Is the DLC pissing off liberals deliberately?

[Armstead]

Just wondering about this after the DLC's latest series of criticisms of those stupid "leftists" who are supposedly ruining the party by looking for something even slightly more liberal than conventional GOP-lite corporate conservatism and support of GW militarism.

Sure, both sides of this debate are guilty of overkill and intolerance sometimes. (Myself included.)

However, the DLC are the ones who are supposedly looking for "new" solutions to unify our side of the spectrum -- and are always touting how politically astute they are. And yet, they continue their attacks on those silly people who actually realized early on that the War in Iraq was a sham. Not to mention their continued championing of the right-wing corporate agenda by ceding the economic argument to the Republicans.

Without tin-hat speculations about infiltration, I am really curious why the DLC seems so intent on fanning the flames, and getting liberals and progressives so angry.

Is it intended to make people on "the left" go away, so that the DLC can build their Grand Coalition of....er, who is left for their coalition, again?

[Walt Starr]

1. I think you're getting close to the REAL DLC agenda. n/t

[libnnc]

2. that's okay...they wanna peck a fight?

They'll soon learn not to tug on Superman's cape. :nuke:

[noamnety]

3. Without tin-hat speculations about infiltration

I am really curious why DUers seem so intent on fanning the flames, and getting liberals and progressives so angry.

Divide and conquer.

[Armstead]

7. Tell you what.....

I'll shut up about this when the DLC types show that they have any interest in the views of those outside the narrow limits of their self-described "centrism."

[libnnc]

18. maybe because we're sick and tired of being screwed

by the milque toast DLC who somehow love to get the shit beaten out of them. We end up paying the price. The DLC is DEAD. The GOP has been playing a nasty not-so-new game that the moderates CAN'T WIN. And they won't change and go on the offensive to combat the lies and the RW media machine.

~I will not trade in my reproductive rights to "woo the redstates".

~I will not agree to our ongoing military presence in Iraq.

~As a lesbian I refuse to be ignored. I've played along quietly during the Clinton administration while he sold us out on DADT and DOMA. Fool me fucking once...Never again.

We have shifted so far to the right in the last 8 years, moderates are nolonger true "centrists". It's too late for that.

DLCers are Eisenhower Republicans. I am not an Eisenhower Republican.

I am a member of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

DLCers--Get with the program or stay at the house.

[noamnety]

26. I'm with you on all those issues

no debate there.

I didn't mean my post to be advocating compromising our ideals. I'm just not sure of the purpose of the OP - it wasn't to argue issues at all, but rather to turn one branch of the dems against another.

As a strategy, I'd rather see us lobby democrats to change their stance on a particular issue if we disagree with it. I'd rather we deal with issues than haul out the circular firing squad.

[Armstead]

27. If you'd look at my total posts here you wouldn't say that

My original post was admittedly a rant. But if you look back at the collective posts I've made here since 2001, you'd find that I have raised many specific issues and questions over the years.

I'm just frustrated that after the debacles of 2002 and 2004 we're still stuck in the same place and following the same losing strategies, including ignoring and insultiubng the base of liberalism that is supposed to define the Democratic Party.

[ihaveaquestion]

20. Uh, yet you fan these same flames.

Oh, I get it. This was supposed to be irony. Ha, ha, good one!

:sarcasm:

[Maestro]

4. They are pissing me off

And why the hell is Hillary jumping on the video game censorship bullshit bandwagon? I guess they (those that promote censoring violent games) never watched a Tom and Jerry or any old Warner Bros. cartoon. :eyes:

[hippiegranny]

14. This is what I heard

from an old political hand here in AZ. (who, by the way, is not a fan of Hillary.) My source tells me she jumped on that thing first to create the situation where all the Pukes either have to support a HILLARY initiative (gasp! what will the BASE think?) or look like they condone the nasty sex thing (gasp! what will the base think?) It has been pointed out that no matter where you fall in your opinion of this, she used this as a wedge issue - a very savvy political move - the kind we have come to expect from the dark side.

[bbgrunt]

49. this is the same policy of triangulation that

Bill used to give us NAFTA and welfare reform. So why should we be surprised that they believe that losing our principles is the only way we can win?

[mod mom]

5. Perhaps this is a break away attempt at pursuing mod repugs over us

vocal progressives. I certainly feel closer to greens than to these Coporate loving "dems" who value the almighty $ over social justice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. I invite all of you to weigh in on the non-DLC agenda that

I proposed.

Let's see what an alternative agenda would look like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1957833&mesg_id=1957833

:hi:

[Armstead]

12. Hmmmmm...

"Don't go looking for trouble, e.g. Iraq." (From your agenda)

That sounds suspiciously leftist to me. :P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Leftist...

and prrrroud of it! :evilgrin:

[Fovea]

8. My take

is that the 'new democrats' are trying to become the party of the 'old republicans.'

[K-W]

9. Well, obviously they knew it would have that effect.

The DLC is just as threatened by true democratic reforms as the republicans are.

I don't think we need to postulate infiltration. The DLC rides atop the Democratic Party because of money politics.

[rniel]

10. What do democrats stand for

People don't know what Democrats stand for anymore. The DLC is directly responsible for this. By making democrats that would vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill for example.

[Armstead]

25. Exactamente

"We're the same, just not quite as bad" is not a very clear message.

[LeftNYC]

11. We need a new party...freakin' DLC...nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I'll put it to you this way

these days if the candidate is a DLCer I will vote for the Green, they are, in my view, as bad as Republicans, they should just declare themselves what they are: REPUBLICANS

[mod mom]

17. I hear you. where was the DLC exposing election fraud? Silent. David

Cobb was there for us in Ohio while the corporate Ohio Dem Party didn't even lift a finger or voice in crying foul!

[Sterling]

99. They are worse because they get in the way of real people

The DLC blocks any chance of serious opposition to the money agenda.

Without them we may actually have a chance of electing some people who would rock the boat a little.

[cascadiance]

15. I think it is important that it is made clear to Dems about the DLC...

... that they are representing the viewpoints of their corporate pals who are the ones that give them money, NOT necessarily the viewpoints of moderates in the middle.

It should be made clear that the viewpoints of moderates DOES NOT EQUAL the viewpoints of corporations and other "well heeled" interest groups that the DLC try to keep happy.

I'm all for trying to recruit moderates by appealing to their PERSONAL values and what is important to them to help bring them on board as Democrats, not what the DLC interprets as their values for me. I think if we appeal to them on issues that matter, but perhaps that neither corporate owned Rethugs, nor corporate owned DLC folks like, THAT's where we will make a big difference and attract new members to our party. It should be a big tent, as Howard Dean points out, but we should be looking at the sum total of *citizen's* viewpoints, not corporate America's viewpoints.

[Armstead]

16. Great points

"Moderate" is not limited to a straight-laced affluent corporate executive who thinks things are just fine as they are.



.

[union_maid]

42. Well said

The terms "centrist" and "moderate" have taken on a different meaning when used in relation to the DLC. It seems to now mean pro-corporation, pro unregulated free trade and supply-sider. Those things are neigher moderate nor centrist in my view. They're very, very conservative values.

[Tommymac]

83. Excellent post cali.

Room for all...but We The People need's must outweigh those of the coporate schills.

[charlie]

19. If nothing else

it's probably great for fundraising. Inciting a seige of "crazies" from the left, while holding the tide against the real crazies on the right, makes them look like the Last Slender Hope for America.

[Walt Starr]

21. That's because of the "where will they go" argument

As proven in 2000, 2002, and 2004 those on the left WILL find elsewhere to go.

[Armstead]

22. Very slender Hope

And it's going to bite them in the ass. The real corporate types are going to gravitate to the GOP, because that's where the power is. Meanwhile the grass roots will eitehr form self-defeating splinter parties or just give up on the whole thing and hava 'nuther beer.

[derby378]

23. "Fuck the DLC"

Fuck the DLC
They wrecked our party system
They don't give a damn 'cause they're
Career politicians
They trashed Howard Dean
They cost Kerry the election
It's time we kick them out and
Take the Dems in new directions

BAYH and TAUSCHER - time to clean your fuckin' desks
LIEBERMAN and LANDRIEU - selling out has made you lame
HILLARY and BYRON - last chance to jump the ship
So CONYERS and BOXER can live in peace without these dicks

(Sung to the tune of Fuck the Middle East by S.O.D. Sing it in the car, in the shower, at your next Democratic Party meeting, or anywhere you feel like singing!)

[ihaveaquestion]

24. DLC = Paternalistic Appeasing DINO Wimps

Hillary is a very savvy politician and if she's still hanging onto the DLC, then she must see some benefit in doing so. It's probably still the best way to make the big bucks needed to get elected to Senator or President or anything else. Nothing will change until the big bucks can be raised in some other way.

[western mass]

28. The DLC are careerists.

Their motivation is to keep the paychecks coming. Democratic party politics is just a route to this paycheck. To them, the GOP isn't the real enemy. Regardless of whether the GOP is in power, there will still always be an opposition party (and the paychecks will always keep coming). The real enemy are the democrats with principles who threaten to cut off the gravy-train by throwing them out on their asses.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

30. Maybe this is semantics but...

what we need IMO is more populism, of a progressive variety.

One problem with the DLC is that they are not populist enough. Instead they take the core of issues and offer uninspired technocratic and bloodless position papers.

Specifics are important, but the first step is having and selling a vision on a populist basis.

Republicans learned that long ago. We need to turn the tables and advocate real populism, in the sense of relating issues to real people.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

33. Maybe

But my conception of progressive populism is articulating the real economic concerns of average people and advocating for the actual interests of the majority rather than those of the minority at the top.

The GOP has used fake populism to advance their agenda. I believe the democrats should use real populism as the antidote.

[VelmaD]

59. Then I would argue that you need to educate yourself...

on what populism really means.

[Armstead]

63. I have

..and like beauty, it is often in the eye of the beholder.

Populism itself is often a neutral term. There's good populism and bad populism.

Bad populism uses emotions like racism and unfocused resentment and other bad human instincts to acquire pure power for its own sake.

Good populism appeals to the fact that we're all in this together, and good causes are also good for individuals.

[MamaBear]

32. Well ...

They won't back election reform and they won't back Conyers in his investigation into election fraud.

Therefore, they concede that they lost 2000, 2002 and 2004.

To any sane person, I would argue that until the electronic voting mess is cleared up, plus the other various atrocities of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections are done away with, there is no point in participating.

To the DLC I would say: You can't win with us, do you think you can win without us?

Either way, my vote dies as soon as it is cast, because these people, even when they win, do not represent me in government; third-party candidacies are pretty much doomed in a zero sum system, and then you have the Rs.

Sad, but true.

(Edited to fix spelling)

[Armstead]

34. But it doesn't have to be that way.

That's the core problem with the whole DLC approach. When they do win, they don't use their power to make positive changes, or even to hold back negative ones.

But that's what the stakes are. It doesn't have to be that way, if the real liberal Democrats could break free from this yoke of do-nothing, say-nothing centrism.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[MamaBear]

39. Agreed.

Problem is, any "real Democrats" seem to get silenced as soon as they get elected. Barak Obama comes to mind. Or, like Barbara Boxer, they might stand up and fight on one or two issues, but fall in line otherwise.

It was DLC Master Clinton (William Jefferson) himself who said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. While that sounds good to the Randi Rhodes fans, I don't think there's any meaning in those words. It looks to me like the Democrats fall in line -- right behind the Republicans.

Bankruptcy, tax breaks, tort reform, estate tax repeal, Iraq, and now, to hear Dean and Clinton say it, you can add a woman's right to choose to the long list of issues that modern Democrats have abandoned in favor of whatever it is we now have.

And the "soccer" or "security" or "NASCAR" or whatever phantom votes that they insist are so much more important than those of their base, their membership, their constituents, remain elusive -- maybe because these votes don't really exist.

I don't know what to do in this party now that I have been marginalized into non-existence.

Sad but true.

[Tux]

35. Yes

Or at least, they think they are helping by spewing crap.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=128&contentid=3946
Free trade will set us free...of the American Dream.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253467&kaid=114&subid=144
Ads for beer and R-rated movies, for example, shouldn't be aired during primetime sitcoms, when children are watching I'll agree.
ban corporations from selling or purchasing the personal information of children under 16 for commercial marketing purposes, unless parents give express consent Another good idea.
So Congress should direct the secretary of education to investigate all forms of marketing in schools and then develop a set of voluntary recommendations for states to use in establishing comprehensive policies on marketing Also good.
Why not ensure that the age recommendations displayed on packaging match the age ratings of the original movies, and let parents decide if the toys are appropriate for their children? Toys for films should have the same age recommendations as the films. Er, OK I guess. Weird one.
Start offering parents the option of subscribing to family-friendly channel packages, or face the same indecency regulations that apply to over-the-air broadcasters, as some powerful lawmakers are proposing. Family-friendly channel packages could include channels like Nickelodeon, The Learning Channel, Animal Planet, and news channels, but not MTV and other channels that tend to be inappropriate for younger children Charge per channel would be great! I'd only have 5 channels but not too bad an idea. Also increase the number of channels so more variety. But they're harsh in their wording. Seems like a nanny state.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253357&kaid=114&subid=144
Millions of other parents share the Material Girl's view of the effects of popular culture on children. They object to its violence, materialism, and misogyny Sad but true. Also people support it by not asking for alternatives.

Today's parents also tend to evaluate popular culture by comparing it with the popular culture they knew as children -- and not the popular culture they knew as young single adults Yeah but socio-cultural change also occurs over time. I miss certain types of shows from the 80's yet I'm not crying over it (they're on DVD and at the local library).

But what makes it progressive is the core belief that rearing children is not just a private responsibility for parents to bear alone. The public has an interest -- and the state has a role -- in supporting parents and in leveling the playing field Nanny state, anyone?

Today, there are other pro-parent initiatives that Democrats should consider as well, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton's proposal to create a uniform rating system for all entertainment media. If Democrats begin to reach out in that way, they will have a good chance of being more competitive with Republicans for the support of married parents. Single parents, who already strongly favor Democrats and who are embattled by the same cultural forces, will respond positively as well. Screw those smart enough not to have brats.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253473&kaid=127&subid=173
The United States faces competitors in China and India that, if we fail to act, have the potential to eclipse our economic might Yet they support free trade. Nice.

We believe that governments and corporations don't raise children -- parents do. A nation that puts rights ahead of responsibilities, and profits ahead of values, will soon lose them all. OK, parents do raise kids. Profits above values is a problem but responsiblity over rights? Just me but didn't our Founders fight on the basis of rights which leads to responsibility?

The imagination, innovation, and freedom of our people have always been America's greatest comparative advantage. With the challenge from India, China, and others, America has to hold onto and strengthen that advantage. To do so, we need to radically improve the quality of our education and change our investment priorities to drive innovation and create new industries and products. We cannot afford to waste any of our citizens' talent and potential. Agreed.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1955&kaid=115&subid=172
As far back as 1982, the National Institutes of Health declared television to be an "important sex educator." What happened to parents?

asked the FCC to consider the merits of resurrecting an industry-adopted code of conduct to protect against the further erosion of broadcasting standards and to provide a broader platform for self-regulation. Is Fox News included or can they lobby their way out?

So far, I will not support DLC since they promote the nanny state so parents can avoid responsibility for not raising their kids.

[Dragonfli]

36. They seem to want to take complete control of the Dem Party

Then Purge the liberals (who just embarrass them). They appear eager to replace us with their fellow repug-lite counterparts from the Republican party who are similarly (embarrassing their "neocon" brethren).

I definitely am getting the hint that we should move over to the green party. DINO's don't like our kind and prefer the company of republicans.

The good news is that I believe all this current DLC fuss means that our corporate overlords see the days of republican power as numbered. They are getting to work recreating the Democratic party to conform to their corporate agenda. If they succeed, it won't matter to them which groups of re-pugs take the prize.

My Question to all of you - IS THEIR ASSUMPTION CORRECT has the
Democratic party been taken over by the DLC.

I would like to know if there is a place left for a "New Deal" progressive like myself, or must I go back to the lonely (I) (independent) or possibly Green?

[texanwitch]

40. I am a Democrat in name only because I am an precinct judge and someone

has to hold elections but I am really Green. The Democrat Pary has left me, it is no longer the party of the people, DLC is really nothing but a bunch of Republicans.

[Armstead]

41. "The good news"????

"The good news is that I believe all this current DLC fuss means that our corporate overlords see the days of republican power as numbered. They are getting to work recreating the Democratic party to conform to their corporate agenda. If they succeed, it won't matter to them which groups of re-pugs take the prize."

That doesn't sound like good news to me....Actually, I think that's already happened. It's been a steady process since the 1980's, in the ways that matter...The only problem is the Democrats have been stuck with the "holdovers" who still quaintly believe that the Democratic Party ought to repreent liberal and progressive values.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Dragonfli]

47. The good news being they think the days are numbered

(I hope we can stop complete corporate control of the Dem party, It's not a done deal just because they want it).
It really depends on if the liberal branch can REGAIN some more ground rather than be discarded by the DLC who do not want us, not really, just our votes.

Conyers, Boxer,and Dean give me that little bit of hope that all is not lost yet.

Will the progressive element put up a fight ?

Or rollover for the DINO's?
The answer to that question is the key to my future party affiliation.

[greendog]

43. The DLC's job is to deliver the "left vote" to the corporate elites...

...and they can succeed by either winning or losing.

I think they prefer to lose by a small margin. It keeps them viable, and it keeps the corporate masters happy.

If they actually won, those of us on the left would pressure them to do something. They are uncomfortable with that....so losing is their preference.

A strong American left would be a nightmare for those that "own" the country. Our political system and our media are constructed to keep that from happening.

But recently, we have begun to figure out how to organize in spite of them. Our successes on the internet and our success in putting Dean into the DNC chair has them worried.

So yes, they're trying to piss us off. They'll do anything to keep the left weak.

[Armstead]

45. I'll go along with half of that

In a broad sense, their job is to dilute the left vote and deliver it to the corporate elite. That's the underlying message of the "hold your nose because there is no otehr alternative."

But I think that's more due to the myopia of the DLCers than to some conspiracy by them. They don't WANT to lose, and they think they are actually in the game. But they are used by corporate money, as the back-up to the GOP.

[greendog]

64. I think they do want to lose...

...One example of this was the decision by Clinton/Gore in '96 not to spend time or money campaigning for congressional Democrats. DLCer Clinton preferred a Republican Congress.

The liberals in the Democratic Party, had they won control of congress, would have put Clinton in the position of supporting an agenda far more progressive than his elite supporters were comfortable with.

[glitch]

90. Winners have to produce results. I think you've pegged it greendog. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. They're feeling the heat and lashing out.

People are finally beginning to realize that the appeasement tactics of the DLC are losers. They continue to try to remake the Democratic Party into the "not as bad" Republican Party and the result has been lost elections, a party without principles, a party that puts political gaming above ethics.

Either the Party will discard the DLC's "moderate" ideas of trying to please everyone by standing for nothing, or it will continue it's path to irrelevancy.

[WilliamPitt]

48. They are threatened

and justly so. The Progressive caucus is gaining strength, progressive and liberal groups are getting organized and throwing weight...and worst, Dean is leaning on small donors instead of the large, DLC-connected cash cows to fill the party coffers.

The DLCs 15 minutes is drawing to a close.

[Armstead]

53. 15 minutes

"The DLCs 15 minutes is drawing to a close."

I hope so.

[Disturbed]

The Conservative Wing of the Dem party do not..

represent nor serve the Working Class. They serve the Corps. They are convinced that they can garner the swing voters and moderate Repubs.

As I have posted many times, if all the progressive Dems would join the Green Party and demand a different type of system of voting, the Greens would stand a chance to garner Natl. Congress spots. Yeah, ist is Catch22. The Dems that control the party have the money and power but I believe that they do not have the loyalty of the Middle Class. It seems that they no longer care about winning any elections because win or lose they keep their cushie jobs and their upper class life style.

[tavalon]

84. I hope you're right

Because it's already been 14 minutes too long.

[mod mom]

50. Warning to the DLC. Those volunteers that canvassed neighborhoods, worked

on GOTV efforts, voter registration drives and carried the weight of the party during the last campaign-they were NOT DLC! They were progressives. Howard Dean, Move On, True Majority raised huge chunks of cash without corporations. Go ahead and take the big bucks from corporate donors, but lets see if they will do the legwork of your next campaign.

[marions ghost]

89. I think that's an area to put the pressure on...

--how could we let them know we won't help them get elected anymore? We're not getting anything out of this deal. We're being used every time. They play on hopes and dreams that are never realized. I am so tired of pouring it on before elections--and never will again for one that can be so easily stolen. We who have worked for elections need to go on strike in a big way.

[mod mom]

97. I resigned all volunteer work with the Ohio Dems by letter with an

explanation that their lack of action regarding the investigation of the Ohio election,( such as their reluctance to do a thorough investigation and the Dem Chair of Franklin County labelling us who said the election was unfair as "conspiracy theorists")-even though we were able to convince John Conyers and the House Judiciary Dems, was not a party I could support.

(BTW to anyone in Dem Leadership reading this, I was no slouch, pm me and I will gladly provide a description and contact list of my involvement.)

THE POINT IS PROGRESSIVES WERE THE ONES WHO DID ALL THE LEGWORK IN A SUCCESSFULLY WON ELECTION, ASK CONYERS + HOUSE JUDICIARY. The DLC may have raised cash from big corporate donors, but progressives not only cashed big $, but also worked on GOTV, organized voter drives, canvassed-did the legwork.

WE WANT A SAY IN OUR PARTY!

Get rid of the big corporate donors, protect democratic voter, work in your consistency's best interest! demand action against global warming and protect the environment.

off my soapbox.

[marions ghost]

98. amen

:applause: yep it's time for progressives to stop putting up with this situation. mod mom :yourock:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

52. I see a difference between...

short-sighted stupidity and a conspiracy. I think the treatment of Dean was in the former category.

But regardless, the results of such things are the same.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

55. Stupidity is hard to cure sometimes

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

57. Like I keep saying, they aren't talking unification, but capitulation.

I had to drop Ed Schultz as a regular tune-in - he just doesn't get it.

[leesa]

58. Their job is to protect the status quo wherein they make lots of

money fishing in the pockets of their special interest buddies and making TONS of dough waging senseless wars. They work hand-in-hand with the GOP. They want a divided Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

67. We need a bit more progressive demagogery then

Have to fight fire with fire, as long as its for a good cause.... O8)

http://www.populist.com/Populist.Reader.html

The conditions which surround us best justify our co-operation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized; most of the states have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation or bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled; public opinion silenced; business prostrate, our homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their labor; a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly disintegrating to European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes, unprecedented in the history of the world, while their possessors despise the republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes--tramps and millionaires.

The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders; a vast public debt payable in legal-tender currency has been funded into gold-bearing bonds, thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people ...

We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon the suffering people. We charge that the controlling influences dominating both these parties have permitted the existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to prevent or restrain them. Neither do they now promise us any substantial reform. They have agreed together to ignore, in the coming campaign, every issue but one. They propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the tariff, so that capitalists, corporations national banks, rings, trusts, watered stock, the demonetization of silver, and the oppression of usurers, may all be lost sight of. They propose to sacrifice our homes, lives, and children on the altar of mammon; to destroy the multitude in order to secure corruption funds from the millionaires.

Assembled on the anniversary of the birthday of the nation, and filled with the spirit of the grand general and chieftain who established our independence, we seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the "plain people," with which class it originated. We assert our purposes to be identical with the purposes of the National Constitution; to form a more perfect union and establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

We declare that this Republic can only endure as a free government while built upon the love of the people for each other and for the nation' that it cannot be pinned together by bayonets; that the Civil War is over, and that every passion and resentment which grew out of it must die with it, and that we must be in fact, as we are in name, one united brotherhood of free . ...

We believe that the powers of government--in other words, of the people--should be expanded (as in the case of the postal service) as rapidly and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teachings of experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land. ...

1892

[texanwitch]

61. The way to take back the Democrat Party is to start at the local level

not from the top down. Take over the party at the county level and then the state level. This is the major reason I am a precinct judge, I have a major say at the county level. So join a local Democrat group, become a precinct judge, before long we are in control.

[VelmaD]

62. Yes...to borrow a quote from Will...

go in, volunteer, and take the joint over.

[hopein08]

66. I can definitely see your point

Is there anywhere I can find a list of those politicians associated closely with the DLC so I know who to be wary of?

I'm a progressive liberal who knows that some compromise is definitely a good thing but compromise is about meeting in the middle, not going to the other side's headquarters for tea and cookies. For every inch the DLC thinks it gives, the Republicans really are taking a mile because that's how far the DLC will move. The inch is the length that the Republicans are willing to move.

[KoKo]

68. Power, Money and the influence of the K-Street Gangs. Over and over

we've seen the DLC try to attack the left. Here in my state we "activists" have been constantly attacked in our efforts for voting reform by our own DLC Democrats. You can always tell who they are...they disrupt any effort for any bill or proposal that means "change." The DLC Dems are content to whine about not having any power and support the egregious Red State vs. Blue State meme which devides us even more. They are shocked at Howard Dean's ability to have Dem activists fight to get him as head of DNC. Now when he plays to "full house crowds" across America and brings in big bucks they worry about how they will be able to do their "back room, bipartisan deals" with the BIG MONEY...the ones who run America.

The DLC is now "Old." They need to make way for a newer movement, made up from the very people they ignored in the party for decades. Oldie Dems forging with young Democrats. That's what Dean has done. He's forged a bi-generational coalition...and the DLC/Money/Power crowd just doesn't know what the hell to do with it. So, they discourage us by beating us down every chance they get.

One only has to look at how Al Gore has been pushed out of the party when he "changed" on them after they didn't fight in Florida in 2000. Now the DLC sees the Bill Clinton alliance with Poppy Bush as the best opportunity they've ever had. It doesn't matter that those of us who fought to keep the crookedness of that election and all that's gone on since alive here on DU and on other emerging liberal web sites were the ones who went out and did the investigating, worked our butts off to clean up the voting machine fraud and went door to door working for their lousy DLC Candidates since. None of that matters when they can do "BUSINESS AS USUAL" without all the hassels of accountability.

[Al-CIAda]

69. The most galling item is their talking down to those who were CORRECT!

These uslesss fuckwads are still pushing the LIE that is Iraq. A lie exposed for all with eyes to see. They have adopted the same strategy as the right. Keep repeating the lies and pretending they're true. We are being systematically attacked by our OWN fucking party! Why is it that these POSs manage the guts to attack the truth tellers in their own party, but are oh-so timid in calling out the liars and criminals in the other?

I use 'I' and 'we' here often, but actually I'm an independant...I used to be a libertarian (long boring story). I am living proof that if you educate the ignorant (me) and expose the big LIE on the other side, conversion is possible. What people like me want most though is, are FIGHTERS. Fighters with conviction and purpose. These DLCers are professional capitulators whose only purpose in being are to act against the parties' purpose.

[cascadiance]

70. The real answer is to get "Clean Elections" laws nationally

Those instituted in Maine and Arizona are doing a lot of good in taking out money out of campaigns, so that politicians can focus more on listening to their *real* constituency, instead of trying to hobnob with those elites to do fund-raising. If we were to get those kind of rules instituted nation-wide, we'd have a whole new kind of politician running and ones that I think we could be immensely more proud of in representing *our* needs, rather than corporate America's or other elite groups' needs.

You all should start looking up information on how these laws are working in Arizona and Maine. Saw a documentary on it a week ago, and it is fascinating and so hopeful the message of their successes can provide you if you look at it. The key is how to get this sort of campaign financing instituted nationally and in other states. It's hard to get going unless you really have heavy grass roots demand for this change.

We could then tell groups like the DLC to "kiss off" because we don't need them any more!

[G_j]

71. absolutely! n/t

[mod mom]

72. Unfortunately with the current make-up thru fraudlent means, we must use

voter initiatives state by state.

[cascadiance]

79. I think we're starting to push hard here in San Diego now!

After having that presentation to our Dem group last week, there's now this article in the paper about some efforts to put a clean elections proposition here in San Diego on the November ballot. That would be excellent! I think they realize that if they are going to get such a thing to pass here in San Diego, now is as good a time as any, with so many folks fed up with so much corruption now in local city government and the Randy Duke Cunningham scandals as well. That's another thing I will campaign like hell for when the time comes in November of 2006 (though that would be a year from this special election)!

Like I said earlier. Too bad it isn't already active for this mayoral campaign right now. We'd have some real ammunition to attack Francis with if we did, with the matching fund provisions that this proposition would probably also add that the Arizona laws have.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050726-1402-bn26reform.html
----------------------------

Activists urge reform of San Diego elections

UNION-TRIBUNE BREAKING NEWS TEAM

2:02 p.m. July 26, 2005

KEARNY MESA – Using the county Registrar of Voters office as a backdrop, a group of reform-minded activists kicked off a campaign Tuesday to bring what they say would be clean elections to San Diego.

The group, which includes former City Councilman John Hartley, intends to launch a petition drive in January and would like to put a measure on the Nov. 2006 ballot.

As envisioned, political candidates could participate in a voluntary program that would provide them money from the city treasury to run their campaigns. Candidates who do not wish to participate would be able to raise and spend private money, as they do now.

"The dominating influence of wealthy special interests in the funding of campaigns has paralyzed the city government from being able to do its job, has eroded public trust . . . and has discouraged political participation," said Amy Temple, a lead organizer for California Common Cause.
...

[scarletwoman]

73. Recommended and kicked...

Great discussion here, hope more folks will click a vote for this thread.

I haven't anything in particular to add, just call me another pissed-off progressive.

sw

[Writer]

74. This is highly hypocritical

"Just wondering about this after the DLC's latest series of criticisms of those stupid "leftists" who are supposedly ruining the party"


I would be independently wealthy had I a penny for every single thread and post accusing the DLC of being stupid DINO's who are "supposedly ruining the party."

Both sides are pointing fingers at each other. HRC the other day has called for an end to this finger pointing. She has taken the high road - HOW ABOUT YOU?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Writer]

76. No, they don't. deserve it any more than you do. n/t

[liveoaktx]

77. If they are, it's working.

[greekspeak]

78. What will end up happening

The liberals are getting tired of the DLC. The moderate repukes are getting tired of the fundievangelical wackos. Eventually, the moderates from each party will form their own party. Then there will be three parties with the futher left and right parties groveling at the feet of the moderate party.

[Armstead]

88. I doubt there's be much groveling

I'm not sure what "moderate" means anymore. A lot of people are moderate but scared and angry these days, which pushes people out of the so-called center in either direction.

If you take the fundievangelicals and the right wing free-marketeers out of the Republican Party, and the ticked off liberals, progressives, minorities, workers and unionists, etc. out of the Democratic party, the pro-corporate "moderates" would not be a very large or potent political force in either party.

If that were to happen, the country probably would have three parties jockeying for power on relatively equal terms.

[bemildred]

80. Yeah, pretty much.

What they really want is to retain control of the party.
We threaten that.

[Gloria]

81. The DLC reminds me of "group constipation"--and they obviously

need a purging.

I can't believe after all we've been through that these people want to play nice with the GOP/neocons.

I am totally fed up.

[Armstead]

86. A painful but accurate metaphor

[Samantha]

82. Didn't you get the message when the DLC asked Gore NOT to run in 2004

Al From considers the DLC to be the party elite. Only the party elite can decide what is best for the party. The base of the party is just too stupid. This is a watered down version of the mentality of half of the framers of the Constitution. Half thought the states should elect the President of the United States because the people were just too stupid to do so. The other half thought the decision should be left to the people. The Electoral College is the compromise reached by the two halves.

The mentality of the DLC is a holdover from that first half generation framers. We the People are too dumb to decide anything. Therefore, Al From will decide for us.

The Clintons have had a grip on the party machinery since 1992. He establishes who will and will not succeed. Al Gore could not run in 2004 because Hillary could not challenge an incumbent Gore in 2008. This has been discussed openly here at DU, and I am sorry you missed it.

But the short answer to your question is, the DLC does not mind pissing off the liberal base of the Democratic party. They have run the numbers. There are more Independent voters they wish to attract, and this the DLC must do if it is to win a Presidential election. If that means sacrificing the liberal base, oh well.

It's all about money, power and control. It's not about the people.

I will not vote for Hillary for President. I do not think people who pull political dirty tricks beneath the waters should be rewarded by the success of the trappings of the Oval House. She and Bill edged out Gore. They did so with the intention of supporting a Democratic candidate who could not succeed against Bush* -- or at least had the odds stacked against him (no insult intended to Kerry supporters).

Last but not least, neither spoke out against the theft of the 2000 election. Neither said anything about Ohio in 2004. The silence of these two so-called party leaders have left us to suffer the consequences of two terms of George W. Bush.* No one's political aspirations should have cost what Americans have had to pay under two terms of George W. Bush* -- not even the aspirations of Hillary Clinton.

[Armstead]

85. I agree with much of that, but....

I'm not quite so cynical about motives of the Clintons.

I doubt Hilary deliberatly scuttled the Democrats prospects in 04 just to create an opening for herself in 08. Rather, IMO, if she had felt that there was a chance for a Democratic victory in 04, she would have thrown her own hat in the ring.

I realize that may sound naive and not as tactical. But my own feeling is that the Clintons believed that the Democrats didn't really have a chance against Bush in 04.

But I do agree with you that the DLC are elitists who are too tied into the network of Big Money and Power. They are creatures of the distorted politics that have evolved over the last 30 years. They see themselves as the voice of moderation within that corrupt status quo, rather than agents of real reform. They also have the same smugnress and complacency of those on the GOP side who are part of the posh life. So they take it as a given that the corporate upper crust is entitled to call all of the shots.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

87. yup the DLC are the Hamiltonians...and us LIBERALS are the JEFFERSONIANS

PROUD TO BE A JEFFERSONIAN!!!

[glitch]

91. DLC = Vichy Dems.

With their corporate support they don't need us, and we certainly don't need them

[mattclearing]

92. Without tin-hat speculations about infiltration, there's no discussion.

You can't seriously discuss the DLC without infiltration.

They are the corporate wing of the labor movement's party.

[Armstead]

93. Different types of inflitration

Democrats have never been quite as pure as we like to nostalgically pretend. There've always been a lot of ties between Big Biz and Democrats. That's nothing new.

In the sense of DLCers and other "centrist" Democrats though, I doubt many are "plants" who are deliberatly trying to set the party up to lose.

Rather, I think it's a combination of misguided complacency and unconscious identification of many of them with the corporate world rather than with Main St. or the slums. They have been assimilated into the Corporate Borg. But they still think of themselves as honest Democrats who are marginally better than Republicans.

Their philisophical mistake is, unfortunately, coupled with smugness and arrogence that because they are on the "inside" they know so much more than the "little people" and those "loony leftists" (which these days includes anyone to the left of Milton Friedman in their view).

[mattclearing]

94. But the end result is the same: a watered down, weak party.

This top-down idea, that the DLC is going to give us our marching orders and we're going to just blindly obey, is insane.

The DLC is a minority in the Democratic Party in every way: monetarily, votewise, etc. And they treat us like we are minions.

Even if they are for real, they are outsiders.

[Armstead]

95. I agree with that

I just think it's an unintended consequence of wrongheadedness, rather than a deliberate plan by the DLC to undermine the Democratic Party.

[bloom]

96. yes... eom