DLC - Corporate bidding, Democratic Primary winning, and our Congress.

[Free the Press]

The DLC is backed by corporations - corporate networks and capital.

The DLC and/or corporations strategically assesses upcoming elections and determine the minimum number of Congressional seats at risk - from non-CENTRIST candidates (see your Republican Lexicon dictionary).

The DLC hand picks enough candidates in select congressional districts and states, using a strictly federal model of this hypothesis, and crushes all opponents until their candidates win the Democratic nominations in those districts or states.

The Republicans run a much more right-wing candidate in those races, after the DLC candidate prevails, knowing that at worst, the House or Senate seat will be occupied by the corporate candidate who is ready, willing, and able to rubber stamp any legislation requested by corporations.

Corporations and Republicans are glad to see them because they become the worst case scenario once they win the Democratic nominations and primaries.

Once that is done, Corporations and Republicans are assured of a CENTRIST vote in Congress, regardless of the outcome of who wins the general election, whether the Republican or the DLC'er.

Once elected, DLC candidates refrain from declaring themselves as DLC'ers because the public could eventually catch on and put an end to this nonsense.

The DLC is only apt to seek publicity that embraces corporations and Republicans.

The DLC does boast, though, and thus you see elected officials appearing on their website despite the attention that that might lead to, such as someone figuring out what they are up to and passing that on to the general public.

Candidates like Holy Joe survive because they are beyond the Republican majority, and are only needed for exclusive types of votes, such as but not limited to war powers and budget allocations.

Otherwise, Holy Joe has safely voted as a left-winger. He is satisfying his corporate obligations and being rewarded for it handsomely by the Republicans in their legislation. This keeps him popular in CONnecticut.

Republicans there love him, and Democrats there see no alternative to him, because of his otherwise excellent liberal voting record.

Much of this positioning stuff holds true for Republicans as well. They are permitted to vote out of unison for the sake of appearances to their constituents, since the DLC is there to take up the slack for Republicans.

In all it is a well played shell game by corporations. All it takes is to hijack a few Democratic Party nominations. Just enough to ensure their votes are there on every kind of corporate legislation they will need them for.

* doesn't veto legislation, because it is written by and for the corporations.

* doesn't pick moderate Justices for appointments because the Corporate DLC'ers in Congress will vote for Darth Vader if he is nominated AND their vote is needed by Republicans!

* doesn't pick moderate Executives for his agency and cabinet level appointments, because DLC'ers in Congress will vote for any nominee, if the Republicans need such votes. If they don't or cannot, * use his recess appointment powers to bypass Congress.

* doesn't get congressional oversight, because the DLC'ers in Congress won't go public and expose the wrongdoing, when they are allowed to become aware of it by Republican committee chairmen who clearly are the most important Congressional corporate bidders. Also, the DLC'ers won't bite the hand that feeds them.

Please, feel free to add to or detract from my hypothesis.

*edited for typos, though I may have missed some lol.

[Liberty Belle]

1. Bingo. Kick!

[Free the Press]

2. Where are the usual DLC lackeys, to forcefully berate this thread?

:popcorn:

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. I'm still waiting for one of them to explain

THIS

[mom cat]

22. Almost the same as the Alito traitors.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Neil Lisst]

4. Dude, what's up with starting the same thread 3 hours later?

This thread is just like the one you already started 3 hours ago on this board, and that one has been quite active.

Attitudes towards the DLC are legitimate areas of discussion among the party faithful, but one thread per poster per day on the topic ought to be sufficient, eh?

[Talismom]

5. Some of us haven't been able to spend much time here today...and this

bears repeating and very thorough analysis. I've also come to the conclusion that there are indeed Democrats, Republicans and Corporatists, and that the latter need to be outed for the rest of us to be able to act in our own best interests.

[Neil Lisst]

12. I wasn't addressing any of that, merely the duplicate posting.

The same two threads with the same original post were started in a 3 hour period last night, and both threads were side by side at the top of this page. I had already posted twice on the other thread, as had several others.

[Free the Press]

15. Neil, I was reducing the rant to a clear list of charges against the DLC.

The rant was a burst of unorganized but related thoughts.

The 2nd thread presents the core of my rant in specific and organized charges against the DLC.

These charges continue to stand and remain unchallenged by facts in this thread.

It would be nice to see some intellectual investigation of my OP here, but so far it has received little of that, at least from DLC advocates.

[leftstreet]

6. Urgency?

“We're all scared. You hid in that ditch because you think there's still hope. But Blythe, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without remorse. All war depends on it."- Lt. Ronald Spiers, Band of Brothers

[wyldwolf]

7. A Mr. Rogers hypothesis

... it's a beautiful day in the misinformed made-up neighborhood..

[Moderate Donkey]

8. yes, to be sure

VERY LITTLE or NO basis in fact. And no proof to back the assertions. Typical.

[SaveElmer]

9. Indeed...

When they can't make a compelling factual case, they think screeching louder will convince people.

[Free the Press]

10. Well, well, well. Another convincing disparagement backed by facts! Not!

This thread relies on equal evidence as your response, so far.

Your malignancy has yet to disprove or diminish any part of this corporate sponsored thread. (© 2001 - 2006 Democratic Underground, LLC)

In fact, your participation in a hypertext orgy of name-calling, fact-twisting, and "guilt by association" branding does not make the DLC less guilty of the charges I have made in the OP, it only befuddles reality for those whom ignorantly accept your comments and their implications as legitimate facts.

However, you are invited to disprove the OP by presenting actual facts and links to those facts in the real world.

[wyldwolf]

11. It's a beautiful day for a neighor... would you be mine?

Honestly - your OP is void of any substance except your fantasy.

However, you are invited to PROVE the OP by presenting actual facts and links to those facts in the real world. SEE? That's how it works in real life. You make a claim, you prove them. And you have A LOT to prove.

[Free the Press]

13. You could choose to enlighten rather than slight - your modus operandi.

The OP is clear and precise in its charges.

In the real world, you have every availability to use facts and links to those facts to attempt to dismiss the charges I make in the OP, but you avail yourself to name-calling and "guilt by association" Right-wing* euphemism instead.

What do you mean by your actions in responding to the OP in such a manner?

Do you mean to discuss the OP, to attack it, or to label and categorize it as childlike fantasy?

If you intend to discuss it, then do so.

If you intend to attack it, then do so.

Thus far you have done neither.

If you mean to label and categorize it as childlike fantasy, then you have already done so, but you have used the same method you decried when you provided no evidence supporting your own fantasy.

[wyldwolf]

19. "The OP is clear and precise in its charges" - though factually challenged

[Free the Press]

41. See Post # 28, please.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. Proof? Why can't the OP just post a few opinion pieces, like you?

Speaking of posts chock full of Fasntasy

[wyldwolf]

18. I'll issue you a challenge

show me the fantasy in that post.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Start with the first word,

End with the last word.

Fair enough?

Mondale a choice of the far left? :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

29. brilliant response.

Not.

Quotes. Refutations.

Not up for the challenge?

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. I could.

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

But yet SOMEHOW they got their choice for pres. with McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc. Which is it? How could that be?

[wyldwolf]

38. but you didn't

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. Certainly not.

[MrBenchley]

37. Yeah, a great day for the Junior Joe McCarthy Club

to pretend they can purge folks...

[Free the Press]

39. Do you have memory loss Mr.Benchley? Obviously, you have no answers!

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

"Who BUT the DLC would publish a paper arguing that since 80% of the country feel positive about 'X', we should ignore them and try to pander to the ones who oppose 'X'...

"Everytime I run into anyone from the DLC or anyhting any of them say, I'm reminded of what Harry Truman once said: 'Give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, and they'll vote Republican every time.'

"'The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power.'--FDR"

This was posted by Mr. Benchley @ DU Sun Oct-02-05 03:03 PM

***

Still no answers to the charges.

[MrBenchley]

43. Wow, see if you can dredge up something older and less relevant

By the way, you won't see any call for a purge there.

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. It is totally relevant. Everyone can see that.

It is not OLD. Everyone can also see it is not but a few months ago.

Nobody here at DU has accused more people of hating Dems or has asked others to "just leave the party" more often than you, MrHonesty.

BTW Please deny this so I can post hundreds of examples. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

45. And that's why the Junior Joe Mccarthy Club keeps dredging it up futilely

and looking so silly.

Now feel free to go back to your silly "purge" fantasies....

[LincolnMcGrath]

46. lol Is 'purge fantasy' the MrHonesty meme of the week now?

:hi:

[Free the Press]

56. A position you took against the DLC 4 months ago is irrelevant today?

That is pure. Pure DLC hypocrisy. Pure DLC futility. Pure DLC treachery.

"Less relevant," because it doesn't show you to have integrity today, but does shows you you are cannon fodder for the DLC.

In fact, you are your own and the DLC's most compelling nemesis.

Where are the facts that dispute the charges in the OP?

There will be none of that, eh?

No facts when confronted with charges?

Instead, there is a "I know porn when I see it" knee-jerk reaction to dismiss the charges as absurd.

These charges and opinions, made in the OP, against the DLC should be so easy to dispute and to put down, but instead they and their backers are subject to high priced name-calling and plenty of redirection by DU's most devout DLC'ers.

The same cabal of characters who profess and post substantial data and links, in a heartbeat, in other threads, to dismiss trivial claims against the DLC stand aside here and cast sticks and stones against more substantial charges, while calling them absurd.

[LincolnMcGrath]

58. LOL Don't you know that is an "ancient" quote.

:rofl:

(snicker...)

[MrBenchley]

60. Dredge up something older, why doncha?

By the way, show me where I called for a purge, while you're at it.

"you are your own and the DLC's most compelling nemesis"
Such solicitude!

"These charges and opinions, made in the OP, against the DLC should be so easy to dispute and to put down"
Really? You mean you're admittintg that your charges are a big load of codswallop?

"they and their backers are subject to high priced name-calling"
Rubbish. All of the name calling, though well-earned, has been free of charge.

[Moochy]

70. Free of charge

or subsidized by Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation?

[MrBenchley]

77. Free of charge, moochy....

but it's always nice to see how desperately you throw out those freeper slurs.

[Moochy]

78. Facts are Slurs? only in Benchley Land.

How is that pointing out that you seem to work for the DLC, which is funded in part by that organization a slur?

So what do you think about your boss, Vilsack's recommendation that dems not oppose the president's warrantless NSA wiretaps?

Oh and ... isn't "name-calling" a violation of DU's rules?

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[MrBenchley]

80. In other words, you have no facts, only slurs

and it was free of charge....

[Moochy]

87. When you can decide what are facts... kinda not worth trying is it?

The DLC is an organization started by a former republican, Al From.

The dlc receives funding from the politically Right leaning Bradley foundation, and others large corporate foundations to develop a platform of neo-liberal globalist, and corporate-friendly policy positions for democrats. If they sign on, they get access to the support of a non-democratic elitist think-tank and it's coffers are opened up to them. In return, the DLC selects and runs candidates in districts where their large pockets can defeat "populist" candidates, and fancy themselves as king makers, ever chasing the center by diluting sound policy by peppering it with policies from the right.

The DLC continued existence requires that it sell and package its ideas, and marginalizing the true populist ideas of the democratic party, in favor of its program, one that has some very liberal ideas, but also ensures that the positions are corporate friendly. Self Regulation anyone? Corporations are big friendly giants, with big deep pockets that they only use for good.

The DLC rode the Bill Clinton donkey to victory in 92, and have been touting their role for the 8 years of Clinton's presidency. More BS Marketing.

in October you were showing a less than positive view of the DLC. Now four months on from this "ancient" time, you spew offensive, disruptive and in your own words "jeers" and "name-calling" How's that Kool-aid taste? Oh you can't escape the archives, and yet you are like a duck, with each day you forget what was posted before right? Or was this ancient time before you fell off your horse on the way back from Damascus, did you have an epiphany? or a job interview with someone from Al From's organization? Really that would make a compelling story, sort of a mirror-image of "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock, except this would chronicle how the DLC was in fact the savior of the democratic party, and how we must marginalize the fringe. "Blinded by the Fringe Left" By MrBenchley.

You fail sometimes to get a thread locked, and this must be disappointing, but when someone does corner you and present facts, you retreat from the thread and skulk into the DLC cafeteria to get a snickers bar.

You have never refuted the claim that you are paid to do just this. Thus my claim that while we might have been able to read your insults, abusive jeering, and drivel "free of charge" that the old adage is correct: You get what you pay for.

Oh wait lets try and predict your response shall we?

"It's fun to see your desperate attempts to smear me... (snicker)"

Laugh it up chuckle boys, your agenda is as transparent as it is ugly.

[LincolnMcGrath]

93. "Blinded by the Fringe Left" By MrBenchley

:rofl:

[Free the Press]

16. When I return tonight, I hope to find facts that challenge my DLC charges.

The OP has attracted no facts that challenge my charges against the DLC, yet.

[Vincardog]

17. Hey Free when they ask for proof why not mention the IWR, the

Bankruptcy vote or the aLIEto vote? We are allowed to judge the DLC lackeys by their votes are we not? The question becomes what are we to do? I think find and back REAL PROGRESSIVE candidates. My pick is David Van Os. He is running against the DLC and the Republican machine and needs our help and money.
<http://www.vanosfortexasag.com/>
If anybody knows a better person I want to meet them. David has spent his life fighting for the Working Man/Woman against the Corporate greed that is the Republican Monster. What better way to fight back against the Corporate insiders in the GOP and DLC than put a REAL PROGRESSIVE in the most powerful office in TEXAS?

[bvar22]

23. By their works....

...you will know them.

The Center:

"How progressive? It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. 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…"

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

[bread_and_roses]

62. I guess they must be polling only the "far left", eh?

Since we don't see the Dem leadership out beating the drums for any of these policies. Instead, we have Dems voting for the Bankrupcy Bill, etc. It would be enough to make one turn to conspiracy theories, if Corporate $$$ didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it.

[bvar22]

66. Its worse than that.

These polls are of ALL Americans.
The #s among Democrats are significantly huigher.

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.

[bread_and_roses]

76. I should have included sarcasm "smiley"

It always makes me howl with laughter when posters criticizing the DLC are accused of being "far left."

[Moderate Donkey]

21. when you return tonight, I hope you bring facts to prove your charges

Because otherwise they're baseless paranoid fantasy.

Honestly, I see a trend on DU with the more "progressive" to throw out charges then claim people have to disprove them. That's not how it works. That's called "guilty until proven innocent."

[KoKo]

65. The charges are well known by most here and have been posted by others on

this thread if you take the time to read some of the responses. As for your accusing a fellow DU'er of a baseless paranoid fantasy...you might want to rethink that. :D

[sandnsea]

24. So this isn't flamebait

But this is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2439030&mesg_id=2439030

Interesting.

[iconoclastNYC]

27. Disruption is like obscenity...you know it when you see it.

[sandnsea]

32. This thread is disruptive

The fact that the other thread was posted is full proof of just how disruptive this thread is, but I thought it was disruptive before the other one was posted. I didn't alert on it though, free speech and all. Maybe that's the difference.

[iconoclastNYC]

36. Cry me a river. N/T

[iconoclastNYC]

26. Spot on.

We have to take our party back by getting rid of the DINOS one by one.

[Free the Press]

28. "The OP is clear and precise in its charges"- though factually challenged?

1). Kindly identify which charges in the OP are "factually challenged."
2). Please demonstrate that charges in the OP are "factually challenged."
3). Is the comment, " - though factually challenged," intended to be a factual challenge to the clear and precise charges in the OP?

***

Will DLC'ers offer compelling facts and links relevant to this discussion in order to convince those who are interested to know whether the OP's charges are FACTUAL, or will they continue to redirect this thread and the OP with a hit-and-run orgy of rickety one-line, all-encompassing counter-charges?

***

The charges in the OP do not become true by default, because the DLC'ers fail to disprove them.

Charges are not convictions.

Unanswered charges are compelling, though, and do discredit the charged, unless the charged can demonstrate that the charges are wholly absurd.

DLC'ers who have responded to the OP may be in agreement with each other in believing that they have demonstrated the charges in the OP to be absurd, but it seems to me that they have, instead, failed to persuade non-DLC'ers of the "alleged" absurdity of the charges and instead remain collectively content with their disconnect from non-DLC'ers.

The charges remain unanswered by facts.

DLC'ers can set the record straight by demonstrating factual answers to these charges, but they relent and refuse to bridge the gap between themselves and others.

DLC'ers, thus, perpetuate an "either your with us or against us" adversarial relationship with non-DLC'ers, while claiming it is the other way around, IMO.

[mdmc]

31. All elected Dems are DLC, even Dean

Unless you are Bernie Saunders, or in the black / progressive caucus, you are DLC. Am I wrong, DU?

[Free the Press]

33. Here is a list of elected DLC Governors, House, and Senate officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

15 Governors, though the DLC website doesn't offer either a number or list of them.

64 House members, though the DLC website claims 40 members but doesn't list all of them.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3869

18 Senators, thought the DLC website claims 20 members but doesn't list all of them.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

Therefore, it is untrue that "All elected Dems are DLC, even Dean."

[mdmc]

34. I stand corrected!

I have greatly overstated the control of our party by the DLC. How come all elected Dems appear to be DLC? Why not be DLC if you believe in triangulation?

[Mass]

47. Dean is no more an elected official. He was in this list as long as

he was one, same thing for Edwards. the DLC lists (or listed, as they have stopped offering a list) people as long as they are not formerly asked to unlist them, but only as long as they are elected. They drop them the day they are no more elected.

[msgadget]

35. It's simpler than that

Strong industry is required for the economy and they give lots of money, money needed to run campaigns. As a result their wishes are granted before ours and a weaker oposition party might seek to make themselves an attractive beneficiary.

The republican party was made up of different factions back in the day until the strongest cartel won and it looks like that same kind of fight is happening within the democratic party.

Plainly put, the business of gaining the power to win ruins the country for the populace and there ain't a damned thing we can do about it. We can support candidates who purport to be different but their candidacy can be killed from within the party if it doesn't advance the party leaders' goals. We can write, protest, blog to our heart's content but without support from the highest rung of the party things will continue on this course. Fundamentalists fought for decades to get this far. We've got a long way to go.

[Free the Press]

40. DLC'ers still can choose to answer the charges with facts, but won't.

[Mass]

48. I am not a DLCer, but I can recognize useless attacks when I see them

May be we can focus on HOW POLS VOTE and not who list them as part of their organization.

For example, the Senate leadership is not part of your list and is as ineffectual as possible.

It would be nice if people focus on issues and not on process for once, and dont forget some real people are affected by all that. This is not the SuperBowl as some seem to think.

EDIT: change PEOPLE to POLS.

[LincolnMcGrath]

50. Question?

Did you mean How 'voters' vote or how politicians vote?

[Mass]

52. I meant politicians. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. Thanks! No Prob.

For me, It is about the yeas and nays.

[MrBenchley]

49. Why bother?

It's not like the far left is much of an ornament to the Democratic cause....as this silly attempt at a "show trial" demonstrates.

[LincolnMcGrath]

51. Just tell us why Hillary voted for to extend *s tax cuts.

"show trial"? Spend less time on memes and attacking Democratic voters and defend this VOTE.

[MrBenchley]

53. No, I'm not going to bother....

Now wave your ancient links around and cry.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

54. Of course you won't address it. (What's NEW) It can't be defended.

Now your words from a few months ago are ancient? :rofl:

[Free the Press]

57. Can anyone, whether a DLC lackey or not, refute the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to facts you present in your rebuttal. Thanks.

[LincolnMcGrath]

59. Nobody will. I'm still waiting for the anti-progressives to answer for

this.

[wyldwolf]

61. Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. Nah, just post a blog or some other opinion piece.

That seems to be the gold standard for some around here.

[wyldwolf]

82. you mean like in post #73?

[Free the Press]

67. Where in the OP were "facts" presented? Accusations were made.

Where in the OP did I claim to present "facts?"

IMO, I made charges against the DLC in the OP.

Charges are accusations.

Whether the charges are true or false has not been established in this thread.

In DU, accusations may be answered, ignored, or even labeled absurd, among other things.

Ignoring accusations does not make those accusations false or less credible, answering accusations MAY result in the accusations being proven or put down, and labeling accusations as absurd attacks the credibility of the charges by way of name-calling.

Ignoring and labeling accusations will never prove or put them down.

Only answering accusations can do that.

Making accusations or charges does not make them true, but it does establish that there is an interest in proving or putting them down.

In this regard, I have put forth charges against the DLC.

I have also solicited factual responses from those members of DU that have established themselves as proponents of the DLC (whom I refer to as DLC'ers and DLC lackey's).

You, for example, are a DU member who has devoted a great deal of effort to posting pro-DLC threads and messages @ DU.

You are no stranger to allegations, accusations, and charges being made against the DLC by members of DU.

You have extended yourself on many occasions to offer well prepared responses to many of those previous accusations and charges.

It has not always resulted in bridging the gap between DLC'ers and others, but your work has became a point of reference that COULD be used toward an advancement of DU'er political knowledge, especially of the Democratic Party.

When one overtly commits them-self to an opinion, they help the argument move forward by defining their opinion more accountably and causing them-self to be locked-in as an advocate of some point of information.

Yet, in this instance, you and other pro-DLC members of DU are twisting words beyond semantical recognition in your responses to the OP and subsequent messages in this thread.

DLC'ers twisting and stretching and reaching are not making the charges go away, they are not lessening the impact of the charges in the minds of those that share them, and they are not producing anything of value, except, perhaps, free entertainment.

When I write that it should be easy to respond to the charges in the OP with facts, I neither intend that the OP is wrong or right, but that the facts are the facts, and if the OP is wrong or right, depending on which charge, then it should be easy for a DU DLC'er to establish the truth about the charges with facts.

After all, who better than a DU DLC'er to set the record straight on the DLC?

Certainly the charges are loaded.

But they are valid.

They are valid, because they are based on peoples' perceptions.

Perceptions that are fervently believed and not kind toward the DLC.

You may not like these charges, may not believe them, and may think they are absurd.

But many DU'ers do not believe these charges are absurd.

This is your big opportunity to set the record straight.

Name-calling (e.g. "Junior Joe McCarthy Club," a common label bestowed by Mr. Benchley here @ DU) only reinforces the division between DLC'ers and other DU'ers.

What do you have to lose by taking on the charges one-by-one and either proving or putting them down?

What do you have to gain by portraying the charges as absurd?

IMO, both answers are NOTHING.

What do you have to gain by taking on the charges one-by-one and either proving or putting them down?

What do you have to lose by portraying the charges as absurd?

IMO, both answers are A LOT!

The particular charges in the OP are important to resolve, because they go to the root of the divergence between DLC'ers and other DU'ers.

IMO, the facts, if brought to light will result in both DLC'ers and other DU'ers changing some rather deep-felt opinions they have of each other and the political affiliations within the Democratic Party that they advocate on behalf of.

Both DLC'ers and other DU'ers will be surprised.

To demonstrate this, let me offer a fact that you could have already inserted into this thread and used to demonstrate other facts that either prove or disprove some of the charges made in the OP.

It is a common charge against the DLC that it is supported by corporations and thus beholden to those corporate benefactors.

However, it is rarely if ever suggested that one of those "corporations" is the Democratic Party itself, or the DNC.

Yes, DLC'ers may realize this, but does the DU'er who makes the "corporate" charges against the DLC know this?

http://www.democrats.org (scroll to bottom of page)

Do you see it? ~~~> "Copyright © 1995-2005 DNC Services Corporation"

DNC Services Corporation is one and the same as the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE or the Democratic Party.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22DNC+Services+Corporation%22+%2B+%22democratic+national+committee%22+%2B++%22Democratic+Party%22+&btnG=Search

Therefore, it MIGHT be demonstrable that the DNC MAY be guilty of the some of the charges that are made against the DLC in the OP, if someone would put the facts together and post them with links.

While that doesn't directly answer a charge in the OP, it MAY make it less painful for DLC'ers to directly answer a charge against the DLC in the OP.

Also, it may make it more painful for other DU'ers to strictly hold the DLC in contempt for being guilty of a charge in the OP knowing that the DNC is equally guilty of the same charge.

This may seem like a waste of time, but it truly isn't, because it will change opinions.

Real facts can move people and sway them toward each other.

Real name-calling can move people and sway them away from each other.

To me the problem is really much more than the validity or affirmation of any of the individual charges in the OP.

The problem is that when we step back and look at the totality of the charges and the facts that truly answer them, that we will only be first looking at the more important questions that need to be asked of the DLC and the DNC.

By perpetuating the isolation between DLC'ers and other DU'ers, both groups become guilty of blinding themselves from seeing the truth by hiding behind generally accepted perceptions that just might be wrong about the Democratic Party.

The truth isn't pretty, but ...

seeing it will enable DU'ers to recognize with greater skill and efficiency what is really wrong and right with American politics and the Democratic Party today.

The truth shall set you free, I believe.

So, please set the truth free and answer the charges.

Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

69. exactly. Can anyone prove them with facts?

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. DLC sh*t sandwich

Explain this

[wyldwolf]

72. Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.

[LincolnMcGrath]

89. WHY avoid discussion about votes or DLC comments.

DISCUSS THIS

[wyldwolf]

91. Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.

[LincolnMcGrath]

92. Thats what I thought. LOL

At least MrHonesty had the guts to check in there and insult 300+ DUers intelligence.

[wyldwolf]

94. I believe in staying on topic. Specifically the OP

Seems you can't do it, though.

[LincolnMcGrath]

96. I didn't post it. Go check in the other thread.

[wyldwolf]

98. doesn't matter. The OP is the topic of this thread.

I don't turn down every side street whenever someone can't stay on topic.

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. Post #3 was mine

And you have studiously avoided that link and the other link, why is that?

[wyldwolf]

107. doesn't matter. The OP is the topic of this thread.

And you have studiously avoided proving it, why is that?

[LincolnMcGrath]

Sentence one;

"The DLC is backed by corporations - corporate networks and capital."

Is that factually challenged? I think not.

[wyldwolf]

115. In it's context, yes

But since all Democrats (even the "prooogreeeessssiiiveee" ones) are backed by corporations - corporate networks and capital, the point is prettly irrlevant.

[LincolnMcGrath]

117. lol Was that so hard?

[wyldwolf]

118. no, since it had already been covered down thread - but..

only 18 or so points left to prove for you.

[KoKo]

64. Excellent Observation...........We have the DLC Dems Running NC and

they could care less about supporting Verified Paper Ballots here in NC..

Some of our Repugs have clearer thinking on this than our DLC Dems who have stabbed the grassroots Dem Activists in the back ..time after time.

They don't WANT REAL DEMS in the PARTY...they see us as "Riff Raff." I've seen it here on the ground...it's really disgusting. And, they know that if they disgust us Activists enough...we will give up and leave. Then they have the "turf" just the way they like it...whining and moaning about how they just can't do anything...when in fact we have a DEM GOVERNOR...who's ALSO A CLASSIC DLC..Actually I think he's a true Repug...but is cross dressing. :puke:

[wyldwolf]

68. Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.

[Moochy]

73. DLC Funding sources

The DLC and its close associate, the Progressive Policy Institute, are the recipients of grants from many Fortune 500 companies and such right-wing foundations as the Bradley Foundation. Corporate contributors to the Progressive Policy Institute include AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. (17) The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation.

According to one magazine report, the DLC enjoys funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

[wyldwolf]

74. "progressive" funding sources:

Time Warner, Viacom Inc, Cisco Systems, Sony Corp of America, Walt Disney Co, YankeeNets, Vivendi Universal, Microsoft Corp, IBM Corp, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, News Corp (yeah, THAT News Corp.), Kyoikos Associates, SprintNextel, Borders & Borders, DreamWorks SKG, Williams & Bailey, Sterling Equities, Washington Mutual Inc,

...and Soro's money.

...and Rappaports'...


etc.

http://www.opensecrets.org

[Moochy]

75. Why the air quotes around "progressive" ?

What do you think the P in PPI stands for? The Progressive Policy Institute is your favorite org's sister think tank. http://www.ppionline.org/

You and your fellow DU DLC'ers are great at labeling, and putting out one liner posts... (snicker) (guffaw) and great at jeering, but not very good with facts, or links. Apparently the wisdom contained in your "pearls before swines" is so stunningly self-evident that everyone should be able to understand your obtuse posts.

Please elaborate your point while avoiding the air quotes around the term, progressive. Your thought leaders are not afraid of the term.

By posting that list of companies, what particular organization are you claiming is funded by these sources? Note, I don't doubt that many organizations which take positions I agree with accept money from corporate sources, I'm just hoping that you can string together a coherent post free of ellipses ... and emotes (snicker) and red baiting bullshit.

I know, I'm bound to be disappointed, but what the fuck it's late, and I'm feeling charitable.

(edited to add:) As to why I posted my list, I was responding to your request for links, to support any of the claims in the OP. Specifically the first one: The DLC is backed by corporations - corporate networks and capital.
So, why did you post your list again?

[wyldwolf]

79. I know, I'm bound to be disappointed...

(...oops!)

But it might have helped had you replied to one of my posts with your info. That is the norm, ya know.

Oh, since the OP thinks that corporate funding is some evil thing, my list shows that we all must be evil.

You and your fellow DU DLC'ers are great at labeling, and putting out one liner posts... (snicker) (guffaw) and great at jeering, but not very good with facts, or links.

Oh, you mean like these?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2438061&mesg_id=2438061
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2439885
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2439566
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2437860&mesg_id=2437860
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2423422&mesg_id=2423422
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2425128
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2311497
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2251474
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1452850
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1418423
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2928480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1607948

Talk about not being very good with facts and links.

[SOS]

144. What progressive groups does this refer to?

No group is mentioned. Just a list of corporations.
The link is to opensecrets home page. Tells us nothing.
Are you saying that Moveon.org is funded by Time Warner?
What progressive groups are receiving these corporate funds?

[wysiwyg]

81. I live in Sandy, Utah

Me and that guy a couple of streets over can make a big splash when we meet for the Democratic caucus for our precinct. :-)

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

85. 3 Days pass. No facts from left loons, but penty of name-calling vitriol

Based on the responses, it is obvious that the OP is content to troll in this thread.

Not a single fact linked to by OP to prove his charges. We're all fortunate he/she doesn't run things in the real world. Guilty until proven innocent.

In 3 days, the OP has offered us nothing to back his "accusations."

You be the judge.


And why can't the anti-DLCers ever have a discussion without personal attacks?

[LincolnMcGrath]

88. "...from left loons, but penty of name-calling vitriol"

"why can't the anti-DLCers ever have a discussion without personal attacks?"

[wyldwolf]

90. was there a personal attack in that?

Directed at who?

(hint: ask yourself why the post above mine was deleted.)

[LincolnMcGrath]

95. Anyone who questions the almighty DLC gets a label.

[wyldwolf]

97. I'm so sorry. It was an anti-DLCer who chose to use labels

Not me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

103. Must have been another wyldwof tossing out phrases like 'left loon'

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

106. only after "DLC Lackey" was tossed out first, and even then..

.. not targeted to anyone personally.

[LincolnMcGrath]

109. Well that explains everything. Sort of like

a "personal attacks-lite"

[wyldwolf]

110. a personal attack as defined on DU

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board.

[LincolnMcGrath]

111. Weak

[wyldwolf]

113. Weak? That's all you can say? Complain to the DU admins, then.

The DU rules say what they say.

[LincolnMcGrath]

119. If you are happy with your actions, then hey, go for it.

I don't name call

Well now that you busted me, I do but only because they started it.

And its okay because it's sort of allowed, kinda. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

121. That's all you can say? Complain to the DU admins, then.

[Moderator]

143. Moderator Message

Your quote from DU's rules is indeed accurate, however, the rules also state:

Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden (except in the case of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence, as mentioned above). However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

Have a thick skin. Please be aware that just because you consider a post to be offensive does not mean that it is against the rules or bigoted. As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.

The use of terms such as "left loon" and "DLC Lackey" could easily be considered broad-brush smears as defined by DU Rules. Any and all posters in this or any other thread who engage in name calling, whether as a personal or more general broad-brush attack, are advised to immediately cease and desist. Enough is enough!

[Capn Sunshine]

84. Take a good look at just the Bradley Foundation

HOW in the world can a Democrat be associated with this and retain an objective progressive viewpoint?

Answer: not very likely. Just admit it, you guys: the DLC brokers for the corporate world as reps of the "loyal opposition" and any threat to this status quo is viewed as dangerous.

Board:
Thomas L. Rhodes, Chairman- President of National Review and Heritage Foundation

Reed Coleman, Vice Chairman-Milwaukee Media control

Michael W. Grebe, President & CEO Ex CEO of Foley and Lardner, corporate Law.Republican Party official who has served as General Counsel to the Republican National Committee

William L. Armstrong Famous RW journalist shill

Terry ConsidineTerry Considine was a Republican member of the Colorado State Senate from 1987 until 1992. Ran for Senate against Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Longtime Rep stooge. CEO of AIMCO, a real estate investment trust

Pierre S. du Pont Scion of the Chemical fortune, manufacturers of napalm, former Gov. of corporate haven Delaware

Thomas L. Smallwood Medical school Board , Hospital Boards, Etc.

Brother Bob Smith Catholic educator, board of several large religious institutions, behind the neocon anti-public education specials on NPR ("Education: A Public Right Gone Wrong") and anti-feminist screeds; big behindthe voucher movement.

David V. Uihlein, Jr. scion of wealthy low-cover family of conservatives with their own group of conservative foundations.

Read this about Bradley Foundation's involvement in Iraq policy.

Harry was the more political of the two brothers who inherited the Bradley fortune: and a man with extreme right-wing views. Harry was an key early financial supporter of the John Birch Society, one of the country's leading far-right organizations, based in nearby Appleton, WI.

Robert Welsh, who founded the Society in 1958, was a regular speaker at Allen-Bradley sales meetings. Harry distributed Birchite literature, as did Fred Loock, another key figure at the company. They also supported the Australian doctor Fred Schwarz, founder of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and a right-wing Midwest radio program produced by anti-communist producer Bob Siegrist. Harry's main political targets were "World Communism" and the U.S. federal government, not necessarily in that order {Daily KOS}

Funding

Between 1985 and 2002, the foundation had granted close to $500 million to a variety of conservative organizations. ( By the end of 2002, the foundation had $532,048,000 in total liabilities and assets, a 16% drop from the year before. This amount increased to $619,980,000 in 2003. Total grants for charitable purposes were at $25,815,000 and an added $7,562,000 in operating expenses in 2002.

Many of Bradley’s 2003 grantees are among the leading organizations of the right wing, particularly its neoconservative sector. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research was given $600,000 for the Foreign and Defense Policy Studies program, the Bradley Lectures, and some type of survey analysis. The Hudson Institute received $446,100 for the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal. The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) and Middle East Forum received $50,000 each. The FPRI grant went towards the Center for the Study of America and the West and general operations. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies received $40,000 for research on U.S.–Russia–Caspian affairs.

Among organizations from the religious sector, the Ethics and Public Policy Center received $425,000 for general operations while Freedom House was granted $250,000 for several projects and activities. The Institute on Religion and Public Life received $250,000 for First Things magazine. The Institute on Religion and Democracy received $75,000.

Other grantees include the Project for the New American Century, which received $200,000. The National Strategy Information Center received $275,000. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies received $125,000. The Independent Women’s Forum obtained $20,000 for general operations, and Bradley also gave $20,000 to Marquette University for a research project on Norman Podhoretz.

Government organizations also obtained grants. The National Endowment for Democracy received $80,000 for the publication of The Journal of Democracy. The International Republican Institute, which also gets funding from the NED, received $26,000.
Most of the Bradley board members work for or have worked for some of the 2003 Bradley grantees. Chairman Thomas L. Rhodes was the founder and is the co-chairman of American Civil Rights Institute, and it was given $175,000 for general operations and public education about the elimination of governmental racial classifications in California and another $50,000. He was a board member of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, which was given $400,000. Rhodes was also a trustee of Manhattan Institute and Heritage Foundation, which were given $250,000 each, and Heritage received $72,500 to support a fellow in labor policy. The Council on Foreign Relations, which Rhodes was a member of, received $25,000 for the “Defending America in the 21st Century” project.

President and CEO Michael W. Grebe is a board member of the Philanthropy Roundtable, which received $175,000. He was a board member of the Hoover Institution, and it was given $5,000 for general operations, $100,000 for the National Security Forum, and $225,000 for the American Public Education Initiative and Education Next magazine.

Hudson Institute received $446,100 for the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal. Board member Reed Coleman was the vice-chairman of the National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal that was sponsored at Hudson. Pierre S. Du Pont was former chairman of the Hudson Institute, and he is policy chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, which received $82,500 for general operations and $75,000 for a public education program on Social Security and Medicare reform. Du Pont was also a chairman of the National Review Institute, and it received $20,000. Finally, Smith’s Messmer Catholic Schools received $1,000 for the schools and $215,000 for the high school.

[Moochy]

86. La La La La La I'm not listening!!

(puts hands over eyes and fingers in ears) Corporations arent greedy, manipulative and out for profit above all things, you silly communist.

Can I join the DLC now? Really I want to be accepted by Mr B and his LapDog err I mean wyldwolf. :sarcasm:

Great post. Clearly they get to ignore certain facts. Maybe they have a content scanning firewall that kicks in when the discomforting truth shows up in their browser?

[Greyhound]

99. So can we now just sum it up as the DLC is a 5th column for the

re:puke: party. Not only are we infiltrated, but they are our 'leaders'.

[wyldwolf]

100. Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?

Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.

[Greyhound]

101. I find nothing in the OP that is not self-evident. The strategy is baltant

and only their apologists seem to have trouble seeing it.

[wyldwolf]

102. Self evident?

That's good. So now whenever someone believes something but lacks the evidence to prove it, they can say "it's self-evident," or, the evidence is that it's true.

Big Foot? Self-evident.
Tooth Fairy? Self-evident.

[Greyhound]

105. Apparently you are dictionary-challenged, here ya go...

evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident" .
You forgot God.

[wyldwolf]

108. That's what I said

evident without proof or argument - it's true because I say so.

Toothfairy? Self evident.

But in this case, many here (and you apparently) are factually challenged.

[Greyhound]

112. You are so full of crap. LOL!

The utter weakness of your position is self-evident, that's why you engage in this type of mental masturbation. Two possibilities, one you really are that dumb, or two, and more likely, you know deep inside how corrupt the politiwhores you support are and just can't bear to admit it to yourself.
Anyway, good luck with that.

[wyldwolf]

114. Can anyone prove the charges in the OP?

Can anyone, whether a far left loon or not, prove the charges in the OP?
Kindly provide links to the "facts" you present. Thanks.


The Great Pumpkin? Self-evident!

[Greyhound]

116. The more relevant question is; "Does anybody want to waste their time

looking all this up so that I can get my rocks off by wasting your time?"

[wyldwolf]

120. Only if they want to be credible - and yet another personal attack

You anti-DLCers just can't resist. I know it gets frustrating to be constantly asked to provide a little evidence to what is claimed, but you really must learn to control your tendency to engage in personal attacks.

[LincolnMcGrath]

124. Complain to the admins if you need to.

I don't see a personal attack in that post. Now that you have clearly defined it. lol

[wyldwolf]

126. On the contrary, DU clearly defined it,

[LincolnMcGrath]

133. What ever floats your boat, pal.

[wyldwolf]

138. and the DU admins' boat, apparently

[paulk]

122. another PI circle jerk

don't you kids have anything better to do?


why hasn't this flamebait been locked?

[wyldwolf]

123. why hasn't this flamebait been locked? Good question

Maybe someone wants to see the anti-DLCers twist in the wind yet again and refuse to provide evidence for some pretty serious (though made-up) accusations?

Or maybe someone is hoping an anti-DLCer will (finally) come through in a thread like this with some facts and links?

Someone did tell me that the charges were "self-evident."

[LincolnMcGrath]

125. It wasn't flamebait to you arrived.

Your agenda to shut down dissent finally comes out in the open. Priceless!

[wyldwolf]

127. It was flamebait the moment it was posted. And kindly show us...

...where I've attempted to "shut down dissent."

Honestly, the victim mentality from the anti-DLCers gets real old.

[LincolnMcGrath]

129. lol

Yes, Sort of like, Waaah you called me a name.

[wyldwolf]

131. I didn't think so. I'll add one more baseless charge to your record. LOL

[LincolnMcGrath]

132. Who is playing the victim here?

[wyldwolf]

137. that would be you

[LincolnMcGrath]

141. Reality Check

"why hasn't this flame bait been locked? Good question"

lol

P.S. Keep bragging how you can get away with personal attacks while whining about others, your credibility factor lowers with every post.

[paulk]

128. regarding "self evident" charges

like a former president said -


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[wyldwolf]

130. Good quote, and very applicable here

[Moochy]

134. So the DLC gets all its money from small donors? n/t

[wyldwolf]

140. of course not, but "progressives" don't either.

[Moochy]

135. No Gramps, we dont

Nice of you to play the ageist card though, Oh wise paternalistic father figure that you are.

[Free the Press]

136. Here are some links, but wait, there is another thread on DLC funding!

Miscellaneous References: (general links to articles about the DLC and DLC related links)

For a introductory analysis of the DLC try reading thses articles:

Notice the number of persons who support the DLC?

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/24/16457/4867

"It was a New Democrat kind of talk," he said. "There were things liberal Republicans could agree with."

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/2350576.shtml

"Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Green party"

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w26/msg00068.htm

"the New Democratic Network (NDN), which the DLC founded as its own political action committee to elect New Democrats to Congress."

http://www.ndn.org

"A hallmark of our community's work for many years, we continue our investment in and support of progressive candidates, political entrepreneurs, thought-leaders, and private sector leaders critical to our future success."

http://www.ndnpac.org/new_leaders

"Why Is A "Progressive" Lobbying for Comcast?"

http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2005/09/why_is_a_progre.html

"Unrequited Love: Middle Class Voters Reject Democrats at the Ballot Box"

http://www.third-way.com/press/release/14
http://www.third-way.com/products/13

Third Way - Trustees

http://www.third-way.com/leadership/trustees

http://www.third-way.com/press/media_kit

Republicans' Favorite Democrats

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html

[wyldwolf]

139. ok, here is what you've established

1. The DLC takes money. Big whoop. So does the far left
2. The Prospect and others like to point it out.


:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

142. can you please name one "far left" organization who takes money from

large corporations? Now YOU said "far left"; not liberal or even left or very liberal. Can you name one just one "far left" organization that takes money from major corporations or lobbying firms?

[Moderator]

145. Locking

This initially productive discussion has degenerated into nothing more nor less than flame bait.