The DLC, the Democrats, and "The Law of Diminishing Returns"

[Totally Committed]

In another thread, I was challenged about my avowed refusal of support for any candidate, for any office, who is DLC. Since I am at a point in my life when I, literally, do not have the time for bullshit any longer, the exchange left me thinking... How do I best explain my position in a way that it will be, once and for all, understood?

"The Law of Diminishing Returns" is what came to mind:

Law of Diminishing Returns - The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved. A law affirming that to continue after a certain level of performance has been reached will result in a decline in effectiveness.

In common usage, the “point of diminishing returns” is a supposed point at which additional effort or investment in a given endeavor will not yield correspondingly increasing results.

I have been a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party. I have spent 35+ years supporting this Party with my vote, my money, my time, and my effort. I did so with an open heart, and the belief that this Party supported all the things I supported: Civil and Human Rights, Women's Rights, true Equality for all, Religious Freedom, Personal Privacy, Equal Education, Affirmative Action, Anti-Nukes, Peace, Universal Healthcare, the End of Poverty, and the Care and Protection of the Environment.

If you notice, nowhere in my concerns is the robust health of the bottom line for large corporations, and their shareholders, at the expense of the least fortunate in our society. Like most Americans, I am all for an economy that supports The American Dream, and all that entails, for all its citizens. As an Economic means to that end, I have always seen the following as necessary: Good, decent jobs with a workable minimum wage. An equitable Welfare System, not only as a safety net in bad times, but as a hand up and out of poverty in good times. Yes, corporations have, in the past been the foundation of our economy, providing the jobs, the wages, and support for the safety nets, mostly through Unions, but even without Union involvement, there was always the sense that employees were to be valued and treated with dignity and respect. That was then, this is now:

Sadly, this is no longer true. In this era of "The Merger"... Corporations are getting bigger and bigger by sending more and more jobs overseas. Their bottom line is the all-important variable in what has made, for me at least, "The Law of Diminishing Returns" part of my personal political equasion. How so, you may ask? Well, at the same time that this Merger-Mania has made corporations grow larger and more wealthy, Democratic politicians have seen the need for larger and larger amounts of money to secure re-election against an ever more powerful, and frankly, more wealthy Republican Party. The corporations, seeing a chance to jump into the breech and provide the enormous funding sought by these Democrats. In exchange for a candidate's dedication to the interests of the corporations that supported them, came not only the money for their re-election campaigns, but votes for Bills like the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, NAFTA, The Bankruptcy Bill, and CAFTA, among many.

To insure this Party's continued support for the Corporate Interests over their constituent's interests, the DLC was created during the Clinton Administration, and headed by President Clinton, himself. His election, and subsequent re-election is touted as the sole triumph of their "Corporations-First" philosophy, and it is upon this one triumph that they claim more and more power within our Party. Quietly at first, they amassed their power, adding more and more politicians to their roster. This was accomplished by a cynically conceived ideology that involved voting with the Republicans, placating the Republicans, going along with the Republicans... cooperating with the very entity that sought to destroy us. Instead of fighting along with us and coming up with better strategies that would have won us elections against the Republicans, the DLC -- I believe -- cynically and methodically sought to amass enough power, so that when the RNC had sufficiently beaten down the "real" Democrats, they would be in a position to move in and seize the Democratic Party from our hands.

Those of us who have sweat blood to build this Party, with hope and desire for a better life for all Americans, are beginning to see the DLC and their Corporate Agenda making their move to steal the heart and soul of the very Party we helped grow. For all our hard work, we are seeing all our hopes and dreams being trampled into the political ground for the sake of bottom lines of the corporations that seek more power through the DLC.

There are those who will roll over and let that happen. What good will it do, they will say, to oppose those with all the power and all the money? A Democrat, any Democrat in the White House is better than a Republican, after all. Excuses will abound. But, I am here to tell you that if it is justice for all Americans -- both economic and political -- is what you desire from a White House, a DLC candidate will give you as much of that as a Republican one will. The face of that White House will probably not be as angry and as ugly as the Republican one, but make no mistake, those Americans of color, in poverty, female, or LGBT will be screwed just as much no matter which candidate (the DLC or the Republican) prevails. I cannot countenance that. I will not be a part of that system or reality, and this is where The Law of Diminishing Returns comes in... I will take what chips I have left on the table (my money, my effort, my time, and MY VOTE) away with me (The DLC has made it clear they don't need them, anyway...) Staying and participating, at that point, will be akin to shoveling shit on the incoming tides, so why bother? I WON'T. Count on it.

I will not support any candidate who is DLC. I won't work against him/her, I will just go away and refuse to participate in the charade any longer. The diminishment of my returns stops here. No amount of insulting me, threatening me, cajolling me, reasoning with me, or dismissing my opinion will change my mind. I am drawing a line in the sand, and I will refuse every effort to drag me over it. And, I am heartily ashamed it has taken me this long to come to this decision.

TC

[wtmusic]

1. Bravo

Well-said. No time for the bullshit. Back to basics.

:thumbsup:

[Mass]

2. Well, good luck with this.

Personnally, I will continue to look at each candidate individually and look at their merits and defaults, not at the fact they belong to a list of names. (I agree with what you support, but I know many people listed on those damned DLC lists that agree with that too and people who are not and certainly do not support them).

We all have things that disturb you. Personnally, I wlll not support anymore people who dont care about environmental issues.

[Totally Committed]

4. A lot of thought and soul-searching went into this decision.

This is not just the odd cranky moment for me. I have been feeling the need to make one last stand against this for a while. Seeing the poor and the Blacks suffereing so disproportionately in the Katrina disaster was the last straw. If Democrats like me do not stand up now for their sakes, and the sake of this Party now, then we deserve everything we get.

TC

[Mass]

5. I agree with you - I want people who support what I believe in,

My only issue is what your litmus test is. But I guess you have your reasons.

For example, should we stop supporting Eliot Spitzer as governor of NY State?

[bread_and_roses]

82. I hope everyone reads this post, the last straw indeed

Again, to quote you:
"If Democrats like me do not stand up now for their sakes, and the sake of this Party now, then we deserve everything we get."
Amen.

[Totally Committed]

8. Well, here ya go....

Senate Backs Bush (obo Utilities). Fails To Overturn Mercury Rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2089162

The Corporations win again. How many more babies will be born deformed or chronically ill for life because of the Senate's Pro-Corporate vote?

IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW!

TC

[Mass]

9. Sure, but at least one., Byrd, is not DLC, as far as I know

and most of the DLC senators voted against that.

We need to stop that, but stopping it means aiming where it is due, which means looking at people's record and not at whether they belong to a list.

[Totally Committed]

10. At least ONE???

You were the one who said Environmental concerns were your litmus test... go through the roster of the "D" Senators who voted for this bill, and my guess (don't know and don't care... anyone who voted for this is a scumbag) is the majority will be DLC-ers OR they could be up for Re- election. 2006 is next year, doncha know, so we should all be prepared to be screwed exponentially as the need for $$$$ grows.

When viability, not the health of babies becomes paramount, we are at the edge of the abyss.

TC

[Mass]

13. So we should present candidates for primaries if the candidates that are

running are wrong.

I dont think anybody is running against Spitzer. Those who have issues with the label DLC should run somebody against him. As I said, I am not enclined to look at people through a catalog, but by what they are standing for.

I guess we probably agree on a lot of people if we take them individually, but, I dont see why I should fight against three letters rather than against issues. That is my only point.

The 5 Senators who voted like that are scumbags, whether they are DLC or not. An endorsement by Sierra Club or NRDC will have a lot more weight for me than the Senate Caucus a Senator belongs (or the governor's club for a governor).

[ret5hd]

3. let's face it...some here would vote for bush* if he changed parties...

and put a D by his name.

on edit: to make my position clear, i'm with you.

[montanacowboy]

6. Thank you

We need more Democrats to speak out like this - I personally will not vote for any DLCer - that's it. I have had it, I am sick and tired of it - as long as they continue to support the Repuke point of view, vote for bankruptcy laws, an illegal war, tax cuts, lousy Medicare fake pharmaceutical bill, no child left behind, clean air, healthy forests......blah blah

No, no more. It is no longer worth my time, effort, money and state of mind. Lately, there are times when I despise the Democrats more than the Repukes - because they are supposed to be better, and they are not.

[Mass]

7. Good - Let's give NY State to the Republicans - that will hep.

[jackbourassa]

73. Mass you are not suggesting that we couldn't win NYS without

the DLC are you?

Because I would have to check for your temperature if that were the case.

[welshTerrier2]

15. adding to your list ...

the most dangerous policy we face is an oil-driven energy policy ... the policy has resulted in record profits for Big Oil ...

it is rapidly leading to the devastating effects of global warming and an inevitable global war over dwindling oil supplies ... as long as the Bill and Hillary fan club, the DLC, continues to sleep with the Big Oily bastards and as long as Democrats continue to support them, change in course will not be possible ...

life on the planet is being threatened and too few see only republicans as the enemy ... we need to support policies before parties or we will all be doomed ...

[Totally Committed]

16. I knew this thread needed your input!

I totally blanked on big oil as I wrote the OP. Thank you for adding that. the policy of "Forever War" is based on our "need" for oil.

TC

[OneBlueSky]

11. I think we need a massive grassroots campaign to . . .

get all Democratic candidates to refuse any and all corporate contributions of any kind . . .

[Mass]

14. Now, that is a good idea,

[LiberalEconomist]

12. Not because they have "Democratic" in their

name means that they are Democrats. The DLC is as much democratic as China or Iraq (under Sadam Hussein) is a republic. The ministry of truth aint about truth...if you read the book. The DLC = GOP + amend it don't end it + don't ask don't tell + welfare reform. Their "democratic" positions are anything but democratic. Demos is classical greek for the people. The DLC aint about people power, they are about corporate power. From now on when I say GOP I mean DLC too. The DLC is a subset of the GOP.

Oh and pleas don't confuse the DLC positions with those of centrists and moderates. The DLC is far right, economically speaking, while offering socially "liberal" trinkets as bait.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "don't confuse the DLC positions with those of centrists and moderates"

this is truly a great point ... for too long, DLC'ers have been able to "triangulate" right within the Democratic Party ...

by attacking the left and calling them un-American, the DLC dividers sought to win over more moderate elements in the Party ... but when you look at the issues, when you understand their goal is to destroy the Party, when you realize they are every bit as hawkish as republicans, when you realize the close ties to corporate America, you quickly see that the center and the left in the Party have far more in common with each other than with the DLC ...

the DLC should be disbanded or those who associate with them should be kicked out of the Party ...

[Mass]

18. Should we stop supporting Spitzer?

Asking the question as clearly everybody here agrees with the general concept that belonging to a DLC list makes you a scumbag, whatever your positions are.

As I have said a lot of times earlier, this seems a very limited approach on a serious subject, big corporations and how they corrupt the political landscape. If this is the issue, most of the Democratic senators and representatives (DLC or not) are in question.

But of course, this would require to attack some people who are revered here. The only solution I see is what a poster proposed earlier. A grassroot movement that would require a dramatic change in political money (but some may be surprised by who oppose it).

[Totally Committed]

19. To be clear, the word "scumbag" was my epithet for those who voted

for that Mercury hike bill, not the DLC.

TC

[LiberalEconomist]

20. Sure, if the the DLC politicians disavow

their association with the devil I will support them temporally, spatially and financially. If they don't, then I will not be so compassionate towards them. I am willing to meet them half way. Are these political "leaders" willing to meet me a the midpoint?

[welshTerrier2]

22. Spitzer should stop supporting the DLC

that's the point ...

you wrote: "... this seems a very limited approach on a serious subject, big corporations and how they corrupt the political landscape."

i disagree ... it is NOT at all a "limited approach" ... there are two major parties in the US ... yes, we could form or support third parties and perhaps that will be the best we can do ... i see that as a very long-term proposition ... it would take time that this country does not have ...

the only alternative is to fight for control of the Democratic Party ... the ultimate objective, as you have correctly stated, is to address the "serious subject" of "big corporations and how they corrupt the political landscape." ... but attacking the entrenched power center in the Democratic Party is anything but a "limited approach" ... the DLC and its proponents are doing all they can to suppress our participation ... they see us as "un-American" ... they are doing all they can to maintain the status quo ... what more effective approach do you propose to attack the corporate stranglehold that Big Oil and Big Pharma have on our government?

the only approach that makes any sense to me is to declare all out war on the DLC ... those, like Spitzer, who may be currently aligned with the DLC need to understand that the majority of Democrats do not support their pro-corporate policies ... i think once we make our voices heard, and they understand that we will no longer support them if they continue this unwise affiliation, we may soon find ourselves with many elected Democrats and others championing our cause ...

holding the DLC and those affiliated with them accountable is not just not a "limited approach"; it's the only approach ... we have to fight for power in our own party ... if the short-term brings more elected republicans, so be it ... i don't see any real alternatives ... the sooner our Party represents the views of the majority of Democrats, the sooner a real push for progress can begin ... electing corporate Democrats, while better than electing republicans, is not a prescription for the changes we critically need ...

[Totally Committed]

23. For the record, there were several disappointments on the DLC Roster

and Spitzer was one of them. Loretta Sanchez was another.

The biggest disappointment, for me at least, because I really liked what I'd read about this young man was Gavin Newsom. Right now he is the Mayor of San Francisco, but he will probably run for National Office someday.

Even given these three (out of the entire roster...), I will not make any exceptions. Until they disavow and quit the DLC, they are verboten.

TC

[Mass]

24. So if Pryor or Lieberman leave the DLC, you will support them?\nt

[Totally Committed]

25. No.

There are reasons why I would not support them aside from their allegiance to the DLC. (Lieberman, for instance IS a Republican in every sense of the word EXCEPT Party Affiliation...)

I am just saying... If any candidate is on the DLC Roster, they are an automatic no-go for me from this day forward, and that is non-negotiable.

I understand this postion is not for everyone, but it is the only way I can go on in the Democratic Party. I will fight for control of this Party, so that if it is lost to DLC, I know I did what I couuld to stop it while I had the chance.

Mass, please do not take this personally. It is something I have to do for me. You have to do what is right for you.

TC

[Mass]

26. Not taking that personnally at all - I just have to disagree on that.

And happy to see your answer to this question (I thought I was asking the question to welshterrier2, in fact).

[Totally Committed]

27. You just seem pretty upset.

Maybe I'm reading more into your posts than is there because I respect you so much. I'm glad you aren't taking this personally.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

28. of course not ...

just because someone might leave the DLC does NOT mean that i would automatically support them ... the concern i have is that by supporting any DLC candidate, even on a selective basis, strengthens the DLC ... i increasingly see this as a black or white situation ... if we support any DLC candidates, we are endorsing their membership in the DLC ...

so, i allow the possibility of supporting current DLC members who end that affiliation ... but this in no way means i would AUTOMATICALLY support them if they did ...

[jackbourassa]

74. The DLC are nothing more than a...

Washington circle jerk for Democrats.

They aren't even that good at raising money. I'm not even sure what they do exactly.

[Totally Committed]

21. http://www.dlc.org/

Or, Google the DLC, and read what you find there. Just do not stay uninformed!

TC

[sendero]

29. A year ago..

... I would have disagreed with you. Today I couldn't agree more.

[Totally Committed]

30. TY, sendero...

The line has got to be drawn somewhere. FOr me, it's here. Glad you are with me.

TC

[AJH032]

31. The DLC formed in 1985

not during the Clinton administration

[Totally Committed]

32. My mistake...

it certainly only came on anyone's radar during Clinton's administration, I think.

Thank you for setting me straight on that. Proves that they stayed subterranean for a long time before surfacing, because I never heard a peep about them.

Do you think they stayed underground until they found a cause celeb in Clinton? Do you think it was, say, Carville and Begala that brought the two entities together? Did they need that much time to build up steam or were they just waiting for the right time to pounce? I do have to wonder.

TC

[AJH032]

34. I think the DLC of 2005 is far different than the one of 1985

I could be wrong, but I think the purpose of the DLC in 1985 was just to distance future Democratic candidates from the ones who had lost badly to Reagan, so they could be "acceptable" to the public. I'm not sure its primary purpose was so much to move the party far to the right. I think it had promise. Again though, I could be wrong.

[AJH032]

33. A few points I'd like to make to those who hate the DLC

First of all, like other Democrats, not all DLC politicians are the same. For example, the bankruptcy bill, which was mentioned in the initial post, was supported by several DLC politicians, but was in fact vetoed by Bill Clinton, also of the DLC. CAFTA, which many DLC politicians supported, was also opposed by several other DLC politicians (including Senator Clinton).

Second, I'd like to point out that Bill Clinton, an accused "corporatist" by people of the far left, produced 23 million new jobs during his term, decreased poverty considerably (especially for minorities), and although he signed the Welfare act, he also vetoed two previous welfare acts generated by the Republican congress which were far worse.

I'm not saying you have to support anyone you don't want to support. Of course, your vote is your vote. But, I do ask that each politician or potential politician is looked at as an individual and not only for a committee affiliation; every Democrat who runs deserves a fair look. Personally, there are many DLCers I am not happy with, but at the same time there are several that I think are doing a good job (Christine Gregoire and Jennifer Granholm come to mind). Don't generalize, and assume everyone belonging to a particular group is inherently evil.

[Totally Committed]

36. Okay, since you made your points, here's one I'd like to make:

I wrote this post as a way of setting the record straight FOR ME. It was not meant to be a scholarly paper on the DLC. It was a personal history, as I saw it, of a segment of this Party that I see as problematic and growing in pawer disproportionally to the number of Democrats that support it. The reason for both of these things are the same: big corporate $$$$$.

I worked very hard to get Bill Clinton elected POTUS... both times. And, like it or not, Bill Clinton WAS a "Corporatist". He did, as you say, create 23 million jobs -- all of which disappeared overseas as soon as the Republicans took over. That Welfare Reform Act was wrong. Yes, he did veto two Welfare Reform acts before signing the third. You can see it your way, but I saw it as "caving", not "signing". I cried the day he "signed" that bill into law. I knew those jobs so necessary for those hopeful people to succeed in moving off the Welfare Rolls would disappear the minute they came into contact with a Republican administration.

I have a lot of guilt about thinking, "It would be worse if he/she were a Democrat" for so many years.

No more. The OP on this thread was a personal statement about having had ENOUGH. This Party needs to be returned to its roots if those less fortunate than its Party's leaders are ever going to get social and economic justice... if we are ever going to be truly equal... if my uterus is ever going to belong to only me!

I want my Party back, so a true Democrat can go and take my country back! I sincerely believe that will never happen as long as the DLC is a viable entity in this Party.

TC

[AJH032]

37. two things

1. I wasn't intending to change your mind. My post was directed at everyone who hates the DLC.
2. As you just said, Clinton of the DLC did some great things for this country. Doesn't that, alone, make him (and perhaps several other DLCers) at least better than the GOP?

[Q]

38. "Hating' the DLC...

...is kind of like the war on 'terrorism'. You can't wage war against a noun or a concept. And you don't have to hate something to be against it. I don't 'hate' George Bush...although I believe him to be a sorry excuse for a president and human being.

It's little more than a diversionary tactic to suggest that there is some kind of unreasonable or unfounded hatred against the DLC. This distracts from the fact that the DLC is attempting to control the party without any kind of mandate or consent from the Democratic electorate. They have simply assumed control and expect the rank and file to vote for them because they have no other choice.

There is no reason to compare the DLC and the GOP...except to say that the DLC is helping the Right achieve their goals.

[Totally Committed]

39. When you live below the poverty level, and your safety net is

reduced greatly or taken away entirely, and you and your children suffer for it, I don't think the affiliation of the person who screwed you much matters.

What I want as POTUS now is someone who wouldn't have caved and signed the effing bill in the first place, when he knew the pain and suffering it would cause if it failed. And it failed. If the Republicans have taught us one thing about the economy it is this: NOTHING GIVEN TO THE WEALTHY "TRICKLES DOWN" to the poor. It does not end up benefitting the them OR the disappearing Middle Class. Ask Donald Trump what he did with his Tax Cut. How many jobs do you think he created with it? Nada.

I want a President who is a REAL Democrat... ready to stop the illegal ForeverWarForOil, able to equitably fix the economy, willing to restore the safety nets for the poor, equally educate all children, at least try for Universal Healthcare, and break up some of the corporate monopolies that are fucking up our society (the corporatization of the Media comes to mind there, and should be Job #1!)

TC

[AJH032]

41. I'm sorry then

sorry that you can't see the difference. As I said, poverty in the United States declined under evil DLC Clinton and rose under GOP Bush. I never said Clinton was perfect, but he sure as hell is better than Bush and his Republicans.

By the way (and this isn't directed at you, TC), this divisive bickering within the Democratic party is the only thing preventing me (a strong liberal) from calling myself a Democrat. And the blame for that falls equally both on the DLC and the people on the far left who refuse to compromise for the sake of something better than the Republcans.

[Totally Committed]

42. This is intersting, and I'd like to hear more:

"... this divisive bickering within the Democratic party is the only thing preventing me (a strong liberal) from calling myself a Democrat. And the blame for that falls equally both on the DLC and the people on the far left who refuse to compromise for the sake of something better than the Republcans."

How would you go about getting people on the far left (I guess that's me) who don't think poverty should exist at all, to compromise with the DLC, whose hearts are broken every time the stock market falls??? The breach is so wide. And, what would a compromise like that look like? The "far left" accepting poverty as an inevitable state of being in a society that still has class and color problems that probably won't be fixed tomorrow, and the DLC accepting that less corporate ownership will be tolerated and supported by them for a certain period of time? Given that a good compromise, by nature, makes neither side happy with the outcome, wouldn't even the compromise provide fodder for the bickering that keeps you at bay?

I hope you'll leave your thoughts here. I am truly interested in hearing them.

TC

[AJH032]

44. Sure thing

What's worse? 10% of people living in poverty or 5%? Obviously, the ideal would be 0%, but that would indeed take a Socialist government (not saying there's anything wrong with that). Only problem is that this country is never going to elect a strong Socialist as its leader. There are too many conservatives, too many moderates who would side with the Republicans against a Socialist because it is "evil," as most Americans seem to think it is. So, here you have the compromise on the left. It is, in my opinion, better to have a Democrat who can appeal to the middle in order to win, and whose policies can create a kinder America to live in than to have a significant wing of the left refusing to compromise on a candidate who doesn't agree with them on everything, only to have the Republicans in power (as they are today). Of course, the same thing applies to the DLC. They are guilty of the same divisive tactics that split the party. They need to come to their senses and compromise with people on the far left if they want to see the Republicans out of power (and I assure you, they do). That doesn't mean anyone should change their ideals. You certainly shouldn't. DLCers shouldn't either. Stick with what you think is right. But when it comes to elections, we need to be realistic and come together.

So there are my thoughts, in a nutshell. As I said in my previous post, the bickering within the party repels me from calling myself a Democrat. Although I am, and always will be a liberal.

[OzarkDem]

46. Missing the point

What made Clinton good was Clinton himself, not the DLC.

DLC has no good ideas anymore. Policy-wise, they're an empty vessel, with nothing to offer the party except money for candidates who are willing to sell themselves to corporations.

[SaveElmer]

I don't believe they are allowed to monetraily support candidates

They are a tax exempt organization and are thus prohibited from supporting candidates in that way!

[Totally Committed]

58. In a way, that's Sophie's Choice, not a compromise.

When Sophie was made to choose which of her children would die, so the other would live, it wasn't considered a compromise. Who gets to choose which 5% live in poverty? And, knowing that at least half of them will be children, HOW could we choose? I couldn't live with a decision like that, even if it meant a "compromise" that could bring a "Democrat" (sort of) to the White House.

I think the problem is I've lived too long. I've seen and felt and heard too much. If anyone tells you that people toughen as they grow older, don't believe them. Not all do. Not by a longshot.

You think about looking into the eyes of those 5% who will remain poor... half children... and get back to me. It's not Socialism, it's humanity! I couldn't do it for any reason.

I am too old. I don't belong here anymore. The pain of even considering what you proposed tells me I have indeed lived too long.

But, thanks for trying. I appreciate the candor.

TC

[AJH032]

59. okay, here's my problem with your post (and it may seem silly)

it's the fact that you put "Democrat" in quotation marks like that, followed by "sort of." As I said in another post, none of us have the right to tell someone they're not a Democrat simply because their views are not in complete allignment with our own. It seems to be, at least to me, a kind of arrogance.

Anyway, that 5/10% comparison was just an example I came up with off the top of my head. It's not literal, and there are other issues to deal with than poverty levels.

Good discussion we're having though, I'd say.

[Totally Committed]

63. Re: "sort of"

I see your point. I guess I don't see the DLC Democrats as "real" (read: the sort of Democrat who has the old-fashioned ideals the Democratic Party used to stand for. Since they have their own ideals, they are not "phony".)

I see the DLC as moderate Republicans masquerading as RW Democrats... I guess that's more accurate.

TC

On edit: I cried while finishing the "Sophie's Choice" post. And, now that I've read your response (all you got from it was "sort of"), I am asking myself why you are trying so hard to sway me... don't deny it, you are debating me. You say you cannot call yourself a "Democrat" while people like me won't compromise with the DLC-ers. Well, there are plenty of pro-DLC posters posting here now. Debate with them for a while.

[AJH032]

53. another point

It sounds to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're a Socialistic Democrat. There are many many Democrats, however, who are not, and that doesn't make them any less of a Democrat. It would be wrong for you or me to call them un-Democratic in any way. Just as it would be unfair for them to do the same.

[Totally Committed]

60. Just an old anachronistic hippie-dippie Leftie throwback...

It's odd that you see me as so to the left as to be nearly socialist. I support the only candidate in '08 who is a 4-star General. A "military man". Who woulda thunk?

Personally, I said a "real" Democrat. And, by that, I meant one that believed in all the ideals that used to be thought of as "Democratic", as opposed to phony. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify that.

TC

[AJH032]

64. some things about Clark (if that's who you're talking about)

Did you know that Clark does not support gay marriage? That he supports a ban on partial birth abortions (with a provision for women's health)? That he supports deficit reduction (which, until recently, wasn't a liberal cause)? That he is against decriminalizing Marijuana? That, in some statements, he has supported some free trade?

These things aren't very Democratic, in the very liberal sense of the word. In fact, I'd say it sounds almost like a DLCer. Still, that doesn't make him any less of a Democrat, but it certainly shows that even if someone isn't 100% purely Democratic, they can still make a great candidate (and I agree, Clark would be a great President). Oh, did you also know that one of the reasons he ran in 2004 was because of President Bill Clinton's urging him to do so?

[Totally Committed]

67. Okay..............

Now I feel better. I know who you are. Debate the pro-DLC-ers for a while. I'm officially out of this debate. You will not sway me.

TC

On edit: For the record, Wes Clark is further left than most who ran in 2004. He is a good, decent, honest man who wants the best for America. He has a backbone, a soul, and would also see the %5 poor "compromise" as unacceptable.

[AJH032]

69. huh?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I thought we were having a good discussion. I'm not pro or anti-DLC.

[Totally Committed]

70. Well you sure as hell are debating me pretty hard for someone with

no vested interest. I'm too emotional about this subject to be suckered into a pro-longed debate with you only to find out you were from the other side all along. I am not up to it.

Get some pro-DLC poster to debate you for a while, and I'll go eat dinner and maybe be back.

It was interesting, though.

TC

[AJH032]

71. can you please explain to me something

Which side do you think I'm on? I told you I'm a liberal who simply wants less bickering and divisiveness within the Democratic party.

[Totally Committed]

72. Look, it's been a long day, slogging through this thread.

You told me you are "a liberal who simply wants less bickering and divisiveness within the Democratic party", and I believed you until I realized you were challenging me, and not the DLC side of things at all. You were making excuses for them, proposing possible compromises with them, and not doing the same with any of the pro-DLC posts (and there were more than a few antagonistic ones being made at the time). When you started picking apart my posts for phrases that didn't sit right with you, and trying to draw me into a conversation about Wes Clark with the usual "gotcha" shopping list of inaccuracies argued like clockwork here about Clark on DU, I realized I MIGHT be being suckered. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say I believe all you told me about yourself, but I still have my doubts about why you are picking my position apart and not challenging the other side, if you are the honest broker you say you are... let's just say that.

And, for the record, on the internet, you can be anything you say you are. You could be a liberal trying to make peace in a Party you don't want to join by sparring with just one of the warring sides... and I could be a Victoria's Secret lingerie model.

See what I'm saying? Go wear down some DLC-ers for me -- try to make them see the light -- and then MAYBE we'll talk... spar... whatever.

TC

[AJH032]

83. you misunderstood my posts

This thread was started as an anti-DLC thread, so if I am as I said I am, in favor of less bickering within the party, why should I continue the anti-DLC rhetoric in this very thread? For the record, I have had discussions (I hesitate as always to call them arguments) with divisive DLC Democrats about this very subject, both on DU and elsewhere. Here, though, I'm talking to you, playing devil's advocate in a way, I guess. All I'm trying to say is that (and this goes back to my first post in this thread) not every DLC candidate is bad, and to say that is a terrible generalization. I'm not really sure how my Clark post led you to think I'm some phony. Sorry if you think so.

[Totally Committed]

85. I told you, and I meant it, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,

and choosing to believe you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about Clark, as someone who has been a suporter since the beginning, I can tell you you need to bone up on your facts about him.

I am glad to hear that you have done this with the DLCers too. But, I haven't been on many of those threads. They always make nme feel like my head will explode if I don't go lie down. So, I'll take your word for that too.

For the record, I really care about my fellow Americans, especially the ones that are less fortunate and have even less of a voice than I do. If my positions sound intractable and "arrogant", then they do. I just feel the wealthiest country on earth should not tolerate even one person living in poverty. It should not tolerate one person left to die because of the color of his or her skin. It should not tolerate one child undereducated, undernourished, under-loved. And, EVERYONE (there is not reason this cannot be done...) should have Health Insurance.

If I could have one more wish, it would be that every woman would own and operate her own uterus without the interference or opinion of anyone else. If the Rich White Christian MEN who run this country cannot trust us with CHOICE, they sure as hell should think twice about trusting us to raise their children!

Okay, off the soapbox. We are square as far as I'm concerned, I just cannot "debate" you any longer. My brain is fried.

I bid you peace, my friend.

Sincerely,
TC

[SaveElmer]

48. DLC Haters give them way too much credit...

The DLC is not some monolithic puppet master controlling individual members of Congress. Check their website, they don't have a set of doctrines all must agree on. They publish position papers from various members and opinioneers on various topics. Even these papers rarely agree.

Ignore them if you wish...they are powerless in terms of electing anyone...they simply offer alternate strategies for framing the debate. Sometimes this involves some taking positions many do not like...often I do not like them. But they have no power to impose them on anyone.

To make a blanket statement that you won't vote for anyone if they are DLC is just lazy.

[OzarkDem]

51. DLC's problem

other than the fact that they don't produce good public policy anymore, is that they feel the need to bash the Democratic party on a regular basis.

They also school Dem elected officials in the art of doing nothing in Congress, which hurts everyone more every day.

[SaveElmer]

52. Then ignore them...

I agree they do not present the best public face..Al From is a dick. But really, they have no power over anyone. All this handwringing is really useless. Not to vote for someone simply because they are DLC without looking at the candidate is just lazy if you ask me!

[OzarkDem]

56. Failure to get the job done in Congress

is incredibly serious and needs to be addressed.

Dems who continue to fiddle and duck need to be replaced with others who can bring bipartisanship back to Congress.

[SaveElmer]

57. Then replace them if you wish...

I disagree with your broad brush characterization of them...but in any case, it isn't because they were transfixed with the DLC and started doing their bidding. If you want someone else, support their opposition in the primary...but to not do anything because they are DLC is lazy.

[jackbourassa]

75. AJH032

I think that will be Bill Clinton's obiturary:

He was a so-so President, but was better than Bush and the Republicans.

I want a party that is more then the lesser of evils. I want a party that takes the initative and kicks some ass. A party that stands for something.

Clinton was an okay President. Yes, he was better than Bush. Not very hard to do. I mean Bush I was better than W. Yes, Clinton had a good economic record: created jobs, had a good economy, balanced budgets.

But don't forget that many of the economic problems actually began at the end of his term. When he began selling out to the Chinese. The telecommunications Act (which led to crazy media concentrations). The stock market bubble. All these things happened when Clinton was President.

Then there was the fact, that the DLC/Clinton wing of the party had tramatized the nation so much against "liberals" or "progressives" that Bush was elected in 2000. Don't forget about how Clinton lied to EVERYONE (including us) about Monica and got his ass impeached. How WE ALL defended him that terrible year and he comes back and tries to privatize Social Security. Thanks Bill. Or the campaign finance irregularities. Chinese coffees. Lincoln Bedroom. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So all in all, Clinton was an okay President and nothing more. Is it wrong to want a GREAT President?

Under the current climate among Washington Democrats, great past Democratic Presidents like Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt could no longer get elected. Maybe it's time we changed that.

The problem isn't necessarily the DLC. They are actually small and quite irrelevant. The problem is the mentality that exists among Washington Democrats. That's what needs changing.

Democrats in Washington will see 2008 as another 1992. I see it as another 1932.

[Totally Committed]

79. See... and I think Clinton was a good president...

who could have been one of the greats. So much wasted potential. So much squandered trust. He has such personal charisma. He is the most naturally gifted off-the-cuff speaker to have been president in modern times. Man, he coulda been a contender.

I think the DLC was the modifier, the shaper of his presidency in a way. He bent over backwards to make trade deals, deregulate, write new legislation to "reform" the traditional third rail issues. He wanted to be the corporate President, and maybe if the impeachment hadn't happened, he would be remembered that way.

Even in search of a legacy, I was thrilled when he decided to concentrate on Africa through his foundation. I thought he'd certainly rehabilitate his legacy there! But, then, that old streak of self-destruction just took over, and he decided Poppy Bush was his new best friends. Who the hell can trust him now? Every time I see him appear and shore up W, I want to scream. He should have been sticking up for our side. I felt abandoned.

Hillary's with the DLC. Bill's with the Bushes. The trust is gone.

TC

[OzarkDem]

35. Further

you and others who have the same commitment to party and ideals should consider challenging DLC candidates in the primary.

The Internets have given candidates the opportunity to raise funds and get their message out, without having to rely on corporate dollars.

[spaniard]

40. Just a few observations

You have a very romantacized view of the Democratic party IMO. Sure, the issues you mentioned (Civil and Human Rights, Women's Rights, true Equality for all, Religious Freedom, Personal Privacy, Equal Education, Affirmative Action, Anti-Nukes, Peace, Universal Healthcare, the End of Poverty, and the Care and Protection of the Environment) have been championed by Democrats more often than by Republicans, the Democratic party still has a somewhat spotty record on them.

After all, a Democrat was the only president to ever use nukes, and of the 10 Nuclear treaties entered into by the US, 5 were signed during Republican administrations.

And, in regards to these issues, I've yet to see a DLC candidate be against any of them. So I feel that using those issues as a rallying point against the DLC isn't entirely fair.

In addition, the DLC wasn't created during the Clinton administration but at least 7 years earlier.

The reasons you attribute to the DLC's creation are debatable but the point has been debated here ad nauseam so I see no reason to do so again.

In the literally hundreds of anti-DLC threads that have occured on DU, I have seen many anti-DLC points debunked logically and with sources and I had never heard of the DLC until a few months back so - at least at that time - I was impartial.

A well thought out post, regardless, TC. If one isn't getting what they want out of something, they certainly are justified in stopping putting anything into it.

[OzarkDem]

49. Can you debunk this one?

What new policy ideas does the DLC have? As near as I can see, they have nothing to offer.

[SaveElmer]

55. That is not their primary mission...

It is to help Democrats reframe the way they present themselves on issues to take them away from Republicans. Often these make sense. Read their position papers on gun control. Makes alot of sense. Sometimes they advocate a position on an issue that you may disagree with...if they do...ignore them. They have no power over you, their members or anyone.

[spaniard]

65. that would be a matter of opinion

As near as I can see, they have nothing to offer

But I do like their positions on tax reform:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=163&contentid=253358

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=163&contentid=253283

..and energy:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=155&contentid=252465

[SaveElmer]

43. I believe it was I that challenged you...

You indicated (as you have done here) that you would not support any DLC candidate. I asked if this included the 1/3 of Senate Democrats who were members...you said yes.

To be clear...there is no one on this list you would support for any public office:

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

[Totally Committed]

47. None.

What part of -- "I will not support any candidate who is DLC. I won't work against him/her, I will just go away and refuse to participate in the charade any longer. The diminishment of my returns stops here. No amount of insulting me, threatening me, cajolling me, reasoning with me, or dismissing my opinion will change my mind. I am drawing a line in the sand, and I will refuse every effort to drag me over it. And, I am heartily ashamed it has taken me this long to come to this decision." -- did you think I didn't mean?

I mean it... I will not participate in this charade any longer. If there is a DLC candidate for POTUS in 2008, he/she will have to win election without me. We are either the Democratic Party or we are not. If we are not, you won't miss me anyway.

TC

[SaveElmer]

50. Sorry...

To me that is just lazy. The DLC is not this monolithic puppet master controlling indicidual legislators. They have no set of doctrines all must follow, they do not monetarily support candidates. They publish position papers...that is about it. And usually the writers of those paper don't agree on everything.

You give them way to much credit. Ignore tham and concentrate on what the candidate says.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[spaniard]

66. so you'll work against any Democrat that will not oppose Howard Dean?

That's about as high up in the Democratic party leadership as you can get.

[OzarkDem]

54. New faces

would be a very good idea in many of these cases. Most of the people on that list do nothing more than rubber stamp whatever the Republicans send them.

Replacing some of these folks with new people who have new ideas is very appealing, particularly when the GOP in Congress has such low approval ratings.

[bearfan454]

45. Superb post ! nt

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

68. that's really crazy ...

let me see if i understand this ...

you are going to vote republican because they are less deceptive than center-right Democrats? it makes no difference to you what the republicans believe in; only that they appear to be sincere?

that's really crazy ...

you support more war in Iraq? nuking Iran? screwing the poor people of New Orleans? eliminating the social safety net? killing Social Security and Medicare? promoting energy policies that cater to Big Oil? perpetual warfare? controlled media? loss of civil liberties? a two-tiered class-based society? giveaways to "special interests"? an infestation by Big Oil and Big Pharma everywhere in our government? discrimination against women, blacks, foreigners, gays, and others?

don't vote republican ... help us fight to gain control of our party ... i don't intend to ever vote for a corporate Democrat again ... but i would never would for those republican bastards ...

[Zodiak]

78. I think it is threat of voting Republican

the above poster will most likely vote 3rd party or, like so many disillusioned Americans who have no voice, won't vote.

But you have to threaten these people with their jobs for them to listen. Their jobs seem to be all they care about.

[bonzotex]

76. great thread...nom and kick!

The DLC is dead, they just don't know it yet.

[Q]

77. I don't know how anyone can ignore...

...what's going on in America. The GOP and DLC are selling us out to 'big business' and plundering our national treasury. No American should be expected to tolerate this.

To make things even worse...they have declared war on those who want People to come before their corporate masters.

We can't allow this to stand...for the sake of the 'have-nots' and the next generation that will one day question why we did nothing as their heritage was sold off bit by bit.

[bread_and_roses]

80. good for you, my Sister, if I may call you so....

I hope that I may call you "sister" in the spirit of early "second wave" feminism - it's a language of unity that I miss, and what I thought as soon as I read your post.

good for you, good for you. I could say that to every one of your down-thread posts, but I will let here suffice except for the Katrina one, which I think everyone should read.

Your story - with a few different details - could be mine. I see no need to repeat the points of your eloquent post, other than to affirm them.

[Totally Committed]

81. Thank you Sister kenzee13!

I so appreciate the kind words! (And the sisterhood!)

TC

[AJH032]

84. Take away the DLC label and what do we have?

moderate Democrats. There always have been, and always will be. So what, now they have a council. Republicans have conservatives, extreme conservatives, and moderate conservatives too. Always have been, always will be. I guess, that's another reason I don't get the DLC hate. Moderate Dems are entitled to their opinions and if a majority of dems want to nominate them for President or any other office, then I guess that's just reflective of the American Democratic majority.

[Totally Committed]

86. DLC are not moderate Democrats. Sorry, they are not.

Their ideology is far more inline with being moderate Republicans.

I wouldn't be so upset about having them putting candidates forward if I didn't believe that. Olympia Snowe is more moderate than most DLC electeds, and at least when she votes with the Republicans, she's voting with her own Party, not against it.

TC

[AJH032]

87. I bet Republicans would say the same thing

that centrist Republicans are RINOS, Dems-in-disguise. They're Dems if they want to be, and I'm sure they know better than you or me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. please keep in mind that the DLC goes on the mainstream media

regularly and backs up the GOP talking point that the Democratic Party is too dominated by far-leftist and ultra-liberals. They don't just spread their anti-Democratic Party poison on obscure call-in radio shows. I've sat in my hotel room in Manila and heard them say it on the BBC. They are the ones who started this fight. They give valuable aid to the GOP in its propaganda war by doing this.

Yet, they don't want to talk about what they are actually proposing.

Is the Democratic Party full of hard-leftist and ultra-liberals?? Could somebody name just one? Who of significance in the Democratic Party is hard-left? And much more importantly, what proposals are these alleged "hard-leftist" making that makes them unelectable "hard-leftist"?

They love to hearken back to Mondale and Dukakis claiming they lost so badly because they were just sooooooooo liberal. What on earth was in Mondale or Dukakis's proposals that were just soooooooooo liberal?

(nonetheless,if push comes to shove, I will vote against any Republican and for the one most likely to defeat that Republican every time.)

[Q]

88. It seems to me that this is a fight for the soul of the party...

...On the one side we have the People. They want a party and government of PUBLIC SERVANTS...not elitist politicians looking to enrich themselves and advance their careers.

On the other side we have the ruling class and their industries. They bought off the Republican party long ago and now they're working on the Democratic party. The party wasn't for sale when liberals and progressives had more influence. But it is now that the Clinton DLCers are in control.

Which side will win the battle for control of the party? I'm betting on progressives winning...once America finally realizes that Robber Barons have returned to steal what they earned with their blood, sweat and tears.

[rhett o rick]

89. Thank you for this. However, how, specifically do we fix the Democratic

Party? For example, in Washington (the state) Sen Cantwell is up for re-election. She is not the best example of progressiveness. She has lots of corporation money. How do we get her out for a candidate more responsive to the people's needs. No Democrat will dare run against her. The Party is happy with her. We have no options. We have no control. We are doomed.

[eridani]

91. The problem is not enough progressives in the pipeline

--with the street cred and name recognition that comes from either holding local office or having some conspicuous success at organizing on some issue (for instance, Dwight Pelz is "that guy who got the sales tax off of food", and Brita Butler-Wall is "that lady who got the junk food out of schools".)

For too long, lefties have disdained electoral politics. Socialist Bernie Sanders looks set to become Vermont's next senator because of a local power base that he has been building ever since first running for office in the mid-70s. If there were more lefties like him, what would our political landscape now look like?

[Nothing Without Hope]

92. Totally agree. These people are just smooth-talking GOP-enablers.

They are not on our side, both the GOP and they are on the side of corporate interests above all else. Both sides are hypocrites and betrayers, and neither is to be trusted.