Memo to the DLC: "You're Fired!"

[Sal316]

Fired for gross incompetence.

Granted, you started out as a great idea. The "New Democrat" model embodied by President Clinton gave us all hope. It restored our faith in our party. You took this idea and ran with it. Then, you dropped the ball... big time.

In the 2000 election you advised Vice President Gore to run a milquetoast campaign. Get along to go along...don't ruffle too many feathers. You took a campaign that should have been a run away victory and turned it into a nail biter. Fortunately Al was smarter than you and near the end went back to his populist roots and gained 6 points in the polls. You then abandoned him.

In 2002, you defied conventional wisdom and led this party to resounding defeats, losing seats in the process.

In 2004, in another election that should have been a runaway victory, you yet again pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. A candidate stepped forward, energized the grassroots, and spoke to the hearts of Democrats everywhere. Health care for all, champion for the poor and working class, reigning in big business...all things that are at the heart of our party.

What did you do? You went on a four month crusade to destroy Gov. Dean's candidacy. Not covertly....but overtly. An act which distracted from the campaign and brought inter-party bickering to the forefront.

Not content to let 2004 slip away, you insulted me, personally. You said that people like me aren't 'real democrats', that we're the 'fringe element' and 'out of the mainstream'.

If you're the 'mainstream', then I don't want anything to do with it. When the GOP slid further to the right, so did you. You lost your grasp on the center, became corrupted by your corporate masters and their cash, and left those who give their blood, sweat and tears to this party behind.

It's the 'fake democrats' that walk neighborhoods, registering voters.
It's the 'fake democrats' that man the polls, spending election days driving people back and forth.
It's the 'fake democrats' that hold district meetings, write LTTE's, and spend their off time calling Congressmen and women.

As if this wasn't bad enough yet, you delivered the killing blows. One, the refusal to stand up and fight Alito. Two, you warned us about challenging Bush on his illegal wiretapping program.

Congratulations, you've earned your pink tu-tus.

You see, it's not always about winning. It's about taking a stand for what you think is right. Unfortunately, you've lost this perspective. You get along to go along and have become masters of mediocrity. It's no wonder the general public thinks Democrats don't have any answers. No concrete positions, no true opposition, no chutzpah... with leaders like you, who needs the GOP to beat us. You're doing a damn fine job of undermining this party all on your own.

So, members of the DLC, consider this your pink slip.

Fired for gross incompetence.

I'm sure you can always find work with the RNC.

[applegrove]

1. Why today? Our message is getting through. Didn't you hear -

58 military types are running for the Dems. They know something about bad war vs. humanitarian & professional army.

[Cocoa]

8. another bout of "DLC fever"

every so often there's a spate of generic anti-DLC posts that don't say anything that everyone doesn't already know, with no particular reason to be posted now.

[applegrove]

13. Planning on starting a new party and running candidates in 600 districts

& 200 senatorial races within the next 6 months.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

21. really? Link?

[Sal316]

41. Ok, Cocoa... I'll sit back down now.

I understand I'm not unique, but dammit, I have a voice.

[Sal316]

40. Well, today because it's when this was done.

I started it after reading the 'be careful on wiretap' thing and then gave myself an evening to think rationally.

I'll admit, the DLC isn't all evil. But, to me, they've made more piss poor choices than good ones in the last few years.

[applegrove]

48. I say we direct our anger in usefull ways. I know lots of people feel

the way you do. I know.

[Sal316]

54. I'm just tired watching them roll over time and again.

Everything from the Patriot Act, Medicare, Bankruptcy..... it goes on and on and on and on.

The GOP figgered out DLC's strategy of triangulation and now are using it to beat us over the head.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

It's time to throw down the gauntlet and go back to our roots.

[applegrove]

58. Keep remembering the polls. Bush is at 38%. At that level - there is

no way that the GOP is not going to be taking a bath in a little bit.

[Sal316]

59. We got them down....

...now it's time to step on their throats and spit in their eyes.

THAT'S how you win elections.

[Gronk Groks]

64. I prefer just gutting the suckers...

...personal choice.

[applegrove]

100. And starting a new party - putting together 100 senate nominees and

350 congressional ones - in 6 months?

[Usrename]

76. Unless the DLC can get the dems to under 36%.

They are really trying, but it's hard work.

[applegrove]

99. You mean repukes?

[Usrename]

122. I mean the DLC is not on our side.

If it wasn't obvious already, the 42 votes against Alito should make it crystal clear. You are being played.

[onenote]

70. bankruptcy bill , medicare bill and the non existant DLC block vote

So if you voted for the bankruptcy bill but aren't a DLC member does that make you better or worse than a DLCer who voted against the Bankruptcy bill. Because contrary to the broad brush with which you painted in your post, DLC members are not some monolithic block. Eighteen Democrats voted for the Bankruptcy bill, and one third of them were NOT DLC members. And, one quarter of the Democrats who voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy bill are DLC members, including Cantwell, Dodd, DOrgan, Feinstein, Kerry and Lieberman. And on the Bankruptcy bill, the no votes included Bayh, Cantwell, Dodd, Johnson, Nelson (FL), Pryor and Stabenow (and Daschle and Edwards).

onenote

[PassingFair]

69. Band of Brothers my *ss!

The message I'm hearing from the DLC is that we shouldn't protest the NSA crap to stridently!


I respect veterans, but I don't like having unqualified, inexperienced candidates touted as the next best thing JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE VETS!

[Faygo Kid]

2. Huzzah. Think Dick Morris.

Bush-lite. The DLC stands for nothing except "triangulation" to win elections, and it doesn't work. You've got to stand for something more than that.

[Sal316]

42. Amen, faygokid.

Bush-lite. The DLC stands for nothing except "triangulation" to win elections, and it doesn't work. You've got to stand for something more than that.

You can beat the opposition at their own game, but you have to have a solid foundation to start from.

[Pryderi]

75. Dick Morris is Pre-911 thinking.

[banana republican]

97. NOTE TO FILE:

I THINK ITS PRE 1776 THINKING....

[yurbud]

3. DLC is giving them bad advice too, those who ignore it like Hackett will

do better.

[iconocrastic]

71. Nice blog, but I'd recommend you lighten the background text color

Would make it easier to read for us oldtimers. ;-]

Also, when I click on the FascArt link, using IE 6.0, the character "%20" is inserted in the URL before "mysite" and the page doesn't display. Works if I manually remove the "%20".

Check your link - %20 is the character for space.

[yurbud]

78. thanks, I'll check!

[OzarkDem]

169. Not so sure about Hackett

I recently read that he never voted for Clinton, but voted for Perot twice. I'm having second thoughts. That's not to say he couldn't be a good elected Dem, but he's going to have to prove himself some more.

[leftstreet]

4. :- )

:)

Should we give 'em two weeks notice?
Nah.......

[yurbud]

5. vote this one up

[yurbud]

6. after Vilsack's wiretap op-ed, I wrote the DNC and asked them not to give

money to DLC candidates. They won't, but we need to let Democrats know at every turn that we won't tolerate becoming the OTHER corporate party.

[radio4progressives]

28. done

:applause:

[wyldwolf]

7. Sal316 overrides the voting public

and, taking on the role of pot, calls the kettle black.

[MrBenchley]

10. Somehow I suspect Hillary, Kerry, and the rest will muddle through

despite this overwhelming "two minutes' hate"

[BillZBubb]

14. Well, Kerry sure as hell muddled through 2004.

His DLC uninspired campaign lost to the worst president in 70 years. And with the DLC calling the shots the rest of the party will muddle through in the same way.

[yurbud]

39. only 70 years? It's hard to say that Herbert Hoover was

worse. He was at best incompetent and indifferent to the suffering of average people. Bush actively harms Americans and our reputation in the world.

And Kerry lost to him with a largely half-hearted, one hand tied behind his back campaign.

The one time he could have left Bush on the floor wetting himself, when the media couldn't have filtered it, was during the debates. Instead, Kerry was deferential and meek to the point of being effeminate. That really wins over Joe Sixpack.

Thanks, DLC. Please snatch another defeat from the jaws of victory for us.

[karynnj]

62. Kerry was great in the debates

He was knowledgable, articulate and looked Presidential. Without the debates, it would have been a huge Bush land slide. Kerry went up many points after the first debate - changing the dynamic of the race. Kerry was well mannered, polite and acted like a grown up. He was most definately not effeminate. He sounded strong to me throughout.

[yurbud]

77. He was more knowledgable than Bush and the deferential demeanor

was appropriate for the Senate or a college class, but not when you are trying to prove you are the better man for the job. If you are the better man, you don't smile like a fucking girl scout and defer to a sociopath.

Stupid people think polite looks weak. Additionally, a lot of Kerry's good points were buried in crap--you had to dig between the words to pull out gems like Iraqis might not like the permanent bases Bush was planning there.

He got off some good lines like reminding Bush Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but he easily could have pummelled him in question after question.

If done correctly, he could have made Bush lose his temper on national TV, and the press wouldn't have been able to edit it out--and if they did it would be too obvious.

Democrats have to be mindful of those rare opportunity when they can speak to the public unfiltered and make them count.

[karynnj]

117. I disagree with your chacterization

The polls moved. His demeanor was not deferential as much as professional and Presidential.
It was similar to his demeanor in the primaries where he stood out as the best of the pack.

[radio4progressives]

135. I completely agree with your analysis..

my throat was actually raw from screaming at Kerry for the kind of response and delivery on a few of the most important key questions.

i actually cried at the end of one of the debates... can't remember which anymore - i think it might have been the last one. the problem was i really really liked Kerry (of course far supierior to that lying idiot standing next to him) i think it's clear that kerry pulled his punches, afraid to go full throttle, a calculated move that was the wrong way to handle that dangerous but little idiot twirp, responded in that kind of convuluted 'triangulation' fashion that nearly choked the breath out of all hope from that moment forward.

when the whole world was in his hands, he tossed the ball to his oppenent for another chance at the goal, over and over again.

i recall someone being interviewed on CNN, don't remember his name, said Kerry was a really good friend for decades - and the one thing that frustrated him as friend most about Kerry is that he couldn't answer a question with one simple answer, "he had to provide 25 different alternative answers" (paraphrasing from memory of event that took place a year and half ago)

[MrBenchley]

88. Good thing you were there to help (snicker)

How'd that Dennis Kucinich bandwagon do?

[BillZBubb]

90. Sorry, wrong again. I supported Kerry. I donated to him.

But I also saw he was running a terrible campaign and I said it here many times even when he was leading in the polls.

I never supported Kucinich. I never supported Nader. I've always supported the Democratic nominee. It must be a real bummer for you to be so consistently wrong, Mr. B.

[MrBenchley]

91. You supported a DLCer and corpowhore? Shame on you (snicker)

It's no bummer for me....but then I'm not strutting up putting up grandiose but impotent posts demanding progressive purity....

[BillZBubb]

96. Take your pathetic (snicker) and shove it where the sun ...

You don't have a case, so you resort to ad hominems. That's marvelous. You make misguided assumptions not based on any facts. You are wrong about me, you are wrong about the damage the DLC is doing to the party. You are a pretty clueless guy.

[MrBenchley]

98. I'll put my (snicker) right where it belongs.....as I did there

[Moochy]

128. Eeew n/t

[Sal316]

44. Muddlin' won't win you elections.

Muddlin' just leaves the voters unsure of who you are.

[MrBenchley]

87. That's what you say; the record shows different

[Sal316]

114. I think the record speaks clearly.

That's what you say; the record shows different


Hmmm... 2 Presidential losses and loss of seats in Congress. I think the record on 'muddling' is quite clear, actually.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no purist. The DLC is lurching this party rightward towards a middle of the road, no differential oblivion.

[depakid]

139. The record is MUCH worse than that

and all the DLC apologists know it.

Since the DLC has gained influence:

Progressive positions on issue after issue have been compromised or abandoned- even those that polls show have overwhelming public support- often in the 60%-70% range.

The party has lost 6 straight congressional elections- and gave back congress to the far right- for the first time since 1946.

It's about to lose a 7th in a row by continually rolling over- or worse- crossing party lines to vote with Republicans- making the Dems look weak, ineffectual and incincere.

Made the Greens the fastest growing political party in America (which, actually- is probably a good thing in the long run).

[radio4progressives]

181. 6 Congressional Losses in a Row is all Nader's Fault don't you know..

Goddam Nader keeps running for Congressional elections in between the Presidential elections! Goddamn Greens and Independents! It's Nader's Ego you know - he's such an ego maniac, if it wasn't for Nader we would at least be the Majority Party in the House and Senate!

[SOS]

102. LOL!

Hillary has no Republican challenger and Kerry isn't up for re-election this year.
They better "muddle through"!

[Yuugal]

25. keep licking corporate butt

if you like the flavor, its still a free country.....sort of


ps- you go sal!

[Sal316]

43. I'm a non-stick pot...

....so I'm rubber, yer glue!


Exactly what do you mean here?

[radio4progressives]

46. "Resounding Silence from the Democratic Party" for Pre-War Investigation

What's striking isn't that Conyers is calling on Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor. He's done it before, and he'd likely do it again. But his decision to take public action to seek a Justice Department investigation of pre-war policy and manipulation of the press has met resounding silence among his Democratic Party.


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/As_liberal_Democrat_calls_for_special_0208.html


How about it Wild Eye? Why don't you call on your so called "Centrists" feckless heroes to sign on to Conyer's call for an investigation?

[Sal316]

52. feckless....giggle...snort.

Why don't you call on your so called "Centrists" feckless heroes to sign on to Conyer's call for an investigation?

giggle...snicker....

That's what I'm talking about. The centrists are so scared of offending ANYONE that they're easily painted as namby-pamby, wishy-washy, spineless pink tu-tu wearin' Dems.

.....which they are.

[radio4progressives]

156. Wyldwolf overrides Sean Hannity's Endorsement of Joe Lieberman

and campaign promise to Fund raise for him, creating a Conservatives for Lieberman campaign..and Joe Lieberman ACCEPTED Sean Hannity's endorsement. Wonder how the rank and file will consider that little factoid in the up coming campaign? Who figures Sean Hannity as a anything but a far right wing demogogue, who absolutely froths at the mouth with vemon and hatred for every other Democrat, and the Democratic Party agenda?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[wyldwolf]

158. radio4progressives throws up red herring

[MrBenchley]

9. LOL!

[BillZBubb]

11. I disagree with DLC almost as much as with Repugs.

The DLC is killing us in national elections, but too many Democrats don't understand it. They believe the DLC puts a moderate face on the Democrats, instead of making us look like the Keystone Kops of politics, or worse.

[Atman]

18. I think part of the problem is the initials.

Really, I mean as far as your statement that "too many Democrats don't understand it."

DNC. DLC. What's the dif?

Remember, WE are hardcore junkies. Most of America is not. They don't get what they see as a subtle difference.

[Cascadian]

60. The DLC only worked with Clinton

It will not work anymore. That was in the 90's.

We do not need anymore people running a Republican Lite platform. It is killing us! The Senators and Congresspeople who tow the DLC line and are afraid to confront the Neocons MUST BE KICKED OUT! They must be replaced by real Democrats.


John

[Atman]

12. Double Huzzahs!

This if Front Page material. Very nice job. Me and the rest of us poll-working, congressman-calling, voter-registering "fake democrats" thank you!

[Dr.Phool]

15. And some of the shit that Rahm Emmanuel (DLC) has been pulling

In some of the congressional races, is really setting us up to lose. People with grassroots support are ignored, and they go for the corporate cash.

[flyarm]

24. YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT..I WISH RAHM WOULD STAY THE HELL

UP IN ORD AND LEAVE OUR FLA ELECTIONS THE HELL ALONE..HE IS FUCKING US HERE..WE HAVE A BRILLANT WOMAN RUNNING..who ran against and most likely beat katrine harris..if you count in the voting machine steal..she is a brilliant woman..who has a phd law degree from yale an incredible background ...and what is Rahm doing supporting a gal who worked at a bank..with sub standard qualifications..
but Rahm is putting all the dlc money behind an incompetant...

what the fuck is going on..they want us to loose here in fla...i want rahm to stay the hell out of our politics here in fla...
he is a disgrace...

and so are those he supports..

fly

[radio4progressives]

33. this is going on in Southern California, from the Pelosi & DiFi camp.

it's fucked up.

[radio4progressives]

32. Bingo!

this is not well known either, and the details of these shanigans need to be EXPOSED to shame these vichy bastards from their safe careers, lined with the money of hard working rank and file members and corporate hacks.

[Cocoa]

16. they did stand up an fight Alito

and they are challenging Bush on the wiretapping.

If you deny these facts, you're just spinning.

[BillZBubb]

34. No, they did not!!!!!!

Many DLCers were against a filibuster. Many publicly attacked the idea. Some DLCers in congress eventually went along ONCE IT WAS CLEAR Alito would get through.

Lieberman for instance, among many other DLCers, voted against Alito (a meaningless, even cynical gesture) and voted for cloture (a stab in the back to true Democrats).

[Cascadian]

61. keep kicking this up!

[radio4progressives]

35. Cocoa, on this one you're mistaken

"They" didn't stand up and fight Alito.

19 didn't fight at all, in fact either voted against cloture, which effectively cancelled their "no" votes.. others actually voted for Alito's confirmation.

The Democratic Senators, had the NUMBERS and the POWER to prevent Alito from being confirmed - if only they WOULD HAVE.

But they laid down instead.

That was a decision by the party, Harry Reid said the Senators were voting their "indvidual conscience" .. they did not come together as opposition party like they should have done, to prevent a radical extremist, being confirmed to the SCOTUS - they let a cultist with fantasies of extraordinary "unitary executive" powers somehow granted in our Constitution that has never ever been contemplated by any other administration other than Nixon and his cronies (some of whom are in power today).

That isn't spin, them thar's the facts. The DLC strategized to make sure that the top leadership of the Senate DLC to go with us, while others to make sure our efforts failed. they decided this in a closed meeting just before the vote on the floor.

on the Wire Tapping, have you missed the recent reports? Tune into McNeil Lehrer for Jane Harmon's wonderful about face, and recently there were articles issued by DLC leadership stating that nothing is wrong with the wire taps. Also, please read article posted over at Raw Story, on Russ Feingold's remarks about some Democrats in the party applauding Bush's comments on wire tapping in the SOTU. that was published today.

this isn't spin.. this is reality.

[LittleClarkie]

17. All I gotta say is

DO something about the DLC or DON'T do something about the DLC, just stop beating your tits about it.

GO, and DO.

[Sal316]

47. I do go and do.

Like everyone, I just feel the need to beat my tits to vent.

:-)

[LittleClarkie]

50. Well as long as you're going and doing.

I have to admit I beat my titties in frustration too on occasion.

I'm glad you got that. Someone in college said that to me once, and I always thought it was a good visual for someone lamenting about something.

[Mass]

19. Yawn! Seems to me that there are more important things to do.

LIke, you know, working for 2006.

Or do you consider that Kyl is so much a shoe-in that it is better to help him a little more?

[Sal316]

49. Is Pederson actually running a campaign?

Or do you consider that Kyl is so much a shoe-in that it is better to help him a little more?

I mean, calls, email, etc. to his campaign office go unanswered.

The only response I've received from them is 'please donate'.

How hard is it to run a blog, write op/eds, write LTTE's and press releases. TV can come in bits and pieces, but he seriously needs to start getting his message out there.

Kyl blows and people here hate him. If Pederson doesn't start kicking it up and show the voters there's an alternative soon, it'll be too late.

[WyLoochka]

93. Kyl is one of the most extreme

right wingers in the Senate. Unfortunately, he is sneaky and quiet so his policy positions fly totally under the radar here in AZ.

I spoke to Reed in Pederson's office yesterday about my concerns that Pederson is adopting a DLC strategy of non-differentiation. I told him what we all know, that Kyl will win on name recognition alone unless they succeed in exposing Kyl as an extremist and then vividly show how Pederson is not.

But this is not the advice that the DLC gives candidates - they tell them to not make waves, be nice and talk about issues that are small potatoes (remember school uniforms in the days of Clinton's impeachment - gag) in comparison to the real issues on the table - are we going to let the radicals in the GOP shred the Constitution and re-form our government, by precedent, as one of men rather than law? Are we going to slide off the slope into full blown fascism or not? The DLCers have obviously been, and in my view still are, pro-sliding facilitators, with their shut-up and move to the right, shut-up and move to the right, shut-up and move to the right mantra.

I have phone banked a couple of days for Pederson, due to visceral loathing of Kyl. I told Reed that I will not do any further work for him unless I get some reasonable assurance that he will blow Al From's advice off and fight like hell. And if he succeeds in winning, he would surely face my wrath if, when the big crunch votes come along, Pederson caves-in with the DLCers and votes exactly like Kyl would have voted! Reed said I hear you and that won't happen. I said I can only support Democrats who will adopt the speak-out and oppose, speak-out and oppose, speak-out and oppose mantra. They have to give me something to fight for! It's time for loud and bold opposition!

Reed squirmed, because Pederson has been a member of the DLC, just as our Govenor Napolitano is now. I told him I could forgive him the membership as long as I saw no signs that he was actually taking their loser advice. Reed, whom I KNOW is not a DLCer, said the campaign will draw clear distinctions and highlight Kyl's extremism. It's February, I am wondering when this plan to distinguish will actually be commenced. Going down there tomorrow to do some work, but I'm not hopeful. The AZ Repulsive and the other AZ media almost completely ignore Pederson. I think part of the reason he can be easily ignored is that he HAS been taking Al From's advice up to this point.

[Sal316]

115. He better step up, and soon.

It's February, I am wondering when this plan to distinguish will actually be commenced.


I know alot of voters who are thinking the same thing.

[wyldwolf]

20. Memo to far left: Let the voters decide

In the 2000 election you advised Vice President Gore to run a milquetoast campaign.

Really? I recall the DLC advising Gore to run on Clinton's record, which he didn't do.

took a campaign that should have been a run away victory and turned it into a nail biter.

Why should it have been a runaway victory? The rightwing had hammered the Clinton administration for 8 years, and the left did little to interfere with it.

near the end went back to his populist roots and gained 6 points in the polls.

Al Gore - proposer of faith-based initiatives? Architect of Clinton's welfare reform? Anti-choice until it became a political liability? Populist?

You then abandoned him.

Like the left abandoned Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and yes, Gore?

In 2002, you defied conventional wisdom and led this party to resounding defeats, losing seats in the process.

Do you have any proof the DLC had anything to do with defeats in 2002? No? Just asking.

In 2004, in another election that should have been a runaway victory, you yet again pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. A candidate stepped forward, energized the grassroots, and spoke to the hearts of Democrats everywhere. Health care for all, champion for the poor and working class, reigning in big business...all things that are at the heart of our party.

What did you do? You went on a four month crusade to destroy Gov. Dean's candidacy. Not covertly....but overtly. An act which distracted from the campaign and brought inter-party bickering to the forefront.

Oh. yes, another sore loser Deaniac moment. Inner party bickering had been going on WAAAAY before this. Brought on by the left, I'll add.

Not content to let 2004 slip away, you insulted me, personally. You said that people like me aren't 'real democrats',

Actually, that's what the "progressives" say about mainstream Democrats

that we're the 'fringe element' and 'out of the mainstream'.

That's what Pew Research found.

If you're the 'mainstream', then I don't want anything to do with it. When the GOP slid further to the right, so did you.

No, just back to a pre-McGovern state.

became corrupted by your corporate masters and their cash, and left those who give their blood, sweat and tears to this party behind.

You mean the whiners who complain but never take action?

It's the 'fake democrats' that walk neighborhoods, registering voters.
It's the 'fake democrats' that man the polls, spending election days driving people back and forth.
It's the 'fake democrats' that hold district meetings, write LTTE's, and spend their off time calling Congressmen and women.

Sounds like the organization I'm a member of. Lots of moderate/centrists there.

As if this wasn't bad enough yet, you delivered the killing blows. One, the refusal to stand up and fight Alito.

I'm sorry. John Kerry is DLC. He called for the filibuster. And how many non-DLC dems caved there?

Two, you warned us about challenging Bush on his illegal wiretapping program.

And it's good advice, too.

Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry. And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case.

Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush's secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html?ei=5065&en=6b9a89872a07ead8&ex=1139979600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

you see, it's not always about winning.

When the foe is the GOP, yes it is.

So consider your "Pink Slip" crumpled up and thrown back at you. I'll let the voters decide who gets the job.

[wakeme2008]

22. The DLC lost 2002 and 2004 and

Gore lost WV on advise of a DLCer.

I will vote third party before any DLCer.

[leftstreet]

26. Gore could save the Democratic party by running Independent

The Republican party too.

He's a populist who'd poll more than enough for a spot in the debates.

With this win at all costs mentality that's overtaken the political process, a vote for an Independent Executive would let voters maintain their dignity without fearing they'd abandoned their party loyalties in the big Super Bowl Presidential Election.

The resulting shock and awe on our political one-party system with Independent candidates jumping up all over the country to toss their hats in the ring, would force both Dem and Repub leaders to pull their heads out of their asses and make the changes necessary within their fractured party platforms to start heal and start moving our country forward.

[radio4progressives]

51. you do make a good point... he's not going to be able to save this country

though. we've got too many feckless traitors who hijacked the Democratic party that should have their asses kicked from here to china - (let them eat their NAFTA cake there) who have the keys to the house.

we're going to have to storm the castles, and take it back before we can get someone worth a damn to be able to run and navigate this country back on the course out of the dark storms ahead - restore our democracy, and our constitution - is going to require replacing the likes of Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman, the 19 Senators who betrayed this country on the Alito Confirmation and the tax cuts and so and so on, with people who REALLY FUCKING CARE.

[leftstreet]

72. agree, the Dems have a lot of work to do to kick those asses

Just seems practical we'd get more done knowing we didn't have a dog in the Prez fight. The corporate media's already distracting with Hillary vs McCain in 08. 08 ?! That SuperBowl Prez mentality will SWAMP Dem activists trying to kick House and Senate asses in 08. But it's already starting before 06!
x(

[wyldwolf]

79. no they didn't and no they didn't

[Yuugal]

29. Oh. yes, another sore loser Deaniac moment.

as 1000+ posters always love to say: ENJOY YOUR STAY!

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Memo to far right DLC Cheerleaders:

Regular working folks dislike many centrists policies, especially if it effects their livelihood.

[Sal316]

53. Memo to far right DLC Cheerleaders II:

Enjoy your time with the dead armadillos, too!

[wyldwolf]

81. link?

[wyldwolf]

80. link?

[paulk]

31. "conventional wisdom"

it's kind of like "self evident".

[wyldwolf]

82. LOL! To be sure!

[radio4progressives]

36. ....l....

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

[wyldwolf]

83. refutations?

[Free the Press]

74. Isn't the DLC Progressive?

I stand corrected, the DLC is CENTRIST!

Next it will be Moderate, then back to progressive, and then centrist and then, and then, and then ....

Obviously anyone that isn't a DLC supporter is a Far-left supporter, right-wing?

[wyldwolf]

84. in the real world, yes. In the 2% world of "progressives" on DU, no.

[radio4progressives]

172. 2% world of "progressives" on DU? LOL!!

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

talk about DENIAL !!! Talk about absolutely no basis in FACTS! just from a glance at postings on DU, your so called 2% world is more accurate of DLC defenders, 98% progressives right here on DU (alone).

Talk about FANTASY LAND!

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

[wyldwolf]

174. yes, 2% world of DU progressives

say, when are you going to finally refute points you call "fantasy?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2446874&mesg_id=2448950

[wyldwolf]

85. six replies to this post, not single refutation. Further proof...

...that the anti-DLCers deal mostly in fantasy.

[radio4progressives]

105. refutation of what? some fantasy in your own mind and which you have yet

to articulate? What is at evidence, young man is your very limited and tainted world view.

Though, it isn't entirely your fault, one must make some allowances for the factors that go into being a product of one's environment after all.

However, even in the Red State of Georgia, there are strong progressives working hard and struggling every day to advance the cause of the civil rights movement - and all things that flow from that long, difficult and bitter struggle which is still not yet complete. (No thanks to our Southern Ancestors, and too many of their living decendants, my own family members included).

[wyldwolf]

108. you want evidence to each point I raised?

tell me which one you want first.

[SaveElmer]

111. * crickets *

Actual facts would destroy their well-crafted fantasy!

[radio4progressives]

170. The Fantasy of Lieberman has Been Completely and Utterly Exposed

and disenegrated, now that a publically made endorsement from the likes of Sean Hannity and other Republican party functionaries are fund raising for him and campaigining for his re-election.

It turns out that Lieberman was something of a trojan horse, with his earlier connections to republican circles and financial backers.

turns out, he's not the only one. backed up facts, yessiree backed up by facts.

you can search here on du,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2449900

or you can go to a number of other soruces, this is a good start:

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther12172005.html

[wyldwolf]

173. and that has WHAT to do with the points I raised?

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. what is a moderate/centrist? perhaps someone in the mainstream of

American opinion on the issues:

borrowed from bvar22

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

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 self-described "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 off shoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe off shoring 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
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

[radio4progressives]

104. the sounds of silence ..... *crickets*

:shrug:

this question is always ignored by the loyalists, they haven't an answer because they haven't a clue - and they can't honestly answer so they use republican talking points to disparage progressives with throw aways of "far left fringe" ... republican talking point memes.

Senator Kennedy is always used as an example as "far left fringe" by the repukes ...

do the DLC loyalists consider Ted Kennedy as "far left fringe"?

[paulk]

106. does answering your post automatically make one guilty

of the things you charge?

Just because people disagree with you, it doesn't mean their politics are 180% removed from yours.

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

the problem with polls like those Mr. Carpenter quotes is that they don't take into account the electoral breakdown of the country.

That, and that voters often don't vote their priorities, they're apt to believe in protecting the environment, for instance, and then vote for George Bush because they believe he is better at protecting the country than John Kerry.

The most important stat of the last five years, IMHO, is that the Democrats went from being tied in the Senate to having a nine seat deficit, despite getting more overall votes in all three elections.

Democratic Senatorial candidates recieved 2.8 million more votes overall than their Republican counterparts in 2004 alone - yet they lost four seats!


Having a liberal majority in California doesn't help us in Wyoming - and both states have the same representation in the Senate.



This is what we face.

And it's often something those on the more extreme left of the party ignore in their quest for ideological purity.

[wyldwolf]

109. the sounds of silence ..... *crickets*

this basic fact is always ignored by the loyalists, they haven't an answer because they haven't a clue - and they can't honestly answer so they use made up fantasies to disparage Democrats with throw aways of "Repug Lite" ... .

[radio4progressives]

155. Joe "Moderate" Lieberman accepted Sean Hannity's Endorsement & Fund

Raising assistance for Conservatives for Lieberman Campaign..

Maybe some consider Sean Hannity as a Moderate Republican, but MOST everyone I know considers Sean Hannity to be Right Wing reactionary extremist and party shill - in addition to be a complete moron and jerk off.

I dunno, maybe Sean Hannity is someone that some here have common cause with?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[radio4progressives]

113. Once again, "ideological purity" is a Karl Rove Right Wing Meme

I know something about the diversity of thinking in this country, born in the deep South and and raised mostly in the South, and in the military, but because my father was in the military, i also have been exposed to the cultural diversity in other parts of this country, from the South to Hawaii, to California, Texas, Ohio and the Atlantic seabord.

I have good friends from Montana, Wyoming, Chicago, Vermont, New Mexico to Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, New York and Pa and many other areas in the country. I understand the variances in views and priorties.

I also know there are basic commonalities of concerns from coast to coast and fly over states - i'm talking about the TWO AMERICAS that we live in, not Bush's Haves and the Have Mores - but the Working Class who have NO job and retirement security, have no health care, and the list is endless, this is not about Ideological purity, these are issues which are COMMON NEEDS.

When the DLC in the Senate VOTES AGAINST THE NEEDS OF THE COMMON PEOPLE, such as the TAX CUTS, and the BANKRUPTCY BILL and ALITO and so on and so on ----

If placing the needs of the PEOPLE above the greed and demands of the Corporations is about "Ideological Purity" in YOUR MIND, then young man, you are simply naive.

And I have made my case..

The DLC must be OUSTED if this party EVER wants to be viewed as the party of the People ever again.

[onenote]

120. there's that darn bankruptcy bill again

Contrary to the broad brush with which some folks like to paint the DLC, it is not some monolithic block. Eighteen Democrats voted for the Bankruptcy bill, and one third of them were NOT DLC members. And, one quarter of the Democrats who voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy bill are DLC members, including Cantwell, Dodd, DOrgan, Feinstein, Kerry and Lieberman. And there are six non ALCers that voted for cloture. So, by the time you finish "ousting" all the Democrats you don't think are Democrats because they belong to the DLC or voted for cloture, or supported the bankruptcy bill, we're down to around 14 Democrats in the Senate -- and that would be Karl Rove's wettest wet dream.

So, thanks but no thanks. I'm not into litmus tests and I dont think folks here at DU get to define who is or is not a Democrat. I'll give my money (as I have in the past) to Cantwell and Salazar as well as to Boxer and Feingold.

onenote

[paulk]

129. I turned 50 yesterday, and though I'd like to think of myself

as a "young man", the mirror tells me otherwise...

I made a point, a point backed by real numbers. I don't know what else to say. It's pretty clear from your posts here that you're not interested in any real sort of discussion.

I don't count sloganeering as much of a valid debate technique. And much of what you post is just that. And much of it isn't even true... as another poster points out - your broad brush often misses the canvas...


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

"ideological purity" is a Karl Rove right wing meme??????????

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. I agree that adopting these very mainstream positions will not guarantee

victory. In fact there are polls which indicate that it is only a minority of voters who seriously examine the positions of the candidates.

But what it does show is that there is nothing fringe or even left-wing about holding positions like supporting single payer universal health care or opposing neoliberal liberal economic ideology. It is mainstream.

It certainly would not hurt the Democrats to adopt these very mainstream positions and shout it from the roof tops.

[radio4progressives]

136. bingo! (or "Have I mentioned how much I hate these people yet"?)

:hi: :applause:

[paulk]

144. who do you hate?

Republicans?

Democrats?

People who disagree with you?

:hi:

[radio4progressives]

146. Corporate thugs and tyrannts in power and vichy traitors who do their

bidding. The expression "have I mentioned yet how much I hate these people" is a Mike Malloy quote ranting against this administration..

Tune in sometime, it's where all the truthseekers gather each night.. :hi:

[paulk]

143. I think a lot of the reason why the Democrats, as a party, aren't

coming out with a lot of overall positions on a national level is because they don't want to make themselves the
center of media attention - especially with the Republicans, and Bush especially, in so much trouble in the polls because
of the ongoing scandals. Every category, except national security, shows the country moving toward the Democrats. Democrats have a 53 - 37 lead when in comes to preference in Congressional races.

So, the theory goes, why give the media an excuse to change the subject?

I don't know if this is the correct way to go - I suppose we'll find out in November.

But- one thing to keep in mind - the MSM is NOT our friend - they will do everything in their power to twist and distort anything a Democrat says or does - and they'll always put a positive light on the Republican spin.


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


The "national security" issue is an important one, IMHO, because, as I pointed out upthread, many voters place that issue ahead of others. So - unless the Democrats can convince a lot of voters that they can protect the country, it's not going to matter that those voters agree with you on nine out of ten issues - that tenth issue is the trump card.

And, once again, the media plays a huge role in defining this issue.

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

Issues like single payer are going to have to come from the states. Like Hawaii is already doing. It's going to have to come from places like California first - and it will have to be proven to work before more conservative states - and eventually one hopes the feds - take it up.

Opposing neo liberal/ liberal economic policy is not gonna fly. Most people could care less. They're too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads to worry much about where the money comes from.

[Sal316]

112. Voters can't decide if they don't have two distinct option.

Really? I recall the DLC advising Gore to run on Clinton's record, which he didn't do.

Actually, he did. He touted their record often during the campaign. However, due to voter fatigue from 8 years of GOP hammering, that wasn't going to be enough.

Why should it have been a runaway victory? The rightwing had hammered the Clinton administration for 8 years, and the left did little to interfere with it.

It should have been a runaway victory because of all the good that those 8 years brought us. It's true, the left didn't interfere with impeachment/whitewater, etc., because we knew that nothing would ever come from it. We assumed the GOP would take the bigger lumps and we were wrong. "The left" is big enough to admit it.

Al Gore - proposer of faith-based initiatives? Architect of Clinton's welfare reform? Anti-choice until it became a political liability? Populist?

Yes, populist. Even Lieberman has criticized Gore for being too 'populist' saying the 'people vs. power' message wasn't what 'mainstream' Democrats wanted to hear. BTW, what happened to poverty statistics and the overall economy during the 90's? Yes Gore had an anti-choice record in the Senate. Being from Tennessee and starting barely 3 years after Roe mighta had something to do in influencing his votes. What matters is that in the years following his viewpoint widened. He still didn't believe in abortion, but believed it wasn't the Government's place to get involved. Safe, legal, and rare. Those words sum up the Clinton/Gore position.

Like the left abandoned Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and yes, Gore?

Is this a 'they did it, too' defense?

Do you have any proof the DLC had anything to do with defeats in 2002? No? Just asking.

Hmmm..not very many memorable campaigns. Recruiting anti-choice, pro-gun candidates to run in conservative districts. The lack of a coherent national message. Ignoring the base and focusing on swing voters. Democratic candidates afraid to argue national security and terrorism. Embracing Bush's tax cuts in some races. No coherent economic plan. Warning Dems not to be too 'anti-corporate' even in light of the Corporate scandals.

Oh. yes, another sore loser Deaniac moment. Inner party bickering had been going on WAAAAY before this. Brought on by the left, I'll add.

There's no excuse for the party leadership to go on a 4 month media crusade to destroy one of its own. Yes, I supported Dean. He spoke to the base AND had a record that could appeal to the 'centrists'. Balanced budgets, a balanced view on guns, supporting importation of prescription drugs, revamping NAFTA, etc. The list goes on and on. He was hammered by Kucinich for not being progressive enough and by Kerry for being too liberal. Sounds to me like he was 'just right'. A solid balance of left and center. DLC candidates run center and center-right.

Starting in 1994, the GOP lurched hard right. Moving the democrats right to appear centrist is a losing proposition, as shown by election returns since 2000.

Actually, that's what the "progressives" say about mainstream Democrats

It's true. Middle of the road, namby pamby, go along to get along types aren't. Our party's symbol is a jackass, not a dead armadillo.

you see, it's not always about winning.

When the foe is the GOP, yes it is.

You can't expect to win everything. It'd be nice, but highly improbable. However, wavering back and forth instead of standing on principles doesn't give voters anything to get excited about.

Gore and Kerry were widely lampooned as being boring, wishy-washy, middle of the road, and unable to take a stand. Why do you think that is? Could it be because of the campaigns run on the advice of DLC'ers? They're both brilliant policy wonks. They're smart, they have great ideas... However, given the choice between 'the devil you know and the devil you don't', most voters will stick with the devil they know. There is no reason in the world for 2004 being as close as it was. Scandal after scandal, a mismanaged war in Iraq, politicized terror alerts, an economy slowing to a crawl, and in some cases, at a complete stop... it should have been a walk.

It's time for this party to stop being the other half of the same face of the coin. We have great thinkers, great policy folks... it's time to put them to work to craft an actual opposition party. Tell the people that they're wrong and here's why. Tell them in 30 second soundbytes. You can appeal to swing voters and not lose your base. They're not an 'either/or' proposition as the DLC believes.

Focus, focus, focus.

That should be the mantra.

[wyldwolf]

116. They have two distinct options

Actually, he did. He touted their record often during the campaign. However, due to voter fatigue from 8 years of GOP hammering, that wasn't going to be enough.

Actually, he didn't. I recall it quite differently. In fact, he ran counter to what Clinton stood for, Gore started statements suggesting teaching "Creationism" in science classes, sided with the Cuban exiles in Florida, picked a Clinton critic for his VP, etc.

It's true, the left didn't interfere with impeachment/whitewater, etc., because we knew that nothing would ever come from it. We assumed the GOP would take the bigger lumps and we were wrong. "The left" is big enough to admit it.

So you didn't get involved with the GOP witchhunt because you knew nothing would ever come from it yet you protest now everytime a Republican sneezes? Sorry, the "left" abondoned Bill Clinton and the only one on the left big enough to admit it is obviously you. However, you don't speak for the left.

Yes, populist.{/i]

If you think proposing faith-based initiatives and welfare reform is being "populist," then you are mistaken on what the word means as it applies to Al Gore in the 2000 race. Gore tried to take on a "economic populism" which was essentially a rebuke of Bush's proposed tax cuts.

Hmmm..not very many memorable campaigns. Recruiting anti-choice, pro-gun candidates to run in conservative districts.

Like who?

The lack of a coherent national message.

This is the DLC's responsibility?

Ignoring the base and focusing on swing voters.

The Democratic party has no base.

Democratic candidates afraid to argue national security and terrorism.

Sorry. The DLC is all about national defense and argues it all the time.

Embracing Bush's tax cuts in some races.

And that made them lose... how?

No coherent economic plan.

And that is the DLC's responsibility... how?

Warning Dems not to be too 'anti-corporate' even in light of the Corporate scandals.

You, no doubt, have some polling data to suggest this was a voting issue for the great majority of voters.

There's no excuse for the party leadership to go on a 4 month media crusade to destroy one of its own.

I thought it was the DLC. Are you saying the DLC went on this media crusade or the DNC did? Show me some links that either undertook a media crusade.

[radio4progressives]

118. excllent post Sal316...

full agreement on all points...

on a pre-emptive strike note:

there are those who seem to be stuck and like to argue that the Democratic Party was never a "Populist" party and therefore shouldn't be considered one now. There is a lot of history which provides evidence to both sides of that question, illustrating that the Democratic Party has been all over the political map throughout it's history.

My response on that point is, that the populist pov is the message that the people are DESPERATE to hear TODAY from SOMEONE who is able to recognize that we are in a time, where the two class system is on the road of becoming perilously close to the times of the depression - notwithstanding the phony safeguards that the federal reserve have in place to prevent that kind of economic devastation which did occur in the early 30's ... i think we are facing those times regardless of those safeguards, because we now exist under a totally different economic paradigm .

This is a time for the New Al Gore, or a Russ Feingold perhaps or perhaps someone else who have not appeared on the scene. I once held Obama in high esteem - my admiration for him has fallen severely as with others in the list of 19 (even though Obama in the end voted against cloture, still his message was simply unacceptable given the extraordinary circumstances of an Alito confirmation)

anyway gotta go... just my 2 cents fer now...;)

[benEzra]

140. Since WHEN is the DLC pro-gun?

Although the DLC was trying to push to the center on other issues, their stance on guns has always been radically authoritarian. It was largely DLC that swallowed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch hook, line, and sinker and made it a party priority.

Have you ever visited the DLC web site and seen what they have to say about gun ownership? They are more anti-gun than the party at large.

[MrBenchley]

142. Good thing you've got the GOP to stick up for your cheesy hobby

[Moochy]

123. left did little to interfere with it.

re: clinton being hammered in the media by republicans...

Yes the liberals should have used their media control to shield Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

124. hey, moochy

still waiting for some proof of that "often" charge you made.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

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

[Moochy]

127. What I meant to say

...was that you don't engage in red-baiting, since you are more fair than some of your fellow pro-DLC posters.
So, all snark aside, for the record wyldwolf doenst engage in red-baiting. He is much classier than that.
Ignore facts yes, but red-bait? no. All apologies.

Back on topic, how did the Left abandon Clinton? what actions could they have taken to show more support, and specifically which organizations on the left?

[wyldwolf]

130. which facts have I ignored?

The left protests everytime the GOP sneezes the wrong way. Where were they during the Clinton witch hunt?

Well, many were out to get him as well.

You, on the other hand, ignore obvious exaggerations and fabrications (see most of the points in the OP) for the greater progressive "cause."

Back on topic, how did the DLC abandon Gore?

[Moochy]

131. Far left to blame for Clinton's impeachment?

So let me get this straight, you are apportioning some blame to the far left, for Clinton's impeachment?

I was opposed to the war in bosnia, I was 100% opposed to Clinton's impeachment. I was disgusted with the impeachment process like most across the middle to the left who saw it for what it was: a political witch hunt.

"How did the DLC abandon Gore?"

They didn't abandon him. They saddled him with a VP candidate who was DLC chair at the time. JoooooooeMentum the albatross with a touch more charisma than a canker sore.

(on edit: added quotes / changed subject for clarity)

[wyldwolf]

132. there's one of those exaggerations...

and...

...glad to see you disagree with the OP on at least one point.

By the way, Gore's numbers increased after he selected Lieberman.

[LincolnMcGrath]

133. "By the way, Gore's numbers increased after he selected Lieberman."

August 7: Gore picks Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. The Connecticut senator was the first Democrat to denounce President Clinton on the floor of the Senate for his X-rated canoodling with Monica Lewinsky. Polls immediately show that most voters who approve of Clinton's policies but disapprove of him personally say they feel more comfortable with Gore because he picked Lieberman. But other than reassuring voters already predisposed to vote for Gore,

it's doubtful that Lieberman does much:

About half the voters say Lieberman's selection makes them feel more favorably toward Gore -- virtually identical to voter assessments of Cheney.


http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/2004/readings/election2000pollsreview.html

[wyldwolf]

138. where are the stats in that piece?

Gore picked Lieberman on Aug. 7, 2000.

At that time, his numbers going head to head with Bush were were Bush: 49% Gore: 32% (Rueters); Six days later, Rueters polled 43% to 40% for Bush, a six point drop for Gore and an eight point boost for Gore.

The previos week's poll for CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP which broke on the day Gore chose Lieberman were Bush 45%, Gore 43%. 14 days later, CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP had Bush 46%, Gore 47%.

On 8/3, NBC polled Bush 47%, Gore 36%. The next NBC poll of 8/17 showed Bush 43%, Gore 46%.

In fact, looking at all the polling organization's numbers two weeks and one week out of the Lieberman selection, all but a few showed Gore gaining 1 - 2 weeks after the Lieberman selection.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm

[LincolnMcGrath]

141. Are cherries in season over your way?

1st#Gore 2nd#Bush

ABC News/Washington Post Poll
10/12-15/00 44 48
10/6-9/00 45 48
9/28-10/1/00 48 46
9/4-6/00 47 47
8/18-20/00 48 44
8/8-10/00 42 50
8/4-6/00 40 54
7/26-29/00 42 53
7/20-23/00 45 48
6/8-11/00 45 49
5/7-10/00 44 49
3/30 - 4/2/00 47 46
3/9-11/00 48 45
2/24-27/00 44 50
2/3-6/00 45 49
1/13-16/00 41 51

March 9th-11th Gore at 48%
August 8th-10th Gore at 42%

Like the WAPO link stated, Joementum made no difference in Gore's #s

From your 'stats' page
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

If one wanted to pick a peck of poll cherries, one could show Nader's numbers increasing after Gore picked Joementum.

[wyldwolf]

149. no, I'm referring to polls taken 1 to 2 weeks before and 1-2 weeks after

With few exceptions, the results are undeniable.

[LincolnMcGrath]

150. OMGoodness! Did you not see the #s for the whole year.

Do I need to post them again? Joementum's 'bump' was zilch, zip, nada.

[wyldwolf]

160. OMGoodness, yes, but we weren't discussing the whole year

We were discussing the few weeks before and after the Lieberman pick.

The facts speak loudly. Do I need to post them again?

And speaking of posting something, where is that screen capture you said you had and four DU'ers asked you to post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2445397&mesg_id=2447181

[LincolnMcGrath]

163. "btw Gore's numbers increased after he selected Lieberman."

Your own words. Post #132 It's obvious that you refuse to admit that Joementum made no noticeable difference in the 2000 election. Therefore your response is laughable to the point of being sad hurts when you get busted. Having Hannity raising money for your boy must sting like crazy, but your own words can not be ignored.


As for the screen capture, was I talking to any of you? (lol Especially someone who claims to have put me on ignore) :rofl: Nope! But the TERMS of the offer were passed on by the person it was issued to, so that might tell a little something something.

[wyldwolf]

167. yeah, the title of your post is true

Anyone can see from the polls 1 to 2 weeks before the Lieberman selection compared to the polls 1 to 2 weeks after.

As for the screen capture, was I talking to any of you?

No, but of course you see no problem butting into other people's conversations yourself. This one, for example.

Your screenshot? Let's see it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

176. You are precious.

Anyone can also see that Nader's numbers jumped at the choice of Joementum, if you want to grab two dates and call it science. LOL You can spin all you want but post #132 says what it says. You claimed Gore's numbers went up, trying to bolster your argument, and you got caught talking smack. It hurts, just deal with it and move on. Joementum made no positive poll difference to the Gore campaign. The whole year's worth of polling barely went outside the range of the margin of error, up or down.

As for butting being a butt-in-ski on my part, OMG did you really type that? Shall ask permission next time? :rofl: This is a discussion board correct? I simply can't get over you calling me a but-in-ski. Is that the level you have taken this discussion board? :yoiks:


Keep carping all you want about screen shots, An offer was made already and quietly refused.

Hmm?

[wyldwolf]

178. Right. Screenshot?

can't get over you calling me a but-in-ski.

Well, you were the one who posted "As for the screen capture, was I talking to any of you? "

So, as for the Lieberman poll numbers, was I talking to you? :shrug:

But little "proooogrrrreeeessssiiiiive" LincolnMcGrath can keep denying not only the the poll numbers show a boost for Gore after the Lieberman selection, but also the analysis of professionals, and he can keep hiding that screenshot. Pretty hysterical. :rofl:

In making Connecticut Senator Joseph I. Lieberman the first Jew on a major-party ticket, Gore took a giant leap into the political unknown. But while Lieberman received rave reviews from Democrats and Republicans alike, and his Aug. 8 selection sent Gore rocketing in the polls...

By Richard S. Dunham and Howard Gleckman
Dunham is White House correspondent; Gleckman writes about economics.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_35/b3696098.htm

after the close of the Republican convention in Philadelphia, Gallup and Zogby showed him trailing the Republican George W Bush by 17 points; the Washington Post had him 14 points adrift; and Newsweek had him down by 13.

But then, on Monday, Mr Gore selected the Connecticut senator as his running mate. And by yesterday, the Lieberman effect had already paid remarkable dividends. A new Gallup poll taken on Monday night, after the Lieberman decision, showed Mr Bush on 45% and Mr Gore on 43%. Yesterday, with both men in their shirt sleeves in torrid Tennessee summer heat, Mr Gore introduced his new political miracle worker to a cheering crowd in Nashville

...the Gore campaign had a spring in its step for the first time in many months as it left Nashville for a hastily arranged stop in Mr Lieberman's home state last night.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,352267,00.html

The poll numbers say it. Analysts and journalists say it. LinclonMcGrath will argue against it to the bitter end because he's smarter! :rofl:

[LincolnMcGrath]

179. Wow opinion pieces rule. Numbers be damned!

:rofl:

The poll numbers do not support your argument, not at all. You know it and so does everyone Reading this thread

You have posted "proooogrrrreeeessssiiiiive" how many times lately? Is progressive a slam in your angry tunnel vision world? Every month I attend the central committee meeting in a building that says County Democrats on the door. In fact I spent 3 hours there friday morning and 4 hours there yesterday morning. WHY do you hate democrats?

Perhaps reading comprehension courses will help sort out a few things for you, or maybe a family member could read this thread back to you for clarity. :shrug:


Reality Bites

[wyldwolf]

180. Only one was an opinion piece, and they both cited the numbers

... and they supported my argument.

Speaking of opinion pieces, and one that didn't cite numbers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2446874&mesg_id=2449458

Remember that one? :rofl:

One more time for you: Proooooogreeeeeeeessssiiiiive.

[LincolnMcGrath]

182. "One more time for you;"

"Proooooogreeeeeeeessssiiiiive."

Why do you hate Democrats? :rofl: Who would have thought someone could make MrHonesty seem, well, downright adult in their posts here at DU. Congrats!

Show me, no wait, show everyone the boost Joementum gave Al Gore.

From your link; http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

Zogby --- Date --- Gore --- Bush

9/19-23/00 42 44

5/10-13/00 39 42

No difference outside the margin of error.

Quite frankly I've given far too many chances to you already to provide anything legitimate and you can't, so I'm done hoping your next reply will contain something of value.

[wyldwolf]

184. well, if anyone is still reading at this point

In post 131, I stated that Gore's numbers increased after he picked Lieberman. As anyone can plainly see, this is a specific period of time - from Aug. 7, 2000. Although LincolnMcGrath attempted to use numbers from the whole year as an argument against my point, he has refused (or can't) realize that Gore didn't pick Lieberman in January of 2000 or in any other month leading to the actual selection date - which was Aug. 7, 2000.

In post 133, I gave the poll numbers to support my point:

Gore picked Lieberman on Aug. 7, 2000.

At that time, his numbers going head to head with Bush were were Bush: 49% Gore: 32% (Rueters); Six days later, Rueters polled 43% to 40% for Bush, a six point drop for Bush and an eight point boost for Gore. Summary: Before Lieberman Gore was at 32%. After Lieberman, the same poll had Gore at 40%. This was outside the "margin or error."

The previous week's poll (the week before Aug. 7, 2000) for CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP which broke on the day Gore chose Lieberman were Bush 45%, Gore 43%. 14 days later, the next time they did this poll CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP had Bush 46%, Gore 47%. A four point increase for Gore.

On 8/3, four days before Gore picked Lieberman, NBC polled Bush 47%, Gore 36%. The next NBC poll of 8/17 showed Bush 43%, Gore 46%. A ten point boost for Gore.

In fact, looking at all the polling organization's numbers two weeks and one week out of the Lieberman selection, all but a few showed Gore gaining 1 - 2 weeks after the Lieberman selection.

Writing about this in Businessweek, White House Correspondent Richard S. Dunham and Economist Howard Gleckman wrote, while Lieberman received rave reviews from Democrats and Republicans alike, and his Aug. 8 selection sent Gore rocketing in the polls...

See, those two took an impartial look at the polls (they weren't biased against Lieberman as LincolnMcGrath is) and arrived at their conclusions.

Further, in a news article (read: NOT an opinion piece) from The Guardian, reporter Martin Kettle wrote, ...after the close of the Republican convention in Philadelphia, Gallup and Zogby showed him (Gore) trailing the Republican George W Bush by 17 points; the Washington Post had him 14 points adrift; and Newsweek had him down by 13.

But then, on Monday, Mr Gore selected the Connecticut senator as his running mate. And by yesterday, the Lieberman effect had already paid remarkable dividends. A new Gallup poll taken on Monday night, after the Lieberman decision, showed Mr Bush on 45% and Mr Gore on 43%. Yesterday, with both men in their shirt sleeves in torrid Tennessee summer heat, Mr Gore introduced his new political miracle worker to a cheering crowd in Nashville

This simple fact isn't that hard to comprehend unless like, LincolnMcGrath, you just don't want it to be true. It's easy to pull poll numbers from much earlier in the year that are similar to the numbers Gore pulled after the Lieberman selection, and it's easy to talk "margin of error." But the simple fact remains that, regardless of Gore's numbers in January of 2000 or May of 2000, several weeks leading up to the Lieberman selection, Gore was trailing in the polls. After the Lieberman selection, he'd cut those leads (and in one case pulled ahead.)

What you've witnessed from LincolnMcGrath is unwillingness to see the facts and, in the process, he is arguing against not only many of the major polling organizations, but also White House Correspondents, Economists, and reporters who also saw the polling trends and arrived at the same point I did.

LincolnMcGrath, in an attempt to divert from the point, first quoted numbers from January 2000 and then May 2000, points where Lieberman was not even a consideration. And given that this discussion dealt with Lieberman, the only numbers relevant are those immediately before his selection and immediately afterwards.

LincolnMcGrath also faulted me for using an "opinion piece" to make my point. In reality, I used on opinion piece and one news article. However, LincolnMcGrath himself used an opinion piece himself - and one lacking any statistical data.

LincolnMcGrath also has attempted to confuse the issue by introducing ad hominem attacks like "Why do you hate Democrats?" Again, petty and personal attacks from an anti-DLCer who has nothing else to fall back on. In fact, this is a common tactic used by people who have no ground to stand on. Confuse the issue until people grow tired of reading or listening. Then the person, in this case LincolnMcGrath, can say he didn't lose the discussion.

LincolnMcGrath said in his last reply, "Quite frankly I've given far too many chances to you already to provide anything legitimate and you can't, so I'm done hoping your next reply will contain something of value."

Well, you haven't given me anything. What you say isn't legitimate are poll numbers that anyone can plainly see several weeks before and several weeks after the Lieberman selection. What you say isn't legitimate are Reporters, Correspondents, and writers who agree with the initial point: The selection of Joe Lieberman gave Gore a boost in approval ratings.

Ratings months before are irrelevant to this discussion.

Now, LincolnMcGrath will next nit pic this reply. He'll throw in a few more vieled personal attacks, insert a few more emoticons.

[radio4progressives]

185. and what is your point in all of this push polling analysis, again?

[wyldwolf]

187. You obviously don't know what push polling is.

And had you read the thread, you'd know the point.

And speaking of points:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2446874&mesg_id=2448950

[radio4progressives]

152. Wonder how High Lieberman's points will go up now that he's accepted

Hannity's Endorsement and promise to Fund Raise for him, by running a Conservatives for Lieberman campaign.. ?

what do you think about that wolfy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[wyldwolf]

161. gee, who knows? But that isn't the point of the discussion

You have problems staying on topic but you do tend to disappear when asked for evidence of other claims.

what do you think about that radio 4 "prooooogreeeesssiiiivessss?"

[radio4progressives]

153. Speaking about Facts, Lieberman has accepted Hannity's Endorsement

and Hannity has promised to help Lieberman Fund Raise with a Conservatives for Lieberman campaign... Gee, must be nice to be so well thought of by the likes of Sean Hannity, a real outspoken champion of the Democratic Party.

Whad'ya think about that DLC loyalists? Is a Sean Hannity endorsement an indication of a "Moderate" ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[wyldwolf]

159. speaking of facts, this is a red herring to this discussion

Divert, spin, change the subject.

But, speaking of fact and diversions, or I should say avoidance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2446874&mesg_id=2448950

[radio4progressives]

157. Memo to Wyldwolf: Joe Lieberman Happily Accepts RW Demagogue Endorsement

Extremist Demagogue reactionary, Sean Hannity (who absolutely despises all things Democratic) promises to Fund Raise and run a Conservatives for Lieberman campaign. Is Sean Hannity an example of a "Moderate" in your eyes?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[wyldwolf]

162. Memo to radio4progressives: That isn't the discussion

We're discussing poll numbers of Al Gore from August of 2000.

Try to keep up.

[LincolnMcGrath]

164. "btw Gore's numbers increased after he selected Lieberman."

You were not discussing august until you your fact-less statement was challenged.

[wyldwolf]

166. yes I as, post 132

I was discussing it with Moochy.

He, got that screenshot yet?

[wakeme2008]

23. Nom and a kick

:kick:

[radio4progressives]

27. Bravo!!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[mom cat]

37. I pledge to not give one nickel to any organization that gives one nickel

to any of the Alito traitors.
Check out this site for details:

http://makethemaccountable.com/nickel /

[radio4progressives]

38. good link..

:applause:

[mom cat]

107. I thought you might like this!

[Sal316]

57. Thx for the link!

It's in my favorites now.

[0007]

45. Please help!

https://political.moveon.org/donate/breakingthelaw.html

[bajamary]

55. Excellent post

Thanks for the excellent post.

[Sal316]

56. Thanks for the compliment. (eom)

[Gronk Groks]

63. DLC was suppose to be the DEMOCRATIC Leadership Council...

...it has turned into the DINO Leadership Council.

We have put up with them because we needed ANY Democrat we could get elected.
But they sold the party down the river.
We simply don't need Democrats who are closer to the RNC policies than Republicans are.

YOU'RE FIRED !!!!!!:mad:

[gulfcoastliberal]

65. Enthusiastic K&R

:thumbsup:


:applause:

[AJH032]

66. must we have a DLC thread every day? n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. 85,183 user registrations and 21,117,557 posts since January 2001

At least it isn't a kitten picture thread! lol

Disclaimer: I like kittens, and their threads!

[DainBramaged]

94. Why not we have let them become 'fraidy cats

For everyone who thinks the status quo is status OK, what has the DLC done for Democracy anyway? Karl Rove blinks, the DLC gets goose bumps. Our last real President, the only real President of my adult life, says it best;

If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do.

Live it or move aside.

[leesa]

67. No shit. Get the fuck out of here ys GOP stooges.

[farmboxer]

73. Bravo!!!!!!! Excellent!

A lot of truth within that thread indeed!!!!!!!!!!!

[onenote]

89. for the anti-DLC crowd: How many "real" Dems are there in the Senate?

We start with 44. But we're told that we should not support the 19 that are DLC because their DINOs, so that drops the total to 25. And then we have to cut off the non-DLCers that voted for cloture on Alito,which eliminates another six (Akaka, Inouye, Bingaman, Rockefeller, Salazar, Byrd), which gets us down to 19. And then there are those labelled DINOs because they voted for the IWR, bankruptcy, and/or medicare bills, which kicks another five (Biden, Harkin, Schumer, Reid, and Wyden).

So I guess there are only 14 Democrats in the Senate according to some DUers. Well, good luck in recapturing the Senate.

Personally, I don't believe in Democratic Party litmus tests and I don't think anyone has the right to define whether someone else is a "real" Democrat. So you'll just have to excuse the fact that I give my money to a wide range of Democrats, with my first and only objective being to recapture the Senate and House.

onenote

[MrBenchley]

92. You will notice that our "progressive purists"

never have a harsh word to say about John Murtha, although he's openly right wing on issues like school prayer and reproductive choice.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Free the Press]

177. Murtha is very right-wing with most of his votes, but right-wing on Iraq.

I believe U.S. Representative Murtha (D) started a bit early in doing the deed of the neo-GOP in calling for an immediate and complete U.S. exit from Iraq.

With Sadaam in a cell and Iraq now on the verge of civil war, the U.S. military could benefit from some popular and deep-felt public excuses for a complete Iraq pull-out as cover for a political "cut and run" from a apocalyptic IRAQ.

Especially as the U.S. military is redirected to bombard Iran, a nuclear AND real threat, right?

Murtha has been driving a cut-and-run-from-Iraq reasoning into the public consciousness over the past few months, hasn't he?

So, when the public gets what Murtha wants, they'll be happy, right?

***

The case for a war on Iran is progressively purifying, isn't it?

The case for a war on Iran is also totally independent of the recent developments in Iraq, isn't it?

Eventually, I believe, * will follow Murtha's advice, but not before it is time to invade Iran and not before every last nickel of profit has been extracted from the War on Iraq.

***

Absent a pending war on Iran, Murtha's actions would be harmful to the GOP and more convincingly righteous than right-wing.

***

Would that disprove your hypothesis?

Wasn't it just yesterday that you labeled me a "progressive purist?"

[iconoclastNYC]

95. the "NEW Democrat" model was not a good idea

If you follow the notions of framing the debate, saying you are a NEW Democrat brings up the idea that there is something wrong with traditional democrats. Which there wasn't.

[SOS]

101. Why is there no RLC?

As a side observation, it's interesting to note that there's no RLC.
A Republican Leadership Council could be out there, trying to moderate the extremism of Bush/Cheney.
They could claim to be returning the Party to it's more centrist Eisenhower-style past.
They could be challenging the Party establishment on issues like torture and wiretapping.
They could stand for fiscal responsibility, privacy rights, corruption reform, environmental stewardship, energy independence and imperial restraint.
All topics that could easily be placed into a Republican platform.

And yet there is no such thing as an RLC.

The RNC would browbeat them out of existence in short order!

[radio4progressives]

103. Those in the "Gang of 14 " Should go over to the Republican party

since that's what they are anyway, and create an RLC.. That way they can serve both America and the Democratic Party by truly moderating the party of extremist Reeper thugs (who hijacked their party)and we can free up those offices Real Democrats to serve the party's interest.

i'd say it would be a win/win situation... ;)

[onenote]

110. if you think having the Democrats give up 7 seats is a good idea

you're incredibly naieve.

onenote

[radio4progressives]

119. you missed my point...

but since you didn't get it the first time, no reason to belabor it now..

[onenote]

121. Oh, humor me and tell me what your point is

It seems like it was that the seven Democrats in the gang of 14 should become republicans. Now, that means there would be 14 fewer Democrats in the SEnate and we'd be that much further from gaining control of Committees, etc.

So it seems to me I got your point exactly, and either you are backing away from it or can't defend it.

onenote

[radio4progressives]

145. Pushing for Change does not equate to exact and immediate results

Apparently you don't seem to recognize that fact. In terms of real world politics, there are many complicated factors involved in making change, which inlcude tactical and strategical considerations. I'm not going to write up a primer for your benefit in this message board.

And I'm not going to play knock down the straw man with you. It is a rediculous assumption that all of the traitors can be replaced with true blue dems in a single election cycle, particularly given all of the elections rigging and engineering, massive corporate corruption and machinations and the like. But what can be done right now is to begin the push for change now, in every way that can be accomplished and to keep forginng ahead. And this is idea i'm advancing, and pushing for.

that is the point.

[onenote]

148. right, they can't all be immediately replaced with more progressive dems

which is why having them become repubs, putting us that much farther away from controlling the Senate, would be extraordinarily bad.

I'm all for change. For starters, I'd like to change at least six repub Senate seats in Democratic seats (while holding onto every Democratic seat we now have). Get me a Democratic majority and then I'll worry about upgrading the Democrats with more progressive ones.

onenote

[radio4progressives]

151. Hannity is Not Only Endorsing Joe Lieberman he is going to Fund Raise for

for Joe - Hannity has promised to run a Conservatives for Lieberman campaign and Joe ACCEPTED his offer today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[onenote]

175. and how does that matter?

Unless they've changed the rules, Connecticut has a closed primary. So if anything, Hannity's endorsement ought to help Lamont in his primary challenge against Lieberman (unless it turns out that most Connecticut Democrats lean the same way as Lieberman). If Lamont can knock off Lieberman, more power to him.

Here's my rule: I don't support (by donating money) one candidate over another in a Democratic party in a state other than the one in which I live. That's for the local Democrats to decide. Once they've decided who their candidate is,I'll support whoever it is, financially if I think its necessary. So if Lamont gets the nod in Connecticut,I'll be right there with my checkbook to support him against a repub opponent. And if Lieberman should get the nod, the same holds (although chances are he won't need the money and I'll make my donation to a race where I think the Democrat will need it.

onenote

[Free the Press]

137. Corporate efficiency? Political redundancy? RNC + DLC = Corporate Party?

I am just guessing.

[radio4progressives]

147. The Vichy Traitors sticking it to us again! DLC Defenders where are YOU

NOW when it comes to fighting back what they are doing to us and the party?

why are you not fighting to push back these egregious actions?

Senator Feingold is once again the lone voice in the wilderness trying to protect OUR RIGHTS and our CIVIL LIBERTIES and our Constitution, but the rest of these cowardly bastards who are going to sign on to the very provisions in the Patriot Act are the very issues that Feingold has been arguing about.

contact difi's office and demand that she reconsider her vote in favor of this evil act. http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/contact.html

[VonDoomPhd]

154. Indeed.

Faux dems need heed these three words: Learn To Stop.

The center has been pushed so far to the right that a slap in the face is needed; a coalition of the compassionate.
The DLC needs to restructure their psychobusiness model and market TRUE progressive dems. Label their political philospophy "Responsible Liberalism" if you have to as an alternative to "compassionate conservatism."

This one true thing remains, and it is this one true thing that will eventually destroy modern-day republicans: Politics Is All About People.

And the truth is on our side, bubba.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. Yes, for example, it is no longer the early 1990s, when

it was easy to buy reasonably priced health insurance with decent benefits in the private sector. (In 1994, I paid $110 a month for no deductible and a $10 copay for office visits and tests, no charge for hospitalization. Now I pay $272 a month for a $1000 deductible and a 20% copay for everything on top of that. That was the best deal I could get as a self-employed individual aged 55. I have NEVER used up my deductible, and I'm afraid to think of what would happen if I ever actually needed to use this insurance, because the fine print on my policy says that rates may be as much as 60% higher if I become a "risk.")

It is 2006, when everyone, and I mean everyone, has either experienced or knows someone who has experienced, a health insurance horror story, it is foolish for the Democrats not to come out for a bold alternative to the private health care system.

[SnookieDog]

168. Self-defeating attitude

Give me a break. Any democrat who writes off ANY other democrat for ANY reason might as well get used to minority status. The side with the most votes wins. I'll even accept repubs if they vote for our side. We can't afford to give up one voter.

[Joanne98]

171. And take Hillary with you!!!!!!!!

[Lefergus70]

183. Can anyone answer a few questions from a confused reader?

I'm 71 and live abroad, and that might explain why I cannot understand the workings of the DLC and the DNC, although I suspect that none of my relatives in Massachusetts and Florida have a clue either. This thread, although very informative, raises more questions for me.

I was most impressed by flyarm's post # 24 which complained about the DLC putting all its money behind an "incompetent" candidate with sub-standard qualifications in a Florida election, ignoring a "a brilliant woman" with an incredible background. And in radio4progressive's post # 33, we read that the situation is similar in California.

So I ask: Does the DNC have the same function and influence as the DLC? Do Democratic candidates depend on money from either the DLC or the DNC to run elections campaigns? Can that "brilliant" woman rely on money from the DNC to battle it out against the DLC candidate; and if so, is it usually less or more than what the DLC can deliver? Can she expect no vocal support from any DLC-associated politician? Is DLC support absolutely crucial to winning?

Although my questions may sound dumb, I suspect they are running through the minds of other DU readers who prefer to remain silent rather than show their ignorance. I'm too old for that.

Oh, do the Republicans have any competition to the RNC?

[radio4progressives]

188. You asked very important & Intelligent Questions..

it is not easy to sort out..

DNC and the DLC are two entirely different entitites.

The DNC is the Democratic National Committee, which is chaired by Howard Dean, who was elected in a election campaign which involved actual party delegates. The DNC is essentially repsonsbile for raising money and organizing the party apparatus througout the country on a grassroots level, to recruit and support candidates in state and Congressional, and presidential offices.


The DLC stands for "Democratic Leadership Council", legally speaking a Corporation with a 503(c) non profit status. Several members of the DLC have close ties and/or associations with the Republican party, either by personal identification or by other allegiances. Elected officials backed by the DLC hold many offices in the Senate and the House as well as a few who are State Governors, or holding state offices throughout the country.

But what they really are sort of a club unto itself, people who see themselves as the "party leaders" as seeing themselves as defining who and what the party represents, from a cabal of Washington and New York elites who quitely took over the party apparatus during the Reagan administration and started building from that point on, with their so called "Third Way" doctrine. (I read it as Mussolini's "Third Way")

Reference material to the DLC is voluminous, and i'd advice you to do a google search to read more from their own websites, but also from other sources so you have more indepth information on background. Here's a link to history which takes you directly to the making of Joe Lieberman, a key figure of the DLC.

CounterPunch, CA - Dec 17
http://www.counterpunch.org/werther12172005.html, 2005
The Democrats: an Impotent & Tolerated Opposition Party

(snip)

The DLC was--and is--a creature of New York high roller Michael Steinhardt, son of Sol Steinhardt, a jewel fence for the Meyer Lansky mob. Like most of organized crime, Steinhardt fils decided to go upmarket and merge with Wall Street. His millions created the Hon. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT).

Steinhardt is also notable for his loose interpretation of the law of possession. In the early 1990s, he attempted to corner the market on Treasury securities, an audacious strategy which resulted in his having to pay $70 million in civil penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission--a record fine at the time. Weep not for Steinhardt, though: he made $600 million from the scam.

(snip)

cont.. http://www.counterpunch.org/werther12172005.html

on edit: some of us have a nickname for the DLC = the "Democratic Leisure Class" some say the "Democratic Corporate Class" - depending on what the discussion is... ;)

on second edit: the DNC was chaired by the DLC until this past year, Howard Dean was deeply opposed by the DLC - and Howard Dean keeps a distance from them, does not take direction from them - is really working hard to re-build the party from the grass roots and rank and file progressive party activists .

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[CarlSheeler4U]

186. Sheeler If it doesn't work fix it or replace it Don't bitch too easy!

Here's a positive outlook, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2450397&mesg_id=