DLC - Corporate Moles Destroying Our Party

[iconoclastNYC]

"One by one, Fortune 500 corporate backers saw the DLC as a good investment. By 1990 major firms like AT&T and Philip Morris were important donors. Indeed, according to Reinventing Democrats, Kenneth S. Baer's history of the DLC, Al From used the organization's fundraising prowess as blandishment to attract an ambitious young Arkansas governor to replace Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia as DLC chairman. Drawing heavily on internal memos written by From, Bruce Reed, and other DLCers, Baer says that the DLC offered Clinton not only a national platform for his presidential aspirations but "entree into the Washington and New York fundraising communities." Early in the 1992 primaries, writes Baer, "financially, Clinton's key Wall Street support was almost exclusively DLC-based," especially at firms like New York's Goldman, Sachs."

"While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW."

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

In 1996 Lieberman, Breaux, and Simon Rosenberg founded the New Democrat Network political action committee. "Our role is to add political muscle," says Rosenberg. In the 1997–1998 reporting period, its first full cycle, NDN raised $1.4 million directly, and another $1.2 million in so-called "bundled" contributions, gathered at fundraisers for individual candidates and funneled through NDN. In the 1999–2000 period, NDN more than doubled its take, raising $4 million directly and bundling $1.45 million more, plus $450,000 for GoreLieberman. Nearly $2 million of NDN's take in the last cycle came in large, unregulated soft-money chunks from companies such as Aetna, AT&T, and Microsoft and from trade groups such as the Securities Industry Association, who helped sponsor a $1.2-million fundraiser honoring Lieberman on February 13.

NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

from "How the DLC Does It" ----- http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[FloridaPat]

1. Pretty much what Nadar said and still says. Also Michael Moore.

[paulk]

3. and both Nader and Moore have done so much more than the

DLC in getting Democrats elected.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Paul

Ya lost me.

Was that sarcastic?

[paulk]

15. like it or not, we need the DLC

they raise a lot of money - they help get Democrats elected

They played a big role here in Colorado (a red state) in giving Democrats control of the Statehouse for the first time in over thirty years.

A third of our Democratic Senators are DLC members.

-----------------

sarcastic?

I guess - in the sense that I don't recall any candidates that Nader or M. Moore (who campaigned for Nader in 2000)
have helped get elected.

Other than GW Bush.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Sarcastic, yes, in that you said they DID help get Dems elected

and appear to have meant the opposite.

Ah, gotcha.

[paulk]

26. forget the emoticon again

:dunce:

[radio4progressives]

28. sorry brother, but sooner or later your world view is going down in flames

you can choose to fight for the change that is necessary and do it now, or you can go off your merry way in support of the status quo.

you like the status quo, fine.. go for it.

but don't EXPECT and DEMAND that I should follow your path.

[paulk]

34. you don't know me

or anything about me

you don't know my world view


"status quo"?

I can't tell you how funny that this

[sandnsea]

93. Has to be a better way

Rants and rampages aren't the answer, but I am not ready to concede to the DLC either. I'm not trying to figure out how to retire and maybe travel a little anymore. I'm just hoping I don't get a life threatening illness so that I can live and that I won't be priced out of the housing market so I don't have to live in the street. Some retirement. Thank you corporate America for giving all the money to the stockholders and dumping on the workers. That is not the Democratic Party either but the DLC doesn't seem to understand what is happening to us out here.

[paulk]

152. there does have to be a better way

what I'm willing to concede to the DLC is that they know how to raise money and get people elected.

In some cases that is a good thing. Races in districts or states where liberal candidates can't win, for instance.
Other places - Connecticut and Holy Joe come to mind - I would like to see the influence of the DLC curbed.

The last election showed that significant amounts of money can be raised in nontraditional ways - and that's a start in breaking the influence of corporate donations.

The main point I'm trying to make in my defence of the DLC is not in justifying their politics, many of which I disagree with, but in defending the notion that they have a legitimate place at the Democratic table.


--------------


And that rants and rampages aren't the answer!

:)

[Warren Stupidity]

154. The Republican party knows how to get people elected too.

I mean what exactly is your point? If all we want to do is be on the team that 'gets people elected' why don't we all just become Republicans? Isn't it about WHO we get elected and WHAT policies they support?

[paulk]

164. my point is clear

and "who" we get elected often depends on "who" we nominate.

swirl that around in your head awhile, Mr. Stupidity, and if you can come up with something other than your usual
non sequitur, feel free to reply.

[Warren Stupidity]

166. Your point isn't clear at all.

"and "who" we get elected often depends on "who" we nominate" - well paul, that is on the surface a truism: obviously who we don't nominate won't get elected.

However the assumption behind your post it seems is that DLC and New Democratic candidates are the 'road to victory', which nonsense we stupid people over on the left have have been hearing from you geniuses over on the right for the last 16 years or so, while your side has led us through defeat after defeat after defeat. Sorry if I don't buy the argument that being republican-lite is the road to victory. Voters seem to prefer real Republicans over fake ones.

[Free the Press]

246. Yeah, Warren Stupidity, ask Mr.Benchley! He knows too! (Link below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951353

[Moochy]

247. Ahh The archives

A fine thing, aint it? (snicker)

You posted a link to one of my favorite threads. bookmarking for its pure hypocrisy.

[mtnsnake]

183. LOL!

"swirl that around in your head awhile, Mr. Stupidity"

:rofl:

[rhett o rick]

225. And my point is that we have to shrug the yoke of the corp elitists. nm

[paulk]

231. and you're going to do that by

purging what you consider the corporate elitist wing, (in your opinion) of the Democrat Party (an opinion that is not
shared by the majority of Democrats, btw)thereby - what? Driving those people (I should remind you that a third of the Democratic Senators are DLC members) into the arms of the other party? Giving the Republicans - the real corporate elitists (who already have control of all three branches of government) a super majority?

Is that your plan?

I mean, sloganeering is fun and all, but it helps to understand what the possible consequences of your actions could be...

[rhett o rick]

233. My plan is to either purge the Demo Party of the corp elitists or

leave. You say the "real corporate elitists" are republican. Corp greed money knows no party lines. Corp money wants Hillary to run against the republicans. They win either way. To support demo corp elitists over republicans just to slow the march to tyranny doesn't suit me. I will not sell out my principles to "win". What is your plan? Drink the cool-aide the DLC is selling?

[paulk]

237. I've outlined my "plan" pretty clearly in this thread

thank you for providing your plan.

I would, once again, ask you to consider the consequences of your plan.

[Tim Howells]

132. Wrong!! They get corporate shills pretending to be democrates elected (NT)

[abex]

229. money corrupts the process and you want more of it?

[paulk]

232. do you know of a way to get elected in our current system

that doesn't require money? Lots of it?

If you do, I could get you Howard Dean's address. I'm sure he'd like to hear from you.

[abex]

235. election finance reform. yes it would require changing the system

[LWolf]

236. I don't "need" the DLC, thanks.

I "need" to elect candidates that the DLC wouldn't support; candidates that won't take their money.

[The Backlash Cometh]

64. I think it's obvious that the future of the Democrats is building from

the bottom up. We just need Nader and Moore to get more sophisticated so they can reach out to more people. Personally, I don't see them marketable right now. They will always have their base, but if they want to go beyond that base, they're going to have to clean up good.

[iconoclastNYC]

143. You are right

The future of the Democratic party is coming from the bottom up.

However the DLC is standing in the way of this progress. They are using thier considerable clout with the media to undermine this process.

The DLC must be dealt with. We grassroots activists need to learn about the DLC and arm ourselves with enough facts to educate our fellow democrats about what they are, who funds them, and what they aim to do to our party.

The DLC sycophants and apologists on DU are all trying to tell us that the DLC is powerless and harmless, or we need them.

The truth is they are our enemies. They work against us. They tell our leaders that sticking to your principals and fighting agressively for them is a loser way to go.

It is my view of the DLC that they exist to slowly render our party useless, and I think they're well on the way to that goal.

We have to get the rank and file of the DNC to recognize that the biggest threat to our party is the enemy within.

[peacetalksforall]

147. Iconoclast - again you are absolutely correct. They have created and

maintained the allusion that there are two parties. They are not us. According to their plan, I may be considered a citizen, but they think of me as allustionist sucker number 187885.

[The Backlash Cometh]

148. They think of you as the loony left.

When you think about it, they consider Affirmative Action loony left. That's probably my greatest deal breaker with the Democratic party.

[paulk]

185. what grassroot activists need to do is build an organization

that is as good at raising money and getting people elected as the DLC is.

Spending your time going after the DLC is a waste of resources.

------------

the rank and file recognizes that the "biggest threat to our party" is the Republicans.

it would be to your advantage to recognize that also.


----------------


How do you expect anyone outside of the the DU/PI echo chamber to take you seriously when you proclaim
the DLC as the "enemy"? You are declaring a significant number of your own party members (providing you are actually a Democrat) as the enemy - and this is going to accomplish ... what?

You want to be a "grassroots activist"? Convince people to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans.

You know - Republicans - the party of George Bush. The party that currently controls all three branches of our government.

The real enemy.

[peacetalksforall]

186. The only progress coming out of the DLC is a swing further to the right of

center and a steady bending and bowing to the enemy. They might as well carry, hold, and kiss the ermine robe. I am fed up with Dems not learning anything from them. I am fed up with them not doing anything for Dems. They are antiquated, ineffective, and full of pretense. And based on what I've learned in this thread, I am going to consider them dangerous.

[paulk]

206. I hear this a lot - the idea that the DLC is moving the party to

the right.

Voters are moving this party to the right. Nobody is forcing primary or general election voters to
vote for DLC candidates. They're doing it of their own free will.

The rest of your post is just the usual nonsense, the sort of hyper lefty rhetoric that gets rejected time and time again by...

guess who?

Voters.

------------

Once again - I'll say it. How do you expect to change people's minds with this kind of rhetoric? How do you expect to change the Democratic Party by trashing it?

[peacetalksforall]

208. I woke up. I was ignorant about the DLC. I can wake others. We trust

that 'the Party' is doing their best to win. I repeat - I woke up and I can wake others.

Wake Up! Stay Awake! Wake Others!

P.S. I was also asleep about the ruinous policies of corporations and their overwhelming negative impact on citizens. However, you can say I was dozing, because I did learn a lot - example what ITT and Anaconda particpated in (or asked for) in Chile with the right wing U.S. State Dept, CIA, and Ops and Mil takeover. And the fact that they replaced a duly elected person with a criminal and that many people died. You can say I wasn't completely asleep - I was dozing.

The DNC and DLC was all a blur. But one factor had me roused - I deplored their pitiful showing whenever they and theirs appeared as a guest on right wing tv and radio. I felt a sickening weakness and bowing-bending. I wanted to shout - YOU ARE NOT TALKING FOR ME - you weak representative. I wanted to shout - DEFEND THAT PERSON. DEFEND THAT POLICY.

I can teach others what I've learned. Teaching - our greatest tool in our spread out world.

Put another way - I just don't remember them fighting! I always had the feeling that it was a little club. I felt the unions were stronger than they were.

[Catrina]

217. It was 'that kind of rhetoric' that woke me up. I had no idea about the

DLC until I heard that kind of rhetoric, after which a light bulb went off and I realized why we did not get a chance to vote in the primaries. We did not get a chance to nominate anyone. It was all decided and paid for by the DLC. I then woke up a lot of other people. That's how it works. They've had more than a decade to infiltrate the Democratic Party. We're just getting started rooting out the plants.

I know now why we lose every election. Why every bill that benefits corporations and trashes the working class, passes.

Those real Democrats who always vote for the people, need support. This Party has been infiltrated by the corporations. If I were a Corp. I'd probably think of doing the same thing. But I have principles.

More and more people are learning about the DLC. Every day, a few more learn and it explains everything about the failure of the Demcratic Party to protect the interests of the American people.

It was brilliant, really. Funding only candidates who would vote for wars and other Corporate interests. But the game is up, they have to go. Let them start a thrid party and let the people then decide who they want.

You say the people voted for them. The people had no choice other than Bush. The people were deceived and people don't like being deceived. I for one would never support anyone again who is funded by the DLC. I will be checking that this time and spreading the word.

[iconoclastNYC]

218. No dude.

You don't understand. A DLC democrat who undermines our agenda at every opportunity is worthless. We need real Democrats. That means exposing the DLC interlopers and explaining to befuddled Democrats why are party has gone to shit and who's responsible.

We have to cut out the cancerous DLC. As soon as we deal with that the health of the party will improve and we'll be able to effectively target and vanquish the Republican party.

Learn more about the DLC.

[paulk]

228. "befuddled Democrats"

once again - the "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric.

Guaranteed to win friends and influence people out here in the real world.

-------------------------------
"learn more about the DLC"


That's your idea of an argument? Insinuating that your opponent is ... uninformed? Stupid?
That didn't work in High School debate class and it doesn't work here. All it does is expose the bankrupt nature of your own arguments.

----------------------------
dude?

I haven't been called "dude" in thirty years.



-----------------


your solution - we have to kill the party to save it.

I'll tell you something -

anyone advocating your extreme solution for "dealing with the health of the Democratic Party" is, at best, questionably a member of that party. Especially now when it's beginning to look as if the Democrats have a real chance at taking back the Congress this November. Your efforts as a "doctor" ignore the basic credo of that profession.

First, do no harm.

[rucky]

59. LALALALALALA I CAN"T HEEEEEAR YOUUUUUU!

:)

[napi21]

2. I don't understand why we can't have both the DNC & the DLC.

They're different! But they can both be Dem groups!

The DLC collects a LOT of $$, and wether you like it or not, campaigns COST A LOT OF $$!

I think Dean is doing a great job as chair of the DNC and he IS collecting a lot of $$, but not nearly as much as the Pubs!

It's always been that way because most weathy people are Pubs and ATHEY are the ones with the disposable income!

[radio4progressives]

7. please read the op again, slowly this time... n/t

[napi21]

14. I did, just as you asked. So let me say this again!

I don't understand why both groups can't be part of the Dem Party?

What's described in the OP is almost a clone of the Pub Party. They have names for their levels like "Pioneers" etc., but it's basicly the same concept.

I told you, yuo may not liek it, but campaigns are very expensive! You just can't be competative with taking the high ground alone!

I'm not willing to lose another election, just so I can say "Yea, but we fought fair, and we supported our base"!

You gotta play the hand you've been dealt! That's the hard cold fact!

[radio4progressives]

27. You have Howard Dean as your avatar and you still stand by this?

You're not interested the clean money campaign?

The success of a clean money campaign would change everything about the way campaigns are conducted and financed.

I'm not interested in the politics being the "hand I'm dealt with".

I'm interested in REAL CHANGE, and I won't support what you're advocating.

In fact, I have been and will continue to fight hard against it. and not just on the "internets" .

[Warpy]

8. The DLC needs to be pushed onto the sidelines

their policies examined and mostly discarded (they're yuppie policies) and their campaign handlers left to languish at their day jobs as corporate lobbyists.

We need to build a consensus within the party that addresses the needs of the traditional working class base of the party, something that was abandoned 37 years ago. We need to continue Dean's work rebuilding a grassroots organization, people who will go knock on doors instead of people who will mail slick flyers, write us a check, fill out a poll but don't expect us to read it.

We need to reestablish the party as a true counter to the corporatist, cheap labor, pro aristocracy GOP. We need to reestablish the principle that a government of, by and for the people needs to stand with the people against the rich and powerful.

The DLC can be useful as an advisory group on how conservative constituencies will react to some progressive legislation. However, putting them at the center of party power has cost the party all 3 branches of government and the trust of its traditional base. It's way past time for them to go.

[radio4progressives]

18. Very well put...

I could live with the notion of some DLC representatives on an advsiory panel, or a dlc advisory panel that had to work with a progressive advisory panel so that there was a bit of equalibrium - no one group having more power and influence vis a vis personal agendas (i know that's nearly impossible) or undoe influence by Corporate funding.

so that the power of good ideas would flourish and rise to the top and the bad ideas would vanquish.

[paulk]

10. the truth is

there are places in this country where the DLC can help get Democrats elected.

and we need to get Democrats elected. period.

we need to take back the Congress in November - and if the DLC helps in that effort

I can live with it.

And you're right - politics is all about money these days - it's not a playing field most here at DU would choose

but it's the one we've got. Those are the political realities right now.

-------------

[radio4progressives]

11. you have heard of the idea of pushing for change?

change the reality.. and do it now, our democracy depends on it.

[paulk]

19. our democracy depends on Democrats winning elections

you can't push for change when the other party controls all three branches of the government.

that's the reality that needs changing.

[radio4progressives]

23. that's not all our democracy depends on.

what happened when Bush & Co. came into office had foundation laid for them to build on - and it was under both parties over the decades.

incrementally, brick by brick.

[paulk]

30. right now it does - the Bush admin is the greatest threat

to our Democracy in my lifetime.

and I don't agree with you that the Democrats share the blame for what Bush has done -

which is essentially what you're saying.

I'm not saying the Democratic Party doesn't deserve criticism

some members more than others

what I'm saying is that now is not the time for this battle

when we're at war -

at war with a group of theofascist thugs willing to trample our constitution

and, yes, our democracy - to achieve their ends

-----------------------

the way to stop them is to retake the Congress and use the subpoena power that comes with that

to put these fuckers out of office

and hopefully into a prison cell

[radio4progressives]

35. Clearly, you didn't even learn the lessons the Alito Confirmation Revealed

that just about says it all..

[paulk]

145. don't tell me what I have or haven't learned

your habit of resorting to denigrating the intelligence

of your opponents

reflects poorly on you.

[AtomicKitten]

36. You have your priorities straight, sir.

I consider the Bush Admin evil, the DLC a pain in the ass.

Big difference.

[The Magistrate]

51. An Excellent Summary, Ma'am

"The invader is a disease of the skin; the usurper is a disease of the heart."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Free the Press]

248. When Republicans openly run as DLC Democrats for public office? PURE!

The DLC is to the Democratic Party what the middlemen are to retail consumers: in the way, and corporate shills, IMO.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Until elections are publically-funded, I'm afraid we must compete.

If we are guaranteed across-the-board control, put me down for grassroots/publically-funded elections.
However, the DLC raises the big bucks, and we simply cannot be at the mercy of the Swift Boat Liars for lack of funding.

I too think we need to be more tolerant of other Democrats within the party and quit trying to squeeze out factions we don't agree with.

[radio4progressives]

9. Feingold Does just fine with 90% of contributions at $60. from individual

voters and a cap.

there's a vigourous clean money campaign movement right now that we're trying to get through legislation, or the next ballot initiative in California. If we can succeed, and I think we can handily, it'll sweep the country.

The only major groups that will try to co-opt or block this initiative this will be the DLC, the Christian Coalition, and Big Business.

[napi21]

17. She's running a State Campaign, and she's also from a State

where there's LOTS of disposable income if you get the right supporters!

I think we need to use whatever tools we find in our quiver. If that includes the DLC, that's fine with me. Just because $$ comes from large businesses doesn't make it dirty money!

[radio4progressives]

20. You confused Dianne Feinstein, I was speaking about Russ Feingold!

Very different people, very different politics.

(on edit: i can see how easy it is to be confused on these two names)

[iconoclastNYC]

215. Ding Ding Ding

A lot of comparisons between how the Christian Coalition built up power and how the DLC built up power.

And they both stand in the way of people-powered Democracy. They only want big unaccountable institutional Democracy.

[PATRICK]

16. Insidious argument

as it usually turns out in most things. If you can survive the evils you dabble in to play a game you can't repair, two things usually happen- and neither is the victory of pragmatic virtue and reason!

First, you will get corrupted just enough to be destroyed- not to compete with the elite corrupt.

Second, you will keep finding excuses why reform is impossible. And those excuses are just that. Efforts to reform will be LESS effective than corruption in gaining power. Witness the pathetic attempts at "bi-partisan" reform leading up to but not exclusively, the HAVA sham.

[paulk]

24. what's your solution?

everyone knows the game is rigged, but you can't just walk off the field!

do you have an answer?

[PATRICK]

48. If the field is rigged

and the umpire is bought, you DO walk off the field loudly and publicly and take it to the people at least. Other countries have parties that must resort to these things(success can't enter into the calculation, they are past that). How the people judge you defines your ultimate success. In the present thought mode our leaders are comfortably hamstrung until it gets THAT bad here, though many posit it already is. Hence the debate.

If you ARE going to win a rigged game you have to be smarter, not more diligent in being led by the nose.
Haven't seen even a hint of that yet, even in the imaginary secret plans invented on DU as possible rationality for suicidal party policies. Straight up, march into the guns, faith in the rules, collaboration with the nice part of the crime.

Suggestions? Go with Dean's instincts.

[AtomicKitten]

29. no, it's a realistic argument.

Like I said, I'm all for it if all parties abide by the restrictions.

If not, it's balls out as far as I'm concerned.

I will not risk the Republicans remaining in power so I can brag about being pristine. That's not pragmatism, it's suicide.

[radio4progressives]

31. Pristine? Who the hell is advocating Pristine?

this is the kind of pedestrian logic that drives me freaking nuts.

it's a false premise, a phony arguement.

[AtomicKitten]

33. OK, then what's your problem with DLC money then?

and it's only a false premise in your mind unless you can prove it otherwise.

[radio4progressives]

37. My problem with the Multi Nationals and Big Business Funding Political

campaigns, not to mention groups that fund think tank institutions that are anethema to everything the Democratic Party should be standing for?

Standing against that paradigm is NOT advocating perfection or "pristine" methods of campaigning.

But more to the point, why are you interested in setting up straw man arguments instead of getting at the root of these serious issues?

[AtomicKitten]

49. If you can't win elections, you can't govern.

And that's not a strawman argument. That's rubber-meets-the-road logic.

Your objections are to the current election financing system, but you are aiming your wrath at the Democratic Party. And it's a specious argument.

There is nothing wrong with corporations giving money to candidates and political parties. It's what they get in return that is the problem. You impugn the Democratic Party with your insinuation that they can be bought.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that the paradigm bites, but it doesn't change the fact that that is the way things are run.

Now you can scamper off and back a terrific guy like Dennis Kucinich (I've met him and raised lots of money for him myself) knowing that without the big bucks your message will not be amplified culminating in approximately 2-3% of the vote, or you can pull up your socks and work within the current party system.

And unless you can wave a magic wand and solve the problem of money in politics, it is foolish of you to try to hamstring the Democrats with your holier-than-thou finger-wagging.

I expect you'll be calling for reinforcements from PI about now.

[radio4progressives]

94. No, I will not continue to support this corrupt system and paradigm,

I will work for communities, movements and candidates who walk along a much different path.

[The Magistrate]

54. A Couple Of Points, Ma'am

Money is to politics as bullets are to war. The stuff is absolutely essential, and must be got from somewhere. As matters stand now, the only reliable source is people with more money than they can use who want favors done for them. Therefore that is the source people who need the item turn to.

The only real way to alter this is to demonstrate the existance of a similarly reliable alternative source. No amount of harrangue, no conceivable protestation, can suffice, not against the absolute need for the article. Gov. Dean has shown that it may be possible, through energetic canvassing and taking advantage of modern comunications, to supply a reliable alternatove source of funds from the Party members themselves. It has not yet proved itself completely, though. But te only real way to reduce the influence of corporate monies is to reduce the proportion of campaign funds they provide.

Public financing, though a laudable idea, has some drawbacks on close consideration and does not seem likely any time soon, at least on a national level. One of those drawbacks is deciding who gets the public funds, for there must be qualifying thresholds, otherwise subsifies will be going to a variety of cranks, including noxious bigots and mere thrill-seekers, which will rouse public revulsion at the new system. Public financing would likely, if anything, further cement the current two party system.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AtomicKitten]

60. I consider internet fund raising public financing.

Perhaps not in the institutional sense. Rumor has it Gore didn't run in 2004 because the DLC, the only big bucks at the time (concomitant with the Dean campaign, but his success hadn't reached fruition), didn't want him as the candidate. Dean opened up the possibilities of genuine public financing, er, what I refer to public financing (I do know what you are referring to), and that is grassroots, individual donor financing. I really think we can compete with the corporate donors on the other side of the aisle. Of course, until that premise has been proved unequivocally, we cannot afford to hamstring the Dems.

I'm hoping Gore runs because he seems to be an acceptable candidate across-the-board. I really believe people will pour their hearts (as well as wallets) into such a campaign.

[The Magistrate]

67. Indeed, Ma'am

The wing-walker's first rule of survival: "Don't let go of this before you got ahold of that."

[radio4progressives]

100. Here's a New Paradigm: "Clean Money Campaign" just WON a Major Victory in

California. The movement began before the 2004 elections, but really picked up steam after the national 2004 presidential stolen elections.

It's called the California Clean Money Campaign and it just passed the State Assembly. This campaign can and should be picked up across the nation, RIGHT NOW.

Please read about it here:

http://www.caclean.org/

[AZBlue]

169. This isn't the answer.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not the answer because it still allows candidates to take corporate funding. We have it already here in Arizona. It's gotten great people like Kyrsten Sinema, one of my personal heroes, elected. It gives the "little guy" a chance and allows voters to choose from a wider range of candidates. But, each candidate chooses whether to use the clean campaign funding option or not. If they opt out, they can and do take money from whoever they want. So, you're still stuck with politicians with ulterior motives.

I'd like to see the option eliminated. You want to run, you go with the clean elections rules. Or don't run. Period.

[trudyco]

181. Can you use your own money? I think that should be disallowed nt

[AZBlue]

195. Yes you can

I agree - the best way to make sure elections are honest is to have everyone on the same playing field: the same amount of money can be used by everyone. And only that amount.

[AZBlue]

168. Sums up my feelings exactly.

I'd LOVE to see election reform. I think it would be a giant step to ridding all government of corrpution. But, until that happens, we have to have the money to run. Otherwise, what are we all wasting our time here for?

[radio4progressives]

6. Excellent Post... k&r

just posted link to this thread to the nader bashing thread.

[ecoalex]

25. The DLC is establishment

The establishment does not like movements, or shocks.Dean was a shock, a popularist, so the establishment within the Democratic party sabbotaged him in Iowa.The establishment is perfectly fine with the repugs running the show, and the Dems trotting along side, but never do they intend the Dems to win again for many many years. Only with a groundswell, and pressure from enough will the Dems change and become a healthy party again. The repugs bought their way to where they are today, including the election machinery to guarantee their 50 years of power.The Dems will always have less money, or will have bad campaigns like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, all didn't get in there and fight , counter immediately false charges why? The etiquite of the Skull and Bones, or it's the establishment.The establishment again is not good for all as we saw with Katrina, or Iraq. It sure works for those with money, and those who want to please those with the money, the establishment.

[napi21]

42. Hmmmm, I have a problem with your logic.

First, let me say that I could never be a politician, because my ego isn't big enough!

You really have to believe YOU ARE the one for the job, and the other guy is an idiot!

I simply do not believe Gore, Kerry, ore even Dukakis don't have that same HUGH ego that it takes to actually WIN an election!

I still don't know why they didn't pull off the gloves in their compaigns. I can only assume that because they all have handlers now, the handlers were screwups, and the candidate listened to them!

[IA_Seth]

165. Oh geez..more Iowa conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

Were you in Iowa leading up to the caucus?

Dean had a TON of out-of-state support, sure. He had his supporters, he was doing alright.

But Kerry and Edwards connected with Iowans more, they had IOWANS doing grunt work, working the phone banks, and knocking on doors. Kerry had the Eastern Iowa AFL-CIO's head as a personal friend, a friend who held huge rallies and fund raisers. Through the unions Kerry had the support of a TON of state and local electeds, who in turn had their supporters go Kerry.

It wasn't a conspiracy and no one was "sabotaged". Kerry had the manpower, the local Iowans, changing minds and gaining support. Dean didn't.

I like Dean, but this whole victim complex by some of his supporters is enough to make me sick.

[depakid]

12. Can't argue with the results

The Dem's fall from power corresponds with the rise of DLC influence on policies and public statements.

Now, the party is widely considered to be spineless- standing for nothing and unduely inluenced by corporate money just like the Republicans.

And now that the DLC calls many of the shots, the Dems have become all but irrelevant in national politics. And they look to remain so.

[napi21]

22. Are you telling me that the only prominent Dems we have in

the Party are all DLC?

If not, where's the voice of those who aren't?

I don't see or hear ANY Dems, except for Howard, that are willing to step up to a mike and call it like it is!

Murtha came close when he insisted that Shrub's ideas on the war are just wrong! But even he backs off when someone pushes him by asking why he has very little PArty support!

[loudsue]

134. NO!! The "prominent" Dems are NOT DLC. The PROMINENT

DEMS are LIBERALS. The asshole dems are DLC. They vote with the republicans, take money from republicans, and divide the democratic party on all issues, large and small.

They get money from republicans. Get it? They have the republican IDEAS, they drink the republican KOOL-AID. They are republicans who have infiltrated the democratic party to bring it down. It was intentional, and part of the republican party strategy to create the DLC (republican arm of the democratic party).

Why do you keep looking at a lizard, and keep trying to tell everybody it's a dove?

It just ISN'T.

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

32. No, the Dems rise to power was Clinton, and he's DLC.

and I don't know where you get the idea that the DLC calls the shots. Candidates choose their influence, not the other way around.

[napi21]

40. I never said the DLC calls the shots! I'm the one arguing that we

can have BOTH the DNC & DLC in the Party.

[AtomicKitten]

50. my response was to post #12.

in the upper lefthand corner of each post lists which your post is in response to.

[depakid]

44. With every sell out

with every backstab, with every set of votes on Republican nominees and Republican legislation- the DLC (as a concept- not as the pathetic organization) is calling the shots- and legitimizing far right policies.

And Clinton was NOT the Dems rise to power. LOL. He was as much if anything their undoing. The very next election after he was sworn in, the Dems lost Congress (for the first time since 1946) and the senate. And it doesn't look like they're going to gain it back anytime soon.

Clinton also handed the far right the entire broadcast media on a silver platter-

If ANYONE wanted to deal the Democratic party a death blow, they'd be hard pressed to do one better. Not only did Clinton utterly fail to use his agencies to responsibly regulate (pretty much anything)- but he actually appointed Micheal Powell to continue the policies put in motion by the Reagan administration.

And he pushed forward the telecommunications bill that consolidated almost all of radio into the hands of clear channel and viacom (CBS)- leaving vast stretches of the nation with nothing to listen to except far right hate radio and generic "music."

Yep, the DLC's been an excellent influence on the Party alright.

[DaveofCali]

46. noone here should be surprised if the Democrats lose in November n/t

[depakid]

47. The surprise would be

if they managed to break even.... after selling out the base (and everyone else) on Alito- with many of them looking like idiots by voting against him- while not trying to stop him.

After encouraging Kaine to go high profile with his vacuous drivel- it would be hard to imagine any other result.

[leftstreet]

13. Kick - because this discussion is important to the Dem Party n/t

This discussion needs more attention.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. All this crap about "but we have to win"

The question is, do you deserve to win if your funding comes mostly from large corporations, because mark my word, those corporations aren't contributing to Dems out of the goodness of their hearts. Usually they contribute to both R's and D's and are quite upfront about doing it because they want "access."

"Access" means you go to Senator X or Congresscritter Y and hint strongly that unless the legislator votes your way, there won't be any funding next time around. "Access" means that the CEO of Acme Widgets will get an appointment before an ordinary person will. "Access" means that Senator X and Congresscritter Y become part of the Washington cocktail party circuit with all the big funders and don't have time to go to Joe's Coffee Shop and listen to some actual constituents.

The DLC claims that only it can win in the Red States, because the Red States are "conservative." It may be fair to say that the Red States are socially conservative, but what is totally in-valid is the idea that the Red States want economic conservatism. The Red States may want restrictive abortion laws and free and easy gun laws, but I've never heard that they're eager for "free" trade, harsher conditions for debtors, higher state and local taxes to compensate for federal tax cuts for the rich, privatized Social Security, or government coddling of insurance companies.

Yet it's the DLCers who vote for "free" trade, the bankruptcy bill, and tax cuts for the rich and belittle anyone who wants policies that benefit ordinary people or inconvenience the rich.

The corporations realize that it looks bad to have one-party rule, so they're willing to let the Dems win occasionally. But above all, they want TAME Dems who won't upset their cushy little system.

[napi21]

41. Yes, you're partly right. Most people contribute to

specific candidates for personal reasons, and Corps. are no different.

There's a reason you didn't mention, why many Corps. contribute to both sides. It's when they're not sure who's going to win, so they want to be "buddy buddy" with both.

But think about it, seniors usually vote for the candidate who they believe will make sure they keep their Social Security. AND lots of 'em join the AARP so that group will represent THEM in DC. THAT'S a lobbyiest!

The NRA is probably the most well known, and most of their members don't just pay their dues to get the magazine. They do it because they believe the NRA will stop anyone from taking their guns!

I can't even fault a Corp. for trying to persuade politicians to give them tax breaks and other advantages. The PROBLEM comes when those that WE elect forget that they are representatives of their constituents and NOT whoever gave 'em the most $$!

Jack Abermoff is a greedy bastard and a user, but I really don't fault HIM nearly as much as I fault the elected officials who accepted his bribes!

I still believe the Dems need to use every tool they have, and that means the DNC, DLC, DCCC, and personal contributions where ever they can get them.

I almost feel guilty saying this, but since the Super Bowl is on Sunday, I'll do a quote from way back in Super Bowl I. "Winning isn't the only thing, it's everything!" Vince Lombardi

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. If we get a whole Congress full of "business friendly, pro-defense" Dems

what's the point? We'll merely go off the cliff at 30 mph instead of at 60 mph. So many of our nation's problems, both domestically and internationally, can be traced back to decades of "business friendliness" and "pro-defense" attitudes, i.e. letting the military-industrial complex do whatever it damn pleases.

No, napi, winning is not the only thing. I like this quote from Alduous Huxley. "The end cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the ends produced."

[napi21]

45. Well Lydia, I'd be willing to accept your ideas if there were

any candidates like you described. Unfortunately, I see VERY VERY FEW!

Corzine, Rangel, and a handfull of others, and that's it!

Even when I think of some of the newbies like Hackett, Obama etc, I'm not sure just how they fit into what we'd all love to see in our Represenataives.

I think the problem is, you have to be wealthy to even think of running for a Fed. office. How can the average "Joe" quite his job to spend 1-2 years running around the State to make speeches? Even if he could get enough $$ to run the ads, it doesn't pay the bills and the mortgage.

The people who fall into that catagory really don't know what it's like to have to save for months to be able to buy something, or make a grocery list and stick to it because that's all you can afford to spend that week!

Unfortunately, the days of Harry Truman are gone, and I doubt we'll ever see them ever again.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. That's why we need publicly financed campaigns

:-)

and penalties for candidates who go beyond the spending limits.

Let's have a really level playing field.

[AtomicKitten]

55. hmmmm, wish I'd thought of that

oh wait, I did ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2434753&mesg_id=2434798

But your cohorts took issue with me. I guess from you it's a splendid idea.

[napi21]

58. I agree, but I question IF we will every get them, and I KNOW

we sure won't get them in time for 2006!!!!!

I'm really not trying to argue with you. I think we actually agree on the right things to do. I just happen to be a realist! Right now, we HAVE to play the hand we were dealt!

[The Magistrate]

62. Two Problems With This Analysis, Ms. Leftcoast

First, a decisive majority of voters in "red" states place a higher value on these moralistic concerns than they do on material well-being. Doing so is, for them, a form of spiritual expression, and it makes it very hard to approach them effectively with arguments rooted in materialism because, firstly, they honestly feel there is something wrong about placing material values first, and secondly, because they genuinely believe that spiritual matters are in order, material concerns will naturally improve in consequence, so that to the degree these do move them, they feel exalting their moral concerns is the best way to addfress that need. It may be wrong-headed in the extreme, but it is a real sentimenmt, and simply telling people they are wrong-headec and idiotic never changes a mind.

Second, while "red" state voters do not loudly claim they want free trade, etc., politicians successful in those states universally support the things you list, with the possible exception of higher local and state taxes. Thus, whatever the voters there might say, as a practical fact they do vote in support of these things. The reason for it it that they believe in the credo of individualism, in the idea that whatever happens in a person's life is essentially their own doing, whether for good or ill, and that persons must live by the consequences of what they do, whether these are rewards or privation. Most peope holding such views greatly over-rate their own chances of success, of course, but when they fail, they do blame themselves, and resent any who blame external factors instead.

All in all, the thing is a tough nut to crack, because it means finding an approach that will move people with a very differenet world view. But one thing is quite certain: the usual and habitual forms of left and radical agitation employed for the last several decades will not reach these people, and meet with angry rejection from them. The soluition certainly is not to mount political campaigns in those states on themes cribbed from Counter-Punch and Prof. Zinn.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. I would maintain, Your Honor, that the social issues are the vote getters

and that the politicians cynically tout their opposition to abortion or their love for guns while their true purpose is to do as many favors as possible for their corporate contributors. There's a certain type of single-issue voter who would vote for Kim Jong-Il as long as he opposed abortion/gay rights/gun laws/secularism/environmentalism, or whatever the voter's pet issue happens to be. Such voters do not care or even notice what the candidate's views on economic issues are.

As an example, let's look at Peter DeFazio of Oregon, who is nearly a socialist in most of his political views and who still manages to win not only the famously left-leaning population of Eugene but also the ranchers, loggers, and fishermen who make up most of his district. His secret? Aside from being immensely approachable and unassuming, he votes against gun control at every opportunity. He votes in line with the wishes of rural voters on the matter of gun control, and they seem not to mind that he is staunchly anti-war, pro-progressive taxation, pro-environment, and pro-national health care. I doubt that they even notice. Meanwhile, DeFazio's left-wing views on the economy and foreign policy endear him to the population of Eugene.

I think DeFazio is being cynical about the gun issue, just as I suspect that the Southern DLCers are equally aware that they can win votes by railling against abortion, gay rights, pornography, or (in coded language) racial equality, and that a sizable number of their constituents won't even notice that this supposedly staunch advocate of their "moral values" is blithely selling them out by voting for measures that will punch them right in the pocketbook.

[The Magistrate]

75. That Is Quite True, Ma'am

But the spiritual concerns these reflect do dove-tail nicely with the individualist credo to provide a sound bed-rock for reactionary exploitation on those lines, for this makes it unlikely that these people will protest the fleecing practiced upon them, or turn against those who fleece them by playing to their moralistic concerns to gain power. It is worth pointing out, too, that a number of people would denounce the fellow you mention as a sell-out for the sensible manipulation he engages in in Oregon. The lesson remains that the message must be tailored to the consumer in the local market, if success is to be achieved. Saying all the pure and right things accomplishes nothing if it does not result in obtaining office in which something can be really done.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Actually, Sir, in 19 years in Oregon, I never heard anyone

criticize DeFazio for his stance on gun control. Most leftists seem to be in on the joke. (By the way, despite Oregon's reputation as a "liberal" state, the rural areas are dominated by libertarian-leaning Republicans, and the state almost elected a law-and-order, tax-slashing, environment-raping Republican as governor in 2002.)

I might also cite the example of Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who votes anti-choice to please his Eastern European Catholic constituents on the Iron Range but is otherwise a staunch advocate for labor, the environment, and a humane foreign policy. A few one-issue pro-choice voters criticize him, but on the whole, he has a good reputation among Democrats here.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. Even Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill

But he manages to openly call himself a socialist and still win rural conservative Republican counties by landslide after landslide. When he appears on Fox News he gets inundated with fan mail from conservative Republicans who actually like what he has to say. I once by accident discovered a thread on FR about Bernie and expected a bunch of talk about him being a commie-traitor. Instead many of the comments border-lined on flattering--comments like; honest, straightforward, knows where he stands.

The key seems to be that Bernie has managed to change the subject and actually be honest, straightforward and "knows where he stands". Most importantly, has managed to make his political ideas relevant to peoples lives. By doing that they seem to forgive him for his liberal social views and even for making a trip to Managua to show his solidarity and support for the Sandinista revolution in spite of efforts by his opponents to draw attention to these things.

[benEzra]

136. As a gun owner living in a red state (NC),

I can tell you that a candidate's stance on the gun issue WILL make or break my decision to vote for her/him.

Candidate A tells you they'll support policies that may cost you some money and economic opportunity over time, or that they wish to mismanage some obscure point of foreign policy.

Candidate B says he'll fight hard to ban half the firearms in your guns safe, and "if you want to keep your guns, go join the military." Implicitly saying "Vote for me, and I'll send guys with machine guns and black body armor to YOUR door to confiscate your guns and take away your freedom."

If you were a gun owner, which candidate would threaten YOU more?


That is precisely the reason that in 2004, NC reelected our pro-gun, NRA-endorsed Democratic governor 55%/45% while simultaneously rejecting the anti-gun presidential ticket 45%/55%. Many of the SAME voters that pulled the lever for the Dem governor either left the presidential choice blank or pulled the lever for W. Edwards lost his own home state on the ban-more-guns platform.

Economic and foreign policy arguments will NEVER overcome direct threats to individuals' freedoms.

For some reason, it seems hard for some urban Dems to swallow the idea that a sizeable number of Dems and indies are genuinely in favor of widespread lawful gun ownership. I think only around half of gun owners are repubs, the rest are Dems and indies like me. Don't assume that a Dem is being "cynical" or merely pretending to support the right of the law-abiding to own the civilian gun of their choice.

These DU threads may give you a little more perspective on the issue:

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat

[Buck Rabbit]

149. And then Defasio's fellow Oregon congressman Blumenhauer

who has one of the safest Blue districts in the country, isnt a member of the progressive caucus. He doesn't need to pander to any fundie issue like Defasio yet he doesnt use his safe seat to be a vocal spokesman for progressive causes.

Earl is not a bad guy at all, but it is a shame that those who are in the districts that can safely speak out progressively try to play the middle.

I don't mind a DLCer getting elected in a red district. It is better than the alternative. I don't mind Defazio's support of guns as he is so progressive on everything else. I am more upset when a DLCer is elected as a democrat in a blue district where the average democrat does not realize they voted for a republican lite.

Frankly, I think progressives need to target DLC'ers in solid blue districts and states, and be thankful for them when they out pander a Republican in a red or up for grab district.

[Heewack]

87. Great post.

That sums up the issue we are facing about as succinctly as I have heard it expressed.

The credo of individualism blurs all other factors that may of detriment to that persons well being finanically or otherwise.

[DaveofCali]

39. of course: the Democrats have been losing because the DLC is an RNC mole

You have Corporations (including Koch) with ties to the Republican Party running the DLC? Thats like if back in the Cold War, one third of U.S. Congress representatives had a relationship with the Soviet Union. Talk about double agents. Talk about the Democratic Party being a total humiliation for the past 12 years. Hell I'm not going to waste my vote this year.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

63. I don't think the DLC is any more detrimental to the Dem Party

than some of the crap I read on "progressive" websites.

At least the DLC doesn't seek the demise of the Democratic Party.

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion.

But your last sentence seems to prove you have never read anything to come out of the likes of Whittman, From, Or Vilsack. I guess you have never seen A From giving Newt Gingrich a 'Lewinsky' in one of their faux debates, either.

They are all reactionary, ineffective, Vilsackian losers.

[AtomicKitten]

70. I've read quite a bit more than you realize, and have written opinions.

And your links are opinion pieces (one a bad link). I think you are having a problem tolerating a difference of opinion within the party. I realize the Big Tent notion is a "talking point" to some of you, however, it's a reality.

As "left" as you are, there are many "right" within the party, and I further to the left than center within the party wish for one goddamn minute those with their knickers in a twist would realize their opinion is just that, their opinion, and that others are entitled to theirs.

I am so sick of those on the far left expressing a desire to annihilate those on the far right within the party. I don't hear it vice versa but that would be unpalatable too.

In my eyes, we are all Democrats. Can't we all just get along?

* edited to admit a teensy bit of plagiarism in my final sentence.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. I'm a leftist huh? Interesting.

If you have read as much as you claim then you know the statements I made are true. Go to Whittman's blog and read his own words. Read A From's own words. Read what Vilsack the hand wringer had to say the other day. Come here and defend there own words.

I don't have any 'problems' tolerating a difference of opinions either, Am I the one telling people to leave the party? No, That would be you!

The only ting I want to annihilate is one damn thing LOSING.

[AtomicKitten]

77. on your final point we agree.

And you are still railing against an opinion, annoyed that I won't participate. I'm not going to defend anyone, right or left. My participation has been in the area of working elections, not party politics, and this in-house squabbling between the factions gives me a headache.

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. So that was different AtomicKitten telling folks to leave the party?

You cannot defend the words and actions of the DLC leaders and that is quite telling. It is not their opinion, IT IS THEIR OWN WORDS.

If you are not interested in party politics, stop labeling and slandering DUers who you do not know a darn thing about.

[AtomicKitten]

86. wow - you've really got your knickers in a twist

I haven't told anyone to leave the Democratic party and I think it's precisely that that pisses you off. I won't summarily dismiss the conservative Dems on your behalf, and that pisses you off.

Too bad.

And I find some of the crap rhetoric spewed here at DU just as offensive to my delicate senses as the DLC crap. How ya like them apples?

I think it's all bullshit.

If you harnessed your indignation and outrage and pointed it at the REAL opposition - THIS ADMINISTRATION, THE FUNDIES, AND THE GOP - you'd earn my respect.

[LincolnMcGrath]

90. You are aware of screen captures and the search feature, right?

:shrug:

[bvar22]

74. Oh, but it DOES!!!!

The original intent of the DLC was to kill the Democratic Party "as we know it"!!!
AND, they have been very successful!

It IS a creation of Corporate Owners and Management to INCREASE the influence of BIG MONEY Single Source interests inside the Democratic Party. It was CREATED and FUNDED BY BIG MONEY to change the Traditional Values of the Democratic Party by buying candidates and elections. The DLC has at its disposal all the resources of BIG CORPORATE America including the highly developed PR (advertising) Networks that are very successful at influencing public opinion.

"The DLC stands for nothing, nada" (except the flow of corporate cash into Democratic coffers).-Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration

At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party."

New Democrats in the House and Senate, led by the ethically challenged former New Dem co-chair Representative Jim Moran, worked with Republicans to frustrate Arthur Levitt, Clinton's chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in Levitt's attempt to ban auditors from doing consulting for the companies they audit. As Clinton notes, this led directly to the Enron scandals, in which auditors had every incentive to ignore shady off-the-books maneuvers.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020805&s=borosage20020726

For those who believe that the DLC is simply a harmless "Think tank", go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

From the DLC's OWN Website:
"Have Clinton and his allies in the Democratic Leadership Council succeeded in changing the philosophy of the Democratic Party into a New Democratic one? To the New Democrats, the answer seems clear. To them, not only is the era of big government over, but, in the words of the DLC's chairman, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), "the era of the party of big government is also over."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=955&kaid=127&subid=171



"The New Democrats apparently have begun this long march. The DLC has made training of a new generation of New Democrat leaders one of its primary objectives, continuing its efforts to work with and influence up-and-coming state and local officials. The New Democrat Network has grown quickly, increasing its ability to fund New Democrat candidates for federal office, including those running in primary contests."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=955&kaid=127&subid=171

Have any of you observed BIG MONEY showing up with a candidate in YOUR local primary elections?
I have!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=160&topic_id=14207&mesg_id=14367
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x14207


The DLC is MUCH MORE than a harmless think tank.
The DLC IS the creeping CorpoFascism that is destroying our Democracy. They are the primary tool used by BIG MONEY to destroy the Democratic Party from the inside!

The DLC is insidious! Betrayal from the inside is more dangerous than
a clear external enemy.

Question for the so called "New Democrats":
What was wrong with the Old Democrats?
The economic policies of the Old Democrats (FDR) catalyzed an unparalleled economic explosion that gave birth to the Middle Class in America and eventually provided Equal Rights for ALL Americans!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM
for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. You're wasting your time.

All those facts will be dimissed as opinions. lol :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

80. that's right, interpretation of facts is opinion.

I have been trained in my line of work to get up higher in the trees for an overview, looking at both sides. Being snotty and pissed off does not punctuate your point of view; in fact, it probably puts people off.

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. I never asked anyone to leave the party. You Did!

I never called you a Righty. You insinuated I was a leftist!

Give me your opinion on their WORDS.

Can you see that from above the trees?

[AtomicKitten]

89. can you see this?

I'd post it but it would be deleted.

[LincolnMcGrath]

92. "wow - you've really got your knickers in a twist"

Nice way to elevate the discourse.

If you harnessed your indignation and outrage and pointed it at the REAL opposition - THIS ADMINISTRATION, THE FUNDIES, AND THE GOP - you'd earn my respect.

[bvar22]

91. Interpretation? I quoted their EXACT words from THEIR website!

If you climb up high in the tree tops, your vision is limited to intangible clouds and the surface of the tree tops only.
I take a much more realistic EARTH view. I can see the beautiful tree tops, but I can also see the rot and disease that must be treated for health to return. The WORK will be done on the soil, not in the treetops.

Good luck on your happy time in the tree tops, but don't be surprised when you find out that you don't have a balanced view of REALITY!

[AtomicKitten]

104. and some of your words are just as outragenous.

Don't you get it?

More people are in the middle.

You have the arguing style of a melodramatic 12-year-old girl.

[LincolnMcGrath]

112. Again, with the elevating of the discourse. lol

"Being snotty and pissed off does not punctuate your point of view; in fact, it probably puts people off."

"You have the arguing style of a melodramatic 12-year-old girl."


As an added bonus, you address nothing in his post.

It's outragenous!







'

[bvar22]

114. Your "Ad Hominums" are useless.

I've been here since 2001, and stood up to better insults than yours.

THIS is THE MIDDLE:
1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction

The DLC is the FRINGE Extreme Right!

[LincolnMcGrath]

118. She is also on record stating:

The DLC is far right;

That she doesn't particularly care for the DLC;

Telling folks to leave the party (for questioning the DLC, ironically enough);

Search is your friend sometimes...

[AtomicKitten]

123. Oooweeeeee -- a tag-team attack

Dogs get all uppity in packs too.

[LincolnMcGrath]

124. lol Keep elevating the discourse.

[AtomicKitten]

78. oooooooweee --- the PI crowd is here ...............

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. if the DLC actually wanted to work in coalition with progressives I could

see your point. But they don't. They just don't.

Look at the words they use; fringe left, far left, "wild eyed ideologues". These words may not sound as emotional as some of the words used by progressives against the "DLC". But they are more powerful words because they hold the power and because they are crafted to marginalize and to make the progressive cause seem hopeless.

A progressive at a DLC or "new Democrat" dominated meeting is about as welcome as the unrepentant town drunk at a Bible study group.

Still I see no rational alternative for progressive than to work for change within the Democratic Party and to support Democrats in the general election. Beside them still being a lesser evil, if the Democrats (including some DLC and Blue Dogs) take the House in November, John Conyers becomes the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and 10 members of the Progressive Caucus become committee chairs. No third party bid can accomplish that much.

[Comadreja]

56. Oliphant is not too happy with beltway Dems

[Comadreja]

57. Lesser of two evils

[LittleClarkie]

65. Why is he picking on Kerry and Gore?

They've been good boys as of late.

And that's sort of a slam against Hillary for her plantation remark.

Usually I rather like him. And usually he's pretty fair to Kerry at least. Wassup?

Gore at the VERY least could not be described... anymore... as a Beltway Dem.

[Cocoa]

66. that's from April 2001

a lot has happened since then, such as the 2004 primaries, where the DLC candidate was humiliated.

[chonce]

71. Kerry and the DLC

For what its worth, John Kerry has signed the DLC statment of principles. It was years ago, but he has never renounced them. Moreover, Kerry certainly bought into the DLC strategy of moving ot the right.

(I dont think Kerry approves the war, if he wasnt thinking White House)

And Clinton -- both of them -- are still, sadly, the darlings of the Party, and they have DLC all over them. Not to mention that Hillary is a front runner, which keeps me from sleeping at night.

[Cocoa]

73. can the DLC stop you from voting for Feingold

for example?

They can't stop me.

People exaggerate the power of the DLC, and this helps the DLC.

[bvar22]

129. Actually, the DLC CAN stop you from voting for progressives.

Read "DCCC Kingmakers". Do a search at DU for links between the DCCC and the DLC.
Another search on DCCC interference in local Democratic Primaries

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207

[bvar22]

79. Very simple:

HERE is the CENTER:

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:
1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction…


Question:Why doesn't the Democratic Party adopt a platform that represents the MAJORITY of Americans?

Answer: The enormous amount of Pro-Owner Corporate Cash funneled through the DLC absolutely prevents the Democratic Party from adopting a Pro-Worker platform.

Unless we can rid the Democratic Party of these Republicans in Donkey suits, the Party is doomed to play an ever diminishing role in the inevitable Corporatization of America.

The flawed logic displayed above, "there is room for all points of view in the Democratic Party" is INSANE.
Are YOU really going to argue that Republicans should be given a megaphone and positions of importance inside the Democratic Party?
Should REPUBLICANS be given a voice and a vote on which direction the Democratic Party should take????

The RICH (Corporate Owners) already HAVE a Political Party that represents their view---The Republican party.
They should NOT be allowed to BUY a place inside the Democratic Party!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[AtomicKitten]

82. You aren't listening to the Democrats.

Their platform has included all you have listed, but Bush's insane foreign policy has crippled this country and is in the forefront.

And I'm sorry you feel that being respectful of others' point of view is insane. That's a rather arrogant attitude and one that can't work within a group environment. Conservative Dems have as much say as anybody else.

It's called democracy. Check into it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. And they're doing exactly what about 1, 4, and 7?

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

88. they're not doing a hell of a lot about any # -- they're impotent now

But to summarily accuse them of being blind or uncaring to the problems this country faces now vis-a-vis no discernible platform is denying the fact that they are powerless at this particular point in history. It's gratuitous and pointless.

[radio4progressives]

102. They had the Power and the Potential to Defeat Alito

and they did not.

The final votes in favor of confirmation was 58, which included votes from Democrats. The Repukes never had the 60 votes in favor of his confirmation - all the dems needed to do who voted against Alito's confirmation was to stick together to vote against Cloture.

They chose to cancel their own votes against his confirmation.

[radio4progressives]

106. I should have noted that the pattern of Yes Votes in favor of Cloture

was interesting.

Was it the MIC (military industrial complex)

Was it Big Business?

Was it promises from the lying pigs in office?

whatever the reasons are, will eventually be exposed.

But for me, this betrayal to the citizenry is major and they had the power to prevent it from happening at all.

[AtomicKitten]

110. and you won't even consider why they did not.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree that Alito is a disaster.

However, there is no question a filibuster would have triggered the "nuclear option." Do you seriously think after the 2000 judicial coup d'etat that the Rs would hold back?

Also to consider is the fact that there are a lot of Dems in red states whose asses were on the line. Why risk it if it wasn't going to happen? Hell yes it was idealistically the right thing to do. But some people just don't understand that Dennis Kucinich types don't run well in red states and that's precisely why we cannot afford to bitchslap those Dems that can.

But now we're back to the big tent notion ....

[radio4progressives]

157. R's not holding back????

you actually think the right wingers are holding back?

[leftstreet]

131. Cantwell D-WA will be a race to watch in 06

Beyond just personal for me, it will be more evidence in helping the Party determine if Dem votes on yes to cloture actually protected them in risky seats.

WA is a red/blue state. Dems bombarded her with faxes, emails, and calls to vote no. LTTEs in local papers were calling her out to filibuster. When she didn't, she got bombarded again with anger.

Sadly, the problem with red/blue states is that if she's unseated it will most likely be by her Republican challenger.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. When the Republicans were "impotent" they talked endlessly about

what they WOULD do if they WERE in power, without particular reference to what the Democrats were doing.

We need more of that from the Dems. Not "we're the un-Republicans," but "This is what we would do if we were in power."

[AtomicKitten]

113. yes and no

I wish some of you could understand that idealistically I wholeheartedly agree with you. But we are dealing with a slippery bunch of felons. Taking our country back will be tricky because of their hardball tactics, Faux News, and their Rovian playbook. What some of your propose will cause HALF the country to rise up, and that's not enough. It has to be better thought out. Besides, and I don't mean ot throw a wet blanket on the fervor, but if election fraud isn't dealt with, none of this kvetching means a damn thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. So let's hear Democratic elected officials speak with one voice

on election fraud.

I hear a few elected officials mentioning it, but the rest act embarrassed when the subject is brought up.

[AtomicKitten]

125. We concur on that point.

And it's insanity for them not to do so.

As a matter of fact there's no point voting IMO if they don't do something substantive before 2004.

[bvar22]

130. This will require some abstract thinking, but....

...what POSSIBLE reason would prevent the Democratic Party "AS A PARTY" from demanding verifiable elections?


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

[radio4progressives]

163. Speaking of Elections Fraud NOT being Dealt With....

A case is now before United States Supreme Court, which has been brought to our collective attention and the underpinning issues not withstanding also presents the question of why the Democratic Party has deliberately AVOIDED calls for investigative action on the matter of election fraud, the GAO reports massive irregularities, leading to very questionable results and evidence of voter suppression, election engineering, and software tampering.

The question is: why?

WHY the Deafening Silence after ALL that has been uncovered and all that has been revealed?

The answers to these questions does not bode well for the party for a number of obvious reasons which have been spoken and written about voluminously. But eventually as time wears on, and still no action/no response from the party leadership, will ultimately compel certain conclusions to be drawn. I dare not speak of it here..

but those conclusions are being raised on the air right now, which was inevitable.

So what on earth could the party leadership be thinking by avoiding tackling this issue head on five years ago, and again in 2002, and then again in 2004?

The Alito filibuster cave in, was merely symptomatic of the problems we have been trying to resolve with no real help from the so called "pragmatist"..

indeed, the impact of "pragmatism" has been woefully inadequate in it's rationality, alienating to long time party supporters, and negative in it's over all effect.

[bvar22]

97. No. Democracy need OPPOSING viewpoints.

One Party States are by their nature NOT Democratic. Two or more distinct opinions or philosophies are necessary to differentiate the Parties.
If you allow the Republican to buy their representation and voice in the Democratic Party.....no more Democracy.
In case you haven't noticed (hard to see from the "treetops"), Democracy is HURTING in America, and has been in visible (from the ground) decline since the DLC opened the door to Corporate Control of the Democratic Party.
Coincidence?
I think NOT!

[AtomicKitten]

103. this isn't a one party state

Christ, your drama must be giving you a headache (it's giving me one).

Your exaggerations are just absurd.

[bvar22]

108. And your willful blindness is frightening. (N/T)

[AtomicKitten]

116. I'm not blind ... you're just hysterical ... get your priorities straight

This administration is evil.
The DLC is annoying.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

[bvar22]

127. The DLC and the Administration OVERLAP.

or hadn't you noticed that the advancement of the Right Wing's policies is being assisted by some in the Democratic Party.
Go READ the DLC Website.

[leftstreet]

95. Excellent post!

[bvar22]

98. An UNBEATABLE way to WIN debates with those who support the DLC...

..is to bring up ACTUAL ISSUES.
Not even they can argue that Corporations and The RICH need a stronger voice in our Democracy and inside the Democratic Party.

The FOUNDATION Principle, the very reason for being, of the DLC is to INCREASE the POWER and INFLUENCE of BIG MONEY INSIDE the Democratic Party.

There IS no rebuttal!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[AtomicKitten]

101. your self-righteous diatribe

is really hollow. Your paranoia about the DLC is laughable, really. You better get used to the idea of a plethora of opinions within the Democratic Party because that's the way it is.

[bvar22]

105. I get ya!

Move on....nothing to see here....the treetops are beautiful......
Don't worry, be happy......Don't look at the man behind the screen.....
Everythings AOK...just peachy...
The checks in the mail...
The Democratic Party is just fine and headed in a wonderful direction....
just drink the CorpoKoolAide and everything will be comfy....


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

I agree with Paul!

[bvar22]

111. You ducked the issues....

again.

[AtomicKitten]

115. no, I just know who the real enemy is

[radio4progressives]

117. who, might that be?

[radio4progressives]

126. Who's talking about "opinion's"? it's goddam platform policies

that the rank and file have NO INPUT, no way to accept, amend, or reject in it's entirity.

it's just a bunch of wealthy neo cons and neo libs huddling together in their ivory towers and bubble wrapped world putting pen to paper, drafting positions papers on foreign and domestic policies and if ever read by an ordinary citizen they would be flatly rejected, and these bastards would be kicked out on their collective neo con asses.

[leftstreet]

133. It is neither self-righteous nor paranoid to speak of facts

I fail to see how the DLC is winning the hearts and minds of Americans. And attacking those within the Dem Party who would point it out is very telling.

[leftstreet]

119. And I like seeing the actual issues actually being discussed here.

Thanks for your posts.

It's not easy to get actual information about what the DLC stands for, beyond slogans, so that it can be discussed, debated, and determined by the the Democratic Party faithful whether or not the DLC harms or helps the cause.

It's becoming a more hotly contentious debate, and I too often see the fires obscuring the issues.

[sandnsea]

96. Where's their echo chamber?

On 4, we campaigned on health care for all in 2004. Guess what, all those Americans that you're talking about, they rolled over like whipped pups as soon as Bush said "government health care". It's also what they did when Bush said "he cut defense" and booga booga "terrorism". And it's also what they do when you suggest that they're going to have to stand up for labor rights, they roll over to the "demanding too much money and running business out of the country" bullshit. In addition, they get hit by the left because it's not free health care, dept of peace and jobs for all.

The people are as much a problem as the party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

209. Uh, the "health care for all" part of the platform consisted of

making it easier for Americans to buy insurance. Not exactly an inspiring or visionary plank. It was so unexciting that Bush barely bothered to attack it.

Those of us who are already able to buy health insurance, who already have it fully deductible on our income taxes (because we're self-employed), and are still struggling to pay the monthly premiums and the deductible were, shall we say, underwhelmed.

(Disclaimer: I voted for and door-knocked for Kerry, as did thousands of other progressives.)

[omega minimo]

107. What's it called when corporations and government merge?

Time to call it what it is

[radio4progressives]

120. It's the F word, that no good DLC will ever say, cuz "it's hyperbolic" n/t

[omega minimo]

128. or the C-word

"Corporatists" are not going to call themselves what they are. In a one party system.

God if anyone watched the SOTU, wasn't the room full of hoi polloi pretty damn obvious?

[wyldwolf]

135. Leftist Moles Are Trying to Destroy Our Party - but their 2% isn't enough

The DLC raises money. Lots of money. From corporations.

What the OP fails to mention is that so do "progressive" Dems. Obviously not as much because they seldom rise above the level of Representative. But they do get the cash. Gobs of it. Enough for you and me to retire on.

I realize that this simple fact is often overlooked and ignored. So be it. I don't really care.

But the far left, or "prooogreeeesssives" have been trying to destroy the party from within for decades. I'm not sure why because, in reality, it was never their party to begin with. They joined the New Deal Coalition but could never quite adapt to the reality of the political landscape after the Depression.

They abandoned Harry Truman to vote third party - almost throwing the election to the GOP.

They refused to support JFK, preferring twice-failed "progressive" Adlai Stevenson. Then they revolted again when Kennedy picked LBJ as his running mate. 1960 was a close election. Imagine if the far left had tipped it to Richard Nixon? Foreshadowing...

1968? Again, the far left refused to support the party's nominee.

The left gets their chance in '72 with McGovern. Disaster.

1980 - Ted Kennedy take his battle with Jimmy Carter to the convention floor - even into the night of Carter's nomination, then refused to lift Carter's hand to congratulate him.

The left gets their chance again in '84 with Mondale. Disaster.

Again, the left gets their guy in 88 with Dukakis. Disaster.

1992 - the far left opposes Bill Clinton and to this day hate him almost as much as the Right does.

2000 - the far left abandons Al Gore and hands George W. Bush the presidency.

There is a reason the self proclaimed "progressives" will never gain control of the party nor gain any meaningful power:

I. History is working against you

There have been several times since the election of 1948 that "far left" or more liberal candidates have made a run for the White House.

1948 - "Progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

1972 - "Progressive" McGovern lost in an electoral landslide.

1980 - "Progressive" Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention and did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

II. "Progressives" either lack the knowledge or desire to organize or run an effective National campaign.

The above are just examples. Dennis Kucinich is another who comes to mind more recently.

The far left bemoans the DLC yet they can't seem to figure out how to effectively counter them. The create their own "progressive" organizations but instead of supporting them and building them up, they fixate on the DLC.

Perhaps they have distaste for raising money? And with very few exception, self proclaimed "progressives" or candidates they support seldom rise above being a US House member.

Organizations like Moveon.org are in a world by themselves. A Rolling Stone article asked:

"So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party."

Moveon isn't even sure of their place. They claimed to have taken the party "back" in 2004 when they said, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.” But they later recanted that claim a few months after they made it by saying, "We’re not the party... we are going to take positions on issues... before we acknowledge any sort of notion of Democratic fealty."

III. "Progressives" are out of touch with rank and file Democrats in regards to the direction of the party, ethnic background, and economic class.

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.

A Pew research survey on Howard Dean supporters in the primaries found that progressive activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.

IV. "Progressives" have two "enemies" to overcome - the moderates who stand in the way of their glorious progressive revolution AND the Republican party.

Two very big hurdles considering most of the Democratic party is moderate and independent voters tend to be moderate.

V. "Progressives" have to try to discredit other Democrats to make their message stand out.

In their loathing of the DLC and other moderate/centrist Democrats, "progressives" often (and often unwittingly) trash the policies and records of other popular Democratic icons. This takes the form of repeating rightwing myths about Bill Clinton (Perot gave Clinton the presidency), as well as criticizing the national defense and social policies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton.

They also resort to outright fabrications. Witness how Matt Yglesias and Greg Wythe both dismantle David Sirota's piece on "Centrism."

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html

VI. It's difficult to follow the reasoning many "progressives" display when discussing elections.

Monday: We lost the election because of the DLC!
Friday: We lost the election because of voting machines!

uh....

VII. Progressives believe that there is some invisible, natural majority for their ideas that will simply appear like genies when they say the magic words.

Do they fear they'll actually have to work to win political influence?

Notice how the anti-DLC hysteria has reached epic proportions here - even by DU standards?

I mean, in 2004, people on DU were declaring The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004. Whatever, Nothingburger, De Nada, Yawn, Zen Zen...

The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004? Why, Five of the top seven Democratic choices for the nominee in 2008 are DLC. Rounding out the top seven is one guy often "accused" by the left of being DLC and another guy often accused by the left of being a Republican (and who got one of his major campaign 2004 platforms from the DLC.)

Not to mention another DLCer not on the public's radar yet but getting globs or press as a potential Presidential candidate.

Last year, the DLC had a meeting that threw the far left into a tizzy. How could one "little" meeting, attended by more than 300 state and local elected officials from more than forty states, create such a brouhaha on far left?

Was it Hillary Clinton, who squarely accused Republicans of trying to return the country to the policies and political practices of the 19th century, calling for party unity? How dare she!

Was it Evan Bayh, generally considered a national security hawk, offering a blistering critique of the administration's handling of the war on terror, concluding: "That's not strength, that's incompetence."? How so very Republican of him to even speak about terrorism just a few weeks after the London bombings!

Maybe it was Mark Warner who scorned the Bush administration for choosing to intervene in the medical decisions of the Schiavo family while choosing to do nothing about the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

No, it wasn't really any of that. It's the fact that once again, the DLC is out-organizing the far left of the party and already fielding candidates for local, state, and national races.

... and the left can't seem to keep up.

[LincolnMcGrath]

137. Rotf

Yeah, those Reagan Dems sure have payed out dividends haven't they?

[radio4progressives]

142. yes notice how the entire Reagan era was ignored, Begining in Miss. n/t

[Coexist]

138. Okay - I just spent a 1/2 hour discussing this post

with many quotes and links - and there was a bug and it disappeared - damn it.

I am NOT going through that again - I will just say - I think you are lumping ONLY the extreme far left into the liberals column.

PLEASE read through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

Regarding Truman - you have to realize that at certain times in America, Liberalism ran the gamut from Socialists and Communists to traditional liberals.

<snip>
"In the late 1940s, liberals generally did not see Harry S. Truman as one of their own, viewing him as a Democratic Party hack. However, liberal politicians and liberal organizations such as the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) sided with Truman in opposing Communism both at home and abroad, sometimes at the sacrifice of civil liberties"

While not a liberal in the White House - there were liberals in the House and Senate that helped shape liberal legislation. Liberals have a great history of success (which I had tried to prove) in this country.

Peace.

[SaveElmer]

139. Nice post wyldwolf...iconoclast

used the same article in a response to me...thought I would post my response here...Though I was responding to the particular article, many of the same points were made..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2431095&mesg_id=2436145

I've looked over the link you sent me...and here are my initial thoughts....

1. This article is somewhat dated, nearly 5 years old...I would like to see something more recent.

2. Though the article is clearly intended to be negative in tone toward the DLC, it is not a pointless diatribe, and does do an excellent job at looking at the source of funds for the DLC.

3. It does note that the DLC is not an organization controlled by the influence of its donors. Even Barney Frank, who the article points out is a foe of the DLC acknowledges that "...money is not the primary motivator for the organization, "Its ideological" he says' (Dreyfuss, 7)

4. It looks to me the financial foundation of the organization is hardly different than any other group, think-tank etc trying to influence the national debate. I see nothing nefarious about it.

5. It seems to me the success of the DLC is in its ability to organize itself, which left groups seem unwilling or unable to do. It seems alot of the ire directed at the DLC is motivated by jealousy over this ability. Left organizations cannot seem to organize around any other motivation than hatred for centrist groups such as the DLC. For example, I rarely, if ever hear any discussion on this board of the activities of the PDA. I wish left groups were as successful, I think it is useful to have strong healthy groups from every part of the party exerting influence.

6. The far left and populist movements have a very bad track record at gaining national power. Starting with the populist movemnet of the late 19th century which foundered on racism generated as a backlash to reconstruction, to William Jennings Bryan, to Henry Wallace's challenge to Harry Truman, and George McGovern's disastarous campaign of 1972, populist movements have consistently failed to wield true power. Having said this I do believe populist movements can be valuable, and can gain influence for some of their ideas. These tend to get incorporated within the mainstream party idealogy, which is why the Minnesota Democratic Party is called the DFL (Dmocratic Farmer Labor) party, and the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota eventually merged with the Democratic Party of that state.

7. A more centrist, pro-business counterweight to the influence of the left was needed in my opinion. The fact is, most Americans are moderates. Strong anti-business sentiment does not resonate with them for long periods of time. I see no logic in ceding this influence to the Republican Party.

5. The article also made it clear, though in a backhanded way, that the DLC has come around to progressive positions on social issues (abortion, gay rights). Reading their position papers I would say that they hold progressive positions on the environment in large measure, and on gun control as well.

6. Some of the criticisms of the DLC in the article are warranted. I am very disappointed in the reaction to Al Gores populist turn in 2000. Though I believe true populism will fail in electoral politics, some elements of it are useful in reaction to recent events. Public disgust at price gouging by Pharmaceutical industires, and the scandals surrounding energy companies certainly warranted a populist tone during that campaign. Make no mistake though, Al Gore was no populist. He would not have gone about dismantling the influence of business in national policy, though I do believe he would have worked to restrain these egregious abuses, and he was correct to highlight and campaign on these abuses of corporate power.

7. In general I do not believe it is useful for the DLC to criticize other Democrats during election campaigns. It is counter productive. I also believe Al From is a very bad public face for the DLC, and should either be removed, or kept out of the public eye.

Anyway, just my first thoughts on the matter. If you care to send anymore info my way I will gladly read it.

[iconoclastNYC]

140. I'm amazed at your detailed reply

It's truely breathtaking in scope and professionalism. You are an expert at defending the DLC. You should work for them.

[radio4progressives]

141. Turn this Diatribe right Smack on it's Head

You actually the make the case how the so called "Moderate" loses elections, or comes too close to losing elections, precisely because it ignores or abandons the left.

By the way, as far as Dukakis being a "leftist", is a joke. He was touted as the Technocrat Moderate. Susan Estrige was his campaign manager right? a complete joke.

Look, speaking as an ex-patriot of the South, I know where your political plumb lines hang - as a southerner yourself, (and apparently we are from the same state) i would argue you lack a certain objectivity, which works in your neck of the woods, but on a national scale, and with a national perspective, your theories falls flat on it's face.

[wyldwolf]

170. And back around again.

You actually the make the case how the so called "Moderate" loses elections, or comes too close to losing elections, precisely because it ignores or abandons the left.

No, I actually make the case that in close elections, the left have and will send it the GOP's way and come close to doing so.

By the way, as far as Dukakis being a "leftist", is a joke. He was touted as the Technocrat Moderate. Susan Estrige was his campaign manager right? a complete joke.

Aside from Al Gore even considering Dukakis too liberal, and Dukakis himself stating he was a "proud liberal," and his constant miscues which drove the fact of his leftist tendencies home, I see no reason to call him a moderate. THAT is the complete joke here.

on a national scale, and with a national perspective, your theories falls flat on it's face.

You no doubt then can demonstrate how my "theories" fall flat on their face since you are an expert and all.

[radio4progressives]

194. Your own post perfectly demonstrates the point, perfectly well.. n/t

:boring:

[wyldwolf]

198. brilliant!

not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

144. Mondale and Dukakis were the candidates of the left??

How? What was in the Mondale or Dukakis program that was by any wild stretch of the imagination leftist? You cannot possibly be serious.

and, was the "left" supposed to support the Viet Nam War?

[Warren Stupidity]

155. Yeah, news to me too.

Both of them at the time were solid middle of the road Democrats. These days of course, thanks to the DLC's obsession with being republican-lite, they are both much further to the left than they were at the time.

[Douglas Carpenter]

158. if Mondale and Dukakis were the left (the two most establishment-centrist

candidates around at the time).....
It sends a chill up my spine to imagine what they must consider "moderate".

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[Jujiman]

150. President Gore Won The Vote In 2000!!

"2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush."

This kind of REVISIONIST B.S. is simply inexcusable!

The "supreme court" decision handed Bush the presidency,
NOT Nader!

This calls into question ALL of your "data"!

Not impressed!


:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

171. Are yoy saying with a straight face that Nader's votes in Florida

DIDN'T cost Gore the election?

The stats disagree with you.

But since you are denying my statement, let's see some evidence to the contrary.

[Warren Stupidity]

187. Gore won florida

That was the result of the analysis long after the kleptocracy party had finished stealing the election.

[radio4progressives]

193. It's in the GAO Reports and the Carter/Baker Report...

Wonder why so many politico's on DU don't seem to acknowledge that fact?

[wyldwolf]

197. the facts say otherwise

[Warren Stupidity]

199. Which republican talking point 'facts' are you referring to?

Please provide a link.

[wyldwolf]

202. the discussion was whether Nader voters tipped Florida to Bush

Post #150: President Gore won the vote in 2000

(no he didn't.)

Post #187: Are yoy saying with a straight face that Nader's votes in Florida DIDN'T cost Gore the election? The stats disagree with you. But since you are denying my statement, let's see some evidence to the contrary.

(apparently he/she IS denying it but will not put up to the evidence to support it. Instead, we get...)

Post #187: Gore won Florida. That was the result of the analysis...

(uh... what analysis? Cite it... give some EVIDENCE)

Post #197: The facts say otherwise

Post #199: Which republican talking point 'facts' are you referring to?



So here is the (ahem) "Republican" facts I am referring to:

twice as many 2000 Nader voters would have supported Gore rather than Bush. Correcting for rounding errors, exit polls indicate that if only Gore and Bush were running, Nader's votes would have broken down as follows:

1,326,159 (46%) would have picked Gore
893,716 (31%) would have sat out the election.
663,080 (23%) would have favored Bush.
2,882,955 (100%) total

Here are the actual results from the 2000 election:

Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*

* Includes all candidates

See: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Allocating the 2,882,955 Nader votes along established patterns: 46% / 1,326,159 to Gore and 23% / 663,080 to Bush (leaving out the 31% of Nader voters who said they wouldn't have voted at all) shows Gore more than doubling his popular vote margin.

Taking Nader out of the picture would add 663,079 to Gore's actual 543,895 vote margin for a total of 1,206,974. Adding 0.63% to Gore's 0.51% margin increases it to 1.14%. This calculation understates Gore's increased margin by as much as 300,000 if the 893,716 Nader voters who said they wouldn't vote at all changed their minds and followed the pattern.

Estimated Vote Totals in Non-Nader race

Gore 52,326,056 49.64%
Bush 51,122,397 48.50%
Neither 893,716 00.84%+
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*

+ Among Nader Voters
* For all candidates

Nader kept the election close enough to steal
by splitting the anti-Bush vote in key states.

The "Nader Factor" was larger than the margin by which Gore beat Bush nation-wide, even controlling for the Nader voters who say they wouldn't have voted or who would have voted for Bush.

This isn't even considering the disproportionate attention and impact Nader had in the closest states - states Nader swore he would avoid "spoiling" to get onto the ballot. It's not possible Nader was unaware that his focus on these states would help Bush vs. Gore.

Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts. However, Nader's "spoiler" efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Did_Nader_Help_or_Hurt_Al_Gore.shtml

ta daaaaaaa!

[LincolnMcGrath]

205. Opinion Pieces as fact?

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

[wyldwolf]

207. wherever did you get that idea?

The stats were from a VERY reputable source.

[LincolnMcGrath]

216. Pfft, I didn't question the numbers, but you already know that.

It is the laughable assumptions made that I question, but you already knew that too.

[wyldwolf]

219. Pfft. yes you did

[LincolnMcGrath]

223. Is that an admission of your deliberate spinning?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

238. no, it's pointing out a simple fact

[SOS]

230. Imagine

the Florida results if Gore had picked Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) instead of Lieberman.

[radio4progressives]

211. You dispute Jimmy Carter's Claims that Gore Won the 2000 Elections?

I guess you missed Jimmy Carter on Larry King the other night, stating very matter of factly that Gore Won the Election. You do know that the Carter Center has been monitoring over 60 elections throughout the world, including the United States?

I had a New York Times report at one point, but apparently isn't bookmarked, it was dated in the month of December of 2001 (while we were bombing the crap out of Afghanistan) that detailed the actual election results - it didn't get any attention, because gosh conveniently 9/11 happened and we couldn't "look back" .

But here are some sources, since i guess you've been otherwise too pre-occupied that somehow you missed a few basic Democratic Party factoids such as the 2000 elections, from an important member of the party.....


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

http://donklephant.com/2005/09/22/audio-of-jimmy-carter-gore-won-in-2000/

Here, pick your own "Carter Says Gore Won" story

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=carter+said+gore+won+2000+election&btnG=Search

Here are other news reports that say the same:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0127-01.htm

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5111

http://www.google.com/search?q=gore+won+florida&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

[wyldwolf]

220. You dispute Jimmy Carter's claims that Nader cost Gore the election?

I guess you missed Jimmy Carter at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser in March in March, 2004:

"...Ralph, go back to umpiring softball games or examining the rear end of automobiles, and don't risk costing the Democrats the White House this year as you did four years ago."


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/nader.html

[radio4progressives]

241. Yes I do dispute that remark. It was purely Political it wasn't about the

FACTS.

[wyldwolf]

244. so you dispute Jimmy Carter?

All personal attacks aside?

[LincolnMcGrath]

204. Gore blew it. Deal with reality.

I have posted plenty of evidence about the historicaly low 'other partys' votes in both 2000 and 2004.

[Jujiman]

151. DLC Supported NAFTA...GATT...FTA

They either LIED or supported the LIE that NAFTA would

bring us "good jobs" & "prosperity".

Those who predicted the downward spiral and the large

"sucking sound"...the LOSS of GOOD JOBS, were RIGHT!

The electronics job I trained for in school was shipped away,

so that slaves in China would have something to do.

This is seen as "inevitable" and "good policy" by the likes of

The DLC. I see it as a crime!

:grr:

[radio4progressives]

189. Guess who Drafted NAFTA? Nope it wasn't Clinton, Nope it wasn't Poppy,

It was NEGROPONTE ..

I just learned this from his very own mouth last weekend, right there on my TV.. (C-Span) it was a video taped recording of a presentation to one of the Ruling Class Conference events, i forget which one now.

Which puts it all in perspective now doesn't it? I'm not taking Clinton off the hook for this one, don't get me wrong. Congress was AGAINST NAFTA, Clinton had to do a lot of "hard work" catapulting Negroponte's propaganda to get it through, something Poppy Bush wasn't able to succeed in doing.

So, Clinton fucked up big time on this.

But, let's look at what's been going on in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT with regard to Latin and South America for the past two decades and longer, and let's look at the present day SABER RATTLING against Chavez, eh?

And Let's look at Negroponte's role in ALL OF THIS.

The fucking mass murdering bastard.

Anyone bother listening to the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings aired yesterday and repeated today?

if you haven't yet, you best tune in to C-Span on line, unless they repeat it over the weekend.

Listen VERY VERY CAREFULLY to that asshole's monologue and then listen to his responses to questions by Feingold, Feinstein, Rockefeller and the Oregon Senator, what's his name, Wynard? (sorry i forget his name, but he's on target asking about Poindexter's Intelligence Programs)

[radio4progressives]

192. Question to Clinton/NAFTA supporters: Did Clinton mention Negroponte

by name, crediting Negroponte for drafting NAFTA when he was pushing the agreement through to Congress? I just don't recall..

And I'm wondering if he did, or if he happened to mention in one of his press conferences when he was presenting NAFTA and GATT to the American Public. .. i just don't recall the name "Negroponte" mentioned then.

[wyldwolf]

203. He didn't mention Jimmy Carter, either

He was intrumental in negotiating NAFTA, is/was one of the chairmen of the NAFTA commission, and supports CAFTA.

[radio4progressives]

212. Negroponte is the Person at Issue, and He claimed to have AUTHORED

the Treaty. Now, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Negroponte was taking credit for something he didn't have the right to, i mean that bastard is a mass murderer and no one in the Democratic Party should have had ANY DEALINGS with that lying bastard what so ever.

Not then, and not now.

I'm also not too thrilled that Carter joined up with James Baker on the 2004 elections reform commission - i believe Carter was co-opted. but hey, that's just me being very involved in what happened in the 2004 elections so i have serious doubts about the Carter Baker report.

Now you and i can have it both ways, that Jimmy Carter is a liar now but telling the truth then, and can't be trusted, or lying both times and can't be trusted, or lying then but telling the truth now and can't be trusted, or that he is telling the truth both then and now.

If we take Carter at his word, Al Gore Won in 2000.

Which is it for you?

He was lying then, and still lying about 2000? or is Carter telling the truth, as recently as just a few nights ago on CNN (Larry King)?

[wyldwolf]

221. I guess Jimmy was in bed with him

If we take Carter at his word, Al Gore Won in 2000.

If we take Carter's word, Nader cost Gore the election.

[radio4progressives]

240. LOL!

:crazy: no wonder you lose elections. :silly:

[wyldwolf]

245. When you can't speak to the fact, attack!

[Jujiman]

153. People Are Easily Mislead, They Like Fairy Tales!

"The far left bemoans the DLC yet they can't seem to figure out how to effectively counter them."

That because of all the friggin $$$$$ MONEY $$$$$$$$$

You do understand about the power of money to corrupt?

NAFTA & GATT were great for the BIG MONEY BOYS as they were the ones to
back those SCAMS!

Many folks can be duped if one promise them LOTS OF JOBS & PROSPERITY!

Seems like "The Big Money Boys", don't mind lying or selling out their

country, for the benefit of their CORPORATIONS!

Yes a dilemma, how to counter this corruption & DISHONESTY!

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

172. You're one of those "Fairy tale" aficionados, huh?

The reason the left can't effectively counter the DLC is because they can't raise all the friggin $$$$$ MONEY $$$$$$$$$

[radio4progressives]

190. Apparently you take a certain pleasure in that.. like it's something to be

proud of...

yeah, that's what you're all about..

[wyldwolf]

196. when you can't speak to the fact, attack

yeah, that's what you're all about..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

210. Mondale and Dukakis were the first choice of the left?

:rofl:

[radio4progressives]

213. I'm right there with ya lydia leftcoast...

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


:toast:

[AtomicKitten]

146. self-delete

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

156. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party

detractors and those who want to split the party.

Yep, with almost infinite time, money, resources, and a very stable world that we live in what the hey?

No hurry, we have plenty of time to fight within the party AND fight the other side.

Yep.

Why would anyone wanna regain control of the guvment first, and then work on improving it?

Silly folks.

:sarcasm:

[bvar22]

159. Great Plan

Work to "control" the government by electing people who want to sell control of the government to BIG MONEY.
YEAH. That's been working sooooo well since Reagan.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

161. There are arguable assumptions in what you say.

What's your plan?

Split the party, split the vote and elect another neocon?

Hope the world survives long enough to take control of the Dem party at some future date?

[leftstreet]

160. My DLC Senator got "control" - and will likely get the boot in 06.

Pro Iraq War vote
Anti Alito filibuster vote

I'm still new to understanding this DLC "theory," but so far I'm not seeing the evidence that it's working. And in the case of my Senator, the progressive Dem contender won't have the $ to defeat the Repub.

This DLC/RNC circle-jerk-off is "hurting my thinkbone," as Jon Stewart would say.

[wyldwolf]

173. you think Maria Cantwell is going to lose in Washington State?

[leftstreet]

174. Yes, I think it's quite possible. n/t

[wyldwolf]

175. based on what? I say she wins in a walk

Cantwell retains big lead in race for Senate cash

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8FGMISG6.html

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Recognizes Senator Cantwell as One of Twelve 'Wildlife Heroes'

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-02-2006/0004273863&EDATE=

Last polling I saw puts Sen. Cantwell ahead of likely GOP opponent Mike McGavick 52% to 37% with an approval rating in the state a healthy 57%.

[leftstreet]

176. Her voting record

came in as a strong pro-enviro

Voted for Iraq war - still supports it
Voted anti-labor/trade protections
Voted too many corporate subsidies
Voted to end debate on Alito

Just to mention a few

[wyldwolf]

177. and you think that will cause her to lose based on what polling?

[leftstreet]

178. No polls. Listening to her constituents is more accurate.

Friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, newspapers, LTTEs, etc.

[wyldwolf]

179. ah. You know she has big lead over her opponent.

But if you're sure she's going to lose a state-wide race based on word on the street, care to make a wager?

[leftstreet]

180. LOL! Okay, I bet one beer.

:toast:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

162. Major hole in the party bashing that goes on:

We don't control anything.

We don't have a majority, we have no Committee Chairs.

We have no authority to launch an investigation.

We have no power to subpoena anything.

The other side, more ruthless and fasc'st than any in my lifetime does control the Congress like a plantation.

Democrats are routinely excluded from the markup meetings, combining House and Senate versions of bills.

As well as from other important meetings.

Many amendments from Democrats never even make it to the floor, thanks to the repukes.

Those that do and get a vote often are not allowed much, if any, time for debate.

With all this being true, judging those who now represent us just doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

And until I see how someone proposes to change the nation and world by splitting the party, count me out of this DLC vs non-DLC battle.

I'm for fighting the big bad Neocons.

[Warren Stupidity]

167. Hard to do that with neocon-lites. eom.

[AtomicKitten]

182. I think an education is in order.

Much propaganda has been posted regarding the DLC by people who are certain (posted on another site that I will not link to) that there are DLC moles here at DU. HA!.

Well, here's another perspective.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/baerei.html

It explains the origins and success of the DLC in the election of Bill Clinton which some here at DU have pegged a failure or the decline of the Dem Party; 1984: Success = Failure (go figure!).

Centrist dig it, liberals understand it, far-lefties vilify it.

What is really means is a difference of opinion in creating success. Rather than registering disagreement in a civilized, mature fashion, some of the far-lefties want to burn the DLC down, but mostly they want DU to join in the rant. IMO that would be the blind leading the blind.

But decide for yourself. Don't be bullied into acquiescence or silence.

[wyldwolf]

184. I've read this book

Ken Baer is a former Gore speech writer and blogs from time to time on TPM.

Great book.

[Warren Stupidity]

188. Clinton won with a minority of the popular vote.

Both times. And while Clinton was winning, the Democratic Party on the congressional level went into full retreat, a retreat led by the triangulating republican-lite DLC. We are now the party that can't shoot straight, that refuses to stand and fight, and wouldn't know what it was fighting for anyhow. The corporate-owned leadership has taken the Democratic Party to the edge of irrelevancy and you all keep saying 'follow us we know how to win'.

[wyldwolf]

222. Exit polling shows Clinton would have won more votes w/out Perot

not the opposite.

Further, Clinton won the electoral college vote and, again as polls show, would have won more if Perot had not been in the race. Not the opposite.

[radio4progressives]

239. You seem to be suggesting that Perot Supporters/Voters would have Voted

for Clinton, if Perot wasn't on the Ballot.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the false analysis in this assertion?

[wyldwolf]

242. it is a fact

And it has been demonstrated on DU countless times.

[radio4progressives]

191. Success in what ? Winning At all Cost? Principles be damned?

is that your definition of "Success"?

[Warren Stupidity]

200. The funny thing about that

is that except for Clinton's successes in the two three way races for president that he won, the DLC/New Democrat leadership of our party has 'triumphed' over the steady erosion of Democratic congressional and gubernatorial strength. They know how to win they claim, while proceeding to lose.

[rhett o rick]

226. We haven't had a "thiumph" for a long time. The DLC may be

winning but do they represent core democratic values or corp money? It does democrats no good to win if they have to sell out to corp. See Sen Cantwell and Clinton.

[radio4progressives]

214. So THAT's what happened to Kansas! No wonder they Vote AGAINST THEIR OWN

best interest! thanks for the reference!

someone please tell Thomas Frank to update a new revision of "What's the Matter with Kansas", because I'm not sure he knows about this piece of important factoid (just posted in thread above)..

i'm sure history will be much improved and the people better served, with more complete information.

[Geek_Girl]

201. I'm not sure what the solution is

But we have got to ween this party off of corporate dollars and really start looking at the people we elect to office. In my area we have some much corruption in the democratic party it's hard to point fingers at the republicans when our own state and local democrats are doing the same shit.

The other solution is to organize and use our purchasing power to punish corporations that support republican candidates. Maybe start a letter writing campaign or petition with millions signatures pledging that we will no longer purchase their products. We could also do the same with media outlets.

[Hidden Stillness]

224. Exactly Why We Need to Get Rid of Them

The worst thing about the "D"LC as an influence over the Democratic Party is that it has replaced a nationally integrated Party structure with a Republican/corporate-funded lobbying group that is actively hostile to us. The only thing this rich exclusive club has "accomplished" is to completely dislocate the orientation of the political system: no longer are the people and their votes any kind of a concern to the rich who run for office; now, like "their Republican friends," only the payoffs from lobbyists have any value. Everybody should click on and read the whole article--print it up, so you can go over it slowly. It is very instructive. Near the middle, it quotes from a New "Democrat"(sic) Network brochure, which "sound like investment prospectuses. 'NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials,' says the PAC. 'NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria.' " Who the fuck are these people? George Bush says "political capital," and "D"LC, Inc. says "politcal capital"; nobody in the real world, meanwhile, says "political capital."

This is the essence of what they have done. This also explains why the mainstream American people do not relate to "Democratic" candidates anymore, and as bvar22 explained, (quoting the PEW Study poll results; posts #79, 114), it is not because Americans are archcon venture capitalists like 'D'LC. Americans are middle class, which is always too liberal for rich lobbyists and corporate representatives, like "D"LC, Inc. Generation after generation of Americans have just commonsensically thought that "we are all in this together," "rich people should pull their weight like the rest of us, stop giving them special treatment just because they can buy their way out of things," "it is un-American not to help those in need, and we all need help sometimes," "if you don't regulate big business, they will get away what whatever they can, laws are our only protection," and on and on. The true, generous, non-rich-class, American spirit; we are a people, and a society, for all. Now all of a sudden out of nowhere, injected into the discussion is this totally alien imposition of an attack, against commonsense values that the majority of Americans have held as just and obvious for centuries. Suddenly, the equation of fairness for all with "lefty/liberal/too liberal for America/neo-left McGovernite (an actual expression of theirs)" and the bizarre equation of this ordinary mainstream thought with an "extreme political ideology." They have poisoned the entire way of referring to public things, put it under attack from the rich corporate conservative "propaganda industry," and have removed all of the concerns of the middle class from any public discussion.

They have kept us from winning because, as soon as "D"LC, Inc. came along, the entire Democratic Party structure was changed from a National organization, funding candidates, addressing the issues of each region, etc., to a personality platform for Bill Clinton, and all State chapters were allowed to languish, with no funding, or even staff. It was the only time ever, that the Party itself had been badly run, and is only now being corrected by Howard Dean. This was deliberate. The claim that "D"LC candidates win because they are so "popular" and "in touch" is also a lie. The article that the OP quotes mentions, again around the middle (when I printed it up, it was page 8), "To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires that each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, 'Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?' Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDC determines which candidates are viable before providing financial support." These are not "D"LC candidates being elected, as they claim--the candidates are elected, THEN, AFTER they pass their ideological litmus test, they are bought by the lobbying firm of "D"LC, Inc.

We in the real country are painfully aware of the way the "Democratic" Party will not address itself to the issues that are killing us out here, because it affects their corporate clients--totally unlike the true Democratic Party, how they will not stand up against Bush, enact campaign finance reform (the Abramoff, etc. scandals tell us all why this is happening, of course), will not fight Republican but only bizarrely attack US, using the very same language and routines Republicans use, and if you only read this thread and a few others on this site, it will tell you all you need to know about why we need to get rid of the "D"LC, and all their sneering, "superior" hate, once and for all.

They even turn on their own, viciously, as the article makes clear. Again near the middle of the article, (page 7 on my print), there is a quote from one of the top "D"LC lobbyist/executives, Arthur Lifson, with Cigna Corp., a health insurer who wants to kill Medicare and commercialize it: " 'The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured,' says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. 'It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care.' Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to 'populists...at the other end of the party.'" Yes, cutting people off from all help and making them pay the heartless capitalist is such a "fresh idea." This is why they all sound like Republicans. (You now recognize their "End of the Welfare State" slogan as just more George-Bush-"D"LC-indebted-to-lobbyists situation.) More to the point is the change of Al Gore, who, the article mentions, made a surge toward the end of the 2000 campaign by dumping the dead-weight "D"LC shit, and speaking directly to the people. Gore won, of course. Near the end of the article, (print pages 11-12), they describe how Gore starts to change, and "D"LC, Inc. becomes enraged over it, "I listened to Gore's speech at the convention with incredulity," blah blah. This, I believe, explains their strange insistence on claiming that Gore lost the 2000 election, which clearly did not happen. This proves that the American people do not want "D"LC/Republican systems of corporate interrelations, but want a government for the people, but publicly they have shifted the attack. Among themselves, they attack Gore, who left them, but publicly, they flip it to a convenient attack on the consumer activist Ralph Nader--even though their Republicans stole an election that Gore had won! You may remember a brilliant speech Gore gave to a MoveOn event just before the 2004 "election," where Gore went down a list, and proved that every one of Bush's weird government policies were actually a payback for corporate contributors, no matter how disastrous the policy was for the country. This is what "D"LC, Inc. is, too.

[rhett o rick]

227. Great post. nm

[rhett o rick]

234. Kick and go Seahawks. nm

[TankLV]

243. The Dem party has to choose between the DLC and us. They can't have both.

If the dem party chooses the DLC way, then they can count me and millions of others OUT.

We won't support the party any longer.

It's that simple.

And it will NOT be our fault for continued Dem losses.

Choose.

Choose carefully.

[The Magistrate]

249. Locking

This has become a flame-war.