 Washington Post op-ed called "The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle," by DLC leader Will Marshall. He wrote, "The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy.... After all, four of the leading Democratic Presidential contenders—Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards—not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq.... Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve."

Few better exemplars exist to show that the DLC's "New Democrats" are "a second Republican Party." Brazile, Al From, Will Marshall, and the other DLC types who push the line that "after 9@nd11, security matters above all," are showing their roots—as hard-core neo-cons."

BY THE WAY: Donna Brazile was part of the team heading up the Gore campaign. :puke:

Finch, and other DUers who believe this way, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE look at who is behind the DLC and NDN. They aren't just repukes, they are PNAC'ers. Right wing extremists.

If you believe with the DLC, you believe the neocons.

:kick:

Edited to fix link:


:kick::kick:

[NoPasaran]

30. Loudsue, not that I want to defend the DLC

But I hardly consider LaRouche's outfit as a credible source on ANYTHING.

[IrateCitizen]

31. I think you'd better find another source, loudsue

Citing LaRouche isn't exactly looked at as a "viable" source around here.

[loudsue]

32. Ok: Here's a better one.

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

<snip>

"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, 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.

Democratic elected officials and candidates from Congress to city council and in practically every state of the union complete detailed questionnaires probing their views on war and peace, on criminal justice, on trade, tax policy and corporate welfare. Their answers are funneled to the national organization where they are meticulously examined. The Democratic incumbents and hopefuls that pass muster are called in for personal interviews by senior staff. Democrats who clear the rigorous screening process are highly recommended to the organization's corporate constituents as worthy of their wholehearted and generous support.

A purely corporate edifice

The DLC doesn't represent any Democratic Party voters. Its masters include American and United Airlines, Aetna and New York Life Insurance, Microsoft, DuPont, the agribusiness and pharmaceutical industries, Citigroup and, until recently, Enron, among many others. The DLC is an organization conceived in the boardroom and dedicated to the proposition that moneyed interests trump all others. About two hundred corporations comprise its Board of Advisors (fee: $5,000), and nearly 100 pay the cost to be the boss on the DLC's Policy Roundtable ($10,000 each). For $25,000, around 30 corporate executives pretend to be Democrats as members of the DLC Executive Council. Enron sat there, along with Philip Morris, Texaco, Chevron, and Dupont."

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

33. Much, much better. Thank you.

This article sums up quite nicely everything that is now wrong with the DLC. And while I'm certain that some will consider the Black Commentator to be "radical", it is certainly much, much, much, much, much, much, much more reputable than LaRouche.

[sangh0]

41. Actually, just as bad

The article (at least the parts posted) doesn't say anything about her original claim, which was that the DLC is funded by REPUBLICANS.

The article says the DLC is funded by CORPORATIONS. Not that that's a good thing, but there is a difference.

[LoZoccolo]

35. Are you a larouchian?

You quoted a Larouche publication. I was wondering.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Never mind.

I don't think you would have went and found a "better" source if you were one.

[ulysses]

37. ...

I fear that in a few years DFA will be actively supporting challenges to Democratic moderates such as Evan Bayh, Harry Reid and Jo Lieberman…

Yes, and how truly awful it would be to have intraparty interest groups backing primary challengers to established Democratic incumbents.

</angry sarcasm>

but I fear that DFA or a similar group will soon emerge as a tool for attacking moderate democrats

Much as the DLC has emerged over the last 15 years or so as a tool for attacking progressiv...oops, "radicals". :eyes:

[Ficus]

38. oh well

if that's the case, it's time we clean house, and finally have the tools to do it.

[bigbillhaywood]

39. Good. Screw the "moderates"--really conservatives.

They've done an excellent job on making the Democrats look just like the Republicans in foreign policy and the economy. THEY were responsible for NAFTA and PNTR for China, even though it's now the current vogue to blame the Republicans for these shitty trade "deals" and the outsourcing of jobs overseas. They helped Republicans push through the Patriot Act and Iraq War resolution. They are the reason many liberals are voting for Nader, or not voting at all. Screw Lieberman and Zell Miller-- they should switch parties. And screw Clinton. You heard me right, screw him! He pushed through NAFTA and helped along deregualtion, and he did very little to stop the dismantlement of welfare. But he's pro-choice, the economy was good under him, and the Republicans hate him. So what? He's still scum.

Kennedy, Kucinich, Dean, Feingold. That's the kind of courage the Dems need more of, not cowards like Lieberman. People like him have been glady pocketing union contributions and getting us to do voter turnout, while they cozy up with the corporations and sell out our interests left and right. What have these bums done for working people lately? Not much. I hope DFA does launch a challenge for the leadership of the party.

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. The DLC is a cancer on the Democratic party

And a Doctor is required to cut it out!