The shrinking DLC.

[Gold Metal Flake]

From the Swing State Project:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/04/democratic_lead_1.html#more


"Last month Kos had to step in to get the DLC to honor the wishes of Senator Barack Obama and remove him from their list:"

"Kos asked: "Anyone else who seems out of place on the list? Anyone else we can peel off this list?"

"What I found was an exodus. Dozens of names have been scrubbed from the list."

Click the link, it's fun!

[AuntiBush]

1. Help me here, please.

In laymen's terms, what does this mean? I read yesterday that we have major sellouts, and the DLC bascially stated they don't need the likes of us.

Am I reading it wrong?

[Writer]

3. It's like how we discuss the media...

"He's on our side... no wait, he's a media whore. No - he's changed his stripes! Crap - he's a whore again..."

Sort of depends if they fit our narrow view of the world - for the moment, at least.

Writer.

[AuntiBush]

5. So, is the DLC worthy of our support?

I hear it might not be.

[Writer]

10. My thought here is...

We're fair-weather friends of the DLC. We support them if they win. Otherwise, they're evil.

[sendero]

12. Everything...

... in politics is "fair-weather". The DLC got lucky, they backed a man named Clinton and he won, largely because the Rep vote was split by Perot.

They've been attempting to ride that single success from that time forward, but the party base now sees them for what they are, Republican Lite and has realized that Republican Lite is not going to win elections.

So, to recap, EVERYONE IN POLITICS IS A FAIR-WEATHER FRIEND and DLC has brought no rain in a very long time. Why in the world would we continue to back the same ideas that have cost us the presidency and BOTH HOUSES of congress.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We're done with the DLC experiment, it did not work.

[Meldread]

17. You sum up my thoughts nicely. -nt-

-nt-

[cmkramer]

23. You're wrong about Perot

In 1992, he took votes equally from Bush and Clinton. It is fair to say, however, that when he temporarily left the race that year, Clinton was the beneficiary and never lost the lead.

[LynneSin]

32. Perot also got a slew of new folks who had never voted before

:D

[Writer]

26. Yeah, it's better than...

no success at all. ;)

[sendero]

27. Well...

... since they actively throw up roadblocks at anyone who doesn't join in on their Repuke Lite agenda, it's hard to know what we can do without them.

I just know that if the Al Froms of the world are the best the Dem party can do, I'd rather vote Green and throw my vote away. Shooting into the sky is better than shooting yourself in the foot.

[Writer]

29. Vote green? Okay, then.

Do what you gotta do.

[mattclearing]

31. It worked.

Just fine for people who wanted to neuter the closest thing to a populist party the US had.

[Nederland]

34. Perot Myth

Its an urban legand that Clinton won because of Perot. Exit polls demonstrated that Perot votes were evenly split between people who would have voted Bush Sr. and people that would have voted Clinton. In other words, Perot had no effect and Clinton would have won anyway.

[wyldwolf]

43. in addition...

in state and local races, Perot voters voted Democrat more...

[MollyStark]

54. I'd like to se those polls

I have never believed that Perot voters were evenly split.

[wyldwolf]

57. not evenly split. Perot cost Clinton votes

The crunched numbers reveal bad news for Republicans (and some on the left) who want to believe Perot cost Bush the election.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

...On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

...by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

and...

Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. The partisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.

Clinton would still have won 315-223. No other state shows evidence of Perot costing Bush victory. Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election--not even close. That is one popular myth that can be put to bed.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

[Zhade]

30. Speak for yourself. I don't support them even if they do win.

Their win is our loss.

[Writer]

35. Okay. To each his (or her) own. [n/t]

[Zhade]

37. Thank you for the common courtesy of not presuming to speak for all.

NT!

[PassingFair]

38. Er, of course, you speak entirely

for yourself...right?

[Jack Rabbit]

39. Actually, Mr. Writer

There aren't very many friends of the DLC, fair-weather or otherwise, in these parts.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yes, you're reading it wrong.

Go read it again.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

55. Typical DLC arrogance

They haughtily attempt to impose their repugnant views upon the Dem Party as a whole, then whine and moan when we call "BS" in response.

[MessiahRp]

2. Read this... terrific read on the DLC.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=berman

[Carolab]

4. Al From just can't STAND it.

Too bad, so sad.

RIP, DLC

[AuntiBush]

6. Thanks, MessiahRp

Heading there now.

[AuntiBush]

8. Wow. Just read that link and thanks!

Wow. That's not good. Not good at all. Take our donations, then screw us, bascially?

[bling bling]

41. Good article. n/t

[madfloridian]

7. I posted it from Kos. Did not see yours. Sorry about that.

:hi:

[AuntiBush]

9. HI! So, I'm trying to understand... our DLC

is worthless then? They don't need us, let's it's donation time?

[cannabis_flower]

28. Yes, DLC is worthless

Donate to individual progressive candidates or progressive organizations instead. They are the reason that all the red states got written off and given hardly any local funding.

If you are in Texas join: Texas Progress Populist Caucus

If you are in Houston join Progressive Action Alliance

[wyldwolf]

11. But whatever will you do now?

Say the DLC as an organization goes away.

Will that effectively eliminate the kind of Democrats people seem to deplore? (unless they win, as Writer pointed out above)

No, because as the Washington Post pointed out Yesterday when analyzing the recent Pew Research survey and comparing the average Dean supported vs. the average DNC member AND average rank-and-file Democrats:

"Looking at the party's future, Dean activists voice strong sentiment for the Democrats to move to the left. Two-thirds (67%) want the Democratic Party to reflect more progressive or liberal positions, while just 13% would prefer a shift to more centrist positions.

"These attitudes contrast sharply with the opinions of both Democratic officials and rank-and-file Democrats. A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course."

If what KOS writes is true (and I have no reason to doubt him), it could be that this is more a rejection of the DLC's leadership than the DLC's philosophy and/or a certain sensitivity to belonging to a group that many are criticizing.

For example - Obama. We have one DUer who has stated repeatedly that Obama DID indeed fill out the survey for inclusion in the DLC directory but theorizes he withdrew after criticisms. No proof of that, but is does seem plausable.

Two other SOLID examples: Ken Salazar, who has been branded often as less than liberal, and was a featured DLC dem on more than one occasion.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251654&kaid=104&subid=210
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251654&kaid=104&subid=210

He was also the co-founder of the Colorado state chapter of the DLC.
http://www.coloradodlc.org/ec.htm

...and Christine Gregoire, governor of Washington, who one famous blogger - don't recall which (could have been KOS because I only read a few daily) criticized Gregoire for being "DLC-like."

So again, say the DLC goes away. The DLC-type candidates won't. And some won't have as big a target to blame for things not going their way.

Just a thought. Notice I'm not defending the DLC in this post but rather presenting another viewpoint.

(and if you want to read a few counter-articles, try the two links in my sig.

[sendero]

13. I don't think anyone..

... is suggesting that every member of the DLC is unfit for office. Not at all.

What we are suggesting is that the STRATEGY of the DLC has in fact failed, and we don't wish to engage that stragtegy further.

Many politicians are quite willing and able to bend with the times. Many DLC style candidates will in fact see the writing on the wall and will adapt. That's fine with me.

[Q]

14. If the DLC 'goes away'...

...then at least the millions of dollars in corporate cash the DLC uses to influence Democratic politics will go away with them.

And we won't have to hear From or Marshall or any of the other DLC hacks tell us how the 'liberal elite' is destroying our chances of winning or that they're 'un-American' for not supporing an ILLEGAL war in Iraq.

The DLC is suppose to be a 'think tank' and they say that they're not influencing primaries and elections. But they're lying when they say that...when they push their DLC candidates and trash more progressive candidates by calling them 'unelectable' and worse.

The DLC is pulling us in the same direction that ended up destroying the Republican party...where corporate cash and 'winning' is more important than principles, values and people.

[MollyStark]

16. The DLC does not = Moderate Democrats

We don't need the DLC to elect moderates.

[Meldread]

18. No, it won't stop DLC types from having their view point....

...however if the DLC were to fold and disappear then that would allow a more progressive organization to replace them. DLC types might still be elected, but when progressives control the dollars then we control the policies. If people like Lieberman want to continue to thumb their noses at us, then that is fine -- I have no problem with smearing his name and having him replaced with someone who is agreeable to our views.

It's about power and control. It's about fighting for the heart and soul of something you believe in deeply. It's about REAL Democratic Values. The DLC does not represent Democratic Values -- they are Republicans minus the Religious extremism.

Now, I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong. Those numbers are most likely correct. However, many Democrats after so many years of having the word "liberal" demonized want to run as far as they can away from it. I think it is important to understand that people are heavily influenced by politics and the media. Once progressives and liberals stand up and start taking control and talking about their values then most Democrats will find that they agree. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if most Americans agree.

What I think we often forget is that most people aren't like us. They don't pay attention to politics. They are ignorant about the issues. That makes them easily manipulated by popular trends. The DLC was a popular trend that is hopefully coming to an end and Democrats have been tainted by it.

[FightinNewDem]

20. Reality Check!

Nearly all of the "scrubbed" names are those of people who no longer hold elected office. The directory is limited to office holders, and when it was updated, people who had moved on were taken off of the list.

Now, I find it hilarious that people are trying to brand Napolitano and Salazar as non-DLCers. I hate to break it to you, but last summer, Gov. Napolitano not only attended the DLC conference, she hosted it, including sponsoring a BBQ at the Bank One Ballpark left field party deck. At that same conference, the DU bete noire Al From hosted a meet-and-greet reception for Ken Salazar, who is a long-time friend of From's.

[bvar22]

40. In post # 11, an apologist for the DLC attempts to suggest...

...that Obama has no objection to the Anti-Labor philosophy of the DLC. He posted some highly speculative "hear say" evidence that Obama sought a relationship with the DLC.

<quote>
"For example - Obama. We have one DUer who has stated repeatedly that Obama DID indeed fill out the survey for inclusion in the DLC directory but theorizes he withdrew after criticisms. No proof of that, but is does seem plausible.
<end>

This is an outright fabrication by the DLC propagandists in a pathetic attempt to soften their hard line conservative, sell out reputation. The republican party uses the same tactic by associating bush*s name with Roosevelt and Kennedy.


Here is what Obama himself says about the DLC and the false rumor of his enrollment:


"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC."

[wyldwolf]

42. your post is quite hysterical

Imagine a court room where a witness says, "Your honor, I realize this is hearsay, but..."

Lawyer, "OBJECTON! That is hearsay..."

Judge: "Attorney, the witness just said it was hearsay... I believe we got the first time."

All finger wagging aside, the DUer I mentioned properly pointed out that membership into the DLC is done through the mail.

Hence the statement: "Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago,"

Why not just say "no contact at all."

But like I said (and you repeated just in case someone needed to read it again), it's hearsay.

BUT....

My post wasn't just about Obama.

So all of your neo-left propagandist finger wagging was essentially for your own benefit.

[JNelson6563]

44. Following your example

Why just up the thread we see you offering hearsay:

For example - Obama. We have one DUer who has stated repeatedly that Obama DID indeed fill out the survey for inclusion in the DLC directory but theorizes he withdrew after criticisms. No proof of that, but is does seem plausable.

A DUer speculated something that seems plausible. Apparently, since it suits your purpose, this is good enough for you. Another DUer then offers hearsay (only difference is that it is labeled "hearsay") and you're all over it.

Typical right-wing tactic. No surprise here.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

48. well, just so you'll go back and report on this thread...

...let's give you something to report.

You obviously haven't followed the thread. You obviously just picked my name to respond to. Had you read the thread, you would have seen that my post #42 in response to a post already commenting on my quote you reposted.

See, we're way ahead of you.

Typical reactionary left-wing tactic. No surprise here.

[JNelson6563]

50. DLC watch

Funny how you always seem to make it.

And your right, sorry to shatter your ego but frankly, I couldn't stomach any more of the lame ass hypocrisy openly displayed, not to mention the blatant manipulation that is so common by the DLCers these days. Once I read this little display of "do as I say not as I do" I figured I'd point out the idiocy and be on my way.

But as I said elsewhere, I don't envy you your task of trying to convince Dems that staying with a losing strategy is the way to go. Hey, if the Rethugs could convince so many poor people that voting for them is in their best interest, your goal is obviously achievable.

Rots of ruck, you'll need it as the sea change is happening and it doesn't favor DLC status quo.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

51. I'll take my chances on the sea change

So run back to mom and dad and report how the DLCers are getting out of line.

on edit - looks like you already have.

[bvar22]

46. speculation and hearsay...

The jury would have been instructed to disregard that information and it would have been stricken from the record, as I would like to see done here.

Your use of this tactic reminds me of the popular Faux News propaganda tactic: "Some people are saying...(lie, lie,lie )"

You may think your underhanded ,dishonest attempts to influence opinion are hysterical, I don't. I think this type of rhetoric belongs in the trash, along with the DLC... but "Anything for a Buck!", so what the hey.

[wyldwolf]

49. another example of someone who just hasn't followed the thread

... I gave an example, admitted it was hearsay when I gave the example, and pointed out the folly of someone again saying it was hearsay.

THAT was the hysterical thing, see? The poster wasn't giving the readers credit to determine themselves it was hearsay even AFTER my disclosure.

But still, the other points weren't addressed and the Obama part was zeroed in on.

[bvar22]

52. I followed quite well. YOU seem confused or cornered.

What would be YOUR purpose in posting material you know to be unreliable.

You are eating bottom slime when you must rely on invention and speculation to support your arguments!
That type of dishonesty belongs on less reputable boards!

Bye
:kick:

[wyldwolf]

53. nah

What would be YOUR purpose in posting material you know to be unreliable.

On the contrary. The DUer who made the statement is quite reliable. But of course, the original post also contains invention and speculation. The source material's author "ovelooks" the facts presented in post #20 to further his agenda.

BUT you didn't address the meat of our discussion - that I had already disclosed that 1/3 of my post was based on hearsay but you had to point it out again as though it was some grand revelation.

I'm sure the Neo-McGovernite University will give you extra points for that.

[bvar22]

56. Oh...

So you have a secret friend on DU that YOU say is reliable
who gives you unreliable information about Obama,
and you post it here staking YOUR credibility on references from your secret invisible friend.....

and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously!!!!!!

Now, THAT's hysterical!

Of course, I will admit you have a tough job...trying to advance the Humanitarian and Populist image of the DLC!
:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

58. see...

You're still zeroing in on 1/3 of the post and diverting from what the focus of our conversation was.

And having a source on DU is still a tad better than KOS who purposely overlooked the reality of the situation (I say purposely because he's too smart not to have known)

[berni_mccoy]

15. You know, the DLC has one of *those* names

Democratic Leadership Council. Yeah, right.

Sounds like a Rove creation, like:

Job Protection Act
Clean Air Act
Patriot Act
Marriage Protection Act

They name these things so it sounds bad if you vote against them.

Likewise, the DLC is named such that if you are not in it, you must not be a democratic leader...

I can just hear Fox repugs spewing the propaganda: "Now Mr. Dean , you are not a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, is that right?...."

[jonnyblitz]

19. ha, Ken Salazar of CO was taken off the list. interesting. nt

[loudsue]

21. The DLC is made up of CORPORATISTS.

It doesn't matter if they choose to put a "D" or an "r" after their name, they're corporate enablers and slaves, and they are PROUD of it.

They don't give one whang about "we, the PEOPLE". The sooner the Dems in congress STOP drinking the DLC kool-aid, the sooner we might take back our Democracy!

http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

<snip>

"Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the conservative Social Democrats/USA group on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SD/USA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."



One of just a handful of Marshall's co-signatories on that letter was Bruce Jackson, who also happens to be the head of the PNAC (whose letter Marshall also signed) and the founder of the aforementioned Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Jackson is not only a neo-con of high rank and one of the chief pom-pom wavers for the war effort. He was also a vice president in the weapons division of Lockheed-Martin between 1993 and 2002—meaning that he was one of the implied targets of Bowling for Columbine, which came out in Jackson's last year with the company.



Clearly, Marshall was thinking about the good of the Democratic Party, and not the integrity of his grimy little network of missile-humping cronies, when he and Al From made the curious—and curiously conspicuous—decision to denounce Moore, Hollywood and France at the DLC meeting in early November."

And more here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota

<snip>

"Debunking 'Centrism'
by David Sirota

Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!

Correction: Simon Rosenberg, described here as having been a "free-trade lobbyist," has been a politically active advocate for free trade but not a professional registered lobbyist.
ooking out over Washington, DC, from his plush office, Al From is once again foaming at the mouth. The CEO of the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership Council and his wealthy cronies are in their regular postelection attack mode. Despite wins by economic populists in red states like Colorado and Montana this year, the DLC is claiming like a broken record that progressive policies are hurting the Democratic Party.

From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of "centrism" while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, "party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left" while "the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

And, it even gets juicier.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032305/podesta.html

<snip>

" John Podesta, president of the progressive Center for American Progress (CAP), faced pointed questions from lawmakers at last Thursday’s New Democrat Coalition (NDC) meeting about an inflammatory e-mail his organization sent to liberal activists and bloggers.

In a March 9 e-mail, David Sirota, a fellow at CAP, accused 16 pro-business Democrats of supporting bankruptcy-reform legislation because they received political contributions from the commercial banks and credit-card companies that stand to benefit if the legislation becomes law.

The e-mail coursed through the blogosphere and generated angry phone calls from liberal activists to the offices of the 16 centrist Democrats. Sirota, a former minority spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, criticized 16 of the 20 Democrats who wrote Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) March 7 urging him to bring bankruptcy reform to the House floor.

“And a look at campaign finance records shows why — the House Democrats who signed the letter pocketed a combined $750,000 in their two-year campaigns for Congress in 2004. To put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of the industry giving these members $1,000 every single day of the last two years,” Sirota wrote, relying on figures from opensecrets.org."

The DLC and NDN are the corporatist wing of the Democratic party. These people have been trying feverishly to make sure that ONE philosophy rules this country: the CORPORATIST philosophy. No matter what you call them, Dems or repukes, these people are trying to destroy the rights of citizens in our country, and elevate the rights of corporations. It's ugly.



:kick:

[hopein08]

24. Question:

I know that Evan Bayh is big on the DLC (that much I've gathered from DU). I also know that he and John Edwards were/are good friends. I remember reading that John Edwards is considered one of the "national security Democrats" (from the New Yorker article on Biden). So...as you can probably tell from my avatar and banner, I like John Edwards. My question...is/was John Edwards DLC?

Thanks!

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. The DLC should continue shrinking until it's the size...

...where you could drown Al From & Will PNAC Marshall in a bathtub.

NO apologies to Grover Norquist.

[LynneSin]

33. So when the hell will John Kerry get his name off the list?

Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI

These are the senators and the ones that still bug me on the list are John Kerry, Maria Cantwell and Debbie Stabenow. None of the need the DLC and the 2 gals have strong support from Emily's List.

[xchrom]

36. dlc -- blech.

blech.
blech.
blech.
icky.

[Jim Sagle]

45. DLC = RNC.

[Arugula Latte]

47. Let's shrink it down small enough

for us to drown it in the bathtub. *glub*